Sitting of 29 June 1999

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

  CITY OF LONDON (WARD ELECTIONS) BILL
  Order for consideration read.
  To be considered tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions
  SCOTLAND
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  SCOTLAND

    Road Upgrading
    Mr. Tom Clarke: When is the forecast completion of the upgrading of the A8 from Baillieston to Newhouse and the M73 serving Gartcosh. [87514]
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Dr. John Reid): The proposal to upgrade the A8 between Baillieston and Newhouse is one of the schemes being considered in the strategic review of trunk roads. Responsibility for completing the review transfers, along with other trunk road matters, to the Scottish Parliament on 1 July. The scheme at Gartcosh on the M73 will be completed in September.
    Mr. Clarke: My constituents and I are extremely pleased at my right hon. Friend's confirmation of those necessary roadworks. Those of us who have seen the horrors of congestion and the burdens of bottlenecks and who recognise the need for sustainable infrastructure to encourage industrial investment welcome what my right hon. Friend has said. May I take this opportunity to ask my right hon. Friend to confirm that no decision has been taken about charges and that that will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament, which will no doubt take on board in its consultations the views of road users, local authorities and those who want decongestion on roads within the excellence of a new environment?
    Dr. Reid: On the upgrade between Baillieston and Newhouse, my right hon. Friend will know that two alternatives are under review. One is an on-line upgrade and one an off-line alternative. Both would involve the upgrading of that section of the A8 to motorway status. On the road charging proposals, I can confirm what my right hon. Friend said. No decision has been reached
    120
    by the Scottish Parliament on that matter. Of course, there will be widespread consultation before it decides on the way forward.
    Mr. Dominic Grieve: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's comments about road tolling, does he agree that it would have been far better, if he was seeking to make friends and influence people, if the question of road tolling charges had been left until after the transfer of powers? The consequence of the announcement of the policy has been to cause great resentment in Scotland and to give the impression that the Scottish Executive is acting as a little Sir Echo of the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions.
    Dr. Reid: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new responsibilities. In the spirit of generosity that normally marks these occasions, I also welcome his boss, the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), who, if my memory serves me correctly, was the father and mother of road charging—the man who invented road charging and introduced it in a Green Paper. I am sorry that he happens to be sitting on the Front Bench to be embarrassed by his colleague's attack on such charging.
    I note what the hon. Gentleman says about congestion charging, but I am surprised that he has not been watching the debates in the House in the past year. It is not true that the Scottish Parliament may be the first to consider road charging. In fact, road charging powers are already being considered in the House as part of the Greater London Authority Bill. Therefore, I am afraid that by taking any opportunity to attack devolution from his side of the fence, he is perpetrating the same myth as those on the Scottish National party Benches who take every opportunity to attack devolution. Both parties are wrong. Road charging is being considered as part of the GLA Bill, and no decision has yet been taken in Scotland.

    Glasgow (Competitiveness)
    2. Mr. David Marshall: What plans there are to introduce measures to improve the competitive position of the Glasgow metropolitan area; and if he will make a statement. [87515]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Calum Macdonald): We have introduced a number of measures to improve the competitiveness of Glasgow. We are supporting the Glasgow Alliance by providing running costs of £700,000 per annum and have drawn up a wide-ranging strategy for the city. From I July, these will be matters for the Scottish Parliament.
    Mr. Marshall: Is the Minister aware that there are more than 1,000 acres of derelict land in the city of Glasgow, a great deal of which is in the east and south-east of the city, in particular in my constituency? Does he agree that that land could hold the key to the future prosperity and competitiveness of that great city and that the best way to develop it would be to complete the last six miles of the M74 motorway from Tollcross to the Kingston bridge? Will he therefore agree to recommend that as an urgent priority to the appropriate people in the new Scottish Parliament, who will make decisions on such issues after 1 July?
    Mr. Macdonald: As my hon. Friend knows, the M74 is being considered as part of the roads review.

    121
    An important criterion for assessing roads within that review is, of course, economic impact. That is being looked at hard, not merely by officials but by Ministers in the new Scottish Executive. My hon. Friend is right to say that it is important to use derelict land to maximise economic development; and that is an important task for the Glasgow Alliance, of which my hon. Friend is a notable member.

    Rail Freight
    Ms Rachel Squire: What plans he has to encourage the increased carriage of freight by rail in Scotland. [87516]
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Dr. John Reid): The Government have committed £18.3 million for the freight facilities grant scheme in Scotland over the next three years. That scheme provides capital grants to assist companies to take freight off the roads and on to rail.
    From 1 July, Scottish Ministers will assume responsibility for that scheme and also for the related track access grant scheme, which provides revenue support.
    Ms Squire: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the previous Conservative Government failed miserably to develop rail freight, despite its clear advantages for the environment, for employment and for industry? Will he tell us a little more about the progress that has been made on the freight facilities grant? Will he consider the future use of that grant to develop combined rail and sea freight facilities on short sea routes from an area such as Rosyth?
    Dr. Reid: I agree with my hon. Friend that the previous Government's record on freight was shameful. We saw 40 years of decline in the rail freight industry. The House will welcome the news that not only have we reversed that decline with a 12 per cent. increase in rail freight last year, but that this year we are heading for a 16 per cent. increase. That is good for the environment, good for the economy, good for the reduction of congestion and good for transport in general.
    As for the freight facilities grant scheme, I confirm that we intend to extend the facilities and the financial support not only to rail freight but to short sea, coastal shipping. That will be done as soon as there is a legislative opportunity.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Government are now reviewing their integrated policies—all of them, including the dreadful bus lanes that are respected by every motorist in the country apart from the Prime Minister? On freight, will he confirm that the Government will not be using the stick to clobber freight carriers, who have already been heavily penalised by the Government with the most expensive diesel almost anywhere in the world, or certainly in Europe? Will the Government encourage people to use the railways, but not by using the stick? Does the Secretary of State realise that a higher diesel price does not necessarily mean that people will transfer from road to rail? It will simply put British freight operators out of business in this country.
    Dr. Reid: I think that the hon. Gentleman has a bit of a cheek. If 85 per cent. of the current cost of diesel
    122
    is taxation, 79 per cent. of that amount was inherited from the Conservative Government, whom he supported year after year. The Conservatives introduced the fuel duty escalator on diesel, and maintained and increased it. The Conservative party's green manifesto, published just before the last election, stated that the escalator should be increased and extended even further than the Labour Government want to do. To try to make cheap, populist points by reversing everything introduced by the Conservatives during the past 10 years does no credit to the hon. Gentleman or his party.
    Mr. Michael Connarty: The Secretary of State lives in Scotland and, unlike Members sitting on the Opposition Front Bench, knows what goes on there. He will be aware that there is a major rail freight terminal at Grangemouth. Does he share the dismay of the rest of Scotland that companies such as Shell, BP and others have stopped using the Bishopriggs terminal and the Fort William transport depot for rail transport for oil? They are now unnecessarily running lorries throughout Scotland.
    Will the Secretary of State give a commitment to the House that he will work with the Scottish Parliament so that companies such as BP, whose aspiration is to make more use of rail freight to ship petrochemical products, and Mitchells of Grangemouth, which wants to set up a major road to rail terminal at Grangemouth, can get heavy freight traffic off the roads? That will make the roads less congested; and rail can be used, which is most efficient for bulk movement.
    Dr. Reid: Yes, I can confirm to my hon. Friend that I will work in partnership with the Scottish Parliament in the devolution settlement. I believe that that will be good for Scotland and for the Scottish people. Equally important, it will be good for England; it will strengthen our unity through the recognition of the diversity of this United Kingdom.
    I also confirm that I shall be willing to encourage and to work with any major company that wants to reduce congestion on the roads by taking advantage of the generous rail freight schemes that we have introduced. For instance, only yesterday, Safeway introduced a scheme to carry its freight between Inverness and Glasgow that will take about 5,000 lorries off the roads this year—largely assisted by £580,000 from the Government.
    Mr. Michael Moore: The Secretary of State will be aware of the Scottish Office working party report on the future of the borders economy, especially the strong recommendations regarding the reopening of the Waverley line and the issue of rail freight raised therein. Will he confirm that he is, in principle, in favour of reopening that line through the Scottish borders and into England? Will he also confirm his commitment to work with United Kingdom Ministers to ensure that the reopening of the line is a priority for the whole Government?
    Dr. Reid: As the hon. Gentleman might know, not only have we given support to an alternative study of that case but we have actually financed it. That we have given such financial support shows that we have an open mind on that question. It would be wrong to prejudge the outcome

    123
    of the study that we are financing, but the fact that we support it demonstrates that our mind is not closed on the subject.
    Mr. Russell Brown: If Scotland's railways are to expand and thrive, they will require investment and effective regulation. Will my right hon. Friend assure the people of Scotland that he, in his capacity as Secretary of State, will put pressure on the United Kingdom Government and the railway regulators to ensure that we do all in our power from this place to put our transport system on the right track?
    Dr. Reid: There is common agreement across the country that we need to concentrate minds, especially that of Railtrack, on ensuring that there is adequate and commensurate investment in rail infrastructure, not only in the Scottish rail system but throughout the United Kingdom rail system. However, it would be churlish not to acknowledge that we in Scotland are comparatively well served in terms of our railway system. In addition, ScotRail consistently comes at the head of the league in terms of performance and other criteria by which we judge the railways, and it is right to put that on the record.

    Health
    Mr. David Amess: What recent representations he has received about health in Scotland. [87517]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Calum Macdonald): There are frequent representations about a wide range of matters relating to health in Scotland, including the Government's achievement in abolishing the internal market in the national health service, creating the biggest hospital building programme in the history of the NHS, and cutting waiting lists to well below the level that we inherited in 1997.
    Mr. Amess: In the light of that surprising reply, is the Minister not aware that many people in England are desperately worried that their relatives in Scotland are not able to receive medical treatment? Why can people not even get on to a waiting list? Why is there now a waiting list to get on to a waiting list to get on to a waiting list? Why have the Government thrown so much money at the waiting list initiative, when the real problem is waiting times for treatment?
    Mr. Macdonald: We are investing money in cutting waiting lists because that is what we promised to do at the last election. We have spent £44.5 million on reducing waiting lists: hospital waiting lists have now fallen for the last four quarters in a row and now stand at about 70,000, compared with 84,000 at the time of the last election.
    Miss Anne Begg: Will my hon. Friend confirm that, in contrast to the remarks made by the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess), waiting lists in Aberdeen have fallen by a record number? I believe that, according to the most recent figures, the fall is the largest in Scotland. Will my hon. Friend also confirm that the Government and the new Scottish Executive will continue to strive to make waiting lists as short as possible?
    Mr. Macdonald: I can confirm that absolutely. The waiting list is now down to the target that we had set ourselves to meet three years hence—we have hit the target three years early. There are a number of long-term projects still in place that are designed to ensure that that reduction in waiting lists, once achieved, is sustained into the longer term.
    Mr. John Bercow: Why does the Minister not swallow his pride and apologise unreservedly to the House for the fact that there are now 164 fewer nurses in Scotland than there were three years ago?
    Mr. Macdonald: We are spending more money on the NHS in Scotland. We have reduced bureaucracy and red tape and we have reduced the number of NHS trusts in Scotland. The money that we have saved has been recycled back into front-line NHS services in Scotland, which is why we have achieved our target of reducing waiting lists as well.
    Mrs. Maria Fyfe: Does my hon. Friend agree that poverty is a major cause of ill health and that it is therefore wrong that, for many years, Glasgow's business rates were spent outside the city in areas that needed them less? Does my hon. Friend join me in hoping that the Scottish Parliament will stop that unfair redistribution of wealth?
    Mr. Macdonald: An important target for the Scottish Executive—as it has been for the Scottish Office for the past two years—is to reduce inequalities in health throughout Scotland. That is why we have launched the social inclusion programme across Scotland and why we are co-ordinating programmes to tackle social exclusion not just across Scotland generally but in several specific communities where that problem is most serious.

    NUS
    Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: When he last met representatives of the NUS in Scotland. [87518]
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Dr. John Reid): I have not met representatives of the National Union of Students in Scotland recently. In view of the transfer of powers on 1 July, it might be more appropriate if representatives of the Scottish Executive meet them in future.
    Mr. St. Aubyn: Given that the number of school leavers from England, Wales and Northern Ireland applying to Scottish universities has clearly decreased, and given that the majority of Scottish people voted in the recent election for parties that are clearly committed to changing the rules on tuition fees, will the Minister's party support a free vote in the Scottish Parliament on the tuition fees issue following the independent inquiry? Will the Government in London respect the results of that free vote?
    Dr. Reid: The voting procedures of any party in the Scottish Parliament are a matter for that party. That gives a laxity and a freedom to individuals in those parties, which is precisely why the hon. Gentleman's Tory colleagues in the Scottish Parliament are supporting

    125
    proportional representation to the hilt. I assume that the hon. Gentleman supports the right of his Tory colleagues to do so.
    I have made our position on tuition fees clear. Unlike the Conservatives, we want a massive expansion of higher and further education that will be funded. In order to achieve that, we think it is reasonable that those who have an above-average income—that is, more than £18,000 a year—should make some contribution. It is a fact that more than 70 per cent. of those in further education in Scotland pay, and will pay, no tuition fees. It is a fact that more than 50 per cent. of applicants to Scottish universities this year will pay no tuition fees. It is also a fact that Scotland has the highest attendance rates in the country for higher and further education.
    The Government intend to ensure that we extend to a generation of young people the opportunities that were denied to those of the same economic and social backgrounds in the past. That is the socially just and decent thing to do. [Interruption.] That is the Government's position. The Scottish Parliament, as a devolved body, is entitled to take a different view if it so wishes. The Administration in Scotland—the partnership that controls the Scottish Parliament—have decided that they will review the matter. A decision will be taken and the obligation will be on the Scottish Parliament to explain to Scottish people where the money will come from if it decides to find a funding alternative to tuition fees. That is how devolution works, and I am afraid that—however uncomfortable it may be for the hon. Gentleman—that is the devolution settlement that is supported by the vast majority of people in Scotland.
    Ms Sandra Osborne: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if parties in the Scottish Parliament decide to abolish tuition fees, it is highly likely that the money will have to come from other areas of education, much to the detriment of the children of Scotland?
    Dr. Reid: The Scottish Parliament, like this Parliament, works within financial guidelines. If the Parliament in Scotland decides—as it is entitled to do—that it has greater priorities or different priorities from those of this Parliament and allocates money in that direction, it must obtain that funding from elsewhere. That is the nature of devolution and the right of the Scottish Parliament. The Parliament also has the responsibility to explain those decisions to the people of Scotland who elect its Members. That is what Scottish Members of Parliament do here for our reserved matters, and Members of the Scottish Parliament will explain decisions on matters that have been devolved to that Parliament.
    Mr. Dominic Grieve: First, I must thank the right hon. Gentleman for his kind greeting to me. To return to tuition fees and the question asked by the hon. Member for Ayr (Ms Osborne), what provision has the right hon. Gentleman made, or might he consider making, for the possibility that the commission of inquiry will decide that tuition fees in Scotland should be abolished, particularly in view of the fact that the hon. Lady clearly considers that Scotland has been financially hamstrung by the Government's decision to abolish those tuition fees before devolution took place?
    Dr. Reid: The provision that is made for the Scottish Parliament's expenditure priorities is in the block grant.
    126
    If the Scottish Parliament decides—this is the essence of devolution—that it wants to spend more money on a certain area, in contradistinction to what we are doing here, it must explain that it is taking that money from another area. That is a simple concept and I should have thought that, even in the early days of his tenure in office, the hon. Gentleman would be able to grasp it—it is called devolution.

    Highlands and Islands Convention
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: What plans he has for the participation by Scottish Office Ministers in the Highlands and Islands convention. [87519]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Calum Macdonald): From 1 July, decisions on the future of the convention, its membership and structure will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament and Administration.
    Mrs. Ewing: That is a very interesting reply. Is the Minister saying that the Scottish Executive will be able to lead on the recommendations and possible legislation emerging from the Highlands and Islands convention in spheres such as fishing, agriculture, tourism and the environment, which all affect employment in the highlands and islands? Does that mean that there will be no interference whatsoever from the Scottish Office?
    Mr. Macdonald: What I mean is that it is up to the Scottish Parliament and the Executive to organise the convention in whatever format it sees fit. Obviously, there will need to be changes to the existing format because of the existence of Members of the Scottish Parliament and a different arrangement for the participation of MEPs. All those matters will have to be considered. Many reserved matters impact on the highlands and islands, and the convention will no doubt want to discuss them. I greatly enjoyed my time with the convention, and if it wants to issue an invitation to me I will be happy to accept it.
    Mrs. Rosemary McKenna: Will my hon. Friend assure the House that the UK Government will continue to take a great interest in matters relating to the highlands and islands, because many aspects of the reserved powers—in fact, all the areas covered by the convention—will be absolutely crucial to the people of the highlands and islands?
    Mr. Macdonald: I can confirm that many issues that were discussed at previous meetings of the convention are now reserved powers: for example, general issues of trade and industry. Their impact on the highlands and islands will be an important subject of discussion for the convention participants. I know that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, Lord Macdonald of Tradeston, who is responsible for business and industry, attended previous meetings of the convention. I hope that Ministers from the UK Government will continue to have such a role, but it is entirely for the convention to decide that and to issue invitations for people to join.

    Scottish Parliament (Elections)
    Dr. Julian Lewis: What plans he has to review the methods for electing Members of the Scottish Parliament. [87520]
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Dr. John Reid): I have no plans to review the methods for electing Members of the Scottish Parliament.
    Dr. Lewis: Well, I am surprised by the Secretary of State's response. The Conservatives are honest enough and principled enough—[Interruption.]—to say that we are opposed to proportional representation even though it gives us seats in Scotland that we would not otherwise have. Would the Secretary of State have liked an outcome whereby his party could have had a decisive win in the Scottish elections, or does he honestly prefer the outcome that he got—a hung Parliament, in which the Liberal Democrats, who came fourth in terms of votes, have a permanent place on the Executive?
    Dr. Reid: I am not sure whether I heard all the hon. Gentleman's question due to the furore and ribaldry that followed the use of the words "Conservative" and "principled" consecutively. I think that the thrust of his question was how I would judge the merits of a system. I would do so by considering whether it best served the interests not of my or any other political party, but of the people of Scotland. I take the same view in the United Kingdom. I have made my view known before. No electoral system, as an absolute, is intrinsically better or worse than any other.
    The present system was chosen because there was a consensus in Scotland among the parties and across a wide range of opinion in support of it. That is a good enough reason for supporting the system. I am naturally disappointed that the system did not throw up an overwhelming Labour victory but point out that, even though the Labour party knew that it would lose seats, it was morally courageous enough to support such a system because it commanded a consensus across Scottish opinion. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we received the biggest vote, have the largest number of Members of the Scottish Parliament and are leading the Administration in Scotland, as we are leading the United Kingdom Government.
    Mr. James Wray: I thank the Secretary of State for his answer. The electoral system chosen for Scotland has been a negation of democracy. Any system that can bring the Tories back from oblivion and give them 18 seats must be examined. The system that resulted in hundreds of thousands of Labour votes in a second vote going nowhere, and the allocation of seats through the back door to a list of people who stood under first past the post has created a cancer in every constituency in Scotland. I hope that we change it at the next election.
    Dr. Reid: I am sure that my hon. Friend's considered approach to this matter will have been noted by a range of observers. We have made it absolutely plain that, after consideration, any decision to change the system in this
    128
    House would be a decision of the electorate of this country through a referendum. That is the ultimate litmus test of a satisfactory system.
    Mrs. Ray Michie: Having achieved a fairer electoral system in Scotland that is based on proportionality, will the Secretary of State today undertake vigorously to oppose any reduction in the number of MSPs when or if the boundary commission recommends fewer Scottish Members of Parliament in Westminster?
    Dr. Reid: I cannot give the hon. Lady such an undertaking for two reasons. First, to issue the boundary commission with instructions before it has studied the matter would be to oppose it before it reached a decision and would thus be entirely unsatisfactory. Secondly, if I gave such an undertaking, it would be a complete breach of legislation that has already gone through this House.
    Mr. Frank Doran: As a supporter of proportional representation—such a voice should be heard on the Government Benches—[Interruption.] I hope that the next part of my question receives a more enthusiastic response. Does my right hon. Friend accept that the worst effect of coalition government is that parties must work harder to explain their policies not only to each other but to the outside world? In the Scottish Parliament, does he think that a much more important coalition than that between the Labour and Liberal parties is the principled one between the Scottish National party and the Conservatives in opposition?
    Dr. Reid: I am not sure whether that coalition was a mariage de convenance or a shotgun marriage, although I have noticed the increasing coincidence in Tory and SNP voting in Scotland. That should not surprise us because, after all, they both end up where they started: opposing devolution. For some years, they have attempted a pincer movement by which they would defy the will of the Scottish people who wanted a devolved Parliament. I assure my hon. Friend—I am sure that I speak for all Scottish Members of Parliament—that we will work as hard as we can here to fulfil the wish of the Scottish people, which is not only to have a Scottish Parliament with responsibility for distinctly Scottish affairs but to play a full part in the United Kingdom Parliament, along with our partners from England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

    Ministerial Responsibilities
    Mr. Eric Forth: If he will make a statement on the role and responsibilities of Ministers in the Scottish Office after 1 July. [87521]
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Dr. John Reid): Ministers will continue to have the role of representing Scottish interests across the range of matters that are reserved to the United Kingdom Parliament, as well as assisting in relationships between the British Government and the Scottish Executive, and between the two Parliaments.
    Mr. Forth: Given that the answer to virtually every question on the Order Paper this afternoon so far has been,

    129
    "Not me, guv—it's a matter for the Scottish Parliament", and given also that the Parliament already seems to have a propensity to spend vast sums of taxpayers' money on buildings, salaries, assistants and expenses, why does not the Secretary of State give the taxpayer a break? Why does he not give a pledge now to reduce significantly the size of his Department and the number of Ministers and officials in it, in order at least to get his bureaucracy off the taxpayer's back, even while the Scottish Parliament is increasing its bureaucracy?
    Dr. Reid: I could have given the right hon. Gentleman a list of matters on which we have an important role in representing the Scottish people, but I am sure that it would have bored him.
    Mr. Forth: It would not.
    Dr. Reid: In which case, I shall start. Please stop me, Madam Speaker, when you feel that I have gone on too long. We will have the function of representing the Scottish people within the UK on fiscal matters, economic and monetary policy, taxation, social security benefits, occupational pensions, personal pensions, exchange rates, financial services, banking and insurance—shall I continue? The list also includes the designation of assisted areas and industrial assistance throughout the United Kingdom, international relations including the European Union, broadcasting, the Post Office, and electricity generation, transmission, distribution and supply. Is that enough, Madam Speaker? I shall continue the next time the right hon. Gentleman has a question.
    Mr. Martin O'Neill: May I ask my right hon. Friend about one of the matters for which he has responsibility—the allocation of structural funds within Scotland as part of the UK settlement that was so successful for the highlands as a consequence of the Prime Minister's intervention? Can my right hon. Friend tell us his thinking about the safety net arrangements, particularly for areas such as that of Clackmannanshire council in my constituency? The council is concerned about the fact that it is not eligible for the first level of award under objective 2, although it would be eligible under the safety net. Would that be part of a UK settlement, or will there be a specific Scottish settlement, or has the matter not yet been resolved?
    Dr. Reid: Discussions are continuing as regards the assisted areas map and objective 2 status. As my hon. Friend probably knows, the Prime Minister was extremely successful in winning a safety net at the United Kingdom level—the member state level—at the Berlin summit. We start from more difficult circumstances in making a case for assisted areas and objective 2 status, because the last time the assessment was made, under a Tory Government, we were in the middle of the most serious recession for a long, long time, with extremely high levels of unemployment. We have been much more successful under the Labour Government. Nevertheless, I shall pay close attention to the points that my hon. Friend raised about his area.
    Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Will the Secretary of State confirm that after 1 July he will continue to have jurisdiction over the setting of
    130
    boundaries between Scotland and England in terms of territorial waters off the coast of the United Kingdom? Is the Secretary of State aware of the anger and consternation among the fishing communities around Berwickshire about the changes that were brought in by the recent Scottish Adjacent Waters Boundaries Order 1999? Would he support legislative proposals in the House in the near future to reconsider the parts of that order that transferred the Berwickshire bank from Scottish jurisdiction to English jurisdiction?
    Dr. Reid: Everyone would agree that when two Parliaments instead of one sovereign Parliament have jurisdiction—we also have a devolved Parliament now—we have to find the fairest way of settling the distribution of areas of jurisdiction between them. The way that was chosen in this case was the method most commonly accepted by international standards for fixing a line over the jurisdiction of territorial waters.
    In respect of whether that has been a fair settlement, I remind the hon. Gentleman that two thirds of British territorial waters have been passed to the jurisdiction of the Scottish Parliament, that no one outside those waters who is a Scottish fisherman has had his rights in any way diminished and that there is a precedent for where someone is taken to court. Previously, if an offence had been committed, English fishermen were taken to Scottish courts and vice versa. Finally, not only in the past 12 months, but in the past three years, not one offence has been committed in that particular area.
    Having said all that, which I said to the Scottish Fishermens Federation, if fishermen can show that serious and significant practical disadvantages are likely to arise from a settlement that has put two thirds of the territorial waters of the United Kingdom under Scottish jurisdiction, I will of course look at that issue.
    Mr. Ian Davidson: I thank the Secretary of State for taking the time to give us a long list of responsibilities that remain with the House of Commons—my constituents speak of little else—but he unfortunately failed to reach social inclusion on his list. Can I have an assurance that Scottish Office Ministers will retain an interest in the matter, make sure that agencies relevant to social inclusion on a United Kingdom basis take an interest and follow through the steps that are necessary to improve the situation in Scotland? Will he also do what he can to make sure that Members of the House have places on social inclusion partnership boards, in particular in localities where they want to be so involved?
    Dr. Reid: I shall try to do both those things and I am glad that the good people of Pollok are as interested as they no doubt are in social inclusion and other issues such as consumer protection, telecommunications, excise duties, betting, gaming and lotteries, regulation of anti-competitive practices, monopolies and mergers, intellectual property, regulation of drivers' hours, internet services, transport of radioactive material, war pensions, employment rights, health and safety at work and a whole list of others. I shall not turn the page.
    Mr. Dominic Grieve: The Secretary of State has reeled off a long list of reserved matters, but does he agree that all those reserved matters fall within the remit of United Kingdom Departments as well? It would therefore be interesting to know what Scottish Office junior Ministers will be doing. Will they be answering specific queries relating to those matters or is their role that of marriage guidance therapists for the relationship between him and the First Minister?
    Dr. Reid: The Ministers and the Secretary of State, along with Scottish Members of Parliament, will be representing the interests of the Scottish people in the reserved matters, as the White Paper said. The hon. Gentleman may not have read it, although it was debated in the House. I shall refrain from reading to him another page of the list of the responsibilities that we have, but I understand his difficulty in appreciating what any Member of Parliament can do. He is the Member of Parliament who said:
    "The Conservative party may not have any Scots Members of Parliament, but that is the electorate's fault."—[0fficial Report, 13 January 1998; Vol. 304, c. 229.]
    I am afraid that we take a different view in Scotland; we think that is the fault of the Tory party that it has no Scottish Members.

    Agenda 2000 (Farming)
    Sir Robert Smith: What decisions his Department has taken regarding the Agenda 2000 agreement as it affects the method of payment to farmers of the beef and dairy national envelopes and the successor scheme to hill livestock compensatory allowances; and if he will make a statement. [87523]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Calum Macdonald): No decisions have yet been taken pending the assessment of responses to earlier consultations and the adoption of the necessary European Union implementing regulations. From 1 July, this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament
    Sir Robert Smith: Does the Minister recognise that the failure to take a decision means that farmers will face uncertainty? They have enough problems without lacking certainty, which enables them to plan for the future. Will he at least make a commitment that, if there is any delay in the introduction of the new scheme and because of that uncertainty, a transitional scheme for HLCA payments will keep the cash flow going so that farmers at least do not face the penalty of late payments?
    Mr. Macdonald: I can give a commitment that we shall try to provide a transitional scheme. The delay has been caused by the fact that the final detailed set of European Commission regulations is not yet ready; but I assure the hon. Gentleman that, when they are available, we shall consult widely on them with the farming community. The matters that we discuss will include the change from headage to area-based payments of HLCAs, and we shall take the results of the consultation very much into account.

  LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT
  The Parliamentary Secretary was asked—
  LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

    Law Society and Bar Council
    Mr. Tony McWalter: What representations he has received on the conduct of professional examinations by (a) the Law Society and (b) the Bar Council. [87544]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Keith Vaz): In the last year, the Department has received one letter from my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter) on behalf of his constituent, complaining of an individual instance of inadequate administration of the Bar vocational course. The legal practice course and the Bar vocational course are conducted by approved providers, rather than directly by the professional bodies.
    Mr. McWalter: I thank my hon. Friend for his answer, but is he aware that the case that I raised with his Department concerned someone who had failed an examination marginally because she had been sent an erroneous examination paper? When she appealed against the decision, she was asked on what ground she was appealing. As failure to administer the examination properly was not deemed to be a possible ground for appeal, she had to find some other ground, which made the case for the appeal somewhat convoluted.
    I should be grateful for an assurance from my hon. Friend that the legal bodies will possibly allow appeals on the basis of failure by those bodies themselves to conduct their affairs in a satisfactory manner—however rare such failures may be.
    Mr. Vaz: I know of the case that my hon. Friend has described. His constituent must be very frustrated and distressed, because she failed to get on to the course in question by only one mark. I know what it is to lose by only one, having lost a European selection by just one vote. I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) was also contesting the seat.
    Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: We was both robbed!
    Mr. Vaz: I am trying to find the person concerned to thank them for not voting for me.
    Ministers have no say in the way in which such papers are marked, but I spoke to Mr. Niall Morrison, chief executive of the Bar Council, this afternoon. If my hon. Friend will send me the papers relating to the case, I will send them to Mr. Morrison, who has promised to look into the case for me.

    Legal Aid (Chorley Citizens Advice Bureau)
    Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: If he will make a statement on the application by Chorley citizens advice bureau to obtain a contract for the provision of services under legal aid. [87545]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Keith Vaz): Chorley citizens advice bureau was not invited to bid for a contract because its application related to categories of law specified as low-priority by the north-western regional legal services committee's draft strategy.
    Citizens advice bureaux will be an essential element of the local networks in the Community Legal Service. The fact that Chorley citizens advice bureau does not have a legal aid contract does not preclude it from being accredited to the Community Legal Service quality mark, once that is available, and taking part in its local referral network. Indeed, Chorley's plans to work closely with the local authority's welfare rights service fits well with the proposals for the Community Legal Service.
    Mr. Hoyle: What assurance can be given to the people of Chorley? Does my hon. Friend's answer mean that there will be provision through welfare rights, or does it mean that we shall have to travel somewhere else within central Lancashire?
    Mr. Vaz: I congratulate my hon. Friend on championing the work of Chorley CAB, which does an excellent job. As he knows, the north-western regional committee launched a strategy, and engaged in consultation. A representative of Chorley attended the meeting on 25 November last year, and did not object to what was being proposed.
    Chorley CAB has a vital role to play in the Government's plans for a community legal service. It will act as a referral agency; it will continue its excellent work, supported by my hon. Friend; and I am convinced that it will play its part in ensuring that we have a decent, modern system of justice.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Madam Speaker: I call Mr. Burnett, who should make particular reference to Chorley, of course.
    Mr. John Burnett: Thank you, Madam Speaker. [Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. Hon. Members must take these matters seriously. It is a specific question. It relates simply to one citizens advice bureau, and that is Chorley.
    Mr. Burnett: I am grateful to you, Madam Speaker. As a precursor to my question, I should remind the Minister that, last week, he stressed the importance of abolishing legal aid for personal injury matters. [Hon. MEMBERS: "What about Chorley?"] I am getting to Chorley. That was despite objections throughout the House. What are the savings likely to be as a result of that closure and will he apply the savings to help the not-for-profit sector—for example, the citizens advice bureau in Chorley?
    Madam Speaker: Order. That was a very good try, but Members should watch the questions to which they wish to put supplementary questions.
    Mr. Vaz: I have no specific figures on Chorley concerning the points raised by the hon. Gentleman and
    134
    the impact of withdrawal of legal aid from personal injury cases, but, overall, the freeing-up of £70 million at its peak will enable the Government to use those resources to prioritise areas of need. It will be £70 million at its peak. It will fall in later years to £30 million.
    As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are satisfied with the arrangements that have been made. The conditional fee arrangements will enable people in Chorley and elsewhere to have the benefit of receiving good legal advice on personal injury cases.
    Mr. Nicholas Soames: Did the contract application from Chorley contain a reference to legal aid being granted only in cases where solicitors themselves undertake the legal aid work? In view of the hon. Gentleman's astonishingly complacent reply to my query about the issue in respect of my constituency, will he assure the House that, when Chorley again makes what I am sure will be a successful bid, such a clause will be present in that agreement?
    Mr. Vaz: Chorley was not invited to bid because the areas on which it wished to make its bids were regarded as low priorities.

    Training (Judges)
    Mr. John Bercow: If he will make a statement about the continuing review and scrutiny of training for judges. [87547]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Keith Vaz): The Judicial Studies Board is an independent body, controlled by a board whose members are appointed by the Lord Chancellor. It is chaired by Lord Justice Waller, a Lord Justice of Appeal. For accounting purposes, it is treated as an advisory non-departmental public body. Its powers and obligations are set out in a memorandum of understanding with the Lord Chancellor's Department. The board produces and publishes a report to the Lord Chancellor each year.
    Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that informative reply. I take this, my first, opportunity to congratulate him on his recent appointment.
    Given the importance of training, both for individual judges and for the standing of the judiciary as a whole, will the hon. Gentleman assure the House that future training will be such as to ensure that we can avoid a repetition of the embarrassment that Lord Hoffmann recently inflicted on the judiciary by his failure to declare a relevant interest in the Pinochet case and then to withdraw from it?
    Mr. Vaz: Their lordships have already ruled on that case. Obviously, the issue of declarations of interest is important and is dealt with in an important way by whoever sits on the Bench. I am certain that the training that the Judicial Studies Board initiates, both at the induction stages when new judges are appointed and

    135
    in the three-year cycle, will include the whole issue of conflicts of interest, and any other potentially embarrassing and difficult points that may be raised.
    Mrs. Ann Cryer: Would my hon. Friend like to comment on the measure of success his Department is having in moving towards judges being appointed from a much wider cross-section of society?
    Mr. Vaz: It is always the Lord Chancellor's wish to ensure that judges are appointed from a wide section of society and it is right that, in the past year, 24 per cent. of the appointments made by my noble and learned Friend have been women. I am sure that my hon. Friend will join me in congratulating Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss on her appointment as the first woman president of the family division. It is important that the appointments should reflect society, but it is equally important that those appointed to the Bench should be appointed on merit. That is how my noble and learned Friend appoints people—they have to be of the highest quality. I believe that we have the best judiciary in the world and it is important that the merits tests are met.
    Mr. Nick Hawkins: I join the Minister in his congratulations to Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss on her appointment as the first lady president of the family division. As the Minister said, the British judiciary is the finest in the world, but I am sure that he agrees that there would be grave concern throughout the legal profession and the country if there were to be any sign of the politicisation of the judiciary in the future. Will he confirm, for himself and his noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor, that the Government have no intention of politicising the judiciary? Will he further confirm that he recognises the sanctity of the separation of powers doctrine so that we will not see any interference by Parliament under this Government in the freedom of the judiciary?
    Mr. Vaz: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his first appearance in his new role at the Dispatch Box during Question Time. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that, of course, the judiciary must be apolitical. My noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor wishes to ensure the integrity and impartiality of those appointed to the judiciary and he has made sure that that has been the case.
    Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Is the Minister satisfied that the training and instruction of judges provides them with sufficient sensitivity to arrange their private passions and interests to coincide with the natural holiday time of the courts? Given that many jurors find that they lose pay, their businesses suffer or they miss out on tickets to Wimbledon, does he share my dismay that one of the learned judges has put his passion for Wimbledon above his obligations to the court? If Madam
    136
    Speaker were to be invited to Wimbledon, I know that she would fulfil her obligation to be here. Can we have a rap on the knuckles for judges who put other things before their duties?
    Mr. Vaz: My hon. Friend—he is a good friend—was present at the European selection meeting when I lost by a single vote, but I have no spare tickets for him. Judge Hooton, the judge to whom my hon. Friend has referred, had booked his annual leave some time ago. It had been estimated by the lawyers that the case, which he was due to have started on Monday, would last for three to four days. At the outset of the trial, the lawyers informed the judge, without providing the court with any prior notice, that they anticipated that the case would last five or six days. On that basis, the judge was forced to adjourn the case. In my view, it is disappointing that the judge should have been placed in that position.

    Juvenile Witnesses
    Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: What discussions he has had with Ministers in the Home Department about the need for ensuring that cases involving juvenile witnesses are dealt with speedily; and if he will make a statement. [87548]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Keith Vaz): It is important that cases involving children as victims or witnesses are dealt with as speedily as is commensurate with the interests of justice. There are a number of initiatives in place to ensure that this objective is met. My officials are in regular and close contact with those of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to identify where improvements might be made.
    Mr. Llwyd: I thank the Minister for his reply. It is routine for cases involving child or juvenile complainants to be fast-tracked but it is not routine for child or juvenile witnesses to be fast-tracked. May I respectfully suggest that that should be looked into because it is vital and, in both sets of circumstances, the pressures and problems are alike?
    Mr. Vaz: I know that the hon. Gentleman, as a member of the national council of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, has a particular interest in these matters. As from 1 April this year, a national monitoring scheme for cases involving child witnesses has been put in place. Its purpose is to ensure that such cases are dealt with as speedily as possible, and to identify how we might make improvements in the way in which they are handled, including the possibility of fast- tracking, although we must see how the monitoring proceeds. Plans are also under way to introduce a pre-trial check list focusing on children's issues as a means of supplementing the plea and directions hearing form.

Regulation of Operating Department Practitioners
3.30 pm
Helen Jones: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for a registration scheme for operating department practitioners and for the regulation of their professional conduct; and for related purposes.
I am conscious, from conversations with colleagues, that some hon. Members are not wholly aware of what operating department practitioners are or what they do. They are a key group of health care workers who were first formally identified in the Lewin report in 1970, but who have existed under different names for a good many years. They were known first as theatre technicians, and then as operating department assistants. In the 1990s, as their qualifications changed from those awarded under the city and guilds course to the national vocational qualification level 3 in operating department practice, they adopted a different title to reflect the increased level of skills involved.
Originally, ODPs dealt with anaesthetics and the care of anaesthetised patients, but they are now involved in all work of the operating department, including not only anaesthetics, but the surgical process and the monitoring and care of patients in the recovery room. In addition, because of the technical skills that they acquire for work in the operating department, they now work in other areas of the hospital where a knowledge of technology is required. It is common to find ODPs working as part of cardio-pulmonary resuscitation teams, or in accident and emergency departments and intensive care units, as well as in other areas such as radiology departments. They are also involved in the transfer of critically ill patients.
Operating department practitioners have responsibility for checking, calibrating and monitoring much of the electromechanical equipment that is used in hospitals, including lung ventilators, automatic infusion devices and other patient monitoring equipment. They are skilled personnel, and the number of skills required of them has increased as technology has expanded. Many of them go on to take additional qualifications to allow them to work in specialised areas, such as ophthalmic, vascular or plastic surgery. Others move on to manage operating departments and into associated services. The theatre manager in my local hospital is an ODP, not a nurse.
I hope that what I have said is enough to convince the House that ODPs not only carry out a vital role, but care for incredibly vulnerable patients. Most members of the public would be surprised to learn that when they go into hospital for an operation it is a matter of chance whether they are cared for and supported in theatre by a nurse or by an ODP.
Since the Bevan report in 1989, it has been common for ODPs to be considered alongside their nursing colleagues for all roles in the operating theatre. In many trusts, they are on the same pay spines and the same rotas. People would be astonished to discover, however, that nurses working in theatres are subject to a registration scheme, whereas the ODPs working alongside them are not. It is nonsense that ODPs are subject only to a voluntary registration scheme, given that they care for the same vulnerable patients as nurses and both have access to controlled drugs and sensitive equipment. That situation has been allowed to persist, despite the fact
138
that the Bevan report recommended a compulsory registration scheme, as did the Audit Commission in 1997.
That difference flies in the face of all professional opinion, since ODP registration is not only supported by the Association of Operating Department Practitioners, but the Royal College of Surgeons of England, the Royal College of Anaesthetists and the Association of Theatre Nurses—in other words, the very people who work in operating theatres day by day and know what happens—want registration. The safety of the public demands it.
My Bill is necessary to put an end to the chaos, because the current voluntary system has failed. The Association of Operating Department Practitioners has only about 1,500 registered members, but the estimates of the numbers of ODPs practising in the United Kingdom vary between 5,000 and 8,000. The fact that we do not know the numbers shows the chaos that has been created. It also means that only between one quarter and one fifth of practitioners are registered.
My Bill would put an end to that confusion, and would protect the public by setting up a board under the Council for Professions Supplementary to Medicines to oversee the education and training of ODPs, and it would ensure that only state-registered ODPs were allowed to practise. It would provide for a similar system to continue when the Health Bill comes into force and a council for health service professions is set up. The Bill would ensure that the board had the power to investigate evidence of poor practice or of malpractice, and to suspend or remove a person's registration if the evidence warranted it.
Malpractice is, of course, rare but when it does occur in such work, it is serious. Well-documented cases include that of Anthony Kelly, who was found practising as an ODP on a forged certificate, or Justin Lee Alliston, who was arrested after abusing controlled drugs at the hospital where he worked. There have been other cases of people abusing or selling drugs, of tampering with sensitive equipment and even one case of a serious sexual assault on a female patient in the anaesthetic room.
The real scandal about those cases is that the people who commit those offences are perfectly free to continue practising in the NHS afterwards. Indeed, there are well-documented cases of people being dismissed from one hospital for poor professional practice or for malpractice and then getting a job in another hospital because their history has not been checked. That is not safe for patients, and it is an insult to the many good and conscientious ODPs.
Trusts are poor at checking registration and the problems in the system are exacerbated by the fact that many people find work in theatres through agencies. My Bill, therefore, would also regulate agencies providing work for ODPs. It would make them responsible for checking the registration of anyone on their books, and it would impose a compulsory code of practice, requiring agencies to report any evidence of failures to reach the highest standards of professional conduct. Importantly, agencies also would have to check that the requisite occupational health screening had been carried out.
The Bill is about the safety of the public. People have a right when they go into hospital for an operation to be sure that they will be treated by adequately qualified and trained staff who subscribe to a proper code of professional ethics. That is not the case at the moment.

139
I believe that the safety of the public must come first. I hope, therefore, that the case for registration is seen to be unanswerable, and that the Bill will have the support of hon. Members on both sides of the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Helen Jones, Charlotte Atkins, Lorna Moffatt, Dr. Alan Whitehead, Mrs. Joan Humble, Mr. Jonathan Shaw, Mrs. Diana Organ and Mr. Stephen Hesford.

Regulation of Operating Department Practitioners
  REGULATION OF OPERATING DEPARTMENT PRACTITIONERS
  Helen Jones accordingly presented a Bill to make provision for a registration scheme for operating department practitioners and for the regulation of their professional conduct; and for related purposes: 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 129].
Opposition Day
[16TH ALLOTTED DAY]
Opposition Day

  Passport Delays
  Madam Speaker: We now come to the first Opposition motion. I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  3.40 pm
  Miss Ann Widdecombe: I beg to move,
  That this House deplores the Government's handling of the current crisis in the issuing of passports including the untimely introduction of children's passports, the untimely introduction of a flawed computer system, the unsatisfactory manner in which the above were introduced, the failure to instruct the passport office to work around the clock to meet demand, confusion over compensation, the failure to deliver passports in time for many families who have now missed overseas trips, the failure to meet the Passport Agency's turn around target of 10 days and the great inconvenience and distress caused to the general public; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to take urgent measures to ensure the speedy and efficient delivery of passports and that there are no further instances of UK citizens being denied overseas trips due to the combination of bad planning, inefficiency and complacency.
  In deploring the Government's record on the management of the Passport Agency, I pay tribute to the many staff who have had to work in situations of amazing difficulty caused by the Government's policies and incompetence. It is not only the Opposition who deplore the present situation, but hundreds of thousands of Britons who are trying to do nothing more than have their annual holiday.
  I hope that we will not witness the Home Secretary's usual formula for when something goes wrong in the Home Office. First, he smiles engagingly; then he apologises humbly; and then he shrugs helplessly, saying that he does not know how it happened. In the two short weeks for which I have held this brief, he has come to the House three times to smile engagingly, apologise humbly and shrug helplessly. Last week, he did not know why the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 happened to be minus a few crimes. Of course he took responsibility and apologised profusely, but he could not tell us why it had happened.
  Yesterday, the Home Secretary was at it again. He did not know why a report had lain in the Home Office unactioned for two years during which he alone presided there. Of course he took responsibility and apologised profusely, but he could not tell us why it had happened. We, however, know why the passports crisis has happened.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), has his own explanation. On the "Today" programme this morning, he said that it was all the general public's fault, because they had panicked and were applying too early; by going and queueing for hours in the rain, they were causing the problem. It was a piece of arrogance to cover up a piece of gross incompetence.
  When I visited the passport office in Petty France today, every single person to whom I spoke had an immediate case. People were not panicked into queueing

  141
  for holidays in August or September, as the Minister suggested. In some cases, the issue is not anything as pleasant as a holiday, and people need to go abroad on urgent and personal business. They are being caused not only great inconvenience but massive distress.
  Queueing in the rain, in many cases since dawn, were mothers with very tiny babies, some as young as six weeks. They were there because the Government have changed the rules. All those mothers said to me, in different ways, that they thought that the Government must be barmy.
  What did the Government do to cause the crisis? They alone decided—they cannot blame it on the Passport Agency, the Opposition, the previous Government or even the general public—that from last October children, including new babies, would have to have their own passport. That has led to an enormous rise in the number of applications.
  The Home Secretary will say that the measure is designed to combat abduction, but the mothers to whom I spoke today could not understand that. They said that a photograph of a baby of six weeks of age will not look much like that baby a few months later. In a case of suspected abduction, what a baby looks like will not be immediately obvious.
  I hope that the Home Secretary will dispel my cynicism, but is it possible that the motivation behind the change was the vast increase in revenue that would occur as a result of the extra passport applications?
  Mr. Denis MacShane rose—
  Miss Widdecombe: One parent in the queue was applying for passports for four children, so he had to pay four sets of fees when, in the past, the children would have been included on the parents' passports. Is the Secretary of State seriously going to contest that increased revenue played no part in his decision to introduce the rule?
  Mr. MacShane: I am the parent of four children, and have no problem with securing independent passports for them. Is the right hon. Lady aware that, under the previous Government, very serious questions were raised about the abduction of children? This is not a laughing matter to be treated in the flippant tone that she has adopted. She may have the same smiling face as she had when she was a baby, but I assure her that it is worth the extra money to throw some sand in the wheels of would-be child abductors. I have no problems with the rule, and neither would any serious parent.
  Miss Widdecombe: I may be wrong, but my impression from the father to whom I spoke today was that he did not have to subsist on a parliamentary salary and that the sum involved was a significant consideration for him. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the mothers to whom I spoke said that an unrecognisable photograph is not much of an anti-abduction measure. I am therefore not at all convinced that the hon. Gentleman has presented an overwhelming argument.
  For a moment, let us suppose that the measure were justified. The net result has been an increase of more than a quarter of million in passport applications. That is
  142
  a fact, and it has taken place against the background of the introduction of flawed technology into the Passport Agency.
  Maria Eagle: Who signed the contract?
  Miss Widdecombe: I am asked, from a sedentary position, who signed the contract, and I can tell the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) that it was signed with Siemens under the Labour Government's first private finance initiative scheme. What is more, the Government pay Siemens on a case-by-case administration basis. I hope that the Home Secretary will tell the House whether the company is still making profits despite the penalties that have been imposed, and that he will do so before the hon. Lady throws out another spurious question.
  The technology is flawed and—unbelievably—there are no proper back-up systems. Now I am a reasonable person, and I am the first to admit that unexpected glitches sometimes happen, that flaws will appear and that the normal smooth working of a Government Department will be held up and interrupted when new systems and technology are introduced. I admit that that can happen, but it is important to ensure that the two things do not happen together. Given the risks of obstruction to normal administration associated with the introduction of new technology, the Government's simultaneous implementation of the new rule for children was an unnecessary complication. It would have been sensible to separate the two changes by a considerable period. We should have had the introduction either of the children's passports, or of the technology. The Government ought not to have confused the two.
  Mr. Bill O'Brien: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
  Miss Widdecombe: When technology goes wrong, the response should be immediate. Yet it is only now—the day of an Opposition debate—that the Government have got round to saying that they will take on some extra staff and run an advertising campaign. Yet again, we see the pattern of operation employed by the Home Secretary when he responds to problems. A year and two months too late, he came to the House to put right an omission in the prevention of terrorism Act.
  Mr. O'Brien rose—
  Miss Widdecombe: Yesterday, the Home Secretary sounded as if he had done some great thing when he told us that he had asked the Director General of the Prison Service to ensure that the situation at Wormwood Scrubs would be sorted out, but that, too, came two years too late, long after receipt of the report.
  Mr. O'Brien: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
  Miss Widdecombe: Today, he stands here again—
  Madam Speaker: Order. The right hon. Lady is not giving way. Do I understand that to be correct?
  Miss Widdecombe: I should have thought that the whole House understood that, Madam Speaker, but apparently the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) did not.

  143
  Today, yet again, the Home Secretary follows his usual pattern. He has come to the House, at the last minute and once the pressure has grown and the public are worried, to tell us that he will put matters right. He seriously expects us to thank him, and to say what a wonderful thing he is doing.
  I have described what I found this morning—not a public in panic, but a public massively frustrated. According to the Government's figures, given in a parliamentary answer, the number of calls that receive an answering machine message—the Government coyly describe those as courtesy messages—stood at 1.1 million in May. In April, the figure was 460,000, and in January just 118,000. There has been a tenfold increase in the number of those who receive a so-called courtesy message, which is, in fact, a brush-off, since there is no one to answer the call.
  Yet the Home Secretary wonders why people who have received that answer again and again have finally decided that the only way in which they can take charge of the situation is to go to the passport office. At least they are not faced with an answering machine when they get there. However, they are faced with a massive queue to join a massive queue. The queue inside the office that I visited today was two hours long. The head of the queue outside the office had been there since dawn, and the tail for several hours.
  All those people had imminent holidays or journey abroad. They had not left applications to the last moment, and in several cases, were doing as the Minister said and not turning up until the last week. Most had applied weeks ago—in one case four weeks, in another seven—but their passports had not been delivered, or, having been due for delivery from another office, they had been diverted and lost. People turned up at the passport office because it was the only way in which they could take charge of what was going on. If I were in their position, I should do exactly the same.
  I am not surprised that people are going to the passport office, and I am sure that they will continue to do so until the Home Secretary clears up the mess.
  What I do find offensive is that although that situation has been getting worse, has been widely commented on in the press and has been the subject of constituents' correspondence, as hon. Members on both sides of the House will know, and although it has caused constituents distress and been the subject of parliamentary questions to Ministers, until the past 24 hours there has been a denial that there was any problem.
  Mr. David Maclean: I intervene because, as my right hon. Friend made those remarks, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), was shaking his head. I find it offensive to receive a letter from the Minister at the weekend enclosing a photograph that shows a passport office with no queue around it. Through my right hon. Friend I ask the Minister when that photograph was taken—was it using infra-red technology at 2 o'clock in the morning?
  Miss Widdecombe: I am delighted to pass on that question. I assume that the photograph was taken at public
  144
  expense and I wonder what the point of it was. Surely the Minister should have responded to the precise query sensibly and not with a gimmick.
  Mr. Bill O'Brien: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
  Miss Widdecombe: In a minute. Perhaps the Secretary of State—
  Mr. O'Brien: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
  Miss Widdecombe: The whole House heard me say, "In a minute." If the hon. Gentleman did not, he will find that I will not give way to him at all.
  Perhaps the Secretary of State will tell us about the cost of that gimmick and the reply and give my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) a clear answer about when the photograph was taken and under what circumstances.
  Why has it taken so long for the Minister to wake up to the fact that many passport offices were not working at the weekends and around the clock and taking extra measures to reduce the queues and accommodate more people?
  Does the Minister recall the purpose of the Passport Agency? Its main aim is set out in its terms of reference, which state that its duty is to provide passport services for British nationals in the United Kingdom promptly and economically. The terms of reference continue that the turnround time should be 10 days.
  The Passport Agency has a number of key performance targets and one is to
  "Turn around applications in 15 working days in April, and 10 days for the rest of the year".
  To say that that target has been missed is to make an understatement. In Glasgow, the average processing time for correctly completed, straightforward applications—not even the complex ones—that are submitted in person and so have not gone astray is not 10 but 39 working days; in Newport, it is 38 days; in Belfast, it is 37 days; in Liverpool, it is 36 days; and in Peterborough, it is 33 days.
  Mr. Andrew Robathan: My constituents, Mr. and Mrs. Armstrong, have now been waiting well over seven weeks. They sent their applications by special delivery to Peterborough, so the figures that my right hon. Friend has been given may not be 100 per cent. correct.
  Miss Widdecombe: I am inclined to ask whether performance pay is tied up with some of those targets. The real performance under examination, however, is that of the Ministers who, even when confronted with the growing evidence of those sorts of waiting times and the distress that they were causing, took refuge in the statement that only 50 families have not got their passports at all and in 99.9 per cent. of cases the passport offices manage to get the passport out. Does the Secretary of State acknowledge that in that statement he is completely ignoring the hoops and antics that people have to go through to get their passports in the first place? It is no boast to say, "We gave this person his passport", if he has waited a large number of weeks instead of 10 days, had to queue for anything up to eight hours and if all that

  145
  came about because the Government caused the situation through the combination of their policy on children's passports and on new technology.
  Now that the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) has been patient, I will give way to him.
  Mr. O'Brien: Well, the right hon. Lady took interventions from two Members of her own party before I could get in to speak—and the right hon. Lady says that she is fair. May I say to her that she was misleading the House—[Interruption.]—
  Madam Speaker: Order. No right hon. or hon. Member misleads this House, as the hon. Gentleman knows. Will he withdraw that remark and rephrase his question?
  Mr. O'Brien: I make the point that the right hon. Lady is not misleading the House—[Interruption.]
  Madam Speaker: Order. I take it that the hon. Gentleman is withdrawing his earlier point.
  Mr. O'Brien: Yes, the right hon. Lady is not misleading the House, but she said that it was only from today that 300 people had been recruited to attend to the delays in passports. I advise her that the Passport Agency recruited 300 people a week ago to attend to those delays. I also advise her that my residence in London is near Petty France; for 16 years, during the time that the Conservative Government were in power, there have always been queues outside the passport office. Every day, for 16 years, there have been queues outside the passport office. If the right hon. Lady wants to comment on that issue, we should have the true facts.
  Miss Widdecombe: I am so glad that I took that most helpful intervention.
  Mr. Michael Fabricant: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Miss Widdecombe: Let me finish dealing with the intervention of the hon. Member for Normanton and then I will come to my hon. Friend.
  I asked some specific questions on my visit today. I asked what was normal, and what would normally be expected at this time of year. In addition to the figures that show the huge rise in the number of applications and of people waiting, and in the number of queues, I was told by staff at the Passport Agency—many of whom had worked there for several years—that they had never seen anything like this before.
  I asked the manager to compare the current situation to what he would expect if there had not been the rise in applications for children's passports and the chaos caused by the technology problem. He said that two extremely long queues would not normally be there. One queue was there because work had been shifted from other offices due to the technology failure; the other was there because people were coming to the office to get their passports because of the publicity surrounding the Government's failures. One of the queues was extremely long and most
  146
  people were joining it. Without those two queues, people would not have been outside the office, in the rain, since dawn.
  There is no doubt that, from time to time, there is a queue for a short period, but to queue from dawn is not normal. The length of that queue, from dawn, is not normal. The testimony from the passport office today was that none of that was normal.
  Mr. Fabricant: It would seem that I have the misfortune to live in the vicinity of the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien). I can inform my right hon. Friend that I walk to the House of Commons every day, through Petty France. Usually, there are short queues on Tuesday mornings only. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not want deliberately to mislead the House, but I can say that there have been queues every day—not only on Tuesday mornings—and that they wrap round and join up in a continuous circle. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman would like to withdraw his question; he knows that it was untrue.
  Miss Widdecombe: I am tempted to give the hon. Member for Normanton a second chance, because the first intervention was extremely helpful.
  Mr. Bill O'Brien rose—
  Miss Widdecombe: Tempted as I am to give way to the hon. Gentleman, I do want to make some progress.
  I want the Secretary of State to answer some simple questions. Let us give him the benefit of the doubt by allowing that the measure on children's passports was desirable. However, what prevented him from postponing the implementation of that measure until the computer system had been sorted out?
  Is it true that the Home Secretary is paying Siemens case by case? Has the company incurred a net penalty as a result of its recent failure, or has it continued to make profits because of the rise in applications, owing to the necessity of children having to have their own passport? Will he state clearly to the House the increase in revenue to the Passport Agency that has resulted from the requirement for children and babies to have their own passport? Will he state why no back-up systems were in place when the computer technology was introduced? Will he state why, when it became evident that the computer technology was going wrong, he did not then—at that time, not a week ago—embark on immediate action to get the extra staff and allocate the extra hours that would be necessary to avert a problem?
  Does the Home Secretary accept that the number of people who are brushed off with an answering machine message—1.1 million, which represents a tenfold increase since January and a doubling since last month—is unacceptable? Will he tell us what he proposes to do to make sure that people are not encouraged to come to London to swell the ranks of people queueing at the Passport Agency simply by being unable to get an answer when they ring up with a perfectly routine query? Does he accept that the present situation is unusual, or does he go along with his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary in saying that there is no crisis, and anyway, if there is one, the general public caused it?
  Mr. John Bercow: I am sorry to interrupt my right hon. Friend, but, given the observations

  147
  made by the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien), it is essential to establish whether his views are shared by Ministers. Do those on the Treasury Bench go in for sleepwalking in the way that the hon. Gentleman on the Back Bench does?
  Miss Widdecombe: That would indeed be an intriguing question.
  Does the Home Secretary agree that, as a result of his requirement that children should have their own passport and that parents should apply on their behalf, the number of applications for children's passports this year so far—I need hardly point out, even to the right hon. Gentleman, that we are only half way through the year—is now 796,000; whereas the figure for the whole of last year was only 412,000? Might not the right hon. Gentleman have deduced from that vast increase that extraordinary measures were necessary? Was it not exactly the wrong time to put not only extraordinary measures, but all ordinary measures, at risk by introducing new technology?
  Mr. Maclean: Before my right hon. Friend resumes her seat, will she ask the Home Secretary one more crucial question regarding the allegations that security has been relaxed in order to increase the output of the Passport Agency? She will be aware that, in July 1997, the Under-Secretary said that the new computer would improve security. However, I understand that on 24 February this year, instructions were sent out to drop eight special security checks so as to improve output. In addition, there are allegations that those measures were later dropped, because of the scandal that they could produce.
  Miss Widdecombe: That is indeed an important issue, and I should be grateful if the Home Secretary commented on it. He should also tell the House whether it is true that Siemens staff have been processing applications, and whether he envisages any problems arising as a result.
  I am sure, because it is his style, that the Home Secretary will stand at the Dispatch Box and apologise, but, on this occasion, let him not shrug. Let him not boast about last-minute measures, but let him make an honest analysis of what has gone wrong, tell us where responsibility lies and, for once, tell us how he is going to get a grip on his Department. For the third time in two weeks, he has had to come to the House to repent of his sins. It is time he learned to go and sin no more.
  4.10 pm
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "acknowledges the difficult operational situation that the Passport Agency is facing and greatly regrets the inconvenience caused to the public; notes the measures that the Agency is taking to remedy the situation including the deployment of 300 additional staff, the streamlining of processes to boost productivity whilst maintaining security and the willingness of Agency staff to work seven days a week to help clear the arrears; further notes that in spite of this difficult position the Agency is meeting 99.99 per cent. of travel dates and will continue to do so throughout the summer and beyond; and agrees that it is right to introduce the policy of separate passports for children."
  148
  I may indeed repent, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) opened her remarks by sneering at the idea that the Secretary of State for the Home Department should come to the House to apologise and accept responsibility for something that had gone wrong. We understand why someone who served in the previous Administration should find either the concept of an apology or the idea of accepting responsibility wholly alien.
  It is true that, in every Government Department, under every Administration, things go wrong from time to time. It is also true—as the right hon. Lady has every reason to know—that things go wrong in the Home Office more often than anywhere else. Moreover, when things go wrong, they normally do so in threes or fours. Of course I would prefer to be performing my customary task of coming to the House and setting out the achievements of the Government and of the Home Office. There is a major difference between this Government and our predecessor—and it is one of the reasons why the previous Government were drummed out of office in the most dramatic defeat since the war. Under the previous Government, when things went wrong—as they inevitably did occasionally—Conservative Ministers did not come to the House to apologise when an apology was necessary; nor did they accept responsibility. They wriggled and evaded responsibility every time.
  Conservative Ministers came up with the idea of executive agencies. I do not wholly disagree with that concept; it has some merit. However, I have always disagreed with the idea that the establishment of agencies would enable Ministers to evade their responsibility to the House. The right hon. Lady, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), their right hon. Friends and all the rest of them developed this neat difference between accountability and responsibility: they were responsible for policy but never for the operation of that policy.
  To underline the fact that they were not responsible when things went wrong, Conservative Ministers would take out the basin and wash their hands. The right hon. Lady used to do that—as did the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean). When questions were asked about the operation of an agency, who replied to those queries? Was it the Secretary of State or the Minister of State? Not on your life. They simply acted as the postbox every time. Conservative Ministers treated written answers like pieces of stinking fish and said, "I refer to the letter that I have received from the chief executive."
  Miss Widdecombe: The Home Secretary is in a time warp: he thinks that he is still in opposition and that all he must do is rehearse the sins, as he sees them, of the previous Government. He is now in government and we are asking him what he is doing about this mess. The right hon. Gentleman stands at the Dispatch Box recounting history, but we are interested in the present. Will he now return to the present and answer for himself?
  Mr. Straw: I hope that the right hon. Lady feels better for having got that off her chest.
  Mr. Maclean rose—
  Mr. Straw: I want to make progress but I shall give way to the right hon. Gentleman because, outside the House, he is my friend.
  Mr. Maclean: I am grateful to the Home Secretary. Will he tell the House who took the decision to issue passports to babies and children? Was it the Passport Agency or Ministers?
  Mr. Straw: I did, on the recommendation of the agency. I shall explain exactly why I took that decision and from where the calls to do so came. I shall be absolutely delighted to do that.
  Mr. Bercow: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Straw: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman because I admire him greatly—I hope that my remark does not destroy his reputation on the right of the Tory party—and then I shall go on with my speech.
  Mr. Bercow: I was worried to see the right hon. Gentleman in a state of such perturbation a few moments ago. He now seems to have calmed down somewhat. Will he give the House an assurance that, no matter how many families need to be compensated for the loss of their holidays, there will be no increase in passport application charges over and above those that might otherwise have taken place in the lifetime of this Parliament?
  Mr. Straw: I can certainly give the hon. Gentleman the undertaking that families with children and individual applicants who have their holidays wrecked, or who cannot meet their travel date for any other reason, will receive full compensation. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question".] I am answering the hon. Gentleman; he knows that I answer his questions. The total amount of compensation is very small. There may have to be increases in the passport fee for the normal reasons to which he adverts, but there is no reason why any increase should result from the level of compensation.
  Mr. Nigel Evans: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Straw: No, I have given way more times than the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald did during her speech. I shall get on with my speech, but I will, of course, take more interventions should the occasion arise and if I decide to accept them.
  As we all know, the Passport Agency is not providing its customers with the service that they and the House expect or that the agency has promised. I add my personal apologies to those of the chief executive of the agency and those of the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), to all those who have been inconvenienced by the inadequate standard of service, and especially to those whose holidays or business trips have been disrupted or cancelled.
  Today, I want to put the situation into context and to set out why and how it has come to pass and what the agency and Ministers are doing, as quickly as possible, to resolve matters satisfactorily.
  150
  First, I shall set out the context. The Passport Agency is one of the largest passport-issuing authorities in the world. It issues around 5 million passports a year, or an average of more than 400,000 a month. The work is highly seasonal, however. In a typical year, 50 per cent. of the work is compressed into a third of the year, with the peak months being the pre-summer holiday period of April to June.
  Since its establishment as an agency in 1991, and until this year, the Passport Agency has had a successful track record in delivering high-quality public services. It is one of the few organisations that has three times won a charter mark for excellence, which it gained last year and in 1992 and 1995.
  Mr. Keith Simpson: Under a Conservative Government.
  Mr. Straw: Well, we have a Labour Government now, and the agency won the charter mark again last year.
  In recent months, however, performance has been poor. Around 500,000 applications currently await processing, which amounts to a backlog of about a month's work. That is twice the level of outstanding work a year ago. Around half those applications are for people wanting to travel in August, September and beyond. The other half are for travel in July. The agency is now clearing almost 150,000 cases a week, which is 20 per cent. higher than the figure for this time last year.
  The agency is prioritising work according to travel dates. In the vast majority of cases, applicants are receiving their passports by the stated travel date. However, I fully recognise that even where customers are, in the end, receiving their passports in time to travel—I entirely agree with what the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald said about this—they have had to endure a good deal of anxiety and, in come cases, considerable trouble and inconvenience in having to make personal visits, with long waits, to the caller offices in London, Liverpool, Newport, Belfast and Peterborough.
  Mr. Edward Leigh: A constituent of mine was forced to travel to Liverpool and miss a day's work. He noticed that the queue outside the office had vanished, but it had simply been transferred inside. I refer the Home Secretary to questions that were asked earlier. We have been sent a picture showing that there is no queue. Is it a symbol of new Labour that real problems are simply airbrushed out of the picture? When will the queues disappear?
  Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary sent the letter with a picture from the Liverpool Echo. That was simply a matter of record, because that newspaper had run a story saying that the queues in Liverpool had disappeared, and there were no queues at that time.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Straw: I have given way enough.
  It is pretty obvious that things have not worked out as anybody anticipated. There will still be queues even when we have returned the Passport Agency to operation at the levels that we expect, for reasons that my hon. Friend

  151
  the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) and—I think—other hon Members understand. The caller offices are there to deal with normal applications.
  Although in respects other than queueing the situation is worse than that under the previous Administration—I do not suggest otherwise—I have been informed by the agency that, for six weeks in 1996 immediately following the withdrawal of the British visitors passport by the previous Administration, queues at the London caller office were longer and people were waiting longer.
  The agency is clearing about 150,000 cases a week. In this calendar year, 3.25 million passports have already been issued. For literally 99.99 per cent. of applications, the agency has met due travel dates. In 93 cases, the passport has not been delivered on time, and those customers have had their plans either seriously disrupted or cancelled. Those customers obviously wanted a holiday or business trip on time and not monetary compensation—I understand that entirely—but in such circumstances, the agency pays compensation in full and as soon as possible.
  I visited the agency's office in London yesterday and spoke to members of the public who were queueing. Some had been queueing for several hours; I do not for a moment regard that as acceptable. Those whom I met were showing extraordinary stoicism in the face of these problems. By 6.30 pm yesterday, 1,500 personal callers to the London office had been dealt with—twice the usual level for a Monday.
  I was asked when my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and I first became aware of the problems and what we decided to do about them. We became aware of the problems in late March from the regular reports that we receive from the agency. My hon. Friend has paid very close personal attention on my behalf to what has been going on at the agency. As soon as he alerted himself to the nature of the problems—to the early warning signs—he called in the agency's chief executive, I saw the permanent secretary at the Home Office and meetings were held. There were also meetings between my hon. Friend and trade unions.
  An action plan was agreed to meet what was anticipated at that stage to be the rise in demand and the need to raise output. As a result, an extra 300 people were recruited to deal with the backlog. Staff have been working evenings during the week and over weekends to process postal applications. In order to clear straightforward renewal applications, we also agreed that, where the agency was satisfied about the identity of the applicant, certain passports could instead be extended for two years.
  I recognise that the situation did not improve as we had anticipated, although I should make it clear that, having fallen in late March, output has continued to rise and is now at a record level. That must be borne in mind, although I quite understand that it is of no comfort to those who are in the queue.
  As a result of further decisions, we have decided—the agency has announced this today—that an extra 100 staff will be recruited to help to deal with the backlog in addition to the 300 extra staff who are being recruited. Advertisements will be placed in the national media advising the public how best to apply for a new passport
  152
  that is relevant to their travel date. Those measures should help the agency to get turnround times back to 10 days by September. That is what I am expecting.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Straw: I shall give way to my neighbour.
  Mr. Evans: The announcement of the extra 100 staff and anticipation of September is fine, but unless my constituent Sharon Gowan gets her passport by Friday, she will not be able to go on her honeymoon. The Home Secretary said that compensation is often not what people want. My constituent's honeymoon will be ruined, yet the cheque for her passport was cashed in May. Will the right hon. Gentleman assure her that, without queueing for a whole day at an office, she will be able to get a passport by Friday so that she can go on her honeymoon?
  Mr. Straw: I will give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that his constituent will get her passport. [Interruption.] Whether Opposition Members raise their eyebrows or not, we will move heaven and earth to make sure that she gets her passport. I have had constituents in similar circumstances. I do not ask special favours of the passport office—any more than I do of any other part of government—because I happen to be Home Secretary. [Interruption.] I consider it extremely important for people in positions such as mine not to ask for favours in such circumstances. Where such cases have been raised, my office in Blackburn has dealt with them, and they have been dealt with satisfactorily.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Straw: I have taken a large number of interventions. I shall give way to the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald, then I shall get on with my speech.
  Miss Widdecombe: I am grateful to the Home Secretary for giving way. I am intrigued by his last answer, which promises special treatment—I am delighted that it does—for the constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans). Can the Home Secretary give a similar assurance to all those with equally urgent business abroad who are biting their fingernails because they have not heard from the passport office, and are in despair because they do not know what will happen? Are the only people who can get such a guarantee to be those whose cases are raised specially in the House?
  Mr. Straw: No, I did not promise the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) special treatment. I did promise him the same kind of treatment as every other right hon. and hon. Member has received from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and his private office.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Straw: I shall proceed with my speech. I have already taken many interventions, as I am always delighted to do. I shall take an intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty),

  153
  then I shall set out other arrangements that we will put in place in respect of applications up against a late travel date.
  Mr. Michael Connarty: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. Is he aware that—not by going through a Member of Parliament but by sending a clear explanatory letter by fax to the Glasgow office—several of my constituents reported that within half an hour they had a reply and a promised delivery date, which was kept to? I have found that if people's cases have a clear priority and there is a deadline to be met, they are dealt with swiftly, without having to go through a Member of Parliament.
  Mr. Straw: If right hon. and hon. Members will bear with me, I shall set out the advice that we are giving about late applications.
  People should apply by post as early as possible, and where possible, at least a month before travelling. People who are not travelling urgently should apply via the Post Office or a World Choice travel agent or direct to the Passport Agency by post. They should make sure that the form is properly completed, and that all documents are enclosed. Eighty per cent. of people apply by post in those ways. UKPA is prioritising all applications by date of travel, which is why we say that, in 99.99 per cent. of cases, people receive their passport on time.
  A small extra charge of £3.20 is levied by the Post Office and World Choice travel agents under an arrangement with the Passport Agency, but Post Office and the travel agent staff are able to pre-check the applications and forward them direct to the agency. Because they have been pre-checked, they are being dealt with a little more quickly than direct applications.
  Those who have not received their passport within seven days of their travel date should go in person, if they can, to their nearest regional passport office. Personal callers should please go to the offices only if their application is urgent—within seven days of their travel date, and not for later travel dates. We also ask people in that predicament not to leave their personal call to the last day, in case there are queries on the application. The agency has assured me that those travelling later in the year will be dealt with within the agreed time.
  Mr. Douglas Hogg rose—
  Mr. Straw: Let me deal with those who need to travel urgently. For the time being, those who need to travel within two weeks and who have not made any application must apply in person at their nearest passport office. Those who need such an urgent passport—I emphasise that this applies to urgent passports—and who for any reason cannot get to an office in person, should write direct to Mr. Kevin Sheehan, director of operations at Clive house. We will send this information in a "dear colleague" letter. I have already said that there will be standing arrangements to deal with constituents' cases.
  154
  Let me—
  Mr. Hogg rose—
  Mr. Straw: No. Let me give—
  Mr. Hogg rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Secretary of State has indicated that he is not giving way, at least for the time being.
  Mr. Straw: Let me deal with the background and the reasons for the current problems. As we know, the agency operates under a framework document set out in May 1996. It set the agency a number of objectives. Among them were measures to prevent and detect passport fraud, introduce a more secure passport and look at ways of involving the private sector in the issuing operation.
  To take that forward, the agency carried out a review of its business during the following year to secure those changes. The information technology system on which passports were issued was 10 years old; the equipment used to print passports was out of date and becoming increasingly difficult to maintain; and the passport did not contain the latest modern security features. A new passport design was therefore needed to provide greater security. The new passport has a range of added security features, including a digital image of the holder and the holder's signature under a high-security laminate.
  The International Civil Aviation Organisation, of which the United Kingdom is a member, set standards for passports, including separate passports for each traveller. The existing passport, in which details of children under 16 could be included on another person's passport without a photograph, does not meet those standards. Some countries—including the United States, Japan, New Zealand, Mexico, Brazil and, from September, Belgium—already insist on separate passports for children. Others have agreed the principle of separate passports, including other EU countries.
  The Passport Agency consulted its user group panel about the introduction of separate passports. The change was generally welcomed, particularly by those groups concerned with preventing child abduction. The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald said various things about the child passport. She said that we should accept for the moment that it is acceptable to introduce the child passport, but she certainly used the word "barmy", and I think that she was describing the issuing of the child passport as barmy.
  One of the organisations that made strong representations to the Government in favour of the introduction of child passports—including and especially passports for babies—was the all-party child abduction group. I have with me the list of members of the group and there are 21 Conservatives on it. I do not know whether the list is inaccurate, but all I can say to the right hon. Lady is that, four names from the bottom, under "W", her name appears. If she wants to correct the record and deny that she is a member I shall of course be happy to hear from her. A group of which she is a member called repeatedly for us to introduce child passports to reduce the incidence and risk of child abduction.
  Miss Widdecombe: Perhaps the Home Secretary will answer the question that I clearly put to him. Even given

  155
  that there might be a case for that measure, why was it necessary to introduce it at the same time as he was introducing new technology? Hansard will show that I said postpone, not abandon.
  Mr. Straw: Silence and a change of subject equals consent. The right hon. Lady is a member of that group and she was associated with the calls to introduce passports for children, including babies, as quickly as possible. Now, she is trying to resile from that.
  Mrs. Helen Brinton: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Straw: If my hon. Friend will hang on, I shall give way in a moment.
  Mr. Hogg: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Straw: I am answering the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald.
  I shall explain why we decided to introduce those changes with effect from 1 October 1998. I may say that the only issue raised by the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison), when my hon. Friend the Minister announced them in April 1998 was cost. I shall deal with that issue. There has been some insinuation that we have introduced the measure only to make money. That is completely incorrect. The cost to the applicant of a child's passport is £11, albeit that such a passport lasts for only five years rather than for 10. The cost of processing the application is £21, which is the same as that for processing an adult passport.
  Although the old passport was available for 10 years, we also ensured that the cost of a child passport was reduced from £18 to £11. We fixed a figure of £11 because that was being charged to amend an existing passport to include children.
  We decided to introduce the changes at this time because we were changing many of the administrative procedures; that included simplifying the application form. If we were to introduce a new information technology system, it was important for it to be durable. It could not involve arrangements whereby at one moment children could be included on other people's passports, and at another moment they could not.
  I understand why the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald asked whether we could have suspended the issue of child passports. That is an entirely fair question, which I raised at an early stage, as did my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary. That was not possible: it would have led to more problems than it would have solved.
  Mr. Richard Allan: I do not disagree with the Home Secretary on the general point about child passports, but I hope that he will accept another correction. In 1997–98, the full economic cost of
  156
  a child passport to the passport service was £9.94. The £21 is the amount charged to an ordinary applicant; the cost of processing an application is far less than that.
  Mr. Straw: I think that the cost of processing a child application is now higher than the cost of the passport itself—but I shall ensure that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary responds.
  Mr. Hogg: Will the Home Secretary give way?
  Mr. Straw: I promised to give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mrs. Brinton).
  Mrs. Brinton: I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way.
  I was very interested by the comments of the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), and by the fact that she had been a member of the all-party group on child abduction. As the current vice-chair of that group, I should like to reassure my right hon. Friend that we called for the passports, and we welcome the passports.
  Mr. Straw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I know that she also represents a large number of passport office staff, and that she will wish to be associated with the thanks that I now put on record for all the work that they have done.
  Mr. Hogg rose—
  Mr. Gerald Howarth rose—
  Sir Peter Emery rose—
  Mr. Straw: The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) has been very persistent, so I will give way to him.
  Mr. Hogg: I actually wanted to ask what I hoped might be a useful question. [HON. MEMBERS: "They are always useful."] Indeed, they are always useful, and even perhaps helpful.
  One of the problems relates to recently expired passports. It is, I think, within the discretion of the Home Secretary to devise ways in which a recently expired passport can be extended. For example, would it not be possible to authorise police stations to extend the current validity of a passport, and would it not be possible to agree with other countries to receive travellers with recently expired passports? I strongly suspect that, if it were necessary to introduce legislation rapidly to make either of those things possible, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) would help the Home Secretary.
  Mr. Straw: I have taken many interventions from the right hon. and learned Gentleman during my time on the Government Benches—and, indeed, when I sat on the other side of the Chamber. Some are helpful and constructive, as were his amendments—stimulated amendments—to the Human Rights Act 1998. This latest intervention is also helpful.

  157
  As I have said, there are already arrangements for extending the validity of passports, and they have helped, but I am not sure that it would be possible to make arrangements for police stations to extend passports. One of the problems is security—not security within the police stations, but ensuring that a proper record is kept at every stage. I shall examine the possibilities, however, and write to the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
  Sir Peter Emery rose—
  Mr. Howarth rose—
  Mr. Straw: Many other Members wish to speak. I have already accepted about three times as many interventions from the opposite Benches as the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald, and I now wish to complete my speech.
  Let me say more about the IT system, and the problems that have arisen. Testing of the new system was completed in time for it to be introduced on a pilot basis in the Liverpool office on 5 October, and in the Newport office six weeks later. The pilot started in the low season for UKPA business, so that disruption to customers could be minimised. However, two significant problems then arose.
  First, the new working processes, which involved additional checking, required more staff than was envisaged. That is true both for the parts of the system operated by the private sector and for the parts operated by the agency.
  Miss Widdecombe: Will the Home Secretary give way?
  Mr. Straw: I will give way to the right hon. Lady in a moment, if she will just listen to the explanation.
  Secondly, some loss of output was expected in the pilot's early stages and was built into the project plans, not least the provision for making the changes in the autumn quiet season and for staffing changes. However, loss of output was greater than the agency anticipated. Despite that, more than 1 million of the new, more secure passports have been issued on the new system. A recent independent audit has confirmed that the new system's design is sound.
  I in no sense minimise the problems and disruption that have been caused to individuals by the difficulties in the passport office, but output since April—since we put the action plan in place—has risen consistently and is now running at record levels: about 150,000 passports a week.
  The Passport Agency increased the number of passport examiners by 250 through recruitment and promotion. Staff throughout the agency have been working high levels of overtime at weekends and in the evenings. However, it is now obvious that the roll-out is lasting longer than the agency expected, and that more staff are required than the agency envisaged at the planning stage.
  On children's passports—the following point is important, too—applications were initially rather less than expected when the new changes came into force in October 1998. That may have given false reassurance to the agency. The agency went to considerable lengths to
  158
  get outside advice from Government statisticians about the likely level of applications from and in respect of children. As it happens, for some months after the introduction of the change, the level of applications was lower, rather than higher, than anticipated,
  I point out two things to those who are concerned about the idea of a baby's photograph being put on a passport. First, of the 400,000 voluntary applications for children's passports, quite a number have been in respect of babies. Secondly, although we all understand that a photograph of a baby may not provide the same identity two or three years later—in some cases, even a few months later—the immigration service and all the child abduction pressure groups say that the totality of the evidence provided by a passport provides far better reassurance and security checking than a simple name on someone else's passport ever does.
  Sir Peter Emery rose—
  Mr. Gerald Howarth rose—
  Mr. Straw: The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald wished to ask a question.
  Miss Widdecombe: It seems that, in that explanation, the right hon. Gentleman has confirmed what we said earlier—there was a coincidence, which I now realise, given the timetable that he has set out, was even closer than I thought. In October, it became law that children had to have their own passports and, again in October, the first experiments were tried. Why were two brand new burdens put on the Passport Agency at exactly the same time? That was underlying all the questions that I asked earlier. I still have not had an answer to that one.
  Mr. Straw: I have given the right hon. Lady an answer. There has never been the least secret about the fact that the change in the application arrangements for children's passports was introduced at the same time as changes in the procedures and the pilot IT system. The two were designed to be integrated, and for good reasons. It was much more cost-effective to do that. As we were making changes to the system by which passports were produced—which will, I hope, last for many years—it made sense at the same time to make changes in the application procedure, which, in respect of children, simplify the procedure; there is one application for each person, not one application that may include a number of other people.
  Sir Peter Emery rose—
  Mr. Howarth rose—
  Mr. Straw: No. That was the last intervention.
  As I have explained, as it happened, the application levels in respect of children in the first five or six months of the new pilots being rolled out were lower, rather than higher, than we anticipated. Since April, however, the intake of applications for both children and adults has shown a significant rise—well in excess of normal seasonal trends. Current figures show intake 40 per cent. higher than last year. If that pattern continues, this year's intake will be the highest ever.

  159
  The agency tells me that intake is expected to fall sharply at some stage next month and that it will then be able to deal quickly with the arrears. It tells me—I expect this to be achieved—that the time for clearing properly completed applications will be down to 10 days by the end of September. With the extra staff now being brought in, the agency expects to be able to hold that level of performance in future.
  The agency has quite rightly deferred plans to roll out the new system into the remaining offices until the arrears are cleared this autumn. It is not true, as the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald has tried to insinuate, that, once the system had been set in train, no alterations were made to the programme to take account of the increase in demand. We have had to make sensible changes to the arrangements to ensure that demand can be coped with.
  Mr. Andrew Miller: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his detailed explanation. I am sure that my constituents will welcome his observations. It is a pity that I did not get an apology when I had to queue all the way round Liverpool passport office, but that was under the previous Administration. I do not remember any apology or any explanation on the record to the House.
  Mr. Straw: It is doubtful whether my hon. Friend would ever have received an apology from a Minister because, as I said earlier, Ministers under the previous Administration were seeking to evade responsibility and, so far as they could, never to say they were sorry.
  The current backlogs have resulted in severe problems with the telephone service. People are understandably anxious when they have submitted their applications some time ago and have not heard anything, so there has been a significant but understandable surge in inquiries by telephone and fax. In May alone, the agency recorded more than 1.5 million calls, many of which have gone unanswered. The agency has had to make the difficult operational decision between using staff to answer the telephone or to concentrate on passport issuing to ensure that passports are received in time to travel. It has chosen to do the latter, but I acknowledge the anxiety and frustration that has resulted, and so does the agency.
  Steps are now being taken to provide an adequate telephone service for passport inquiries. I am sorry to say that those changes will be too late to deal with the current problems. We do know that once turnround times are brought down to 10 days, call volumes will drop dramatically, to levels at which the agency can provide an acceptable service. By the autumn, the agency should have brought the present unsatisfactory situation under control and the extra staff should enable lasting improvements to be made.
  The framework document to which I referred earlier is due for review later this year. The current chief executive, David Gatenby, who has been in post since 1994, told the Home Office late last year of his decision to retire this summer. A new chief executive, Mr. Bernard Herdan, has been appointed to take up his post on 1 October. One of his first tasks will be to conduct the review of the framework document. There will be a substantial independent element in that review and Ministers will be taking a close interest in its outcome.
  160
  I should like to pay tribute to the staff of the agency. They have worked extraordinarily long hours in difficult circumstances to ensure that travel needs are met. I thank the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald for her tribute to the staff. This, at least, is not remotely a party issue. As the right hon Lady and I have seen—as have many of my right hon. and hon. Friends—the staff have shown extraordinary good humour in difficult circumstances.
  Miss Widdecombe: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Straw: No. I am just at the end of my speech.
  I acknowledge that this has been a difficult year for the agency's customers and for the agency itself, for the reasons I have outlined. Despite the difficulties, the agency has continued to meet the travel needs of the vast majority of its customers. In recent weeks, it has not delivered the very high level of service to which the agency and I are committed and which the House expects. I should like to assure the House that firm action is being taken to put the agency's performance back on track and to resolve the difficulties that I have outlined to the House today. I commend the amendment to the House.
  4.49 pm
  Mr. Richard Allan: I should like to start my contribution by echoing the comments of the Home Secretary and the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) in praise of the staff at the Passport Agency. My constituency employees, in common with those of many other hon. Members, have found them extremely courteous when dealing with individual cases. My staff have made some firm friends in the Passport Agency, the Immigration and Nationality Directorate at Croydon and the Child Support Agency over the many happy hours that they have spent on the telephone together dealing with my constituents' business.
  The Home Secretary worried all of us by suggesting that bad luck in the Home Office comes in fours. The right hon. Lady cited three instances, and we are left wondering what the fourth could be. Perhaps it is the Home Secretary's plan to place criminal record checks in the hands of the Passport Agency, to add to its work load. That decision was taken on the basis of its
  "proven track record of discreet delivery of a large application driven service"—[Official Report, 14 December 1998; Vol. 322, c. 356.]—
  and in particular recognition of its
  "experience of procuring information technology using public-private partnership arrangements which will be appropriate for the setting up of the CRB".—[Official Report, 16 June 1999; Vol. 333, c. 159.]
  The Liberal Democrats feel that the proven track record of the agency's ability to set up a new IT system must be called into question in the context of the Criminal Records Bureau.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: I notice that the Liberal Democrat amendment has a specific reference to the IT problems. Have any lessons been learned from the computerisation in Lunar house? Are we satisfied that the consultancies involved have been up to the mark? Can we discover who they are?
  Mr. Allan: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. There are two computer systems. The current

  161
  Administration signed up to the Passport Agency's computer system with Siemens business systems in July 1997, so must take some of the responsibility. They should have learned some lessons from the introduction of the system in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate at Lunar house. That contract was signed by the previous Administration in 1996, and has caused equal if not worse problems.
  Indeed, there seems to be a conspiracy to fill up the country. The IND at Croydon is unable to give foreign nationals their passports back so that they can leave the country, and the Passport Agency is unable to give British nationals passports so that they can leave the country. Some important lessons could be learned about the management of IT contracts by government at both venues, and I hope that the Government will take them on board.
  Mr. Maclean: I am following carefully what the hon. Gentleman says. Has he seen the press release issued by the National Audit Office, which confirms his remarks? The NAO examined the Home Office computerisation programme, and one of its recommendations is:
  "Departments should consider whether a proposed project might be too ambitious to be attempted at one go."
  Mr. Allan: That is an interesting report by a worthy body. As a former IT professional, I take a close interest in these matters. With Government systems—many others have similar problems—hope triumphs over reality. Agencies and organisations try to meet over-ambitious efficiency targets, and they lay off staff ahead of a new computer system that is intended to make savings. A commercial company would not risk doing that. A large utility running a similar business would not take the risks that monopoly suppliers, such as the Passport Agency, have taken.
  Mr. Mark Todd: I too was an IT professional before I entered the House. The experience on this and other projects is that basic disciplines, such as risk analysis before entering a project, project management, clear accountability for running a project, and appropriate contingency planning seem to be missing in the public service.
  Mr. Allan: The hon. Gentleman has outlined a set of good remedial measures, and I hope that they are being noted for future computer projects.
  I have been disappointed by the Government's response to the concerns that have been raised by the Passport Agency—until today, when the Home Secretary has at least come to the Dispatch Box with some form of apology. I was disappointed in their earlier responses, which seemed to shoot the messenger and blame the customer. The Government's view was that if they did not tell people about the problem, it would go away. Their ostrich-like approach has clearly been shown to have failed. Other hon. Members will have had constituents with problems similar to those that exist now, way before any publicity was given to the issue. The problem existed and was shown to be building up for many months. Delays to the average processing time increased month on month.
  162
  My hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) wrote to the Home Office as long ago as April this year, dragging the problem to its attention and seeking a remedy. However, little action was taken until June, when the first recruitment of extra staff took place.
  Mr. Ronnie Fearn: I actually wrote at the end of March and in early April, and perhaps that prompted the Home Secretary to take the initiative. At that time, people at the Liverpool office were desperate and asked me to do all that I could to get some improvement. We have heard that 300 members of staff were put in quite late. Why was there no action in March—when I and, probably, other hon. Members wrote—to put people into the Liverpool office?
  Mr. Allan: My hon. Friend is right. Early action would have saved the Passport Agency money and saved a large number of constituents huge distress.
  In May, my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith)—on behalf of the Liberal Democrats—acted as an early-warning system for the problems by tabling parliamentary questions, and by publicising the fact that there was a problem with the delays and that the average processing time had increased.
  Mr. Harry Barnes: Is the point that the hon. Gentleman is now making about his right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed referred to in the first line of the Liberal Democrat amendment, in which it claims that
  "the Liberal Democrats first exposed the problems at the Passport Agency at the end of May"?
  Questions were being raised in this House from March onwards about the problems, some of which have been mentioned. For instance, I made a speech on the Floor of the House on 26 May—but I would never be immodest enough to table a motion that referred to the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire first exposing the problem at the Passport Agency at the end of May.
  Mr. Allan: I admire the modesty of the hon. Gentleman. We are referring to work done by this party which was widely publicised in the national press. In the context of this debate, we felt that it was important to make sure that the House was aware of the work that had been done. I take nothing away from all hon. Members who have worked on this matter. I particularly give full credit to the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald for her cruise missile strike against the Government today. In this debate, we join her in criticising the Government in the strongest possible terms, in an attempt to achieve some joined-up opposition.
  The right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard)—who, I believe, is a good friend of the right hon. Lady—was a prophet, a Nostradamus of our time. In the UK Passport Agency framework document of May 1996, he stated in the foreword that the agency faced "a challenging period." Clearly, the right hon. Lady is in place now to make the challenges.
  We looked at the problems, in common with many other hon. Members, earlier this year. We were able to show that the applications in March 1999 amounted to a backlog that was 32 per cent. higher than one year beforehand, and that the problem had been growing month

  163
  on month. We noticed in particular that problems existed at the Liverpool office; as a Member representing a northern constituency, I am especially sensitive to problems at the Liverpool office.
  We sought to draw these matters to the attention of the Government, who gave what we felt was a negative response from 31 May until 2 June, when it was said that an extra 300 staff would be recruited. Since then, only one of the six Passport Agency offices has seen its average processing times reduced. In five out of the six offices—on the Passport Agency's own figures—the average processing time is longer now than it was four weeks ago. We now have a backlog of more than 500,000, compared with only 220,000 in March.
  Sir Robert Smith: The Home Secretary alluded to statistics projecting a higher demand earlier in the trial. When the statistics were undershot, alarm bells did not ring about the pent-up demand that would come later. Perhaps the undershooting was misread as a reassurance that there would not be as much of a problem as previously thought.
  Mr. Allan: The problem is the lack of slack and contingency planning to allow for variations. The agency has been under tremendous pressure to make efficiency savings—of 24.5 per cent. from 1995–96 to 1997–98—so it has considered any chink of light and been glad to cut costs anywhere, rather than allowing any slack in the system. A system that fails to deliver has not made efficiency savings: it has made cash savings that have turned out to be inefficiency savings.
  We are concerned about those who have missed their travel dates. According to a parliamentary answer from the Home Office, there were 95 such cases in all in 1998–99. There have been 50 so far this year. We are concerned also about those who did not declare a travel date, because it is quite common not to do so.
  Fifty may sound like a small number, but it represents 50 families whose holidays have been ruined, or people who may have failed to make important engagements abroad. The individuals concerned should be compensated. Another parliamentary answer said that the Passport Agency's current policy is to reimburse, by an ex gratia payment, the reasonable out-of-pocket expenses incurred by customers as a direct consequence of clear operational errors or failure to provide an acceptable level of services; that each case is considered carefully on its merits; and that it is not the agency's normal policy to make compensation for distress and inconvenience arising from such errors and failures.
  Is that still the case? People will be especially interested to know whether there will be compensation for distress and inconvenience, which will in many cases have been considerable. How have the budgets been revised for compensation? In 1998–99, 74 per cent. more was paid in compensation than in 1997–98. What might the total be for this year? That money is being wasted, in the sense that it should never have needed to be paid.
  The Home Office has offered several reasons for the problems that we do not accept. Passports for children serve a useful purpose in preventing abduction. I noted earlier that my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir R. Smith) has a child on his passport. The line adding the child strikes me as
  164
  easily forged, so having a separate document will bring real benefits. It is astonishing, however, that effective preparations for the change were not put in place. There is no excuse for the Passport Agency failing to deliver it effectively.
  I have heard anecdotally that one problem that has arisen is that when one child is issued a passport, the other children in the family want one too. Such human factors could and should have been taken into account.
  We do not believe that it is reasonable to blame the IT system. It is traditional on the telephone to blame the computer.
  Miss Widdecombe: If one can get through.
  Mr. Allan: I will come to that in a minute, as I am quite exercised about the unacceptable standard of service on the telephone.
  How much were Siemens and Security Printing Systems fined, or is it like the Immigration and Nationality Directorate system, in which no fine is levied but the company does not get paid when the system is not running effectively? The system is working, but not as well as it should.
  I know that the Home Secretary has an interest in freedom of information, but I hope that he will not cloak this problem of genuine public concern in a cloud of commercial confidentiality. People who hand over £21 or £31 have a right to understand how that money is spent and whether it is spent well. I hope that commercial confidentiality will not be trotted out as an excuse for not revealing how Siemens has suffered for failing to reach contractually arranged targets.
  How much has been levied on the Immigration and Nationality Directorate contract, where the problems have been even more extreme? A pattern is evident that needs to be examined as a whole. It is not enough simply to take each information technology system in isolation, as the lessons will apply to the delivery of any such system.
  High seasonal demand was one of the original reasons put forward to explain the delays. That is a "leaves on the track" argument and is unacceptable. High seasonal demand is a recurrent feature. A person who telephones British Gas with a complaint in the middle of winter is not told that the high demand for gas in winter means that the complaint cannot be satisfied. Responses such as that from any of the comparable utilities would put them out of business. One of the matters needing attention is the extent to which a monopoly supplier can extend periods of inefficiency because people have no choice of supplier.
  Mr. MacShane: The demand for passports has risen by nearly 200,000 since 1997. Does not that show that people are happier under a Labour Government, that they want to travel more and that they have the money to do so? It is not a matter of seasonal demand, but of our Government's success.
  Mr. Allan: The hon. Gentleman has his view, but others may suggest that people are fleeing from the present condition of the country. I do not want to get into that debate, but the Government should have been able to plan for the happiness factor when they took office. Two years ago, they should have anticipated the wealth that they were going to create, and required the Passport

  165
  Agency to issue more passports. Whatever the real cause of the delays—the hot summer weather or the Government's successes or failures—it is no longer acceptable to cite seasonal demand as the reason for the failure properly to deliver public services.
  The utility providers do not behave in this way any more, because regulators monitor their operations, yet Ministers are ready to attack any other provider of a core service that fails to deliver. When the train services fail to meet their targets, Ministers line up to criticise them. They levy fines and believe that the system of regulation governing those providers should be strengthened. We agree about that, but why should the Passport Agency be exempt from the general structure? A target is a target, and there are penalties if it is not achieved.
  Miss Widdecombe: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I had a question that I wanted to ask the Home Secretary, but he had become rather exhausted and would not take it. Given that the Home Secretary accepts responsibility for what has gone wrong—and the number of things that have gone wrong, for which he has also accepted responsibility, is really rather large—does not the hon. Gentleman think that the time may have come for the right hon. Gentleman to expect a penalty to be imposed on him?
  Mr. Allan: Certainly. One of the more depressing aspects of the matter is that it seems that the compensation and fines that are paid or levied will be added to the customer's costs. Passport applications will therefore cost more, which is unacceptable. The Passport Agency is self-funding, but its structure needs examination if a more rigorous system, ensuring that standards are met and not resiled from, is to be achieved. We must make sure that customers do not end up paying for the failure of the service provider.
  I shall close with several suggestions for ways forward to deal with what I consider to be the key priorities, but first the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) seems very keen to intervene.
  Mr. Andrew Tyrie: Incompetent planning was mentioned earlier, and it is clear that, whatever the reason, the planning was appalling and left much to be desired. Does the hon. Gentleman know whether the Government's estimates take account of the pound's strength on the foreign exchanges? Is not that likely to increase the number of people wanting to go abroad and therefore applying for passports? Should not the Government say whether the exchange rate was incorporated in estimates of the number of passports that will be demanded?
  Mr. Allan: I am amazed by the number of wider factors that can be introduced to this debate. It might be even more dangerous to discuss currencies and exchange rates, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, than it would have been to debate the more general economic conditions mentioned by the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane).
  I want to offer the Home Secretary some positive pointers towards key improvements. First, there should be a telephone call centre. People come to our surgeries
  166
  because they cannot get through on the telephone. Again and again people say that they are sorry to bother us, but they have been on the phone for hours. They are not exaggerating, and that is not acceptable. Utilities set strict targets, answering 80 per cent. or 90 per cent. of calls within a specified number of rings. The targets are monitored, and the regulator checks them. Anything less than the target is deemed unacceptable.
  Setting up a call centre system would bring considerable savings to the Passport Agency. We have been told that one way around the problem is to write to the agency, but I cannot believe, given the modern technology of 1999, that answering letters can be cheaper than answering telephone calls. The Passport Agency would save money by having a call centre in which people with computers could answer basic queries about the progress of an application, preventing people whose applications relate to August and September from queueing, as the Under-Secretary wishes them not to do. The problems would be greatly reduced if people could simply get through on the telephone.
  The cost of a modern call centre should not be inordinate. The utilities, for example, with their high seasonal demand, can spill over from one call centre to another. The hon. Member for Rotherham would surely agree that south Yorkshire is an excellent site for a call centre, as the area is already developing centres in abundance.
  We must also offer guaranteed service targets for processing times. The number of days before travel at which the passport will arrive is critical to the applicant. It is not acceptable to tell a customer that he or she will receive documents before travel, but that they may arrive one or two days before. We cannot tolerate that level of service, as it would generate queries and personal applications. The agency should be able to say that, if people have applied four weeks ahead of the date of travel, the passport should be guaranteed to arrive at least a week ahead. I hope that the Government can accept that target, as well as learning lessons about the information technology contracts and making improvements for the future.
  Has there been any progress on consideration of a photocard passport, as mentioned in the agency's report for 1997-98, following the introduction of the photocard driving licence? It seems bizarre that someone who has obtained a passport at great expense and trouble, and who is travelling only within the European Union, will have the passport checked in the most cursory way. We have abolished embarkation controls. The airlines check passports because of carriers' liability, but documents are not checked in detail.
  Security issues arise over the issuing of full 10-year passports to people who take only an occasional trip within the European Union. A proper balance must be struck between the desire for secure border controls and the issue of documents that are unnecessarily inconvenient to the customer and a risk to security. The Home Secretary said that the Passport Agency deals with one of the greatest volumes of demand in the world, and that is probably because we have so much intra-European Union travel. Yet, almost exceptionally within the EU, we require a full passport. Following the removal of the one-year British visitors passport, have the Government done any work on alternative documents for travel within the EU?

  167
  I hope that the Minister will respond to those substantive points, and I am grateful to him for coming to the Dispatch Box with an apology.
  5.15 pm
  Mr. Bill O'Brien: First, I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on the way in which he has dealt with the issue and explained to the House and the country the reasons for the problems that the UK Passport Agency has encountered. I also congratulate him on offering a reasonable apology to everyone concerned for what happened at the agency.
  Like many other hon. Members, I have received representations from constituents who have had difficulties in obtaining their passports. With the exception of one, all the representations that I made have been accepted and my constituents have received their passports in time to meet dates for holidays or business trips. Therefore, I must also offer my congratulations, as my right hon. Friend and others have done, to the staff of the UK Passport Agency for their work in the past four or five weeks to deal with the problems that they have encountered. I know for a fact that the chief executive and other senior members of staff have been working long hours to try to resolve the problems that have faced the agency recently.
  I visited the passport office in London a few months ago. I was concerned about the number of fraudulent applications for passports—I understand that about 1,400 instances of people applying for passports illegally have been discovered by the agency in the past year. We should never lose sight of that problem. We must have tight control over applications for passports to ensure that only bona fide applicants receive them. There must be tremendous pressure on that section of the UK Passport Agency that ensures that passports are vetted to such a degree that people do not obtain them fraudulently or illegally. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will insist that that issue is a prime concern of the agency.
  I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary who, I understand, has been involved with the agency ever since the problem emerged and has updated Members of Parliament on the way in which the issue has been handled. My hon. Friend and members of his Department did not relax their efforts to ensure that people who had applied for passports received them in time to depart on holiday or on business.
  The queues have been mentioned this afternoon and we should clear up that problem. I was disappointed in the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), who was reluctant to give way to Labour Members. She intervened on my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan), the spokesman for the Liberal Democrats, no fewer than six times. The right hon. Lady made a full contribution—40 minutes at the Dispatch Box—and intervened on other speeches, but was reluctant to give way when Labour Members tried to intervene. That was most unreasonable. Although the right hon. Lady has said that she is a reasonable person, she did not demonstrate that this afternoon.
  The hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) is no longer in his place, but he said that he has seen queues only on a Tuesday. That is because he only passes the
  168
  office on a Tuesday. If he had been there on Monday, Wednesday, Thursday or Friday, he would have witnessed the queues. In my experience, there have been queues for the past 16 years; queueing has always been with us. We are concerned that the queues have lengthened, but people have always gone to the passport office to pick up a passport for the same day, or within 24 or 48 hours. Queueing has always been an accepted way to obtain a passport. However, we should now try to ensure that there should be no reason whatever for queueing. As a result of our debate on this important matter, I hope that we can find a way to prevent queueing at the passport office.
  Mr. Maclean: A few years ago, I used to live in that area. There were short queues during the summer months, but nothing on the scale that we have seen recently. Is it not true that people queued at Petty France because, in the past, one could obtain a passport quickly? It was a convenient way to get a passport on the same day. People now have to queue because they cannot get a passport by any other means—the normal, conventional means of writing to the passport office.
  Mr. O'Brien: I challenge that point. People who are queueing today, and who queued yesterday and the day before, did so because they wanted their passports urgently. People present their case early in the morning and are allowed to return in the afternoon to collect their passports; indeed, some people collect their passports there and then.
  Although I accept that there is a problem and that that is unsatisfactory, we should remember that there has always been a problem. People have always presented themselves at the office to get a passport urgently. We should have a system in which, if people need a passport urgently, they can obtain one urgently, without having to queue outside the passport offices. The inclement weather gives rise to a further concern; no one wants people to queue in the rain to obtain a passport—or for any other purpose. When my right hon. Friend considers the future of the Passport Agency and the distribution of passports, I hope that he will try to ensure that people do not have to queue outside the offices at all.
  There must be new information technology to develop the service, but that technology must be secure, as well as ensuring that the service is speeded up. It is rather sad that the new IT equipment provided by Siemens failed, and has not yet been put right. One of the problems that we face at present is that we relied too much on that new technology at two offices. It has not delivered the service that the Passport Agency wanted.
  The Government's amendment notes that we must maintain security at all times. I prefaced my contribution to the debate by pointing out that I was concerned about security a few months ago. I visited the passport office and witnessed some of the illegal and fraudulent means that people use to obtain passports. The staff are to be congratulated on finding out about those frauds. The Government's amendment makes the only reference to security in our agenda for the debate.
  I appeal to the House: if we sincerely want to find a way forward, to reorganise the Passport Agency and to introduce a better system for the future, we should give the Government's amendment our support. I shall support the amendment because it not only outlines but the current

  169
  problems refers to the important issue of security. I appeal to hon. Members on both sides of the House to support the amendment because it offers the best proposal for the Passport Agency.
  5.25 pm
  Mr. James Clappison: My right hon. and hon. Friends deserve many congratulations for raising in an Opposition day debate the subject of delays in the issue of passports, because such delays are a cause of inconvenience, hardship and anxiety to many hundreds of thousands of our constituents. The importance to many people of their annual holiday should not be overlooked; our constituents will want answers to the questions that have been asked today and assurances that lessons have been learned from this sorry episode.
  I give credit to the Home Secretary for endeavouring, in the latter part of his speech, to answer some of those questions. It is kinder to draw a veil over his earlier remarks, especially his references to the previous Government. The right hon. Gentleman adverted to agencies, but he appears to have changed his mind about agencies and their responsibilities.
  Mr. Strawindicated dissent.
  Mr. Clappison: Well, agencies might be one of the matters on which the right hon. Gentleman has not changed his mind, but there is a long list of subjects on which he has changed his mind since entering government. That long list includes privatisation of prisons—he looks quizzical, but I remember many criticisms of private prisons uttered by the then Labour Opposition. The list also covers subjects such as the right of silence; freedom of information, on which he has recently made a decision; carriers' liability; and employers' liability for checks on illegal immigrants, on which point he has reversed a promise made by the previous Government. As for today's explanation of the Passport Agency's difficulties, the jury is still out—which is another matter on which he has changed his mind.
  Mr. Straw: It is of great interest that the Conservatives are having to draft in junior Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen to speak from the Back Benches in this debate—that says something. I have not changed my mind about the relationship between agencies and central Government. My position is the same today as it was in opposition: agencies have a role to play, but my concern was and is about the nature of the relationship and about whether Ministers should take responsibility for what went on within agencies in difficult circumstances.
  Mr. Clappison: I entirely accept the Home Secretary's statement, but he has to accept that his assertion about agencies stands in stark contrast to the large number of serious constitutional matters on which he has changed his mind and which I have just listed.
  The right hon. Gentleman asks why I take an interest in this subject. I have a personal interest, because my wife and children are among those queueing for a passport. Furthermore, a number of my constituents are in the same position. As the right hon. Gentleman knows well, I have
  170
  always taken a great interest in the activities of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate and I have asked a large number of questions about that organisation in the past; at the most recent session of Home Office questions, I took up that issue with him.
  I listened carefully to the Home Secretary's explanation today, but at the end of his speech several questions asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) remained unanswered. My right hon. Friend asked the important question: why was a decision taken last year to introduce new technology at the same time as a requirement for children to have their own passport?
  The Home Secretary has given his reasons for that decision, and it will be for others to judge the weight and the importance of those reasons in the light of subsequent events. In fairness, he must concede at least that, having taken the decision, it was incumbent upon Ministers to be on their guard, to monitor how the new system was bearing up and to take every precaution against the appearance of the familiar glitches that affect new technology.
  The right hon. Gentleman admitted today that Ministers became aware of the problem last March. Ministers admitted at the beginning of May, in written answers, that they were aware of operational difficulties. If Ministers were aware as early as March this year that something was going wrong with the issuing of passports, it is reasonable to question whether they did enough to try to prevent the sorts of problems that have arisen involving people and their summer holidays. Many people who listen to or study this debate will draw scant consolation from the Home Secretary's undertaking today that, as a result of the measures now being put in place, people can expect the system to be operating by September. That will be far too late for many of our constituents.
  Members of Parliament are privileged in that we have a long summer recess during which we can choose when to take our summer holidays. Of course, hon. Members are busy during the recess performing additional parliamentary duties in their constituencies, but at least we have the opportunity to choose when to take our summer holidays during that relatively long period. Many of our constituents—particularly employees—do not have that facility. They have limited holiday allocations every year and they must take them at a certain time. Our constituents often look forward to their holidays for a long time—many of them book their holidays immediately after Christmas. They have made arrangements and paid for them and their children expect to go on holiday. Therefore, they are in a state of great anxiety when questions arise as to whether they will be able to take their holidays.
  Mr. MacShane: If people book their holidays in December and they are aware that they or their children require passports, why can they not apply for them in January, February, March or April?
  Mr. Clappison: The hon. Gentleman must concede that members of the public could reasonably expect to have received their passports much sooner. I listened to the hon. Gentleman's rather curious explanation as to why more people are holidaying abroad. I have mentioned my family, but I am not pleading my own case because we

  171
  may take only a short break abroad this year. I enjoy my holiday at the English seaside, and I had a wonderful time last year in Devon. I shall not take any lectures from the hon. Gentleman and new Labour about where I should spend my summer holidays. We are as likely to find followers of new Labour at the English seaside as we are to see the Minister for the Cabinet Office travelling economy class.
  Mr. Maclean: I hope that my hon. Friend will condemn more strongly the outrageous comments of the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane). It is yet another example of the Government trying to blame the public: it is their fault for wanting to go on holiday. Some of my constituents applied for passports last November, in January and in February—and they are still waiting. Blaming the public is grubby and unacceptable and it is beneath the hon. Member for Geneva.
  Mr. Clappison: I think I may have been a little harsh with the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane). I am sure that he will tell us in due course that he makes an annual trek to the Blackpool illuminations and the sands of Scarborough.
  Sir Robert Smith: It is not only holiday makers who are affected. My office received a telephone call today from parents who are extremely worried because their daughter is due to travel abroad on Sunday with a guide trip and she has not yet received her passport. The hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) made a very important point: the uncertainty is damaging people's holiday plans. People look forward to that yearly event, whether it is a holiday or a guide trip abroad.
  Mr. Clappison: We should not underestimate the real hardship and anxiety that the delays will cause. It has prompted people to take days off work in order to make long journeys to passport offices. For example, today's edition of the Evening Standard reports that a man arrived at the London passport office at 2.30 am to get a passport for his six-year-old daughter so that she can travel abroad with her class. We need to take into account how much anxiety the situation is causing our constituents. It is no good our constituents being told that they are panicking. It is understandable that people experience anxiety in those circumstances, especially when they are planning to take their young children abroad—they are not panicking.
  We have been reassured that people will be able to telephone passport offices, and there have been calls for more telephone facilities. I hope that those who telephone the passport offices will have more joy than the thousands of overseas visitors who, we hear, were telephoning the Immigration and Nationality Directorate, which is in chaos, to try to get back their passports. In a written answer to me, the Under-Secretary said that every day in March, 42,000 calls were made to the Immigration and Nationality Directorate, but only 1,637 were answered. I was also told:
  "Many calls are repeat calls and, therefore, these statistics must be approached with caution".—[Official Report, 17 May 1999; Vol. 331, c. 261.]
  The Government draw consolation from that fact.
  It is not much consolation to be told that MPs should get in touch with passport offices. When we contacted
  172
  the Under-Secretary about the problems experienced by overseas visitors with the IND, he wrote back on 5 March to tell us that
  "it is disappointing to note that the number of enquiries from MPs has risen over the recent period by a factor of around 25 per cent. As I said in my letter of 12 January, it is to an extent in Members' hands how long it takes IND to return to normal levels of productivity. I would appreciate your help in ensuring that this happens by Easter."
  Mr. Nigel Waterson: Does my hon. Friend share my slight unease that MPs should have that fast-track approach? Of course we are here to help our constituents—in the past few days, I have been able to help a constituent of mine with such a problem, and I am grateful for the help that we received from officials—but what about those members of the public who do not think of approaching their MP, or who have an MP who is not as available or as assiduous as all the hon. Members now present in the Chamber?
  Mr. Clappison: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Of course MPs of all parties will do their best to help their constituents, but we should not rely on MPs having to take up such cases, especially when there are, as we have heard, 500,000 cases outstanding. That merely channels people from one queue to another.
  People in the queue will not draw much consolation from the time scale proposed by the Minister in a letter to Members. He has been praised for all the letters that he has written to us. In his letter of 10 June, he concluded:
  "The problem is only temporary and we believe that it will be resolved in the very near future."
  The Minister's time scale will be rather different from that of our constituents, who want to go on their holidays in July and August and for whom it will not be much consolation if the matter is resolved by September.
  I do not want to be unkind to the Minister because he has had a lot on his plate. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) referred to the parallel problems in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate concerning overseas visitors who are experiencing delays in getting back their passports. Queues have lengthened in the immigration and asylum system.
  As I said to the Minister earlier, he is perfectly fair and does not discriminate: the queue for people trying to get out of the country is as long as that for people trying to stay in the country. The hon. Gentleman has displayed such great aptitude for preventing anybody from going anywhere that he would be a natural candidate for Minister for prison security. Nobody would want to escape because the queue would be too long, and in any case, any would-be escapers would be let out much earlier by the Minister because of early release and tagging schemes.
  The hon. Gentleman has parallel queues to deal with. The Government, and above all the Home Secretary and the Under-Secretary, need to take on board the fact that this has been a sorry episode and lessons must be learned. It is right for this matter to be raised in the House; it has caused much inconvenience and there must be detailed answers to the questions that have been asked. The problems cause great hardship to many of our constituents. We need Ministers to accept responsibility—rather than to tell us that the public or MPs are to blame—and to analyse where things have gone wrong. They must ensure that lessons are learned from this sorry debacle.
  5.40 pm
  Mr. Denis MacShane: I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison), who made some very good and sensible points.
  This has been a useful debate. Despite the fact that we all read that the House of Commons never affects what the Government want to do, I expect that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, would rather that this debate had not taken place. Perhaps it has accelerated some management decisions that needed to be taken.
  Now that we are in calmer waters, the queue to speak is much shorter than those outside passport offices, and the Front-Bench cruisers have left the Chamber for a cup of tea—one of them, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, has just returned—perhaps we can discuss the matter seriously. I am glad that we have a Home Secretary who is prepared to say sorry and accept responsibility in the House of Commons. That is one heck of a change from the previous Administration.
  It disappointed me that the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) did not offer a single solution. She is wallowing in the publicity of going down to the queues in Petty France, but not proposing one—just one—solution. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) proposed some solutions, the hon. Member for Hertsmere proposed some, but the right hon. Lady, who is no longer in her place, did not propose one.
  In her attack on the Passport Agency, I was not sure whether the right hon. Lady was demanding that it should be re-nationalised—I wonder whether that is the new Conservative policy—or that it should be totally privatised. Perhaps it can be sold to Harrods and we can all go there to get a passport in a brown paper bag from Mr. Al Fayed.
  We should set this debate in a slightly broader context. A century ago, it would not have happened; we did not need passports then. When Palmerston said 150 years ago that all people had to say was "Civis Britannicus sum" and the might of Britain would defend them, one did not have to carry a passport. Passports are a product of 20th century state bureaucracy and were introduced after the first world war.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien), whose remarks deserve careful attention, talked about security. As a country, we are a shining example to the rest of the world in that we do not demand any papers or passports from citizens of a sovereign country—the Republic of Ireland—whose policies have often opposed our own. I remember going on holiday there regularly as a boy—I still go on holiday there. One of course does not need any papers to enter the country. I wish that passports protected our country from the problems of drugs or terrorism, but I am afraid that such evidence is scant.
  Ernie Bevin, our great Foreign Secretary, said that he dreamed of the day when a British citizen could go to Victoria station and buy a ticket to anywhere in the world without worrying about papers. Passports have always been a sensitive issue for politicians in this country. According to Mr. Tony Benn—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must remember that we refer to Members by their constituencies.
  Mr. MacShane: In his diary entry of a Cabinet meeting in 1978, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), whom some of us will be very sorry to see leave this place, recorded that, when it was first proposed that the European-style passport would replace the old, blue, stiff, leather board passport, my noble Friend Lord Shore said that it would be introduced over his dead body. I am glad to say that Lord Shore is alive and well and still fighting the great anti-European cause in another place.
  I have one of those old stiff blue leather passports, for the simple reason that I once turned up in a Gulf state because my plane broke down coming back from Australia, and I found that, because my passport had the stamp of Israel in it, I was not allowed in. Everyone else was put up in a Hilton and given lots of nice food and drink for 48 hours; I was stuck in the airport. I was able to get a second British passport—I do not know whether that is still possible.
  If one goes to funny countries, one can get a second passport. [Laughter.] That was true for South Africa. Hon. Members may laugh, but many exporters from this country faced that problem. It is a genuine problem, which does not deserve to be treated with flippancy by Opposition Members.
  The Passport Agency managed to lose my passport and birth certificate five years ago, so I am not necessarily its biggest fan.
  What are the causes of the present problem? Hon. Members enjoyed themselves when I gently suggested that an extra 200,000 people applying this year was a tribute to the fact that British citizens enjoy their holidays abroad. They have a stronger pound, and more of them are in work. I do not know whether that can be factored into the way in which the Passport Agency plans its activities, but it certainly was not.
  The British visitors passport was withdrawn by the previous Government. That was the automatic passport for many of my constituents. They went to the post office, showed their birth certificate, got their pink passport and off they went on their holidays. My purpose is not to lay blame, but the withdrawal of a popular and much-used travel document without the introduction of adequate replacement mechanisms cannot be attributed to the present Government.
  There is the further problem of children requiring a separate passport. I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald is not in her place. I thought that she was flippantly irresponsible in her handling of the subject. Each year, 120 children are abducted. To say that a baby's picture on the passport is no hindrance to anyone planning an abduction is nonsense. The children cannot simply be put on the parent's passport. A husband or wife who wants to take the children out of the country must go through the procedure of getting a separate passport for each child. That must help to slow down an extremely serious problem. The right hon. Lady dealt with it with disgraceful flippancy.
  The computer contract was drawn up under the previous Administration. Perhaps my right hon. Friend should not have signed it, but I pay tribute to him for being honest and communicating with hon. Members. He has done his best. I have had problems in my constituency—
  Mr. Maclean: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. How honest was it to distribute a photograph and say that there was good news—there were no queues round the passport offices last Friday?
  Mr. MacShane: I am not responsible for what the Liverpool Daily Post publishes. I recall queueing up at Petty France in the 1970s and 1980s to get a passport.
  The problem is that some exceptional cases have arisen. It is also linked to the Immigration and Nationality Directorate problem, and reflects the extent to which London has become a great global city in recent years. There are 100,000 French people working in the UK. We open our arms to them. People from abroad work in our country on a scale that was not envisaged five or 10 years ago. That explains the number of people applying for passports or applying to have their passports renewed. Unlike the isolationist, anti-European, xenophobic Conservative party, I welcome the fact that we have many foreigners working in Britain and that many of our citizens want to travel to Europe and elsewhere.
  Mr. Allan: The hon. Gentleman seems to be suggesting that the problem may grow, rather than reduce, with increasing globalisation. Can we ever reach a point at which there will be no queues, we have a genuinely efficient system and we stop blaming one Government or another? What are his ideas for achieving that?
  Mr. MacShane: As they say in "Under Milk Wood", I am coming to that.
  I have here my mobile phone—switched off, Mr. Deputy Speaker—which is on the One2One network; hon. Members should try getting through on it at any time of the day or night. We can have all the call centres in the world, but there will still be huge queues.
  The real problem is that the Conservative party has enjoyed the problems created by what is undoubtedly a worrying situation. I ask all hon. Members to put their hands on their hearts. I wanted to intervene on the hon. Member for Hertsmere to ask how many individual cases have been referred to him. I have had cases referred to me, and I have tried to sort them out. I had such cases last year and the year before, and I had them when he was a Minister. I expect that I shall have them for years to come.
  The almost total absence of Conservative Members from the debate shows that the problems have not been quite as they have recounted, but we should move to discussing real solutions that might work. I return to an exchange that I had with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary at the previous Home Office questions. We should consider whether the time has come for Britain to issue voluntary national identity cards. That relates to what the hon. Member for Hallam said about a travel document.
  Mr. Allan: I should make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that I am not in favour of identity cards. I was referring to the Passport Agency's own document, which says that
  "Ministers indicated their wish to pursue the introduction of a photocard passport"
  on the back of the driving licence, which is a photocard. I was not referring to a separate ID card.
  Mr. MacShane: The hon. Gentleman is making a meal of that. Whatever we call it, the purpose of such a card
  176
  would be to provide proof of identity. People can travel from the United States into Canada or Mexico using a driver's licence, which has a photograph on it and is a slightly more secure document than our driver's licence. In much of the rest of Europe, people whizz backwards and forwards across frontiers, just as the citizens of Ireland can come to this country and we can go there without showing papers.
  Nearly every citizen in Europe can travel on an ID card. I have two here—I hasten to add that they do not belong to me. The French national identity card is voluntary and issued locally. The German identity card is compulsory, but it records little information. When it is renewed every 10th year, a completely new number is issued. As hon. Members can imagine, the Germans are extremely sensitive about compulsory ID cards. The countries that have voluntary ID cards are France, Austria, Finland, the Netherlands and Sweden. Cards are compulsory in other European Union member states. Gibraltar issues an ID card and people can travel on it. It is slightly odd that Britain is so far behind its own colony in issuing ID cards.
  This matter was discussed under the previous Government. I refer to the Home Affairs Committee fourth report of 1996, which, in paragraph 31, concluded:
  "there is a definite benefit to be obtained from use of an ID card as a valid travel card within Europe."
  The response of the Government of the day was to accept that recommendation, but nothing was carried forward in their dying days.
  There are discussions in Whitehall about a new driver's licence and—although wishes may be ahead of reality and there may not be such a card for some time—slightly more futuristic discussions about a card for social security and perhaps even tax arrangements are taking place. We may have to wait some time, but the driver's licence, if member states would accept it as an ID card, would more than fulfil my requirements.
  Last year, I went with my wife to Spain for a wedding anniversary party. I arrived at Heathrow and found that I had forgotten my passport, which was the end of what was meant to be a lovely weekend. Had this country—like Gibraltar, other European countries and the United States—issued a wallet-sized ID card to its inhabitants, I would have been able to fulfil all her dreams and take her away for that happy weekend in Spain, but it could not start for another 24 hours.
  A wallet-sized ID card is one solution. Conservative Members have been wallowing in the problem, but the hon. Member for Hallam has proposed another, concrete, solution, as I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) and other hon. Members will do. We know that Conservative Members are not keen on British citizens going to Europe because they might learn something. They are locked into isolationism, which is the shame of modern Toryism. The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald was so keen to encourage travel that she used to shackle pregnant women to their prison beds. She never once came to the House to say sorry for that.
  I applaud my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I admire the willingness of my hon. Friend the Minister to take responsibility—something that never happened under the previous Government. Following the positive welcome for voluntary ID cards that my right hon. Friend offered in the House four weeks ago, will my hon. Friend

  177
  set up a working party to take forward the Home Affairs Committee report and consider combining such a card with the driver's licence? That would enable many more of us to have a permanent ID card that would at least allow us to travel in Europe without having to carry or obtain the full British passport.
  5.57 pm
  Mr. Nigel Waterson: I am delighted to participate in the debate and it is a real pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane). This is very much a new Labour issue, although I cannot imagine the average new Labour person, of whom he is a prime example, having such a problem. They all have well-thumbed passports, as I am sure he does. He was good enough to share with us a number of aliases and showed us several cards as well as a riveting array of electronic and other equipment, which he carries about his person. No doubt all that will get him out of a tight corner when necessary—he is a James Bond figure in that respect.
  Not all our constituents, and not all the hon. Gentleman's constituents, spend their lives jetting backwards and forwards between this country and Geneva, occasionally being forced to "de-plane" in unpleasant parts of the world other than Geneva. We can imagine the strain that that puts on him and people of his persuasion. As we all know, he is never happier than when travelling to other countries to explain that the Prime Minister loves the euro and that people should not believe everything they read in the English newspapers.
  The Home Secretary was uncharacteristically churlish today when trying to explain his role and that of other Ministers in this debacle. He sometimes has to play on a sticky wicket, and there are not many stickier than this particular wicket, but in the past he has come to the House with a certain grace, a certain style and good-humoured willingness to shrug his shoulders and take the blame, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) put it. Today, he came out swinging and took refuge in a great deal of unnecessary and painfully transparent bluster to try to cover over the appalling state of affairs at the Passport Agency.
  We must not forget that there are some human stories behind today's debate. Hardly a Member cannot have been contacted by constituents who are sometimes in a state of near panic, and not simply because they want to go on holiday—although for most people in this country, unlike the hon. Member for Rotherham and his new Labour chums, foreign travel is a relatively rare event. They look forward to it throughout the year, save up for it and, in many instances, organise it a long time in advance.
  Despite what the hon. Gentleman suggested at one point, we are not talking about irresponsible people who have waited until the last moment to apply for their passports. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) said, such people may have booked their holidays many months in advance, and also applied for passports in good time. They then have the galling experience of finding that their cheques have been cashed almost instantly by an otherwise overwhelmed organisation—there is clearly no problem of staff shortage in the section that deals with the cashing of cheques on behalf of the Passport Agency—only for months to go by without a passport appearing.
  178
  Only the other day, a lady constituent rang my office. She was really quite distressed. She had applied for a passport for her daughter, who was born in January last year. This is an example of the effects of the new rule that is apparently causing so much of the backlog. She applied in late April; they were going on holiday in the middle of July. I do not think it unreasonable to apply for a passport in April if one knows that one is going on holiday in mid-July.
  That lady had heard nothing. She had sent a recorded letter, and had still heard nothing. She had tried telephoning, without success. I think we have heard that some 1.2 million such unsuccessful telephone calls have been made. She rang me in desperation, asking if there was anything I could do. I am pleased to say that, with considerable help from officials, I was able to solve the problem. My constituent has received a passport for her very young daughter, and the family will be able to go on holiday as planned.
  Two things make me uneasy, however. The first is the fact that the family had to go through all that simply to obtain a passport. Secondly, as I said earlier, it makes me slightly uneasy when a Member of Parliament, whatever his party, has to become involved in situations such as this—in what ought to be a mundane and purely administrative function. What ought to happen is this: people should send in the form and the money, and, given that everything is in order, the passport should be delivered within a few days. In fairness, the Home Secretary accepts that that is what ought to happen, and he tells us that it is what will happen in due course, when the backlog has been dealt with.
  What is worrying is that, for every person in such circumstances who thinks of contacting me, there may be any number in my constituency—and in other hon. Members' constituencies—who have not thought of contacting their Member of Parliament. Others may have thought, as people sometimes do, "I cannot bother my MP about something like this." And how many others have tried to contact MPs who are busy or unavailable, and could not help them?
  Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. Will he also reflect on the position of those who do not approach their MP, but make representations to the authorities, and are enjoined to pay a special and unscheduled visit to the nearest office—and, having done so, incur a considerable cost? Is it not unfair that people who have to make such visits—through no fault of their own—and who may be of modest means should suffer financially as a consequence?
  Mr. Waterson: My hon. Friend also makes a powerful point, which had not occurred to me thus far. It is said that compensation is available to those whose holidays are ruined as a result of such ineptitude, but what about those who take a day off work and spend that day queuing up at the passport office? The Minister may not have had a chance to think about that, but he may be able to deal with it when he winds up the debate. Is there any thought of compensating those who, having taken time off work, incur expenses such as the cost of travelling from one end of the country to the other, because the queues at Liverpool have allegedly disappeared and they think that they would do better to try their luck there?

  179
  We are not talking about people like the hon. Member for Rotherham. We are talking about instances in which, if people take a day off work, someone notices, it makes a difference, and they must make up for it in some way. Their employers may expect them to work an extra day in lieu, or to take a cut in pay. That is a serious situation for people who may have pushed their family budgets to the limit in order to afford a holiday in the first place.
  A parallel problem is that of people who have handed their passports to the Immigration and Nationality Directorate, for which the Under-Secretary is also responsible. I received a letter from a constituent about this. It concerned a couple—the wife is Slovakian—who deposited their passports with the Home Office in October 1998. My constituent finally got around to writing to me in February this year, saying that the couple had heard absolutely nothing. The letter says:
  "You cannot ring the Home Office and they have not even had an acknowledgement that their matter is being dealt with and that the Passports have arrived."
  Such examples are legion. Another constituent contacted me only this month. Again, the wife was a foreign national, whose original visa had expired. The couple had contacted the Home Office in the usual way, leaving plenty of time. The Home Office replied apologising for the inconvenience—which is at least a step forward—and mentioning renovation works. It added the following galling sentence:
  "Please do not hesitate to telephone the above number if you need assistance."
  Not unreasonably, my constituent thought, "I think I will telephone that number and tell them that I need some assistance." He told me in the letter that he had spent from 8.59 am until 4.5 pm on the day before he wrote to me trying to reach the Home Office. The letter states:
  "All day I received either the engaged tone or … recorded message."
  It continues:
  "These people are destroying our lives.
  We are two legally married people from our Commonwealth. I am and always have been a British citizen."
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): I am trying to follow the hon. Gentleman's speech, but I am a little confused. Is he talking about the IND or the UKPA? Am I right in thinking that he is talking about the IND?
  Mr. Waterson: I am at the moment, but I am describing a parallel problem. If the Minister will allow me, I shall pull all the threads together towards the end of my speech.
  My constituent wrote:
  "I am battling, and winning, my fight with Brain Cancer. I just want a peaceful life living with my wife in my country."
  Those are just examples that I pulled out of my mailbag for the purpose of today's debate, but each represents a potential human tragedy. Certainly these are individuals who deserve better, but are not receiving the service that they should be receiving.
  On, I think, 24 June we were told that the number of outstanding applications had more than doubled, to more than half a million. We know of instances in which people have waited for more than 12 weeks for passports. As we
  180
  have heard, the service has promised that applications involving no problems will be dealt with in 10 days. That applies to straightforward, properly completed applications. I do not think that anyone is suggesting that mistakes or inaccuracies would not quite reasonably cause delays. We have also heard that, in 1997–98, more than 200,000 fewer passports were issued than in the previous year. Given that those figures were calculated before the present crisis, I wonder how accurate they are.
  As my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald said in her speech, the real problem has been caused by the fact that two events are happening at the same time. One is the introduction of a new computer system, which is one of the problems that bedevilled the IND; the other is the introduction of the new rules governing children's passports. There is a substantial view—out there in the real world, rather than on the planet Straw—that it is absurd to go through the pantomime of shoving an almost newborn baby into one of those automatic booths, and getting out of the way just in time for the photograph, by which point the baby has slumped on the chair and all that there is a shot of the background. The other point has been made powerfully more than once in the debate. I think that it was Churchill who said that all babies looked the same and they all looked like him, but babies and young children change their looks fast. We are told that the passports will be valid for five years, rather than the usual 10, but, again, in five years, a small child can change its appearance markedly.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn, with breathtaking understatement, said that
  "productivity from the new system has been lower than expected, and arrears of work have built up."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 18 June 1999; Vol. 602, c. 56.]
  He went on to talk about "teething problems". I can do no better than quote from that old Labour organ, The Guardian, whose home affairs editor, Alan Travis, said at the beginning of the month about the current problem:
  "It comes hard on the heels of the administrative breakdown in the asylum and immigration system. Both crises have been caused by the botched installation of new computer systems".
  The great rule in life—and, above all, in politics—is, "When you are in a hole, stop digging", but that is another piece of common sense that seems to be lost on Home Office Ministers. One of the reasons that has been given for the problem is seasonal demand; as someone on the radio said this morning, it is similar to the reason that was given by British Rail for train delays: the wrong kind of snow had fallen. All these clever people, officials and Ministers, have concluded that the British public's irrational and unreasonable desire to have passports, so that they can go on their summer holidays is behind all the problems.
  Mr. Robathan: Outrageous.
  Mr. Waterson: It is. The suggestion that the problems could not be foreseen is particularly odd.
  I think that we have had an assurance that compensation will not involve any increase in the cost of passport applications. That is welcome—it would be helpful if the Minister could reconfirm that. I wonder what Ministers' projections are for the total amount of

  181
  compensation. Will the Minister also deal with the excellent intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) about the separate problem of compensating those people who have taken time off work and perhaps paid to travel to Liverpool, Glasgow or wherever to try to ensure that they have their passport in time?
  Last October's pilot scheme seems to be where the problems began. By admission, the Home Secretary said that the scheme was tested during a low season. On what possible basis could the success of that pilot be tested against the high pressure period in which we are currently engaged? What projections were made at the time?
  It is apparent from what the Home Secretary was saying that Ministers became aware of the problem in late March. I think that he said that an action plan was then devised. All I can say is that that plan has been an unmitigated failure. Will the Under-Secretary perhaps give us a little more detail about where the shortcomings were in the action plan? He and the Home Secretary knew the problem and knew that it was building as early as March this year.
  Perhaps I am being a little unfair. Perhaps the problem is all part of what we are asked to consider nowadays as joined-up government. When we left office, British tourism was at a 20-year high. Last year, for the first time in quite a few years, the total number of visits to tourist attractions in this country fell, so perhaps, in reality, the problem is a Department for Culture, Media and Sport initiative to encourage domestic tourism by ensuring that British people have to spend their money on holidays in this country.
  I do not mean to be unkind to the Minister, but we all remember our history. When Napoleon was invited to make one of his soldiers a general, his only question was, "Is he lucky?" I am afraid that he is one Minister who, despite his best intentions, extremely hard work and obvious abilities, is simply unlucky. He has had the massive problems of IND with which to contend, which he mentioned in an intervention; now he has massive problems in the Passport Agency. As we approach the Government's reshuffle fairly soon, I wonder whether his talents would not be better deployed in another Department.
  6.16 pm
  Mr. Harry Barnes: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson), who used to represent my late uncle Arthur, although, as he had moved from Easington colliery to Eastbourne, I doubt whether he ever voted Conservative.
  Mr. Waterson: He had a passport though.
  Mr. Barnes: Uncle Arthur probably had the facilities of a passport during the second world war when he served in the air force, but he may not have had a passport later in life.
  I do not always attend Opposition day debates, apart perhaps for the opening speeches, because I often think that the topics are not worth getting involved in, but at least today's topic is worthy of discussion and debate.
  182
  There has been much knockabout stuff from the Opposition, as might be expected, but it is important that the issue is aired vigorously and that there should be the dialectics of debate, leading, I hope, to improvements in the system and some of the relevant measures.
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary mentioned agencies and their development, but I am not keen on the move towards them. There are certain similarities between the Passport Agency and other agencies. I think in particular of the problems that hon. Members have had over a considerable time with the Child Support Agency—constituents have not been able to get anyone on the telephone, or to get letters answered, and they have been subject to considerable delay before their cases have been dealt with.
  In those cases, hon. Members are expected to act as administrators—as officers and clerks—which is inappropriate. That is not what they should be doing. On behalf of their constituents, they are obliged to pick up the pieces of systems that are not running correctly. Perhaps it is an easy way in which to gain some support from constituents. After all, by making telephone calls, entering into correspondence, or even attending passport offices, they can deliver what their constituents failed to get. Short cuts might be possible when a Member of Parliament takes a matter up.
  A constituent with a serious CSA problem is often told by staff at citizens advice bureaux, other support organisations or even by those employed by the CSA, "Why don't you see your local Member of Parliament because he probably has access to certain avenues and will be able to ensure that the matter is progressed faster." To some extent, some of us keep a bit quiet about that because, if we announce that different avenues are available to us, the number of cases that we are likely to get in connection with child support and passports is liable to increase. I have already publicised the Passport Agency, however, by using a local freebie newspaper to illustrate what the problem is, and some of the difficulties that some of my constituents have faced.
  We must bear in mind that there are problems with passports, irrespective of the current situation, and that those problems are just increased by the backlog. One of my constituents applied for passports for her two daughters in March. It was only a fortnight ago that she received a passport for the younger child but nothing for the older child. The older child is on the passport of her husband, from whom she is separated. She does not know where her husband lives and is in touch with him only through his parents. She is making efforts to get hold of that passport. She was asked to send a letter explaining the problems, which she did. However, as I understand it, in the meantime, the regulations have been changed and she now has to produce the passport or some evidence that it has been lost—perhaps from the police—before a new passport can be provided. That is just a normal problem.
  The application was made in March but, because of the backlog, that problem has only just arisen. The child's holiday has already been delayed and it has now been put back to August. Hopefully, having approached her Member of Parliament, things can now be sorted out. However, there might be a problem with the regulations.
  As we have discovered with the CSA, almost any difficulty can emerge. The complexities involved in issuing passports are considerable and, if there is an error

  183
  or a problem with the application, it might not be discovered until a week or so before a passport is due to be issued. Many applications are pushed aside, depending on the date of the holiday. That is why matters must be dealt with.
  The Home Secretary said that there have been only 50 cases in which passports have not been delivered on time. That is serious. I know that there have been some narrow escapes because one occurred in my constituency. My constituents made use of the partnership scheme operated by the Post Office. They paid £3.20 and should have had their passports delivered within 10 days. A month or so later they had not received them and, two days before they were due to travel, my office discovered the problem.
  An arrangement was made for the passport to be received on the morning that the family were due to go on holiday. Given that, there had to be some contingency arrangements. That involved a courier being sent from Liverpool to deliver the passport. The courier left late and the information was passed to my office. There then had to be contact with the courier on a mobile telephone in order to sort the matter out. As a result, the brother of one of the family members had to meet the courier at junction 29 of the motorway in order to collect the passport so that it would not be lost in the obscurer parts of my constituency. The family were waiting with the taxi outside the door so that they could leave immediately for Birmingham airport.
  That family enjoyed their holiday, but they did not enjoy the experience before it. There could have been another case added to the list of 50. There must be many other people placed in such difficulties, some of whom may have given up before their holiday was due to take place because they could not stand the hassle. Many people are not used to jumping on aeroplanes and going overseas. This is a big issue for many and, for some, it may be the first such holiday and they do not want to deal with all the problems.
  Mr. Allan: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the problems with the way in which the backlog has been handled is that those who applied for their passports well in advance, which is something that the Passport Agency has been trying to encourage for a long time, have, in many ways, suffered the most because their passports have not been delivered on time? That is counterproductive if we want to encourage people to apply early because the message seems to be, "Don't bother applying early, just queue up for an emergency passport."
  Mr. Barnes: If people have sussed out the arrangements, what information will they supply about the date of their holiday? Decisions are being made according to the date given for the holiday, not when the application was made.
  I accept that things would have been much easier if the visitors passport system had still been in existence because, in many cases, that could have been used to cover the immediate problem without people having to travel considerable distances to queue at distant passport offices.
  I welcome the improvements announced by the Home Secretary and I hope that they operate well. I accept that there will be an intermediate period in which MPs will be
  184
  called upon to use the avenues available to them within the system. I hope that we get this sorted out. We have not sorted out the problems with the CSA, despite the fact that this Government and the previous Government have thrown extra money at it and talked about rejigging it. I receive as many cases as ever about the operation of that agency and I hope that I will not receive as many letters about the operation of the Passport Agency.
  6.28 pm
  Mr. Robert Syms: The Home Secretary was gracious enough to recognise that the Passport Agency has done a reasonable job since being set up as an executive agency in 1991, With the possible exception of a bit of a blip when temporary passports were abolished, it has by and large delivered a reasonable service. We all know that, when people turn up for passports at the last moment, it occasionally leads to queueing, but in general the Passport Agency has not been a political issue.
  We are today discussing whether the current position was predictable. The computer contract was signed in July 1997—nearly two years ago. Those of us who have had any dealings with high technology know that things never go to plan: there are often difficulties, and more staff are needed. It is not therefore unreasonable to expect that things might slip.
  We have been told that the changes in respect of passports for children have led to additional difficulties. The announcement about those changes was made last summer, and they were implemented in October. It did not happen yesterday or a few weeks ago—the decision was taken 12 months ago. So what has happened is that two policy decisions have come together and caused chaos.
  It is clear that responsibility for that must lie with Home Office Ministers. I appreciate that the Home Office has to wrestle with many difficult issues, but in this case responsibility is clear. We have been told that an action plan was set up at the end of March. That was 10 or 12 weeks ago. We should be told today what was agreed at that stage; what targets were set; why they have not been fulfilled; and why we still have queues and newspaper headlines.
  We have heard of about 93 people missing their holiday who may apply for compensation. What about those who have had to take time off work or travel many miles in order to get a passport? Is there a means by which they can be compensated?
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) referred to security arrangements. An article in The Daily Telegraph in March reported that security arrangements may have been relaxed. That point should be answered.
  I thank the House for listening to those brief words in this important debate.
  6.30 pm
  Mr. David Lidington: The debate has reflected our constituents' anger and frustration at the fact that a part of government which, for many years, gave what hon. Members on both sides of the House agree was a first-class service, has failed dismally to meet the targets that have been set for it. The debate has also reflected the growing anger at the fact that Home Office Ministers have failed to come up with solutions to a crisis that should have been obvious to them for many weeks and months.

  185
  It was something of a consolation to us to hear the Home Secretary admit that the service provided by the agency was not what the public deserved, and was not up to the standard that the agency and Ministers had repeatedly promised it would maintain. Only the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane), who is no longer present, disbelieves the experience of our constituents as reported to us day by day and week by week. Lest the hon. Gentleman or any of his hon. Friends remain in doubt, I emphasise that the story of this crisis is still being told in the Government's own statistics. The truth is that, despite all the emergency packages, action plans, apologies and good will from the Government Front Bench, matters are still getting worse rather than better.
  I discovered from a written answer given to me by the Minister this afternoon that the backlog of passport applications waiting to be determined, which a fortnight ago stood at the already scandalously high total of 531,000, has now, a week later, risen to no fewer than 565,000.
  Much the same record applies to telephone calls to the agency. I share the concern expressed by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan). The Home Secretary told us that the Passport Agency received approximately 1.5 million calls in May. We know from written answers that 1.1 million callers got through not to a member of staff but to a recorded message informing them that all lines were busy. That means that barely one quarter of all calls to the Passport Agency are being answered.
  In those circumstances, the Secretary of State must forgive us if we are somewhat cautious about accepting the travel advice and assurances that he has offered. He said that people should apply at least one month in advance, but most passport offices are taking almost two months to process routine applications. The truth is that people do not believe and trust the Government's assurances because they have been let down so badly over the past six to 12 months.
  I hope that the Minister will not only respond to concerns such as those expressed by my hon. Friends the Members for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) and for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) and by the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) but will give specific answers on a number of points. What is the Government's policy towards the general extension of passports by two years? Do they intend to develop that procedure further in the next few weeks to overcome the present crisis? Could those extensions include passports on which the names of children are listed? Will the Minister consider the problem of personal callers? Will he waive the £10 extra fee charged to personal callers when they have to come to the Passport Agency in person out of sheer desperation?
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) began the debate by making the point that we have had no proper or detailed explanation from the ministerial team of how this crisis arose in the first place. From the way in which the Home Secretary responded, one might have thought that the crisis was down to something beyond ministerial control: like the weather, it had to be endured rather than tackled. The truth is that in July 1997—two years ago—Ministers
  186
  approved the contract and timetable for computerisation. In April 1998, Ministers announced that all children should be required to hold their own passports. Ministers decided that both those innovations should be introduced at once. If, for the reasons that Ministers have given, it was necessary to introduce both at once, why did they engage in such glaringly inadequate planning for such drastic innovations in the passport service?
  The Home Secretary knew of the changes and had made an assessment of their likely impact when he approved the agency's business plan for 1998–99, which says:
  "The major challenge for the Agency in 1998/99 will be the successful management of the project to introduce these new passport issuing arrangements … whilst maintaining service standards in dealing with a continuing high volume of passport applications."
  Ministers set the performance targets for the Passport Agency, presumably taking account of the impact of the policy changes that they had decided and had introduced. The Home Secretary set the 10-day turnround target for handling postal applications, and the targets for answering telephone calls and for dealing with personal callers.
  So conscious were Ministers of the fact that the changes were bound to have a damaging impact on the Passport Agency that they did something that the Home Secretary notably omitted to tell us about in his speech: they explicitly softened the agency's efficiency target for 1998-99 to allow it to cope with the problems that Ministers expected to arise as a result of computerisation.
  Despite all that, on 21 July 1998, the Minister said that, although he anticipated difficulties, he nevertheless expected the agency
  "to maintain a high standard of service throughout the year."—[Official Report, 21 July 1998; Vol. 316, c. 435.]
  That was the expectation in July last year. During the 12 months that have elapsed since then, there have been many occasions on which the alarm bells in the Home Office ought to have been ringing loud enough to awaken even this team of Ministers from their slumbers.
  In summer 1998, the situation was already a good deal worse than 12 months previously. At the time when the Minister made his promise about high standards of service throughout the year, he already knew—or at least he ought to have known—that processing times for applications were significantly longer than in the same period in 1997. Even before computerisation and before the introduction of children's passports, the delays were getting worse.
  Last winter, there was a huge rise in the number of applications outstanding at the end of each successive month—from 116,000 in November to 121,000 in December; 167,000 in January; and 280,000 in February, which is when one expects, on the basis of historical experience, that the agency should be in the slack period of its seasonal work flow.
  It is no good Ministers' saying, as some anonymous spin doctors have done in recent days, that this problem is all to do with the agency; that they were never told and did not know about it; in other words, "It wasn't me guv." Paragraph 4.13 of the agency's corporate plan says that forecasts of demand for passports will be subject to—
  Mr. Mike O'Brien: It is the hon. Gentleman's first outing on the Front Bench. He said that spin doctors are trying to shift responsibility. Can he justify that statement?
  Mr. Lidington: If the Minister had picked up any one of a number of newspapers in the past week—and newspapers, as we know, are the Government's usual way of communicating with Parliament and the country—he would have seen many references to the sort of thing that I have described.
  Mr. O'Brien rose—
  Mr. Lidington: The Minister will have ample opportunity to reply.
  The agency's corporate plan said that forecasts of demand for passports would be subject to monthly review, taking account of the actual demand experienced by the agency. It is not a matter of Ministers being overtaken by an unexpected surge in applications. Mechanisms are supposed to exist for them to be informed of, and to initiate action on the basis of, the pattern of demand experienced during the year. Having listened to Home Office Ministers, I wonder whether they bothered to read the reports coming from the agency, until the one in March this year that finally alerted them.
  I hope that the Minister will address a number of long-term issues that have been raised in the debate. Security matters were addressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), and the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) asked whether it remained the Government's plan that the criminal records agency should be administered by the Passport Agency. In view of the problems, can the Minister say whether the Government still plan to move the London passport office away from Clive house during the current financial year, since, whatever the gains to be won from that move, some short-term disruption of services must be expected?
  Above all, the House requires an explanation, and a plan of action with the sort of detail that has not yet been forthcoming from Ministers. Bland assurances that they are trying their best and that it will all be over by September will not be good enough for the House or for our constituents.
  The agency's business plan for 1999–2000 has not yet been published. It is hardly any wonder that people lack confidence in the Minister's capacity to deal with the crisis to which the agency is now subject. We are now a quarter of the way through the financial year, yet the Minister says that he hopes to have the plan available to him in the next few weeks. In other words, he is pleading that the business plan is in the post.
  If the Minister were holding a comparable position in the private sector, that sort of handling of management and business planning would have the regulators camping in his office, the shareholders baying for his blood and the board of directors examining the fine print of his contract of employment.
  I had not realised that my analogy would be quite so accurate. In today's edition of the Evening Standard—under the headline,
  "Passport Crisis: It's Your Fault",
  I found the Minister quoted as saying,
  "The difficulty is that millions of people are literally phoning up because of the panic that is going on, partly as a result, I have to say, of the reporting of this."
  188
  The Minister may not have realised—the Whips may not have told him—that a spokesman for the Prime Minister was quoted in the same article as saying:
  "I do not agree that there is a panic. People are understandably concerned."
  The half-smiles on the face of Government Whips indicate that the tumbrel is being rolled out even as we speak.
  Hundreds of thousands of decent, hard-working people in this country today are paying the cost of the idleness and complacency of Home Office Ministers. It was Ministers who introduced children's passports and who, at the same time, pressed ahead with computerisation without adequate preparation or back-up. It was Ministers who then sat on their hands while the queues lengthened, the backlog of post piled up and public frustration and anxiety grew.
  In their handling of the crisis affecting the Passport Agency, the Government have demonstrated that they are both indolent and incompetent, and they have shamefully neglected their duty to provide the British people with the decent public service to which they are entitled and which, until recently, they enjoyed. It is for those reasons that I invite my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the motion tonight.
  6.45 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): I begin by extending a welcome to the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) on his first sojourn on the Opposition Front Bench. I wish to chide him gently for not being able to justify an allegation that he made, but it was his first time and he put in a confident performance.
  Let us deal with what is a very serious issue for our constituents. I am concerned about the backlogs in the Passport Agency. They are unacceptable, and I am sorry that this has happened. The Government told the Passport Agency to sort this out and to get people off on their holidays. Intake is now falling, and, in due course, that will reduce delays, together with the package of measures that we have announced, including the recruitment of 400 more staff. We are mounting a high-profile media campaign to inform people of how to get their passports and what action to take.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: The Minister has made great play of his reassurances to the public that the recruitment of another 100 employees will make the difference. Will those 100 employees go straight to work tomorrow, or will they require to be trained, as there are security implications in terms of granting passports? If they are to be trained, will not the very people who, at the moment, are dealing with the backlog have to train them?
  Mr. O'Brien: That is a sensible and reasonable question. The staff at the moment are working enormously long hours to try to ensure that people get on holiday. We have brought in 300 new full-time staff, who are in place. Some are in the process of being trained, while some have been trained.
  We became aware that the situation was developing in late March, and I asked for a recovery plan from the chief executive of the Passport Agency, who provided one,

  189
  together with his view that 300 extra staff were needed. With the Home Secretary's permission, I promptly authorised the recruitment of those staff. They have been recruited in recent months, and most are now in place. I have had a further meeting with the chief executive, and agreed the recruitment of a further 100 members of staff. Some of those will be able to work immediately because they will be doing tasks that do not require training. Others will require training, and it will take some time before they are entirely productive, in the sense of turning out passports.
  The staff at the Passport Agency, including the 300 extra staff recruited recently, deserve a lot of praise. I join the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) and others who have said that when the staff of the Passport Agency have been contacted, they have sought to do their best for any constituent with an urgent travel date. The staff are working their socks off to try to get people off on holiday, and they are now hitting their 99.99 per cent. target. I hope that they can continue to do that for the next few weeks.
  We know that demand is starting to come down and we believe that the situation will come under full control, and that we will be able to ensure that people get off on their holidays. It is not the fault of ordinary workers that computer problems have arisen, and they do not deserve criticism. I wish to join the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald and others in praising those who have worked so hard.
  Mr. Oliver Heald: Did not the Minister realise earlier this year that the figures were mounting and that there was bound to be a crisis in the summer? Whose fault is it?
  Mr. O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman cannot have been here for the whole debate. It has already been made clear that in the early part of the year the figures were not mounting as he suggests. They started to increase substantially in March, and at that point I called in the chief executive and said that we should take prompt action and recruit staff. We are taking other steps, including strengthening the management team to help David Gatenby, the chief executive, to ensure that we deliver in the current difficult circumstances.
  We are deferring part of the roll-out of the computer programme until we can be sure that it will not cause further delays. We are extending passports free of charge for another two years, because that is quicker and gets people off on their holidays. The new chief executive will review the future of the agency in October, as his first task, to ensure that the problems never arise again.
  I will visit the various parts of the agency to ensure that everything is being done that should be done to ensure that our constituents get the passports that they deserve. We aim to get the wait down to 10 days by the end of September.
  Mr. Tyrie: The Minister has kindly sent us secret fax numbers to allow us to accelerate the process of getting passports for our constituents. But is not that creating two
  190
  categories of applicants: those who go to their Member of Parliament and accelerate their applications, and the rest? Is it not a disgrace that those who apply in the normal way are thus put even further back in the queue?
  Mr. O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman is close to denigrating the role that he plays as a representative of his constituents. Does he hold them so cheap that he believes that when they come to him he should be able to do nothing? [Interruption.] When my constituents come to me, they expect me to be able to do something to try to resolve their problems. The hon. Gentleman may want to be impotent in the face of problems; I do not. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The many thousands of people outside who are affected by this matter might expect this debate to be conducted with due solemnity. The Minister should be heard.
  Mr. O'Brien: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Patrick McLoughlin rose—
  Mr. O'Brien: Will the hon. Gentleman sit down until I have dealt with the point made by the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie), who has asked whether I should listen to the representations of Members of Parliament? Many Conservative Members will know that I do that. We must also ensure, however, that all our constituents with urgent travel dates get passports, regardless of whether they go to their Member of Parliament. That is not the issue. If hon. Members who have a representative capacity want to contact the Passport Agency, they should be able to do so. If they want to talk to me, they should be able to do so. That is how it has been since I became a Minister.
  Mr. McLoughlin: The Minister says that he wants to treat everyone the same. Why did he feel it necessary to change the number when some colleagues, as he said in his letter, had let the public know the direct number that we were entitled to use?
  Mr. O'Brien: Some hon. Members asked me whether they could fax information about their constituents to the agency. It was a perfectly reasonable request, so I gave them a number. Somebody put it out on the radio, which resulted in the faxes not getting through; no Member of Parliament was able to get a fax through, so hon. Members asked me whether they could have another fax number. I was trying to help, but obviously Conservative Members feel that Ministers should not try to be helpful to them and their constituents. That is not how I conduct myself as a Minister: I continue to try to help.
  Mr. Eric Martlew: On the so-called secret numbers, I remember how, a few years ago, when there was a strike at the Liverpool office, the then Government gave Members of Parliament private numbers so that they could represent their constituents. Is it not hypocrisy for Conservative Members to complain now?
  Mr. O'Brien: Absolutely.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. O'Brien: I have given way enough, and I must make some progress.

  191
  Experience shows that Departments are having problems with computerisation—it also happens in the private sector—but computerised passports are more secure, with a digitalised image and signature; the date can be scanned, and automated security checks can reduce fraud and improve efficiency. The 1996 review concluded that the changes were necessary. The Minister then responsible agreed and set in place the canvassing of possible private sector partners.
  We accept responsibility for having approved those plans in July 1997. The roll-out at Liverpool was on 5 October 1998, and at Newport in mid-November. Siemens was the main contractor. The system was delivered to tight deadlines, including the refurbishment of buildings and the design and introduction of the new passport. There are many lessons to be learned, and we are in the process of evaluating them and ensuring that the mistakes are not made again.
  The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) asked whether I was lucky. The immigration brief is one of the most difficult, so perhaps the die was cast at the beginning, but my task is to modernise and computerise IND and the Passport Agency. Computerisation has caused problems in the private sector too, but once the teething problems are sorted out, computers prove invaluable.
  When the Conservatives introduced computers in 1989, there were serious teething problems, with massive backlogs, but soon production increased dramatically. That is what I expect to happen now. Modernisation is never easy but it brings benefits in the end. The teething problems need to be sorted out and I am prepared to see that through and ensure that we deliver.
  I will take no lessons in this task from a Front-Bench team led by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald. She criticises us for incompetence. That is rich from her. She was the prisons Minister when 800 criminals were released early by accident—not over the walls but out of the doors—and it was she who, to ensure that women prisoners who were about to give birth did not escape, chained them to the delivery table. Once the baby was born—
  Miss Widdecombe: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is a point of fact, as the Minister well knows—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Lady cannot raise a point of debate on a point of order.
  Mr. O'Brien: If she cannot take it, she should not dish it out.
  Miss Widdecombe: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker—a point of order for the Chair. Is it in order for Ministers to make statements to the House that they know not to be accurate?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is entirely a matter for debate.
  Mr. O'Brien: What about the Child Support Agency, which the right hon. Lady created? Now she wanders up and down the country stirring up misery about people's holidays. We want to get people off on holiday; she wants to tell them that we will spoil their holiday. I want to
  192
  praise the staff for working their socks off to get people off on holiday. The Passport Agency had to computerise because of passport forgery. We implemented proposals that the right hon. Lady made as a Minister. We take responsibility for them and do not seek to duck them, as the previous Government sought to duck a whole series of decisions.
  We introduced a package of measures involving more staff and a publicity campaign to ensure that people know what to do to get their passports, extending the passport for two years so that people can get away more quickly, and paying compensation to those who miss their holidays. We will get people off on their holidays with a more secure passport that is less susceptible to fraud.
  Staff at the Passport Agency are working enormously long hours to ensure that this happens. Their spirit of commitment is a credit to the public sector. There have been difficulties in modernising the agency, but it needs to be done. We will work our way through the problems and resolve them. We are determined to deliver a system that works. The Conservatives may carp and criticise but their record of incompetence was far worse than anything that we could deliver. We want to ensure that we deliver; and we will.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 165, Noes 351.

  Division No. 220]

  [7 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Cotter, Brian

  Allan, Richard

  Cran, James

  Amess, David

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Baker, Norman

  Duncan, Alan

  Beggs, Roy

  Duncan Smith, lain

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Bercow, John

  Evans, Nigel

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Faber, David

  Blunt, Crispin

  Fabricant, Michael

  Body, Sir Richard

  Fallon, Michael

  Boswell, Tim

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Forsythe, Clifford

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Brady, Graham

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Brake, Tom

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Brazier, Julian

  Fraser, Christopher

  Breed, Colin

  Gale, Roger

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Garnier, Edward

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Gibb, Nick

  Bumett, John

  Gill, Christopher

  Bums, Simon

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Burstow, Paul

  Gray, James

  Butterfill, John

  Green, Damian

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Greenway, John

  Cash, William

  Grieve, Dominic

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Chidgey, David

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Chope, Christopher

  Hancock, Mike

  Clappison, James

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Harvey, Nick

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey

  Heald, Oliver

  Collins, Tim

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Colvin, Michael

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Horam, John

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  193

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Sanders, Adrian

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Shepherd, Richard

  Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Simpson, Keith (Mid & Norfolk)

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

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

  Keetch, Paul

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Key, Robert

  Soames, Nicholas

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Spring, Richard

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Lansley, Andrew

  Steen, Anthony

  Leigh, Edward

  Streeter, Gary

  Letwin, Oliver

  Stunell, Andrew

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Syms, Robert

  Lidington, David

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Livsey, Richard

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Luff, Peter

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Townend, John

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Tredinnick, David

  Madel, Sir David

  Trend, Michael

  Maples, John

  Tyler, Paul

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Viggers, Peter

  Moore, Michael

  Walter, Robert

  Moss, Malcolm

  Wardle, Charles

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Waterson, Nigel

  Norman, Archie

  Webb, Steve

  Öpik, Lembit

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Ottaway, Richard

  Whittingdale, John

  Page, Richard

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Paterson, Owen

  Wilkinson, John

  Pickles, Eric

  Willetts, David

  Prior, David

  Willis, Phil

  Randall, John

  Wilshire, David

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Woodward, Shaun

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewkb'ry)

  Yeo, Tim

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxboume)

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Ross, William (E Lond'y)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Mr. Stephen Day and

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Mrs. Jacqui Lait.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Blizzard, Bob

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Ainger, Nick

  Boateng, Paul

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Borrow, David

  Alexander, Douglas

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Allen, Graham

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Ashton, Joe

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Browne, Desmond

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Banks, Tony

  Burden, Richard

  Barnes, Harry

  Burgon, Colin

  Bayley, Hugh

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Beard, Nigel

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Cabom, Rt Hon Richard

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Bell. Martin (Talton)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

  Campbell & Savours, Dale

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Cann, Jamie

  Benton, Joe

  Caplin, Ivor

  Berry, Roger

  Casale, Roger

  Best, Harold

  Caton, Martin

  Betts, Clive

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Blackman, Liz

  Chaytor, David

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Chaytor, David

  194

  Clapham, Michael

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Grogan, John

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Gunnell, John

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Hain, Peter

  Clwyd, Ann

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Coaker, Vernon

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Cohen, Harry

  Hanson, David

  Coleman, lain

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Colman, Tony

  Healey, John

  Connarty, Michael

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hepbum, Stephen

  Corbett, Robin

  Heppell, John

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hesford, Stephen

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Cousins, Jim

  Hill, Keith

  Cox, Tom

  Hinchliffe, David

  Cranston, Ross

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Crausby, David

  Hoey, Kate

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Cryer, John (Homchurch)

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Cummings, John

  Hope, Phil

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Curtis—Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Dalyell, Tam

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Davidson, Ian

  Hurst, Alan

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Hutton, John

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Jamieson, David

  Denham, John

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Dobbin, Jim

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Doran, Frank

  Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Dowd, Jim

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Edwards, Huw

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Efford, Clive

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Ennis, Jeff

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Etherington, Bill

  Kemp, Fraser

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Khabra, Piara S

  Fisher, Mark

  Kidney, David

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Flint, Caroline

  Kingham, Ms Tess

  Flynn, Paul

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Follett, Barbara

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Lawrence, Ms Jackie

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Laxton, Bob

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Lepper, David

  Fyfe, Maria

  Leslie, Christopher

  Galloway, George

  Levitt, Tom

  Gapes, Mike

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Linton, Martin

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Livingstone, Ken

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Love, Andrew

  Goggins, Paul

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  McCabe, Steve

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  195

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

  Pike, Peter L

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Plaskitt, James

  Macdonald, Calum

  Pond, Chris

  McDonnell, John

  Pope, Greg

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Mclsaac, Shona

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Primerolo, Dawn

  McNamara, Kevin

  Prosser, Gwyn

  McNulty, Tony

  Purchase, Ken

  MacShane, Denis

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Radice, Giles

  McWalter, Tony

  Rammell, Bill

  McWilliam, John

  Rapson, Syd

  Mallaber, Judy

  Raynsford, Nick

  Mendelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Coy'try NW)

  Marshal—Andrews, Robert

  Rooker, Jeff

  Martlew, Eric

  Rooney, Terry

  Maxton, John

  Rowlands, Ted

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Roy, Frank

  Meale, Alan

  Ruane, Chris

  Merron, Gillian

  Ruddock, Joan

  Milbum, Rt Hon Alan

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Miller, Andrew

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Mitchell, Austin

  Satter, Martin

  Moffatt, Laura

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Sawford, Phil

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Morley, Elliot

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Sheerrnan, Barry

  Mudie, George

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Mullin, Chris

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Singh, Marsha

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Skinner, Dennis

  Norris, Dan

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Snape, Peter

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Speller, John

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Pearson, Ian

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Pendry, Tom

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Pickthall, Colin

  196

  Stevenson, George

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Wareing, Robert N

  Stoate. Dr Howard

  Watts, David

  Stott, Roger

  White, Brian

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Stringer Graham

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Wills, Michael

  Taylor, Ms Dad (Stockton S)

  Wilson, Brian

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Winnick, David

  Temple—Morris, Peter

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Wise, Audrey

  Tipping, Paddy

  Wood, Mike

  Todd, Mark

  Woolas, Phil

  Touhig, Don

  Worthington, Tony

  Trickett, Jon

  Wray, James

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Mr. David Clelland and

  Vaz, Keith

  Jane Kennedy.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House acknowledges the difficult operational situation that the Passport Agency is facing and greatly regrets the inconvenience caused to the public; notes the measures that the Agency is taking to remedy the situation including the deployment of 300 additional staff, the streamlining of processes to boost productivity whilst maintaining security and the willingness of Agency staff to work seven days a week to help clear the arrears; further notes that in spite of this difficult position the Agency is meeting 99.99 per cent. of travel dates and will continue to do so throughout the summer and beyond; and agrees that it is right to introduce the policy of separate passports for children.

  Planning and Transport Congestion
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Madam Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  7.15 pm
  Mr. John Redwood: I beg to move,
  That this House condemns the Government's contradictory signals on transport and planning policies; requests the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions to cancel the M4 bus lane, and find a way of reopening the Circle Line and keeping other tube lines open; notes that the Government has no policies to increase road or rail capacity in line with traffic growth forecasts; is appalled that motorists are paying more and more tax under Labour to sit in ever worse traffic jams; and urges the Government to revitalise town centres and to follow transport and planning policies that can get Britain moving again.
  I have declared my interests in the Register of Members' Interests, and I do not speak on their behalf in this debate. However, I have some further interests to declare. I am a driver; I am a train passenger; I am a tube traveller, if there are trains for me to take; I am, from time to time, a pedestrian. I also own two Jaguars. I believe that the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions also uses two Jaguars, although I do not know whether he can claim either to own or to drive them himself.
  I am upset that the Deputy Prime Minister is presiding over the collapse of our transport system. It is becoming more difficult, if not impossible, to get around the country. New Labour does not travel well. The Deputy Prime Minister is none too keen on new Labour, but he proves how new and old Labour, acting together, are bringing Britain to a standstill—[HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] Labour Members should treat transport with more seriousness because their constituents cannot get around. It is their constituents who find tube trains cancelled or delayed.
  Do Labour Members know that the Circle line is not working under the Government, or that the Northern line is threatened with closure, or that District line trains were heavily delayed today? Do they know that the latest report on the tube shows that it has not hit its targets on punctuality, cleanliness or general service? Have they seen the almost permanent traffic jams on many sections of the road network? Do they know that too many trains arrive late, and that they often have no proper facilities on board? With this Government, it is jams today, and jams tomorrow.
  Mr. Phil Hope: My constituents know that the Labour Government have given an extra £700,000 to rural buses in this financial year, and they know that the Government are providing support for rural transport.
  Mr. Redwood: Many councils have suffered dreadful rate support grants and have been unable to increase expenditure. The hon. Gentleman provokes me into mentioning investment in London Regional Transport, one of the areas suffering most from the Deputy Prime Minister's deep cuts. In the final year of the Conservative Administration, investment was £1,060 million. That fell to £843 million in the first year of the Labour Government, and to £654 million in the second. In the third Labour year, it is planned to be £564 million.
  198
  The Deputy Prime Minister may scowl at me, but he cannot deny the figures. It is not my fault that he cannot do a good deal with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Investment has almost halved while he has been Deputy Prime Minister and Transport Secretary.
  Mr. Andrew Miller: Will the right hon. Gentleman address the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Hope)? After bus deregulation, the number of bus passengers fell by a third outside London. Is my hon. Friend not right to say that the Government are absolutely right to correct the ridiculous imbalance created by the Conservative Administration?
  Mr. Redwood: If the hon. Gentleman looks at the facts, he will see that privatisation has increased competition, choice and passenger numbers and that the frustration now is due to the fact that there are more passengers for buses and trains, but there is not enough money or decent management under this Government to provide the train and bus services that those passengers require.
  In the past fortnight, I have been delayed when travelling from Paddington to Westminster thanks to the inadequate tube service. I faced a long delay on the Virgin train when I tried to travel by train from Manchester to Birmingham, and I waited 25 minutes for a bus in Oxford, where a park-and-ride scheme is advertised as having seven-minute services. Now, even the buses are held up by the absurd road closures in that Labour council area. In Oxford, it is not park and ride, but park, pay and wait, thanks to the Labour council and the policies that the Deputy Prime Minister is encouraging. I have spent many unhappy minutes in traffic jams on the M4, watching the entirely empty bus lane and wondering whether the Prime Minister would sweep by on that day as its only user.
  This Government are out of touch—and in such a short space of time. The Deputy Prime Minister already seems to think that buses and tubes are there for others to use, or there for a photo opportunity with a Jaguar waiting to whisk him off to where he wants to go once the photo has been taken—[Interruption.] It is not a cheap jibe; it is true and that is why it hurts. The right hon. Gentleman will not even answer my question about how many times he has come to the office using public transport. I am sure that he uses a car because he has decided, like many others, that public transport is not good enough. I do not blame him; I just do not like the humbug. Why does he not admit that people have to use the car because there is no practical choice for many of their journeys, as Ministers illustrate? As for his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, he thinks that bus lanes are there for him to use when he is not travelling by the Queen's flight. For the rest of us, it is not life in the fast lane, but life kept out of the bus lane.
  Mr. Nigel Waterson: Hear, hear!
  Mr. Redwood: I thank my hon. Friend for that appreciation.
  The Chancellor thinks that motorists are there to pay everyone else's bills, as he merrily goes on his way forcing the price of motoring through the roof. Now, we know that planning policy is to be relaxed to make the traffic jams worse. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor appear

  199
  to favour more out-of-town superstores. That means more cars and lorries on the roads and a further blow to town centres, where there are still bus and train stations.
  The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. John Prescott): What did the Conservatives do?
  Mr. Redwood: The right hon. Gentleman asks what my right hon. Friends did when they were in government—they changed the planning guidance to try to restrict out-of-town developments for that very reason. Now we read clear indications that, against the wishes of the Deputy Prime Minister—I will give him that—No. 10, No. 11 and the Department of Trade and Industry have decided that they want to relax planning controls because they want to cover the south in concrete.
  Mr. Bill Rammell: There are three out-of-town shopping centres in my constituency, all of which were rejected by the local council at the time. Those rejections were all over turned and the plans approved on appeal by the Government that the right hon. Gentleman supported. Is not this tirade the grossest hypocrisy, given the chaos and mess that that Government created?
  Mr. Redwood: The hon. Gentleman has obviously not read planning policy guidance 6—the guidance that made it clear that we favoured in-town development. I hope that he will get a reassurance from the Deputy Prime Minister that the right hon. Gentleman will stand by that policy, whatever his right hon. Friends say, and that, on this solitary occasion, he will win the argument. Clearly, he did not win the argument to get his travel Bill—I am glad that he did not, as it was such a bad Bill—and we now hear that he will probably not get his railway Bill next year either, because he is so bad at negotiating with the Prime Minister and with No. 11.
  Dr. Alan Whitehead: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that revised planning policy guidance 6 came in right at the end of the Conservative Government? For 15 out of the 18 years of the Conservative Government—the vast majority—there was a free-for-all in out-of-town shopping.
  Mr. Redwood: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman remembers that out-of-town superstores were a phenomenon that was more concentrated in the late 1980s and early 1990s. We changed the guidance when we saw how things were going. The issue now, which the Government cannot conceal, is are they going to protect out-of-town areas—are they going to stand up for the city centres—or not? Or will we see more of what we saw today with the report about inner-city revival—it contains some quite good ideas—which has been produced after two years of this Government? What did the Deputy Prime Minister say? He said that he had not got much voice left and he did not intend to do anything about any of the recommendations for at least 12 months.
  Why is the matter not more urgent? Why do the Government not want to do something to put the cities back on the map and to stem the exodus that they created from northern industrial towns and cities to the south? Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that it is Labour's
  200
  wanton destruction of British industry in the north and midlands that is leading to the mass exodus to the south? Instead of laughing at it, Labour Members should stand up for their constituents, who are suffering from it.
  Mr. Gordon Prentice: I do not know how the right hon. Gentleman has the incredible brass neck to berate us for out-of-town developments. Permission for 50 per cent. of all out-of-town hypermarkets was given under his Government in the five years between 1986 and 1991. Is that not just hypocrisy with a capital H?
  Mr. Redwood: Why does not the hon. Gentleman save his breath and ensure that his right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister understands that he must not relax the rather good planning policies that we put in place in the 1990s? The hon. Gentleman says that he is so worried about it, but he ought to have the courage and honesty to say that his argument is with those on the Government Front Bench, who are thinking of undermining a rather good policy—which I think he supports and which the Conservatives introduced. The Deputy Prime Minister also favours building more houses on green fields throughout the south-east to accommodate the mass migration from the northern cities.
  The Chancellor always taxes when he can. He now thinks that he is on to another good thing to raise some money. He has decided that he wants to tax any motorist who succeeds in getting to work by car if that motorist dares to park when he gets there. That is on top of the £150 extra in fuel duty being paid already by the average motorist as a result of the swingeing increases in fuel duty imposed by this miserable Government.
  I wonder whether the Government understand that people who live in rural areas often have no choice of travel. There are many villages with no bus services, or with only a few buses a week. People have to go by car if they are going to travel. For them, new Labour's transport policy is going nowhere fast. The difference is that the Conservatives did not make it impossible for people to use cars in those rural areas—this Government are making it impossible for people to use their cars, as well as denying—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but there are far too many sedentary comments, and some of them are coming from those on the Government Front Bench.
  Mr. Redwood: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Robert Key: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there was never a golden age for buses? It is ridiculous to suppose that buses alone are the answer for rural transport. Buses do not go where people want to go, which is between village and village; they go down arterial routes. It is missing the target for Labour Members to bay at us that buses are the only answer.
  Mr. Redwood: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point from his own experience, with which I entirely agree.
  Do the Government realise that some people who live in urban areas also have little choice about travel? The station car park may be full or vandalised. What are they going to do about that? The train or bus service may not

  201
  take people out of town to the places that they wish to go. It may go nowhere near one's home, so one has to use the car to go to the station, if one wishes to use the train. Cross-country train services are either slow or non-existent in many parts of the country.
  It is high time that Ministers woke up to those realities and stopped living in the past. It is high time that they stopped throwing jibes about Conservative Governments long ago and did something now. The British public are angry now and they are angry with this Government. They have already expressed their views on the previous Government. We have learned and listened and we have exciting new policies to get Britain on the move; this lot opposite on the Labour Benches have not a clue about how to get Britain back on the move.
  Mr. Christopher Leslie: I am interested to know about the solutions that the right hon. Gentleman is offering. Can he say what his policy would be to improve bus services?
  Mr. Redwood: I am glad that Labour Members want to learn from the Opposition, because we have much better ideas than the Government. I will come to ideas about how we can improve the position later, but I can give him some immediately—scrap the M4 bus lane, make the motorway safer, and get more people along the M4 in the morning peak time. That may not be so convenient for the Prime Minister, but it would be a lot more convenient for the rest of us.
  Now, there is a spat between the Deputy Prime Minister and his boss. The Prime Minister is bitterly undermining his deputy through press briefings. He is letting it be known, in the usual backhand way, that he holds him to blame for stand-still Britain. The Prime Minister is determined that, as Britain grinds to a halt, it will be his deputy who is in the political jam.
  The Deputy Prime Minister is not taking all that lying down. For once, I do not blame him—in fact, I find myself becoming extremely sympathetic towards to him—[Interruption.] Oh yes I do. He has been more spinned against than spinning. He protests that he is being blamed for implementing the Government's manifesto policies. Surely, he whispers, the Prime Minister should take the blame for the bash-the-motorist policies, for they are the policies of the Labour party as a whole.
  I think that the right hon. Gentleman is right to take that view. Why blame the steward when you can blame the man who threw the party in the first place? For once, I admire the fact that the Deputy Prime Minister is the real thing; he oozes hatred of the motorist—[Interruption.] Hon. Members think that I went to a public school. I did not go to a public school; I went to a direct-grant school on a free place, which was rather different. It was that or the grammar school.
  At least Two-Jags John is the real thing—he oozes hatred of the motorist and revels in the higher charges and taxes on motorists. He loves to see the rest of us struggling beside the empty bus lane, running the gauntlet of the growing selection of humps, cameras, chicanes,
  202
  traffic lights and coloured lines that now deck out many a main route under his description of an integrated transport policy. It is, of course, a disintegrating transport policy.
  Mr. Andrew Reed: Is the right hon. Gentleman trying to tell us that the Conservatives are against chicanes, bumps and speed cameras, all of which are measures that save pedestrians' lives? Is he against all bus lanes? Perhaps he should consider the experience of people in Loughborough, where a bus lane was introduced only five months ago, and bus usage increased dramatically—by at least 15 per cent. Is that not an example of the sort of integrated transport system that is required? By rejecting all those matters, the right hon. Gentleman is not talking about a real integrated transport system; he is making cheap points that have no relevance to the debate on transport that we need.
  Mr. Redwood: I advise the hon. Gentleman not to send those remarks to Downing street; they are definitely off-message. We do not want those impediments on through routes, red routes or main roads. There are uses for traffic-calming measures in residential areas, but not on main routes. Labour Members are getting muddled as to when, where and how such measures should be used. What they are doing is reducing the amount of available road space.
  Jacqui Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Redwood: Usually, I should do so, but I am short of time and many hon. Members want to speak.
  Mr. Graham Allen: We are getting some good stuff out of this.
  Mr. Redwood: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman thinks that there is good stuff in my remarks. He is quite right. It is much better than he will hear from the Treasury Bench.
  The Deputy Prime Minister is being undermined by his boss at the very point at which he is succeeding in bringing the motorist to boiling point. That is what the Government planned; they wanted to infuriate the motorist, and they are succeeding. That is the one pledge they intend to keep. New Labour promised us joined-up government, but one branch of the Government is spending £150 million to get more cars made in Britain by subsidising Rover, while another is trying to stop any of them being driven when they have been produced and sold. That is not integration, but contradiction.
  There is another spat or three over Labour's approach to big business. It looks as though "Just call me Steve"—the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry—the Chancellor and the Prime Minister want to relax planning controls to allow genetically modified food companies more scope to plant, and to permit more new superstores to be built out of town. However, we know that the Deputy Prime Minister wants to restrict all of those, reflecting his good, old-fashioned distaste for big business and all its works. We all know who will win. The deputy Prime Minister has lost many times before; doubtless he will lose again. He should now watch out for more undermining from the centre, as the Government cosy up more closely to the supermarket barons and the genetically motivated Lords.

  203
  What should the Deputy Prime Minister do? My advice to him is to go and have it out with the Prime Minister, man to man, before the briefings get any worse. He may have to queue for an appointment; he may need to remind the staff at Downing street who he is. We learn from The Independent that he has just been relieved of his special campaigning role. That is the first case of a Minister being sacked in order to spend more time with his Department. However, there is plenty for him to do there.
  The right hon. Gentleman should start with the M4 bus lane. It must go. No one believes that it is quicker to go by car now that there are only two lanes instead of three. On that logic, all dual carriageways should be reduced to single carriageways to get rid of the jams. New Labour is not motoring. Then, he should turn to the tube. He should hold urgent talks to get the Circle line working again in busy periods, and provide bus alternatives when it has to be closed.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Redwood: I do not have enough time to give way.
  The Deputy Prime Minister should stop London Underground from closing the Northern line. He should restore the massive cuts that he has made in the investment programme for the underground. The Labour Government have slashed investment in London Transport from £1,060 million in the last year of the Conservative Government to £564 million now. Tonight, if he announces anything less than £500 million extra for the tube this year, it will still be a massive cut in the investment plans that we introduced and were successfully implementing.
  The Deputy Prime Minister and his colleagues have slashed the roads budget and slashed investment on the tube. Now, to add to the misery, they want to charge us to drive into the city centre and again for parking at work. Only the Deputy Prime Minister could believe that the answer to Britain's transport problems is a poll tax on wheels. The only beneficiary of that will be the Conservative party. I am glad that he is so well inclined towards us; his policies suit our party interests well but they serve the nation so badly.
  The Deputy Prime Minister now says that he wants to regenerate our city centres. Why, then, does he want to stop people driving in city centres and owning cars in cities? Does he not realise that people value the freedom brought by the car? His measures will put people off his city centres, rather than encouraging people to go to them. His Department's annual report states that new roads relieve congestion and help the regeneration of rundown areas. I agree with that. Does the Deputy Prime Minister stand by that statement? Has he read it? Does he agree with it? If he agrees with it, why does he not do something about it? Why has he cancelled so many of the roads and other transport links that could bring some relief to those rundown inner-city areas?
  The right hon. Gentleman is fast becoming the biggest polluter of them all. The best way to increase pollution is to increase traffic jams; he has perfected dozens of ways of doing just that. He causes more congestion than an epidemic of summer colds. Labour is not new and it is not green. It is old and brown. It is just a rip-off. The motorist now rues the day that a Labour Government came to town.
  204
  Occasionally, a member of the Government does something that captures the public mood and sums up a feeling. No one is better at that than the Prime Minister. Only the other day, he did it again, by travelling down that bus lane on the M4. That was arrogant. It demonstrated a dangerous absurdity in Labour's transport policy. It showed how out of touch the Government now are.
  Mr. Clive Efford: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that traffic in and around London is projected to increase by between 30 and 50 per cent. by 2030? What would be his policies to address that issue?
  Mr. Redwood: First, we would privatise the tube and get massive new investment for the tube system, so that it provided a better alternative. Secondly, we would remove a great deal of clutter from the main routes so that traffic could flow better. Thirdly, by sorting out the enormity of fuel and diesel duty that has been heaped on taxi drivers, we would give them a much better deal than the hon. Gentleman's miserable Government have given them.
  I promised to confine my remarks to 20 minutes; that time is now up. I read today, after a week of anti-briefing, that the Prime Minister backs his Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, bus lane and all. When he reads that in the papers, I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman minds his back and scraps his bus lane. Over the past few days, the message in the papers has been quite lethal for the right hon. Gentleman—the boss is not happy with his performance; England, Scotland and Wales are in revolt over the transport chaos; the nation is not happy with the Deputy Prime Minister. He should think again, or relations with No. 10 will get even worse. I urge the House to support our motion.
  7.38 pm
  The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. John Prescott): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "deplores the previous Government's record of under-investment and disintegration in the transport network, its failure to tackle congestion as traffic rose by 75 per cent., the £1.2 billion investment backlog it left on the London Underground and its cut in road maintenance; commends the Government for producing the first Transport White Paper for 20 years, taking a far-sighted and more integrated approach than the previous administration, and linking together planning and transport policy more closely; and notes that the present Government has begun to tackle the inherited problems of under-investment, pollution and increasing traffic congestion, by a new radical integrated strategy, including an extra £1.8 billion for public transport and local transport management, winning back passengers to public transport, improving road maintenance, encouraging greater fuel efficiency, reducing pollution, and introducing the long-term policies needed to increase transport choice and improve Britain's transport system.".
  I do not intend to treat the House with the contempt displayed by the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood). Transport is one of the Government's most important policy areas. It is important for the environment and for the effectiveness of our industry. We must address the problems that have occurred during the past 18 years—although they were occurring before then. Congestion and transport problems have been evident for a considerable period. There has been a move from public transport to the private vehicle; we have to change that. I shall try to address that point.

  205
  The speech of the right hon. Gentleman had more to do with humour than with any substantial ideas as to how we solve the problems. I suggest that he changes his scriptwriter—the jokes were not particularly humorous. It is a bit much for him to talk about the problems of the underground. We inherited a £1.2 billion under-investment in the system, because the previous Conservative Government refused to make a proper investment in the underground. The figures cited by the right hon. Gentleman are not accurate. The previous Government planned to invest £729 million in 1997–98; that was to be cut to £350 million in 1998–99 and to £161 million in 1999–2000. That was the judgment of the last Conservative Budget—the right hon. Gentleman can check the figures easily enough. It is not surprising that the Circle line and the Northern line are facing problems as a result of that disinvestment.
  The right hon. Gentleman suggested that the local authority settlement was not a good one. In fact, it was a generous settlement and it was accepted by the local authorities. By any comparison with any settlement of the past five to seven years, it was indeed generous, and it was acknowledged as such by hon. Members on both sides of the House when it was announced. The right hon. Gentleman should not believe everything that he reads in the newspaper: the endlessly repeated story about my getting on to a bus and a Jaguar following behind is totally untrue. I constantly use public transport, and I can say that I spent 10 years of my working life working in public transport in this country; the right hon. Gentleman cannot make the same claim.
  Mr. Redwood: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the figures for the last three years of Conservative investment in London Transport are £955 million, £1,114 million and £1,060 million? This year—a year of planning and budgeting by the Labour Government—the figure is £564 million. Of course the Conservative Government's planned investment was lower: we were going to privatise and bring in private finance, so much of the investment would not count as public spending. Surely the fair contrast is between three years of £1 billion a year investment under the Conservatives and three years of miserable investment under Labour, with the figure falling to £564 million this year?
  Mr. Prescott: I made it clear that the figures to which I refer are those for projected expenditure for investment in the underground over three years. The right hon. Gentleman refers to the three years prior to that, but he should acknowledge that much of the money was lost on the Jubilee line, because of the Conservative Government's incompetence in negotiating a contract that has led to an overspend of about £1 billion. That is a constant problem of the underground with which I have to deal: when I find money for investment, it is sucked away into the Jubilee line. I shall have more to say about that shortly.
  It is interesting to note that the Opposition motion mentions both transport and planning.
  Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: I am sorry to interrupt my right hon. Friend, but may I leave with him a hallmark of the Tory years drawn from the London
  206
  underground? It is to travel on the underground and see broken-down escalators throughout the whole system and little old ladies protesting to rail guards about having to carry their bags up stairs. That went on for years and years—it was hard to leave the House of Commons and find an underground station in which the escalators were working. That is the hallmark of the Tory years, and we remember it.
  Mr. Prescott: I remember it well, too. Anyone who travels on the underground has witnessed that deterioration over the many years of Tory Administration. The Select Committees of the House of Commons have investigated and confirmed the level of disinvestment in the underground, and we are witnessing the consequences of that long period of disinvestment.
  I should like to remind the House of the Labour Government's inheritance, because I did not recognise it from the description offered by the right hon. Member for Wokingham. Let me give one or two facts which can be found in the books, some of which the right hon. Gentleman has before him. Eighteen years of clear Tory misrule were dominated by deregulation and privatisation—the concept that competition could solve any problem. The consequences were that our national rail networks were broken up and privatised, worsening the service and weakening regulation. I do not suppose that anyone denies that—it is in the newspapers almost every day.
  The bus industry was deregulated and the evidence of the consequences is absolutely clear: bus networks were broken up, raising fares and reducing the number of passengers by one third. Curiously, the only place where the number of bus passengers increased was the London area, where buses were not deregulated. Where regulation prevailed in the bus industry, the results were a better service and an increased number of passengers. The factors that undermined bus services were deregulation and privatisation. I have already mentioned the £1.2 billion backlog of investment in London Underground and the £400 million cut made in the last Tory Budget—again, the figures are there for all to see.
  The Tories' massive £200 million cut in road maintenance expenditure resulted in roads being in their worst state since surveys began. The document containing that fact was published only recently, but it covered a period of Tory Administration. Inevitably, congestion increased, despite roughly £16 billion being spent on the roads programme. In 1979, there were 42 motor cars per kilometre of road, whereas by 1997, that figure had increased to 60 motor cars per kilometre of road—a increase of almost 50 per cent.
  According to the Confederation of British Industry, the cost of congestion to the United Kingdom economy was £20 billion. Furthermore, up to 24,000 premature deaths were caused by exposure to air pollution. The Tory policies forced more people to rely on their car, and tilted the balance from public transport to the private car. Consequently, the Tories were responsible for introducing the term "gridlock" to Britain. Such congestion led to massive costs and frustration.
  The House probably thinks that I am being somewhat biased, so I shall pray in aid someone else's description of the transport system:
  "We have gridlock. The rush hour begins just after 6 am and is still in full flow three hours later. In many parts of the South East the traffic queue for one junction runs into the queue for the next,

  207
  and for the one beyond that. The station car park is full. The queue for Heathrow is long. The M25 regularly seizes up. Everyone tells me something should be done about it."
  Absolutely right, but who made those comments? The right hon. Member for Wokingham. It is interesting that he wrote that, not last week, or last month, but in 1996, after 16 years of Tory Administration and failed transport policy. Despite all the rhetoric that we have just heard, that is what he wrote when he was in the throes of another election within his party. The right hon. Gentleman was writing of the collapse of the transport system and the collapse of Tory party policy. How else can he explain that article? It was an attack on the failure of the transport policies of the Conservative Government of which he was a member.
  Mr. Redwood: I do not see it like that. My article shows that the country became a lot more prosperous under the Conservatives and that people wanted to use their cars, so we needed to make some improvements to the transport system to accommodate their wishes. That does not give the right hon. Gentleman an excuse to come along and make the problem 10 times worse, with his bus lane on the M4 and his closure of half the tube system. Instead, it means that he should follow our policy by privatising the tube system and clearing the roads.
  Mr. Prescott: Let us not pretend that traffic jams started with new Labour. They were with us before, and they became considerably worse because of the policies pursued by the previous Administration.
  Let me give another quote from the same article, in which the right hon. Gentleman offered ideas about how to improve the transport system. Under the headline, "How I would free drivers from gridlock", he wrote:
  "The main A roads, especially the main routes into London, should be freed of any traffic management impediments"—
  such as speed cameras, speed humps and so on. In other words, "deregulation of the roads". The right hon. Gentleman regards driving on the left as an affront to personal liberty, and traffic lights as an attack on human rights, but can the House imagine him on the M4 if the changes that he suggests were made? The frustration of trying to travel on such a congested deregulated road would cause him to try to return to his home planet, Vulcan, with a cry of "Beam me up, Scotty!"
  No wonder he does not like to acknowledge the positive results of the M4 bus lane pilot. Whatever the rhetoric in the papers or from Opposition Members, it is clear that, in the first two weeks of the M4 bus lane pilot, 3,500 buses and taxis improved their journey times by 16 minutes, and car journeys were shortened by two minutes in the rush hour. Furthermore, there is a projected 20 per cent. cut in accidents. I believe that result to be win, win, win, but all that we hear from the right hon. Gentleman is whinge, whinge, whinge.
  Let me make it clear: I am certainly not anti-car. I am for ever being called Two-Jag Prescott, so I assume that that means that I love motor vehicles—and I do. The right hon. Member for Wokingham said that he has two Jaguars; they are beautiful cars and I like them. However, that does not mean to say that I do not think there should be a better public transport policy and that we should seek to encourage people to use public transport more and their vehicles less—as each of us must do. I certainly observe that rule. I am not anti-car, but I am anti-congestion.
  208
  I assume we all share that view. The car has done much to improve the lives of people in this country and I am determined that we will do all that we can to ensure that the benefits of car ownership are not lost to future generations. However, those benefits will be lost if we allow congestion to grow at its current rate. There will be 6 million more cars on the roads in 20 years if we do not effect some kind of change. Try to consider how much road space will be necessary to accommodate 6 million more cars. We cannot build our way out of the problem—just ask Lord Parkinson who, as Secretary of State, proposed 14 new roads for London. Londoners soon made it absolutely clear what they thought about that road programme.
  We cannot build our way out of the problem—and that is not only my conclusion but that of the previous Administration in its last transport Green Paper. The Conservatives advocated moves to better public transport systems and the shadow transport spokesman said that he agreed with that policy. The previous Government came to that conclusion late in the day—after 17 years in government, they decided that they had got it wrong. The Opposition transport spokesman admitted that today, when he said:
  "Mistakes have been made; we came quite late to this whole issue."
  He is probably right about that, but we suffered a great deal as a result of the Conservatives' policy mistakes.
  The worst thing for motorists would be to follow the same route as the Tories—the right hon. Member for Wokingham seemed to advocate that course of action in his speech—and surrender to congestion. That would be bad for the economy, bad for the environment and bad for the motorists—just ask them. Doing nothing is not an option; we must make changes if we are to have any influence over congestion.
  Mr. Efford: Does my right hon. Friend agree that those who claim that the bus lane on the M4 is the cause of congestion are implying that there have never been any problems on that motorway? I have worked in London's transport system and I can vouch for the fact that there were enormous problems. Does my right hon. Friend agree also that traffic jams on the M4 are a sign of things to come if we do not do something to make public transport flow freely and shift people out of their cars and on to public transport?
  Mr. Prescott: It is about offering people a better choice. Our policy aims precisely to allow people freely to make the decision to use public transport more and their cars less. It is a voluntary choice, but other European countries—which have more cars per head of population than we do—have managed to persuade their motorists to use their cars less and public transport more. People do not use public transport in this country because that system has been run down.
  We believe that things can get better and that we can achieve change in Britain. We made clear in our White Paper that we want a transport system that is safe, clean, efficient and fair. We will achieve those objectives by prioritising and improving public transport; by improving traffic management and road maintenance, not by deregulating the road system; by creating a more integrated transport system and linking transport with planning and a wider range of Government policies.

  209
  We cannot do that overnight—anybody who believes that we can is in cloud cuckoo land. To make those kinds of changes and to persuade people to make different decisions about how they will travel and move from A to B is not an easy task. However, it must be done. Doing nothing is not a possibility. We have to improve the situation, and that will take time.
  Miss Julie Kirkbride: As the right hon. Gentleman thinks that there are difficult choices to make, I would be grateful for some clarification. I presume that he approves of the charges for workplace car parking spaces that are proposed in the west midlands. Who does he think should pay the £250 parking charge: the employee or the employers?
  Mr. Prescott: That is an interesting point to which I shall turn in a minute. I remind the hon. Lady that that was the policy of the previous Government—they produced a Green Paper on the subject. At the time, the hon. Lady was writing about what was said in Parliament. If she reads that document, she will find that that was Conservative policy. One Opposition transport spokesman is saying yes and another is saying no. A transport spokesman has said from time to time, "We came late to it, but we have begun to make those changes."
  We are making a start. We have made improvements in our first two years in government. We have increased resources for public transport and local transport by £1.8 billion. We have established a shadow strategic rail authority that will deliver tougher rail regulation. We will raise road maintenance spending, through an extra £600 million over three years, to nearly £3 billion a year. As a result of those policies, we have seen an increase in the number of bus passengers in England for the first time in decades. Those figures have not increased in this country, year after year and decade after decade but, now, more people are choosing to use the bus system to travel from A to B.
  We have allocated £150 million to rural transport services—about which I hear a great deal. Our programme for rural bus services has produced, within 18 months, 1,500 new and improved services that people in rural areas are using and that they wanted and needed. The rural audit, which was conducted a year or so ago, made it clear that people in rural areas wanted a better public transport system. The right hon. Gentleman might not want that, but I assure him that rural constituents throughout the country are very pleased with our improvements to rural transport services.
  Mr. Owen Paterson: rose—
  Mr. Prescott: I cannot give way.
  The rail industry has seen a 14 per cent. increase in passengers and there has been a 12 per cent. increase in rail freight since the general election. An extra 1,000 trains have been running each day since the general election and more than 70 new freight terminals have opened. Twelve new railway stations are opening this year. We are restoring a new confidence to the public transport system in this country.
  210
  We are taking the necessary long-term decisions. We produced a transport White Paper—the first in 20 years. The previous Administration produced only a Green Paper. In view of what they did to public transport, one would have thought they might have had further thoughts on the subject. The White Paper made 81 recommendations, 70 of which have already been implemented. Ten recommendations require legislation and six are enshrined in legislation that is either before the House or is about to come before us. There has been tremendous implementation of the transport White Paper.
  It is a radical document that addresses the problems of transport and the environment; congestion and pollution. Measures include providing powers for local authorities to use congestion charging and workplace parking levies. They are part of the toolbox of measures for dealing with transport problems. That is the most targeted way of tackling congestion. It is also the view of the previous Administration—although that seems to be contested. Their transport Green Paper, produced by the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), stated:
  "The Government will therefore discuss with the local authority associations how best to take matters forward on these topics and with a presumption in favour of introducing legislation in due course to enable congestion charging to be implemented".
  That was the Conservative party's policy when it left office. I do not know whether that remains Tory policy—perhaps we will be told in the winding-up speech.
  We did something else: we endorsed the principle of hypothecation.
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Meaninglessly.
  Mr. Prescott: The hon. Gentleman says that, yet all moneys raised as a result will go directly to financing the public transport system. Will the hon. Gentleman confirm whether the Conservatives endorse hypothecation as a way of financing public transport? The right hon. Gentleman talked about the poll tax. As I understand it, he was in charge of the policy unit that devised the poll tax under Mrs. Thatcher. Perhaps it remains fresh in his mind: another disastrous experiment in local government financing. The right hon. Gentleman's public transport ideas would be as bad as those of the previous Tory Administration.
  This Government believe in strong public-private partnerships, in which the risk is carried by the private sector. In recent years, a great deal of my time has been spent trying to rescue the incompetent deals done by the Tories. We salvaged the channel tunnel rail link, which was on the brink of collapse, refusing to meet the extra demands for £1 billion. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) might laugh, but it was a stupid beggar on her side of the House who agreed to that contract. The company then came to me and asked me for another £1 billion. The company in charge of the Jubilee line is now doing the same thing.
  I was able to renegotiate the channel tunnel rail link contract, and about 10 per cent. of that project has now been completed, on budget and on time. If the project's costs overrun, the company pays them and, if it makes a profit, the taxpayer gets a share. That is a fundamental difference in the way in which we deal with public-private partnerships. That will govern our approach to future

  211
  developments, particularly on the London Underground. The Jubilee line is a classic example of the projects to which I have referred. The contract was not well negotiated, and contractors were able to get a considerable sum from the taxpayer because we had to meet obligations. That was due purely to the incompetence of the previous Government.
  In conclusion, I shall deal with out-of-town shopping. I did not intend to mention this matter, but the right hon. Member for Wokingham mentioned it. It is a bit much for members of the previous Administration to talk about transport and planning, when one of the greatest effects on congestion and the demands placed on our motorways was the growth in out-of-town shopping.
  In 1979, there were 150 out-of-town shopping centres and, by 1997, there were nearly 1,000. The Conservatives opened the doors for those centres; they let rip. Now, we have demands for 16 lanes and traffic lights to deal with the traffic on the motorways leading to the big shopping centres in places such as Sheffield. We do not believe in allowing such development. It has been disastrous, as the Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning made clear, on behalf of the Prime Minister, only last week. It is only the press who prattle on and try to suggest that such changes should be made.
  If the Opposition are having difficulty in figuring out whether the Asda deal will have an effect on transport policy, perhaps they should ask the Conservative Member who is Asda's director. He could tell them the answer because he sold the company to the Americans.
  This is a typical example of an Opposition debate because it flies in the face of the evidence, ignores all that the Tories did in their 18 years in power and offers us no solution to transport problems. There is an awful lot of political rhetoric and very little substance. The Opposition made a tactical error in choosing to link planning and transport in a debate, because we are linking planning and transport policy as never before. It was right that we brought together environment and transport in one Department because that was a major step towards the integrated decision making that is needed. As I have said, the Tory record on planning was disastrous.
  This debate demonstrates that the Tories want to build more roads, but they want to save the countryside. They oppose congestion, but in government they failed to tackle it. They want good public transport, but in government they dismantled the rail and bus networks. Most of them want to tackle climate change, but they reject the means to do so.
  The Government recognise the scale of the problem that we inherited. The consultation on our White Paper reveals that there is now a consensus for radical change in transport policy. For far too long, public transport has been treated as shabby and second class. We want, and intend to deliver, a better-quality integrated transport system to offer more choice and achieve a better balance between public transport and car dependence. That will be better for the economy and quality of life, and it will offer better social justice.
  8.4 pm
  Mr. Stephen Day: I enjoyed the Deputy Prime Minister's speech. I find it amusing that he criticised my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) for the quality of his jokes.
  212
  All I can say is that when my right hon. Friend makes the House laugh, it is usually intentional, which is not the case when the Deputy Prime Minister gets to his feet. I find his comments amazing after his recent embarrassing performance at the Dispatch Box.
  I want to address my comments to three main areas of transport policy and connected planning policy. The first is the west coast main line. I speak as joint chairman of the all-party west coast main line group, and I should like to pay tribute to the group, particularly the work of my co-chairman, the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew). The west coast main line is one of the most important transport features for my area and probably for the area extending up to the west of Scotland.
  I declare an interest in this matter which is listed in the Register of Members' Interests. Some time ago, both chairmen of the all-party group were guests of Virgin Trains. We went to see the new tilting train mechanisms and designs that have been produced in Milan, which will eventually be built in Birmingham and Preston.
  The second issue that I want to address is the Manchester airport eastern link road, which I raised only last week in the House. I shall continue to raise that matter with Ministers until they have the common sense to finish a motorway that has already been started and not to cancel the rest of the project. The third issue is the impact on the area around my constituency resulting from the Government's decision to approve the application for a second runway at Manchester airport.
  I draw hon. Members' attention to the fact that there has been an exhibition about the west coast main line in the Upper Waiting Hall today. The exhibition was sponsored by Railtrack and Virgin Trains, and a Railtrack press release refers to a new £35 million contract for work to be done on the west coast main line. Phase 1 is under way, and phase 2 is the subject of the press release. The project means that by 2002 there will be new trains on that line travelling at 125 mph, and by 2005 they should be travelling at 140 mph. That will greatly improve travel times to Euston from Manchester and other places along the line.
  I have always approached the subject from a non-party political point of view, as has the all-party group. Having listened to the Deputy Prime Minister's comments, I will not be surprised if, when success is eventually achieved, the Government tell us that it is all their doing. I do not doubt that the investment on the west coast main line is long overdue, but the truth is that it is coming about for the simple, practical reason that the railways were privatised. It would never have happened otherwise.
  Mr. Prescott: Under any Government?
  Mr. Day: Under any Government. The Deputy Prime Minister knows full well—better, perhaps, than anyone else in the Government—that however much he, personally, may be committed to expenditure, the Treasury decides that the money is not available. The dead hand of the Treasury stopped investment in the British Rail network for years. That investment is now coming about because of privatisation.
  Mr. Miller: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's comments about my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew). However, if the hon. Gentleman believes

  213
  that a policy introduced by the previous Administration will deliver to the west coast main line the results that he saw in Milan, will he be voting for our amendment, rather than the original motion, which says that there are
  "no policies to increase…rail capacity"?
  Mr. Day: The policy currently being implemented is our policy. This Government have simply continued our policies and run the rail network that the previous Government created. This Government have no initiatives or vision about how to deal with the rail network. There are improvements now only because the Government have not reversed the policy of privatisation. Thank God that they have not, because private investment is being made in the west coast main line, and its success is vital.
  The west coast main line is the busiest route not just in the United Kingdom but in Europe, so it is essential that it is modernised to the extent announced. With investment from Railtrack, Virgin Trains and Angel Trains, which is buying the lease for the trains from the Fiat-Alstom consortium—all major private companies—the long overdue improvements in the service on the line, which my constituents and those from Euston to the west of Glasgow have a right to expect, will ultimately be made.
  Mr. Norman Baker: Of course I acknowledge the need to modernise the west coast main line, but does the hon. Gentleman accept that such modernisation has been rather over-hyped by Railtrack and that it is dressing up the renewal of basic infrastructure as new investment? In fact, on some stretches of the line, the maximum speed limit will not increase.
  Mr. Day: If the hon. Gentleman knows anything about the west coast main line he will know that many of the current delays are caused by the use of old rolling stock, which Virgin is still running. Many of the trains are ex-British Rail—30 years old and some. There will be improvement with new rolling stock, which will obviously be able to travel faster, but only when the line is straightened and the signalling system is upgraded. Today's Railtrack press statement sets out clearly that the bulk of the £35 million contract will be spent on new signalling and points systems at various places on the track which cause delays and bottlenecks outside stations such as Euston.
  All that is as a result of privatisation. If privatisation had not happened, we would not be seeing the improvements that, thank goodness, we are beginning to witness. There has been criticism of Virgin—I would be the first to say that much of it has been valid—but at least the company and its partners on the west coast main line project have the guts to put the money up front that will eventually bring about much needed improvements.
  I accept readily that, in trying to reduce traffic congestion on motorways and roads, it is sensible to encourage people to use trains. Anybody with any common sense realises that, but we should not destroy alternative ways of solving such problems or force people out of their cars. The attitude that there are too many cars on the road, so people must be stopped from driving and travelling to out-of-town shopping centres in which people want to shop, is shared by old and new Labour. It is not surprising that the Deputy Prime Minister fronts the policy.
  214
  There is no question that the congestion difficulties that out-of-town shopping centres have undoubtedly brought about must be dealt with. But the answer for new Labour is to tell people that they cannot shop in such places. It says, "That is wrong, bad. Do as you are told. Do as I say, not as I do." That is not the answer to Britain's transport problems.
  On the M6 in Staffordshire—[Interruption.] I want the Deputy Prime Minister to listen for a second, if that is possible. There is a minor problem but a great irritant caused by congestion on the M6 in Staffordshire as a result of necessary work—I do not dispute that—to improve lane signalling, which is being carried out by the right hon. Gentleman's Department.
  There are logjams on that section of the motorway when the road is busy; traffic often comes to a halt in any case. With two-mile gaps between seven or eight sets of roadworks, there are 50-mile an hour speed limit signs. Therefore, even when the road is reasonably empty, traffic slows. It is not as though the work is going on throughout Staffordshire. One drives for miles and miles at a restricted speed limit, and what does one see? One sees three men and a digger at the side of the road. That infuriates drivers. I want the Deputy Prime Minister to ask his Department whether it is necessary to restrict the speed limit on almost all the M6 throughout Staffordshire—these works are to continue until March next year.
  Mr. Gordon Prentice: Next point.
  Mr. Day: Many of the hon. Gentleman's constituents drive on that stretch of road every day. I hope that they take note of his comments. He obviously has no interest in the concerns expressed by his constituents who use that stretch of motorway.
  My constituents are being failed dramatically by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the Government on a number of issues. The cancelled bypass around Manchester airport is only one of them. Many of my constituents live on the flight path to Manchester airport. The flight path is no great detriment to the lives of the majority of my constituents, many of whom—myself included—are proud of the airport.
  In order to deal with congestion in the sky, the airport authorities have for many years asked for the power to fine aircraft that stray from the flight path over my densely populated constituency. Despite the fact that the Government agree with that principle, and that about 18 months before the election the previous Government agreed also, the airport authorities are still waiting for the regulations to be brought before the House. I simply appeal to the Deputy Prime Minister to do something for my constituency. One thing would be to enact what the Government claim they support and allow airports the power to fine airlines who stray from flight paths. Will he seriously consider that?
  Mr. Prescott: I have not found the best way of doing it.
  Mr. Day: Such sedentary comments give me the impression that the Deputy Prime Minister is very flippant about the matter. I hope that he takes it seriously because, for many of my constituents, it is a major issue. I simply

  215
  ask him to ensure that his Department finds time to put the regulations before the House and thereby ensure that airports have the powers that they want. If he asks the Manchester airport authorities what powers are required, he will find out—because they support every word that I am saying.
  Up and down the country, towns and villages are awaiting one development to rid their communities of pollution: bypasses. This Deputy Prime Minister and this Government have cancelled their one hope of being saved from pollution. Bypasses are the one way in which communities that suffer dense traffic may be relieved in the short term and for the future, yet the resolution of their problems has been taken away from under their noses. [Interruption.] The Deputy Prime Minister will hear about this whether he likes it or not.
  The bypass to which I shall refer is a third part built. Nevertheless, the remaining two parts—the Poynton bypass and the western section of the Manchester airport eastern link road—have been cancelled. That is a joke. The proposed road has always been known as the Manchester airport eastern link road, yet the Government have cancelled the building of the part that links the road to the airport. It is unbelievable.
  Mr. Prescott: It is not the only road to the airport.
  Mr. Day: I would like the Deputy Prime Minister to visit my constituency. He and his Ministers have been asked on many occasions to see it for themselves so that I can prove to them that what I am saying is true. I would like to see the Deputy Prime Minister walk down Woodford road between Bramall and Woodford and see the reaction that he received. I advise him to take his Jaguar so that he can make a quick getaway. I would like to see him walk along Finney way in Heald Green, where the missing section of the link road should be. It has no apparent chance of being built with this Government's attitude.
  Mr. Jenkin: Will my hon. Friend remind his constituents that the Deputy Prime Minister found £63 million to improve the road in his own constituency?
  Mr. Day: My constituents would be surprised, but I doubt whether they would be shocked by that.
  I must impress on Ministers on the Treasury Bench that my constituents in Cheadle, Bramall, Heald Green and Woodford desperately want the bypass. Seven thousand signatures were collected, but not by people going round knocking on doors and presenting petitions. The petitions were simply left in local post offices, and within two months, 7,000 signatures were collected from people who wanted the bypass. Despite the fact that the previous Government had given a starting date for the completion of the bypass, the present Government cancelled it.
  The story of Cheadle's missing bypass is not uncommon. The only thing that sets it apart from instances in other parts of the country is that in our case, part of the bypass already exists. That is the nonsense that my constituents will never understand.
  I also do not understand why the Government do not see the logic of completing the bypass, especially as the same Government gave permission for the second runway at Manchester, which will dramatically increase the traffic
  216
  flows to Manchester airport. Manchester airport admits that even though it is providing for extra rail links and other services and forms of transport to get to the airport, the majority of the increased journeys to the airport through my constituency will be by road.
  The bypass must be finished. It is beyond belief that a Government who gave permission for the second runway have cancelled the road link to the airport that is meant to service it. The entire issue needs to be thought through carefully, because it affects a wider area than the Manchester airport eastern link road. It affects the Poynton area in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) and the constituency of the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell), because of the eastern section of the MAELR, known as the Poynton bypass, which has been cancelled, and the Hazel Grove A6(M) bypass. The three motorway projects together are supposed to link up to the M60 and provide the necessary relief for the whole of what is known as the south-east quadrant of Greater Manchester.
  All that my constituents have seen as a result of the Government's green policy is their one chance of escape from pollution being taken away from them. That is the only change that they have seen. In its place is a promised study into the transport difficulties of the south-east quadrant of Greater Manchester. What a mouthful. I do not know precisely what that means, but on behalf of my constituents I shall raise one or two points with Ministers.
  First, I thank the Department for including at long last—it was not the original intention—Stockport metropolitan borough council in the steering committee that is to be set up to appoint consultants for the study of the south-east quadrant of Greater Manchester.
  Secondly, when the study gets under way, will it deal with the issue of the bypasses that have been cancelled, or will its aim be purely to find what the Government would call alternatives to those bypasses? I seek an assurance, as does the council in Stockport, that in the course of that study, the consultants will examine all aspects of transport policy, including the cancelled bypasses, and that the issue of roads will not be ignored.
  The argument applies equally to other parts of the country. I hope that the Government's rhetoric will not be matched by their actions, and that they will not ignore the possibility of any bypass providing a solution in any area. I fear that that will happen, but I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure me.
  Thirdly, as part of the study, will the Secretary of State or one of his Ministers consider coming to the area to see the difficulties that my constituents face? Since the road programme was cancelled, I have asked by letter and I have asked in the Chamber for Ministers to come and see for themselves. On no occasion have they given me a positive response.
  Mr. Andrew Stunell: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, and for notifying me of his intention to raise the matter. For my constituents in Hazel Grove, the road programme is vital. Does he agree that if the Minister visited the area, he would see that the conventional road network is no way able to take the

  217
  additional traffic that will result from the development of the second runway, and that the Government have failed to take proper account of that?
  Mr. Day: I agree. By approving the second runway, the Government recognised the importance of the north-west. They recognised the importance to the north-west of Manchester airport. In setting up the study, they recognised to some extent that there was a difficulty with transport in the so-called south-east quadrant of Greater Manchester, yet they took away one of the main solutions to that difficulty that was originally planned because the airport was expanding.
  Given my constituents' expectation over 20 to 30 years that the road would be built, given that a third of it is already built, given that the previous Government set a starting date, and given that the second runway is imminent, the Government can no longer hide behind a transport study and deny my constituents the protection and the service that they have every right to expect that the Government will provide, to ensure that their environment, which the Government claim that they are seeking to protect, is protected for the future.
  Mr. Gordon Prentice: We surrender!
  Mr. Day: It will be a nice day for me and my constituents when the Government surrender. For many other communities throughout the country—not just in Hazel Grove, Poynton, Bramall, Woodford, Cheadle Hulme and Heald Green—the Government must formulate a coherent transport policy. If they stopped restricting travel by car, assisted drivers to get where they want, provided investment for alternatives and tried to attract drivers to alternatives, rather than forcing them to use such alternatives and bringing nothing but despair to areas such as mine, that would indeed be a happy day.
  8.25 pm
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: The transport White Paper is the first major attempt for more than a generation to address seriously the problems of transport in Britain. The Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs made it clear that we regarded that as a tremendous advance, and we looked in considerable detail at the aspects of transport that we thought needed not only to be highlighted but in many instances advanced.
  The debate has been interesting because of Conservative Members' tremendous insistence on roads. Roads are an integral part of the transport system, but anyone in this country who talks about congestion without mentioning the alternatives to roads, the advance in hypothecation and the first attempt for well over 20 years by any Government seriously to address the problems of public transport is running away from everything that is important.
  Under the leadership of my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, we are at long last seeing a specific attempt to address a number of practical problems that have a direct impact on our economy. Transport and the economy are directly linked. That is not an accident. If we cannot move people and goods around the country,
  218
  we are unable to benefit as we should. Indeed, aviation and the rail system have a direct impact on gross domestic product.
  It was clear from the Select Committee's work that a number of areas should be addressed. I welcome the discussion about the Strategic Rail Authority. The sooner we get real parliamentary muscle behind the shadow Strategic Rail Authority, the sooner we shall begin to get changes. The previous Government fragmented the railway system like a cheap glass and left others to pick up the shards.
  I was interested in what the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day) had to say about the west coast main line. What the hon. Gentleman did not manage to say was that Railtrack is so concerned about the signalling system that it has issued an instruction to its contractors not to touch signalling. That is for fear that the system is so old that it will accidentally cease to operate, making the signals automatically go red and causing an advancing train the problems that we may have seen in the recent accident in the Winsford area—although I am not saying that such problems were the reason for the accident.
  Mr. Day: On the signalling matter that the hon. Lady raised, today's Railtrack press release says:
  "Phase Two, which will enable Virgin to increase train speeds … and provide additional capacity for other users, requires the development of a new moving block transmission-based signalling system."
  Phase 1 of the project involves £596 million to deal with the problem. Phase 2 will deal with it more specifically.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: The hon. Gentleman is very sincere, but I do not have the faith in press notices that he appears to have. Let me draw to his attention the £27 billion investment announced by Railtrack recently. If he reads my report, he will see not only how we examined that figure, but how it strangely became £11 billion and then, when we broke it down, only £1.6 billion. Railtrack uses creative accounting, but we discovered that its large investment programme is a combination of money that it would have had to spend on maintenance; schemes that would need even more public money for matching; and action on pinch points which have been outstanding since Railtrack took over.
  Suddenly, that £27 billion collapsed—right down to about £1.6 billion—and all those grandiose schemes disappeared into thin air. We are of course told that they will happen—if the taxpayer finds even more money; if we do not count maintenance; if Railtrack manages to use the money that we regard as absolutely essential for reinvestment in the signalling system; and if, somehow or other, Railtrack comes up with a new plan. That is ot what all that will mean.
  I am delighted that Railtrack is issuing notices saying that it will do fantastic things in the future, but I have the strange, old-fashioned idea that I should like it to do something in the present. Although that may sound rather unimaginative of me, Railtrack is walking away with large amounts of taxpayers' money. When it appeared before the Public Accounts Committee, there was detailed discussion of what it had spent on consultants and privatisation. It said that it had had to spend money because it needed highly specialised information, but the reality is that it is neither entrepreneurial nor efficient—

  219
  and nor, so far as one can see, is it capable of managing major schemes. If that is the case, any problems that will arise will arise not from its spending £27 billion but because we may be asking it to do something that it is not capable of achieving.
  Mr. Redwood: Given the hon. Lady's comments on Railtrack, is she suspicious of that organisation's being allowed to be the only bidder—the preferred bidder—for a third of the tube? In view of her comments on its conduct, would she like to say to the Deputy Prime Minister that perhaps he should not allow that?
  Mrs. Dunwoody: The nice thing about my relationship with my right hon. Friend is that I frequently say things to him that he understands without any difficulty at all. That situation has existed for at least the past 20 years and I do not expect it to change overnight.
  I am suspicious of Railtrack—that will not come as a surprise to my right hon. Friend, because I have been telling him that ever since it was created—and I shall continue to be suspicious of Railtrack.
  The Government of whom the right hon. Gentleman was a member created a merry-go-round of taxpayers' money, which meant that Railtrack finished up with the bulk of the cash. Of course it is one of the strongest players in the game. The fact that I do not trust Railtrack does not mean that it does not have the money. That is one of the things that worry me.
  The Select Committee report suggested to the Deputy Prime Minister—who, I am sure, paid great attention to it—that one solution would be for us to say to Railtrack, "In future you will get access charges, but a large amount of the money that you collect at present will be diverted to the Strategic Rail Authority, so that Railtrack can be paid after it has invested in the schemes that it promises." I do not consider that an unrealistic attitude. I hope that the Government will seriously consider whether Railtrack has fulfilled all its promises, and whether it is doing what it said it would do or is simply walking away with an enormous profit for its shareholders on the basis of extremely inadequate management techniques.
  I believe that the Deputy Prime Minister is doing such a good job that he needs to talk seriously to some of his colleagues. I do not mean just the Treasury, although, in my experience, all Governments need to speak clearly to Treasuries. The Deputy Prime Minister has succeeded in moving us towards a system of hypothecation. This is really the first time that it has been clearly understood that, if a large amount of money is raised from taxpayers in connection with transport—whether through road tolls or in the form of direct taxation—it is easy to persuade those taxpayers that an advance is being made in transport policy if they can see what is happening to their money.
  Mr. Eric Pickles: The hon. Lady is right to suggest that hypothecation is possibly the most exciting change in transport policy that we have seen so far. When I had the honour to serve with her on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee, we were very careful about our drafting in regard to hypothecation.
  Does the hon. Lady agree that it is regrettable that, after the Deputy Prime Minister achieved the change, an official in his Department—in connivance with a Treasury
  220
  official—changed the rules slightly, allowing sums taken for hypothecation to be spread and to be spent on matters other than transport? That means that the money goes straight back into the Treasury coffers.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: The Deputy Prime Minister has secured a 10-year time scale, which I think will enable the public transport system to be transformed. I wish that he had secured a longer time, but I am sure that any incoming Labour Government will be able to continue his excellent transport plans, and that, when we see the advances that are made over the next 10 years, we shall be able to plan for even more hypothecation in the future.
  Mr. Jenkin: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Dunwoody: I do not want to take too long, but I am terribly honoured that the hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene.
  Mr. Jenkin: I reciprocate the sentiment. However, we remain suspicious of hypothecation. Unless it also means additionality, hypothecation means nothing. According to a written answer in Hansard dated 20 July 1998, there is no public expenditure provision at all for London Underground after April 2000. If that is so, does it not mean that Government grant for the public-private partnership will be replaced by the revenues from congestion taxes and parking charges? Where is the fairness in that, given that motorists are already being fleeced by the Treasury? Why should the grant be taken away as well?
  Mrs. Dunwoody: I do not share this terrible worry about the motorist, for a very simple reason. If we had continued to take no action in relation to either road transport or public transport, the whole road system would have been in continual gridlock.
  Mr. Redwood: The hon. Lady is changing the subject.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: No. It is not possible to deal with a problem by ignoring it; that just makes it a hundred times worse. The present Government have grasped the nettle of difficult decision making. In many instances, they are telling people who use public transport but want to retain their cars, "That's fine, but you should be aware of the cost to both the environment and the quality of life for people who live in cities—and the cost to the facilities that you yourselves want."
  I hope that the Deputy Prime Minister will talk to the Home Office about the whole question of police enforcement. So far, there has been no discussion of the impact of road injuries, of the need to set targets, or of the need to accept the fact that, although the number of injuries is going down, the number of serious injuries continues to rise. I hope that we will be able to say to the Home Office that now is the time to put traffic law enforcement much higher up the list. It should be part of chief constables' core duties. They should find it possible to have considerably more energy directed towards traffic law enforcement. If they are not able to do so, the Government will have to consider seriously the creation of a traffic police. If they do not, we will pay a price.
  The role of the Home Office goes beyond that: it needs to look at the whole question of crime on public transport. There will undoubtedly be positive benefits from policies

  221
  that allow local authorities to enter into partnership with police authorities to ensure that there is better policing of public transport early in the morning and late at night. Women need to be assured that they can travel safely and comfortably to the place where they need to be.
  I hope that private Members' legislation will be introduced to allow us to impound illegally operated lorries. I was sad that such a power was not in one of this year's private Members' Bills. It would save lives. It is essential. That gap in the legislation needs to be addressed.
  The Strategic Rail Authority will produce enormous changes in the next five years. The operating companies will be required to work together. It is only since the Deputy Prime Minister succeeded in persuading them to do a lot more things in common that we have at last addressed the whole question of information, and of information systems that actually work.
  I meant to bring along a marvellous letter that I received today from Virgin Trains, after two months: they were sorry that I had used the internet to ask for information on a train direct to Manchester and had been told that I should change at Crewe, but that was because I had tapped in the wrong information—I should have asked for trains not just in the next hour but throughout the day. Had I done so, I would apparently have got information about more than the one train. I explained to Virgin when I wrote that I knew that Crewe was the centre of the universe but that it came as a considerable surprise that it had just learned that as well.
  We talk about what Virgin will do with its new tilting trains. We all want new efficient rolling stock. We want it to be built in this country. We build good engines in Crewe. It would be nice if people did not import them from elsewhere, but bought them from this country. However, no matter how good the rolling stock, if the rails are not there, it will not make any difference to the speed, efficiency or safety of the trains.
  Railways have strange habits: all trains have to run on rails. Unless Railtrack is prepared to provide high-quality rails, many of our plans for an integrated railway system will be as nought. The quality of investment and of equipment and the safety of signalling equipment will be so substandard that we shall be faced with continuing problems.
  For the first time in 20 years, we have a Minister who understands that transport has to be one of the most important policies that any Government espouse. All of us want changes in education and health. All of us understand that constitutional change frequently pushes out other, more domestic, measures. The reality for our constituents and everybody fighting their way on to the underground system is that, unless we get high-quality, safe public transport in place, none of the things that we want for our country in the new millennium will be possible, and we shall all suffer as a result.
  8.45 pm
  Mr. Norman Baker: I welcome the comments of the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). I agree with most of what she said, as I usually do on transport matters. I welcome, too, the fact that the Deputy Prime Minister and his team have not left
  222
  the Chamber throughout the debate. That example might be followed by some of their Front-Bench colleagues in other Departments.
  I am afraid that the Tories are in opposition mode. Their opposition is characterised by cynical opportunism and a cavalier disregard for the facts. I listened to the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) introduce the debate, but I did not like what I heard. Regardless of his portfolio, he always plays the man rather than the ball. On genetic modification he attacks Lord Sainsbury, and on transport he attacks the Deputy Prime Minister. The Government have made some mistakes on transport, and I shall come to them, but we need a mature debate rather than the personal attacks that we get from the Opposition, especially from the right hon. Member for Wokingham. He exaggerates the Government's faults to an absurd degree and stands with his hands clasped and a halo on his head pretending that year zero started on 1 May 1997. In truth, the inheritance from the previous Tory Government was lamentable.
  Just in case there is any suspicion that the Conservatives could be the saviours of transport policy, let me remind the right hon. Member for Wokingham of the record of his county council in Buckinghamshire. I have chosen Buckinghamshire because it is one of the few councils that has been solidly Tory year after year. Even in the dark days, it was the one county council controlled by the Conservatives. In 1994–95 it spent £52.03 per head on road maintenance—an issue that the Conservatives are always keen to mention. In 1998–99, that was down to £33.71. In 1994–95 it was spending a total of £14.8 million on road maintenance and by 1997–98 that was down to £8.5 million. This year, the council has stopped producing the figure for its council tax leaflets so we are not sure what it is, but as I understand it, it has dropped still further. That is the gap between the rhetoric which promises that everything will be wonderful under the Conservatives and the reality when they are in control of a council. It is not a record of which to be proud.
  During their 18 years in government they had a twin-track policy of private and public transport. The private element was the great car economy, which was the phrase of the Prime Minister of the day, now Baroness Thatcher. Another boast was that they had the biggest road building programme since the Romans. They are still on the same track. Their motion today criticises the Government for having
  "no policies to increase road or rail capacity in line with traffic growth forecasts".
  The motion moved by the Conservatives on 18 March condemned the Government for
  "cutting the programme of motorway and trunk road improvements to 37 schemes, which will increase congestion and pollution which the Government say they oppose".—[Official Report, 18 March 1999; Vol. 327, c. 1322.]
  How depressing that is.
  During their 18 years, the Conservative Government made many mistakes on transport policy. They attempted to build us out of problems year after year while watching congestion get worse and worse. Increasing numbers of environmental areas and sites of special scientific interest were destroyed. The incidence of asthma increased—one in six children now has asthma. There were more and more health problems, and the Confederation of British

  223
  Industry identified £19 billion a year as being lost because of congestion. Despite all that, it was not until the end of their time in government that we had a little relief when they at last recognised that it is not possible to build our way out of a problem. The report from the Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment—produced by the then Department of Transport—recognised that building more roads encourages more traffic. The Conservatives finally accepted that—hooray for that.
  The Tories cut their road-building programme dramatically, and cited environmental reasons for doing so. We thought that they had made many mistakes over 8 years, but at last they had recognised the fact that building more roads was not the answer. We now find out that in opposition they have unlearned that painful lesson, which took them so many years to learn. They are now back to where they were in the 1970s and 1980s. They think that if we build more and more roads, more and more bypasses, and more and more dual carriageways, then suddenly everything will be all right again. What nonsense.
  Mr. Christopher Fraser: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could explain the fact that his hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) approved, assisted, co-operated with and supported the Newbury bypass.
  Mr. Baker: I shall take that one head on. I did not approve of the Newbury bypass being built, and I have made that clear.
  Mr. Fraser: The hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend does, though.
  Mr. Baker: He does indeed. I do not approve of that bypass. It was not Liberal Democrat policy to build such a road.
  Mr. Fraser: The hon. Member for Newbury is standing as leader of the hon. Gentleman's party. He may be its future leader.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. I have to instruct the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mr. Fraser) to be quiet.
  Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman has asked me a direct question, and I shall give him a direct and honest answer. I thought that it was a mistake to build that road, and I did not support it. It was not Liberal Democrat policy at the time, but it was supported by the local Liberal Democrat Member of Parliament.
  When the shadow Transport Minister sums up, will he tell us exactly what his party's roads policy is? Is it, as the Conservative motion implies—they criticise the Government for not doing so—to increase road capacity in line with traffic growth forecasts? Are we back to meeting projected demand? Are we back to road-building programmes that meet the projected increase of 142 per cent., which is the 1989 figure? Are we back to covering the countryside in more and more concrete? If that is not Conservative policy, what is? What is the Conservatives' road-building programme? They criticise the Government
  224
  for knocking their programme down to 37 schemes, but how many roads are in the Conservative party's programme? Let us hear those facts from the Conservatives. If they are not prepared to say what their policy is, they should not criticise the Government in such a cavalier way.
  The public transport strand of Conservative policy in the past 18 years was a total disaster. Rail fares increased by 74.8 per cent. above inflation between 1974 and 1996, whereas road prices and the costs of driving decreased over that period by 3.5 per cent. We should remember that when we hear about the motorist being clobbered. It is the rail passenger who has been clobbered under the Tories. We must keep that in perspective when we hear the Conservatives argue for changes to fuel duty.
  While road users were given every encouragement and were told that they were wonderful and were given a road-building programme, rail users were given a second-class service, with clapped-out rolling stock, signals that did not work and no encouragement for rail investment. The rail network represented everything that the Conservative Government hated, especially the then Prime Minister, Baroness Thatcher. It was fixed, regulated and in the public sector. She did not like it, and people who had to travel by rail did so only because there was no alternative. That is not a successful transport policy.
  After 1986, with the calamity of bus deregulation, there was a catastrophic drop in the number of people using buses.
  Mr. Redwood: Will the hon. Gentleman move on from his biased history lesson and talk about the future? Does the Liberal party support the M4 bus lane? Would it like to see more bus lanes on other motorways?
  Mr. Baker: I remind the Front-Bench spokesman that my party is the Liberal Democrat party and not the Liberal party. Yes, of course we support bus lanes. If they are proved to work, we will support them. As the Deputy Prime Minister said, the figures from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions suggest that, during that experiment, travelling times were reduced not just for buses and taxis, but for private motor vehicles. Each bus lane must be judged on its merits, but according to the figures that I assume are accurate—they have not been spun—that particular bus lane is working. If so, I do not understand why the Conservatives oppose it, other than for purely dogmatic reasons—but that would not surprise me in the least.
  During the Conservative years, the poor and the disadvantaged suffered: the third of the population with no access to a car were expected to pay more than car users. While people were getting company car benefits to glide into central London and other city centres in their cars, other people had to pay the so-called market rate for second-rate buses and trains—and they had to stand all the way. Where was the comfort for them?
  I could not believe that I heard the right hon. Member for Wokingham describe safety measures and road traffic calming devices as "impediments". They are not there to save lives, or to help pedestrians and cyclists. They get in the way—they get in the way of people, such as the right hon. Gentleman, who want to drive very fast down roads

  225
  so that people on foot must get out of the way. [Interruption.] The record tomorrow morning will show that the word "impediment" was used.
  Mr. Redwood: The hon. Gentleman should listen more carefully. There are impediments such as the M4 bus lane, which is thoroughly unsafe as it is in the fast lane of the motorway and adjacent to the new fast lane. Of course we support safety improvements on other roads, where they are needed.
  Mr. Baker: The record will show that the word "impediment" was used in response to a query on chicanes and traffic calming.
  Conservative policy is this: car drivers should be entitled and encouraged to drive where they like—as uninhibited and as cheaply as possible—and the environment must pay. The public transport users must pay. The pedestrians and cyclists must pay. The poor and disadvantaged must pay. Those with health problems must pay. Nothing must stop the car driver, or the great car economy. What kind of a balanced transport policy is that?
  Mr. Paterson: In a rural area such as mine, the majority of people drive to work in a car. According to Shropshire county council, the figure is 67 per cent. What does the Liberal party say to those car users who, thanks to Government policies supported by the hon. Gentleman's party, will now be paying, on average, £900 per year in extra tax?
  Mr. Baker: First, I have no idea what the Liberal party would say, as it is a different party from mine. The Liberal Democrats recognise—I represent a rural area myself—that there are journeys in rural areas which must be made by private car where there is no realistic alternative. That is why we have a policy on vehicle excise duty under which someone driving a car of under 1600 cc for up to 24,000 miles a year will be better off, while someone with a gas guzzler will be worse off. The answer is that one chooses one's car carefully and one makes one's journeys carefully, and one will not suffer if one lives in a rural area.
  We want to support the Government in what they are doing, as we believe that their heart is in the right place. The ideas coming from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions are the right ideas, and I do not doubt the commitment of Ministers to improving transport policies and practice in this country. However, they sometimes make it difficult for themselves.
  The White Paper is full of good ideas, but they are not being implemented as quickly or as thoroughly as we would like. As the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich said, we need, above all, time for legislation and time to introduce changes. There is only so much that can be done by cajoling, shouting and encouraging. We need legislation to bring about changes, and so far that has not been proposed.
  There are certain measures in the Greater London Authority Bill—affecting London only, of course—but other measures have not been proposed to improve transport nationally. We are two years through this
  226
  Parliament—probably halfway through—and we are still awaiting legislation on this priority subject. I am sure that the Deputy Prime Minister has been pushing for legislation, but the fact is that he has not got it.
  Mr. Prescott: What does the hon. Gentleman want?
  Mr. Baker: I will come to that. Either the Prime Minister and the Cabinet are getting cold feet about the radical nature of the White Paper, or the Deputy Prime Minister has been outmanoeuvred by his colleagues who have other Bills that they want to propose, and he has not won the battle in Cabinet.
  We want a clear statement of how the Government are to achieve the road traffic reductions implied in previous legislation, and those agreed to in the Road Traffic Reduction (National Targets) Act 1998. Early-day motion 323, signed by 319 Members of Parliament, calls for real reductions in road traffic—not reductions in road traffic growth, a phrase that is now making its appearance. Of those 319, 236 are Labour Members. So the majority of the parliamentary Labour party have signed up to real reductions in road traffic, along with all Liberal Democrat Members, with the exception of the party leader, who by convention is not supposed to sign early-day motions. Only 19 Tory Members have signed, which shows that they are committed not to road traffic reduction but to road traffic increase.
  The Deputy Prime Minister said:
  "I agree to that commitment"—
  to reduce overall road traffic and not only road traffic growth—
  "judge me on my performance in five years."—[Official Report, 20 October 1998; Vol. 317, c. 1071.]
  That was a brave statement and I am pleased that he made it. His ministerial colleague, the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson), said:
  "our commitment to achieving not only a reduction in road traffic, but an absolute reduction, stands firm."—[Official Report, 18 March 1999; Vol. 327, c. 1365.]
  However, in a parliamentary answer to me in January she said that it is estimated that, with the transport White Paper policies in place—which they are not yet—traffic will grow by 37 per cent. by 2010 relative to 1990 vehicle kilometres. That is traffic growth of 25 per cent. over the next 10 years.
  The Government need to act more quickly and with more radical policies to bring about the reductions. There is no doubt that they inherited a terrible situation, with problems of infrastructure, especially in the rail network; of pollution, which causes 24,000 premature deaths a year and has led to one in six children having asthma; and of congestion. Nobody expects them to turn the oil tanker round overnight, but my constituents are chafing at the bit. We know that we must have the stick of restrictions or extra charges but we want the carrot of improvements in public transport, which are not happening as quickly as they should.
  The Government should be brave and legislate as soon as possible, in the next Session if not before, for a Strategic Rail Authority. They will by and large have our support for that. We want more real investment in rail, not the Railtrack version, dressing up maintenance as investment. We want rail lines to be reopened. I can give

  227
  the Deputy Prime Minister a list of those that could be reopened. We want freight-only lines to be used for passengers. We want new stations to be slotted in where they make commercial sense.
  We want the sale of British Rail land to stop. I thought that we had won that one—I pushed the Minister interminably for it—but the answer to a parliamentary question last week on what land had been sold since the moratorium ran to two pages. The moratorium is about as effective as the one on genetically modified crops.
  We need to consider more creative ways of using the tax system to encourage a better approach from drivers. The Budget made a start, and the graded tax disc was welcome, but it dealt only with cars under 1000 cc, which amount to less than 10 per cent. The Government have to take that welcome principle and extend it.
  Mr. Paterson: Referring to rural car users, I cited the figure of £900 a year as the extra cost, but only £150 of that is the VED element; £600 is extra fuel duty. Would it be Liberal Democrat policy to continue to support increases in the escalator year on year?
  Mr. Baker: I have set out the calculations on how our policy, including VED, would lead to a reduction in costs for rural drivers using a particular size of car to do a particular mileage. I think, therefore, that I have dealt with that point already.
  Finally, I shall turn briefly to what we want to happen with the rail system. We want trains to be reliable and safe, especially for women at night. We want them to be clean and welcoming. Above all, we want them to be cheap.
  In my constituency, the A27 Lewes-Polegate road is chock-a-block with traffic, while nearly empty trains run parallel to the road. The trains are nearly empty not because they are inconvenient or stop in the wrong place: the service is very good and the stations at Lewes, Brighton and Eastbourne are in the middle of town. The reason is that the trains are simply too expensive. Cutting fares would be a sensible use of Government money. The cost to the Treasury would be less than that incurred by the provision of infrastructure for new roads.
  Such things cannot be done overnight. I welcome the start made in the White Paper, but the Government are still in first gear. We want them to go further, faster.
  9.6 pm
  Miss Geraldine Smith: Much has been said tonight about congestion on our roads. I share the concerns that have been expressed in the debate, but it is difficult to swallow the criticisms levelled at the Government by Conservative Members. Public transport in this country was systematically run down over 18 years of Conservative Government. In that time, the whole of the former British Rail network was underfunded before the former Government privatised it at a knock-down price. Also, local authorities that tried to provide low-cost, efficient, local bus services were undermined by deregulation and the prohibition on subsidies to bus operators. The net result of Tory policies was the greater use of private cars and a reduction in the use of public transport.
  Conservative Members have a cheek when they talk about revitalising town centres, given the way in which their Government decimated those centres by giving
  228
  planning consent, year after year, for out-of-town shopping centres. We watched the growth of those centres throughout the Tory years—so I shall take no lectures from Conservative Members on transport policies. Their record is one of dismal failure over many years.
  However, I recognise that serious transport difficulties face this country. There is a long way to go before we achieve the integrated public transport that people require and deserve. I welcome the Government's recognition of the problem, and I welcome, too, their strategy to help to relieve congestion and bring about health and environmental improvements. We know the problems of pollution and the effects of congestion on our roads, and we know what that is doing to our children. We must address all those very serious issues. It is obvious to everyone—except, perhaps, to some Conservative Members—that the solution lies in getting people out of their cars and on to decent, affordable public transport. That must be done by persuasion.
  Mr. Paterson: Does not the hon. Lady understand that the Government's policy is urban driven and cannot apply to rural areas? There are 98 villages in my constituency. With the best will in the world, there will never be a comprehensive public transport system. Private cars, vans and lorries will remain the prime means of transport for people of all ages and classes. All commerce depends on motorised vehicles.
  Miss Smith: I appreciate that rural communities rely on private transport, but there are things that can be done. For example, the Post Office operates a post-bus service, which is very helpful in rural communities.
  Mr. Paterson: It runs once a day.
  Miss Smith: It delivers mail and carries people from village to village. However, I accept the hon. Gentleman's point that rural communities rely on private transport as well as public transport. There is no disputing that.
  We must persuade, not force, motorists out of their cars. There is a big difference in that. We must offer motorists safe, clean, reliable, affordable and convenient public transport. People in rural communities will leave their cars at home only if there are decent bus services. In some villages in my constituency, the last bus is at 6 pm, so without a private car no one can leave the village. We must address those problems before we ask people, unrealistically, to leave their cars at home.
  Huge capital investment—either public or from private partnerships—is required in public transport. Improvements should also come from general taxation, rather than from hammering the motorist with a multitude of charges, levies and taxes. I feel strongly that it is unfair to penalise the poorest motorists through raising petrol levies. We must persuade people to leave their cars at home by providing public transport. If we do it the other way around, we will put the cart before the horse.
  Many people choose not to drive. I did not drive for 10 years when I worked for the Post Office in the Morecambe and Lancaster area, but I had to take it up when I was forced to move to an office 30 miles away. Many of my constituents have no option but to drive to work on out-of-town industrial estates that are inaccessible by public transport. People who work shifts,

  229
  hospital workers, those who work in out-of-town shopping centres and many others have to drive to work. If we attack the motorists, we shall often be attacking low-paid workers who would have to leave their jobs if they had no car to get them to work.
  Many parents drop off children at school in the morning and collect them when the school closes. Often, there are no adequate school buses. Can parents, worried about safety, really be expected to allow children to walk to school? We must be realistic. School buses and safe routes to school are needed—but until they arrive, people will drive.
  Out-of-town shopping has damaged town centres and has not, on the whole, been good. However, it exists, and I, like many hon. Members, do my shopping out of town. Do we use public transport for that? Very few of us do, because it would be an absolute nightmare.
  Mr. Jenkin: I do.
  Miss Smith: The hon. Gentleman must be one of the few who go to out-of-town shopping centres on public transport. He will know what a nightmare it is to carry home bags of food, clothes and much more. Without a car, we have to depend on often unreliable public transport.
  I represent many rural villages, so I know the problems that people face when buses do not run beyond tea-time. It is sad that my constituents in the village of Warton have no way of getting home at night from Lancaster or Morecambe. We must address such problems, and I am pleased that the Government are trying to do so through the rural transport initiative.
  The car provides freedom for people with disabilities and older people. Even if the disability is slight—perhaps someone cannot walk far because of bad arthritis or a bad heart—people with disabilities need their cars to allow them to go to town. We must be careful not to penalise those people by driving fuel bills too high. Any Government foolish enough to take on the motorist would soon face serious difficulties. A large percentage of people drive. They depend on their cars. Next to their homes, most people aspire to owning a car. We must recognise that that is how people think and how they will continue to think for the foreseeable future. It is a fact of life and it will not go away because we want it to.
  We must consider how we can change people's attitudes, again by persuasion. What would persuade me to stop using my car is knowing that public transport was safe, reliable and convenient. We must ensure that it is, but to do so everyone has to pay the price. The people who will benefit most from improvements in public transport are those who do not own cars and who already use it. Surely, if they are to benefit, they should also contribute.
  Therefore, in the main, improvements in transport should be paid for from general taxation. It will take huge amounts of money and I recognise that the Government have been left with a transport system that is in an horrendous state. It has been neglected for 18 years. Car use has been allowed to escalate and we have not considered how we can persuade people to use other forms of transport. Our public transport system is crumbling. People complain about London, but if I
  230
  lived here I would at least find it easier to get around. There are all-night buses and there is the tube. In my constituency, buses often do not run at night and what service there is tends to be infrequent.
  Until we get all those things right, the Government must realise that people cannot be forced out of their cars. They simply will not have it. They will hit back against any Government who try to implement that policy—and the Government will lose out. We should not force people out of their cars. We should listen to what people tell us, which is that they enjoy using their cars and will continue to do so for the near future. Only through sensible transport policies will we reduce car use.
  Mr. Paterson: In that case, will the hon. Lady impress upon her Front-Bench colleagues that the fuel escalator should cease next year?
  Miss Smith: The fuel escalator was introduced by the hon. Gentleman's party. It did not do the Conservatives much good, as they lost the last general election. It was not a popular policy, but then not many of the policies that the Conservative Government were proclaiming at that stage were popular with the British people.
  My purpose tonight is to ask the Government to reflect carefully and to think about the vast majority of people in this country who drive cars and who need to be persuaded to use public transport. Transport needs to be in place for them to be able to use it.
  Mr. Paterson: Will the hon. Lady do the House the courtesy of answering my question? Will she propose that the Government do not extend the fuel escalator next year?
  Miss Smith: I was winding up. I told you that the fuel escalator was unpopular for your—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady does not tell me anything.
  Miss Smith: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was telling the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) that I did not think that the fuel escalator was a popular policy for the Conservative Government. If that policy is continued and the price of petrol increases dramatically, it will not be a popular policy for this Government, either. That is why I ask them to think carefully and why I am speaking tonight.
  9.19 pm
  Mr. David Tredinnick: I am grateful for being called to speak, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I noted that my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) was winding up the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Miss Smith) as she tried to wind up her speech.
  I am grateful to have a few minutes and I will confine my remarks to my Leicestershire constituency, to consider the problems of the development in Hinckley and the need to upgrade the A5 between the M1–M69 roundabout and the Longshoot junction at Nuneaton.
  Earlier, the Deputy Prime Minister said that it was a mistake to link planning and transport. I want to demonstrate that if we do not consider transport in relation

  231
  to the A5, Watling street and Hinckley, development in Hinckley will not take place in line with his inspector's recommendations on the local structure plan. As soon as those proposed developments are approved by the borough council, the Highways Agency will reject them on the ground that the trunk road does not have the capacity. I commend the Highways Agency and my local council—Hinckley and Bosworth borough council—for getting together to try to solve that problem sensibly.
  In my rural constituency of 100 square miles, there has been tremendous concern among car owners about tax increases. My hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire also referred to that matter. There has been particular concern in the more rural parts of my constituency, but firms such as Crowfoots, in the main town of Hinckley, are extremely worried about the hike in diesel costs. That has caused great hardship.
  There would be anxiety about any proposed bus lanes in the midlands. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) referred to the bus lane experiment on the M4. We should be most concerned about any proposed bus lanes on the M1 and the M69.
  The Secretary of State has failed to set up the much-vaunted Strategic Rail Authority; we should be interested to know when that will be done. It was one of his flagship proposals. The chaos on the Circle line reflects badly on the Labour Administration, too.
  In Hinckley, there will be no development on the main local sites—such as grass plots, Nutts lane, Coventry road housing estate or the area off Wolvey road, unless the Government are able to help us. There can be no development in line with the Government's proposed increase in house building in Hinckley and the rest of Leicestershire unless improvements are made to the A5—an important trunk road. It is nonsense that we are unable to expand Hinckley, which is a most important town in the midlands.
  The right hon. Gentleman can help us. The proposals are for a private-public partnership and will be introduced over five or six years. A few years ago, a small development took place on a section of the road from the Coventry road roundabout to Longshoot, which eased traffic enormously. We now need to extend that development. That could be done if the DETR, through the Highways Agency, looks kindly on the proposals. They have been well thought out and will cost about £9 million. If a railway bridge in the area is raised or lowered, the cost may increase by about 10 per cent to 20 per cent. If the Deputy Prime Minister supports the scheme, there will be huge benefits for the nation, because when the M6 is clogged up, the A5—the main arterial road running from London to the north-west—comes into play. I appeal to him to take note of that local initiative.
  During the past fortnight, there have been two fatal accidents on that part of the road and there have been four fatal accidents in almost as many months. We need black-spot and warning signs on that section, and we need markings on the roundabouts. We need immediate action. I appeal to the Deputy Prime Minister to consider the matter.
  Jacqui Smith: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that he is arguing for traffic calming measures, such as those opposed by Members on the Conservative Front Bench during the opening comments of the debate?
  Mr. Tredinnick: The hon. Lady must have misunderstood me; I thought that I was arguing for improvements on the road itself—a dual carriageway, three lanes and some roundabouts. That was the principal thrust of my argument.
  Mr. Paterson rose—
  Mr. Tredinnick: Does my hon. Friend want to intervene?
  Mr. Paterson: I merely wanted to say that the hon. Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith) shamefully misinterprets my hon. Friend's arguments.
  Mr. Tredinnick: I am grateful to my hon. Friend.
  The Deputy Prime Minister has a unique opportunity to use his influence in respect of a major strategic road in the middle of England and to enhance his own reputation. I hope that he will not miss that opportunity.
  9.25 pm
  Ms Rosie Winterton: I am glad to have an opportunity to speak in the debate, because transport has an enormous effect on the quality of life of all of us and of our constituents.
  In a voluntary capacity, I am a member of the RAC's public policy committee, so I know how important it is to motorists that we do something to reduce congestion on our roads. The RAC Foundation for Motoring recently surveyed RAC members, and the results show that 78 per cent. of motorists are concerned about traffic congestion. That motorists are concerned about the costs of motoring is to be expected, but they also know that congestion is costly to business and in health terms. Motorists know that, not only because they are car drivers and car users, but because they are also pedestrians, cyclists and rail users.
  The survey shows that everyone knows that maintaining the status quo is not an option; people want change. The Government are delivering change, by providing an extra £1.8 billion for public transport, developing local transport plans with local authorities, providing an extra £170 million for rural buses, and increasing road maintenance. Those measures are making a real difference in improving public transport.
  Although congestion charging has not yet started, local authorities will be able to establish local transport plans that will, as my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Miss Smith) said, help to persuade people to leave their car at home. If bus lanes, park-and-ride facilities, bypasses and ring roads are available, funded through local transport plans, the motorists will be offered a choice and, as the RAC says, that is the way to ensure that people believe that they can leave the car at home.
  Mr. Fraser: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Ms Winterton: No—I am sorry, but I have very little time.
  The RAC survey showed that the majority of motorists said that, if the money derived from congestion charging went back—at local level—into improving transport, providing better roads and better public transport,

  233
  they would support charging. That is why the link with hypothecation is so important to the Government's aims. The survey also showed that 49 per cent. of motorists said that, if charging were introduced, they would try to car share; and, of those, 94 per cent. said that they thought that that could be achieved.
  That survey was only of motorists—it did not take into account the views of those who do not have cars. In my constituency, 40 per cent. of people do not have a car—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There are private conversations going on in the Chamber. It is bad manners to talk though the hon. Lady's contribution to the debate.
  Ms Winterton: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  The 40 per cent. of people in my constituency who do not own a car would not have been consulted in the survey, which shows that motorists support the action that the Government are taking.
  The RAC Foundation for Motoring recently published a report, "Civilising Cities", which shows that people in local communities believe that improved transport links can help to increase employment, enhance access to leisure facilities and improve health through better air quality. The RAC believes that, if the DETR could set up a unit that would take those indicators into account—much in the way suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody)—that would help in assessing the effectiveness of local transport strategies. There is no doubt that it will take time to improve public transport—we must clean up the mess left by the Conservatives—but I am convinced that the actions of this Government will enable us to do that.
  9.30 pm
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin: This Government were elected promising a great deal. Labour promised that there would be no new taxes and immediate benefits for the travelling public. We can laugh a hollow laugh at that. Labour said that merging the Departments of Transport and the Environment would create what it called "joined-up Government". Two years on, we have soaring anti-car taxation—the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Miss Smith) is right: the motorist is feeling hammered—transport spending has been cut and the Government pontificate endlessly against the car and against the ordinary folk who use it. We have had precious few policies and no legislation—which may be rather a good thing. We have had numerous consultation documents and policy launches, but the problems are worse than ever. Labour promised an integrated transport policy, but it is delivering a stand-still Britain.
  After more than two years in office, all that the Government have to show for their transport and planning policies are ever-lengthening queues: queues of traffic on our motorways, queues of commuters waiting for their trains, queues of vehicles in town and city centres, queues of decisions waiting to be made and ever-growing queues of unanswered questions that are fundamental to the direction of future policy.
  It is the Minister for Transport's first time at the Dispatch Box with me, so I shall be gentle with her. However, I should be grateful if she will answer in her
  234
  winding-up speech some of the questions that the Government's policies leave unanswered. Let us consider the problems on the tube. The Circle line has been closed for two weeks and will remain closed for another seven weeks. Later this week, the city branch of the Northern line will also be closed for repairs. There is uncertainty about when the Jubilee line extension will be completed.
  Will the Minister make a brief statement about the future of the public-private partnership on the tube? Will the Minister admit that the PPP is now at least one year behind the timetable envisaged in March 1998, that the contracts should have been let last September—we are not yet at the pre-qualification stage—and that the completion date of April 2000 is now ludicrously impossible? Will she tell the House who supports this public-private partnership? Not a single mayoral candidate is on record as backing it. Does the hon. Lady remember Labour's criticism of rail privatisation: that it was fragmenting the network? This public-private partnership will fragment the tube into four different companies, fragment the sub-surface tube from the deep tube and will split the management of the tube from that of London Buses for the first time in more than a generation. How is that integration?
  Who will pay for the PPP? A written answer makes it clear that the Government subsidy for the tube will run out in April next year. Is it now apparent that the congestion charges and parking taxes will be hijacked by the Government to pay for their failed policies on the tube. What will happen when the money runs out? It is quite obvious that London Underground will run out of funds before the PPP is in place. Does the Minister agree that Londoners will rue the day when Labour cancelled the Conservative investment plans for the tube?
  The public-private partnership is an extraordinary beast. It is one thing to privatise the management and the operations of the tube and hold the assets in the public sector but quite another to privatise the assets but keep the management answerable to the whims and fancies of politicians and civil servants. There is no precedent for the PPP. I recall the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (Mr. Dewar) describing the privatisation of British Airways as the "pantomime horse of capitalism". This public-private partnership will be the pushmi-pullyu of the public sector.
  The consensus option is the model proposed by Professor Glaister. Why do not the Government consider that? The supreme irony is that privatised Railtrack will be bailing out the Deputy Prime Minister's discredited policies.
  That brings us to railway investment. I have a few questions about that. Does the Minister agree with Sir Alastair Morton, who says that he wants to make rail privatisation work, and that it was always going to take 10 years to do so? When will the Strategic Rail Authority Bill be published? Is it true that the Deputy Prime Minister was forced to remove that announcement from his speech this afternoon? What powers are needed by the SRA that the British Railways Board, the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising and the Rail Regulator do not already have? Is a new statute really necessary?
  When will the Government stop fighting the previous election campaign against the rail companies that are trying to deliver the network and service improvements that the Government say they want? If the rail franchises

  235
  are too short, why have the Government taken no action on that for over two years? How will Railtrack deliver its £27 billion investment plans if Ministers continue to threaten its profitability and undermine its share price? That investment includes the investment in the west coast main line, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day) pointed out. When will the Government make the decisions that will enable Railtrack to deliver the rest of its investment plans?
  What is the objective of the rail regulatory review, and when will that be completed? With freight trebling over 10 years, what will the Government do to improve on their target, which is presumably part of their policy? As sure as eggs are eggs, increasing fuel duties for road freight is not the answer.
  That brings me to the crisis in the road haulage sector. After her Government's massive hikes in fuel tax and vehicle excise duty, does the Minister recognise that the UK road haulage industry faces an unprecedented crisis? Is she aware that one in 10 long-haul trucks in the UK are now foreign-registered? The Conservatives' policy is to end the fuel escalator. What is the Government's policy? Will they increase fuel duties in the next Budget? The Minister's predecessor was considering our plans for the Britdisc. What progress has she made on that? She has finally agreed a new meeting, on 19 July, for the road haulage forum, but why has it taken so long since the first meeting—which was in early April—to do so? Are such delays the penalty for having a new Minister for Transport every year?
  Does the right hon. Lady think that forcing UK hauliers out of business will help to solve congestion on our roads? Is taxation—on fuel, congestion and parking—the Government's only policy to solve congestion? In response to the remarks of the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale, I ask whether it is fair to try to price poorer motorists off the road. That is the effect of the Government's policy.
  On planning and congestion, has the Minister read the report by her noble Friend Lord Rogers? He says that building 40 per cent. of the 4 million new homes required over the next 25 years on green-field sites would
  "lead to a further erosion of the countryside, increase traffic congestion and pollution, damage biodiversity and increase social deprivation".
  What is the Government's response to that?
  Congestion growth is found not in city centres or suburban areas but on inter-urban roads, where traffic is set to grow by 70 per cent. over the next 20 years. The hon. Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton) is right to say that congestion is costly, but how will cancelling virtually the entire roads programme reduce congestion? Ninety-one per cent. of journeys are made by car, and 94 per cent. of land freight is moved by road. My hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick), who spoke in the debate, understands that.
  There is a fundamental contradiction in the Government's policy: there is no evidence that traffic growth forecasts have changed, but they are making absolutely no provision for any traffic growth.
  Mr. Nicholas Soames: Is my hon. Friend aware of the astonishing decision taken by the Deputy Prime Minister to grant additional planning permission for
  236
  even more new houses in West Sussex without any provision for improvements in infrastructure? How does that combine with care for the environment?
  Mr. Jenkin: My hon. Friend is right; the decision does nothing about caring for the environment. Nor will it reduce traffic and congestion.
  It is perfectly all right for the Minister for Transport, who represents a Scottish constituency, to sit in her place and pontificate about policy—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The House must come to order.
  Mr. Jenkin: In the 18 years of Conservative Government, spending per head on roads was 24.7 per cent. higher in Scotland than in the rest of the United Kingdom. In the Government's own plans, spending remains 12.3 per cent. higher in Scotland. How can the right hon. Lady come to this House, where she has no responsibility for roads in her constituency, to tell us in England that we should not complain about her cuts in our English roads programme? Why are a Government who pledged to revolutionise transport raising more taxation than ever from it but cutting spending?
  Mr. Tony McNulty: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Jenkin: I will not give way.
  The Deputy Prime Minister was hit very badly in the public spending review. Last year, he spent £4.7 billion on transport, this year, it is £4.6 billion, and next year, £4.5 billion. Taxation raised from road users last year totalled £32 billion. We have an affluent society, and the car economy reflects that affluence, yet this Government expect roads to be funded on a shoestring.
  We have a standstill on the roads, a standstill at the UK Passport Agency, as we heard earlier and, by a quirk of irony, we also have a standstill at the airports. The Government are meant to be taking decisions on the public-private partnership for National Air Traffic Services. It was announced last summer in a document on asset disposals for the financial year 1999–2000.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: Does the hon. Gentleman support the sale of National Air Traffic Services?
  Mr. Jenkin: It was our policy at the general election to privatise National Air Traffic Services. It is also the policy of her Government, as it says in the document. They are meant to be privatising the services during this financial year, but where is the legislation? Where is the decision? Is the Deputy Prime Minister being jumped on, just as he has been jumped on concerning other decisions?
  NATS needs £100 million of new capital every year, and the Government are taking it away. Talk about disinvestment! More delay on the decision means more delays for air travellers, holidaymakers and business men flying abroad. If the Minister for Transport is in charge of this privatisation, will she be giving the necessary reassurances on safety?
  Will the right hon. Lady give the necessary assurances on pensions? After serving as Robert Maxwell's right-hand man in Scotland as director of public and

  237
  corporate affairs of the Mirror Group (Scotland), at Robert Maxwell's beck and call, does she think that she is qualified to give assurances on pensions, of all things? Her defence is that she did not know what was going on at the time. It is quite obvious that she does not understand what is going on now in her Department.
  After two years in power, Labour is bringing Britain's roads to a standstill. Rail networks are overcrowded and Britain has the highest fuel taxes in Europe, but our transport investment ranks among the lowest. Labour sees motorists, who are ordinary people, as nothing but a tax-raising opportunity.
  After two years in power, no one knows what Labour's transport policies are—except for their disastrous M4 bus lane and new taxes on traffic queues and on people who park at work. The Deputy Prime Minister's Department has no money, no legislation, no principles and no solutions to the transport crisis.
  We promise to deliver a fairer deal for Britain's travelling public, to provide real transport options, to encourage greater innovation and private investment. At the same time, people want to be able to use their cars responsibly and to respect and protect the environment.
  Labour is taking the country on a road to nowhere because it is ignoring the real needs of the travelling public. We believe in increasing public choices, not reducing them. The Conservatives will get Britain moving again.
  9.45 pm
  The Minister for Transport (Mrs. Helen Liddell): I thank the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) for his welcome to the Dispatch Box. I was greatly amused when he said that he would be gentle. I kept waiting for him to start his speech. In fact, I am frequently overawed by the hon. Gentleman's ability to keep a straight face when he comes out with such twaddle as we heard tonight.
  The motion, the opening speech of the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) and the speech of the hon. Member for North Essex were glaring examples, even by Tory standards, of political hypocrisy camouflaged as righteous indignation.
  On an Opposition Day motion, on a subject that the Opposition presumably consider important, only two Opposition Back Benchers sought to speak in the debate. That is the measure of Opposition interest in the debate. The far-sighted approach to transport choices that they have demonstrated tonight reflects the phrase of one of their former Prime Ministers—
  Mr. Oliver Heald: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for a Minister to claim that only two Conservatives put in to speak, when it was quite plain at the end of the debate that at least two Conservatives were rising and trying to get in?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order. The Chair is not responsible for what the right hon. Lady or any other hon. Member says.
  Mrs. Liddell: I am amused by the intervention of the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald), as I have been in the Chamber all evening and he has only recently come in.
  Mr. James Gray rose—
  Mr. Paterson rose—
  Mrs. Liddell: Ah—Opposition Members all want in now. They all want their mark in the register, now that they have come in. [Interruption.] I give way—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Lady is not giving way.
  Mrs. Liddell: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for pointing out that I am not giving way.
  Mr. Paterson rose—
  Mrs. Liddell: I do not know which part of no the hon. Gentleman does not understand.
  To judge from some of the contributions tonight, it is clear that the Opposition are confused and have no memory. I found it interesting that the hon. Member for North Essex made no reference to the much-vaunted M4 bus lane—
  Mr. Jenkin: I did.
  Mrs. Liddell: I must have missed that comment. Presumably it was different from the comment that the hon. Gentleman made on 11 March, when he addressed the Institute of Directors and said that there was much in the Government's White Paper with which the Conservatives agreed, not least the sensible approach to bus lanes. Presumably that is what he had in mind when he constructed the Opposition motion this evening.
  Mr. Jenkin: Why did the Government issue no public consultation about that bus lane? Why was it not modelled through the Transport Research Laboratory? Why was there no marketing push to improve the use of public transport on the bus lane before it was launched? Why was it just sprung on the public as the silly stunt that it is?
  Mrs. Liddell: The only silly stunt that we have seen tonight is the Opposition motion.
  When the right hon. Member for Wokingham opened the debate, I wonder whether he was conscious of the fact that the shadow Transport Minister beside him not only did not support him when he ran for the leadership of the Conservative party, but has made it clear in the past that he supported Mr. Michael Portillo. I have no doubt that tonight's debate was much more about posturing within the Conservative party than about making a meaningful contribution to public transport policy. [Interruption.]
  When Labour came to power, we inherited—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It does not do for the Chair to keep standing and intervening. I plead with the House again to come to order. The House must keep good order.
  Mrs. Liddell: I reiterate: when the Labour Government came to power, we inherited a transport system that had been undermined by the ideological pursuit of the free market and starved of vital investment.

  239
  When we were elected we discovered a £1.2 billion shortfall in investment in London Underground. This morning, the hon. Member for North Essex was caught out on the "Today" programme whenever he talked about such investment because Mr. James Naughtie pointed out that he had made it clear three months before the general election that the Conservative Government regarded it as adequate. Conservative Members have repeatedly mentioned the problems of the Circle and Northern lines. Had there been the investment in London Underground that there should have been, the difficulties that are being experienced on the Circle line would not have arisen.
  Labour Members are committed to taking concrete and practical approaches to public transport and to the use of the car. We believe in an integrated transport policy. [Interruption.] From a sedentary position, Conservative Members ask what an integrated transport policy is. I am not surprised that they ask that, because their policies will fragment and destroy the public transport network.
  We started by merging the Departments of the Environment and of Transport to make sure that we take an integrated approach to policy. We are committed to physical integration that ensures that all modes of transport work smoothly together. We also believe that there should be vertical links when decisions are taken at national level. Those links should filter down to proper and adequate local decision making. We also believe in the integration of public and private transport because we want to give people the choice of using either their cars or adequate public transport.
  The hon. Member for North Essex is an ex-car salesman. Like him, I enjoy using a car. We do not want people to stop using their cars; we want them to be more sensible about the use of their cars. Conservative Members have extremely short memories. The Green Paper published by the previous Government in 1996 made it plain that alternatives to the car had to be found and that difficult decisions would have to be taken.
  We have heard much this evening about the road policy. The 1996 Green Paper included the statement that the roads network was almost complete. One aspect of roads policy was distinctly ignored by the previous Government—there was no attempt to achieve proper road maintenance, and a number of speakers have made plain the local difficulties that they are experiencing as a consequence of the previous Government's crazy policies and the failure to tackle—
  Mr. Gray: Will the Minister give way?
  Mrs. Liddell: No, I want to make progress. If I have time, I shall give way.
  A number of points have been made by hon. Members about the difficulties—[Interruption.] Conservative Members ask about the points that have been put to me. I am about to respond to them, not least those made by the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day). [Interruption.] Those on the Conservative Front Bench say, "How exciting." They have not all been in the Chamber this evening. If they had been, they would have heard some constructive points from my hon. Friends, who are committed to a proper transport policy, not the haphazard opportunism of Conservative Members.
  The difficulties that we are experiencing with our transport network were not two years in the making; they were 18 years in the making. The hon. Member for
  240
  Cheadle talked about some of the difficulties that are being experienced in Manchester and on the west coast main line. I argued for improvements to be made when I was an Opposition Back Bencher, but the previous Government made no attempt to get them under way. He also asked about airport policy.
  Mrs. Eleanor Laing: Will the Minister give way?
  Mrs. Liddell: No. I am replying to points made by the hon. Member for Cheadle, who has had the courtesy to remain in the Chamber for the duration of the debate.
  The hon. Gentleman asked me about airport policy, and the difficulties that are experienced when aircraft stray from their given paths. That is an interesting point, which the Government have already considered. We will consult on matters concerning air traffic, not least those relating to the difficulties of noise mitigation. Many problems of noise are caused by aircraft that go off their permitted paths. I hope that that commitment is of some assistance to the hon. Gentleman, and to his constituents.
  Predictably, we heard an interesting speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), who, on the basis of considerable knowledge, spoke of the role of the Strategic Rail Authority. A number of speakers referred to the authority, and to our determination to end the fragmentation created by haphazard rail privatisation and get the railways working again in the interests of the travelling public and our economy.
  My hon. Friend made a valid point about the need for us to give the authority statutory backing. If Opposition Members want a railways Bill and a Strategic Rail Authority, perhaps they should consider applying the working time directive to the House of Lords. Were it not for the delaying tactics in the House of Lords, we should be able to proceed much more quickly with the establishment of a Strategic Rail Authority, and with a railways Bill—although I can say that we hope soon to be able to make an announcement about the Strategic Rail Authority.
  Mr. Gray: Will the Minister give way?
  Mrs. Liddell: No. I will not. I want to take up more of the points that have been made.
  In a considered speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Miss Smith) spoke of the difficulties caused to her community by the rundown in public transport over 18 years of Conservative Government. She also referred to the increase in out-of-town shopping, and the pressures that it imposed on those without cars. I remind my hon. Friend that, in the lifetime of the last Government, the number of out-of-town shopping complexes increased from 100 to more than 1,000. That caused considerable difficulties.
  My hon. Friend made some considered points about the fuel escalator. Her comments were much more sensible than those of the hon. Member for North Essex. I remind her that we have international obligations in relation to the Kyoto summit, which is why we supported the last

  241
  Government when they introduced the fuel escalator. Indeed, it was the hon. Member for North Essex who, when the escalator was introduced, waxed eloquent in his praise of the Chancellor for introducing it.
  My hon. Friend also made an important point about schools. I hope to be able to make some announcements tomorrow about Government policy to assist those who wish to ensure that their children can walk to school. In the lifetime of the last Government, there was a considerable increase in the number of children being driven to school by car. That is not good for children's health, and it does not help the problem of road traffic congestion, much of which occurs at about 8.50 am. Because Labour Members believe in joined-up government—that phrase that we hear so much—I, along with my colleagues in the Department of Health and the Department for Education and Employment, have promoted a number of initiatives relating to school transport.
  I note from tonight's debate that Opposition Members—who are now trying to deny it—oppose the very traffic-calming measures that have ensured a 20 per cent. reduction in the number of accidents. It is clear to Labour Members that for 20 years we had to stand in impotent opposition, while a Government who did not care and would not act presided over economic disruption and social deprivation. Labour Members believe in public transport, and we will ensure—
  Mr. James Arbuthnot rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
  Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
  Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 137, Noes 350.

  Division No. 221]

  [10 p

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Clarke, Rt Hon kenneth

  Amess, David

  (Rushcliffe)

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Collins, Tim

  Beggs, Roy

  Colvin, Michael

  Bercow, John

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Cran, James

  Blunt, Crispin

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Body, Sir Richard

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Boswell, Tim

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Duncan, Alan

  Brady, Graham

  Duncan Smith, lain

  Brazier, Julian

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Evans, Nigel

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Faber, David

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Bums, Simon

  Fallon, Michael

  Butterfill, John

  Flight, Howard

  Cash, William

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Bamet)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Chope, Christopher

  Fraser, Christopher

  Clappison, James

  Gale, Roger

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Garnier, Edward

  Gibb, Nick

  Gill, Christopher

  242

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Prior, David

  Gray, James

  Randall, John

  Green, Damian

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Greenway, John

  Robathan, Andrew

  Grieve, Dominic

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxboume)

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Hammond, Philip

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Hawkins, Nick

  Shepherd, Richard

  Heald, Oliver

  Simpson, Keith (Mid—Norfolk)

  Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David

  Soames, Nicholas

  Hese!tine, Rt Hon Michael

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Horam, John

  Spring, Richard

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Steen, Anthony

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Streeter, Gary

  Jackson Robert (Wantage)

  Syms, Robert

  Jenkin, Bemard

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Key, Robert

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Townend, John

  Lansley, Andrew

  Tredinnick, David

  Leigh, Edward

  Trend, Michael

  Letwin, Oliver

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Viggers, Peter

  Lidington, David

  Walter, Robert

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Wardle, Charles

  Liwyd, Elfyn

  Waterson, Nigel

  Loughton, Tim

  Wells, Bowen

  Luff, Peter

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Whittingdale, John

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Wilkinson, John

  Madel, Sir David

  Willetts, David

  Maples, John

  Wilshire, David

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Woodward, Shaun

  Moss, Malcolm

  Yeo, Tm

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Norman, Archie

  Ottaway, Richard

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Page, Richard

  Mrs. Jacqui Lait and

  Paterson, Owen

  Mr. Stephen Day.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Blizzard, Bob

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Boateng, Paul

  Ainger, Nick

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Alexander, Douglas

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Allan, Richard

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Allen, Graham

  Brake, Tom

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Breed, Colin

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Ashton, Joe

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Browne, Desmond

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Baker, Norman

  Burden, Richard

  Banks, Tony

  Burgon, Colin

  Barnes, Harry

  Burnett, John

  Bayley, Hugh

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Beard, Nigel

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Cabom, Rt Hon Richard

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bndge)

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Campbell—Savours, Dale

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

  Cann, Jamie

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Caplin, Ivor

  Benton, Joe

  Caton, Martin

  Berry, Roger

  Chaytor, David

  Best, Harold

  Chidgey, David

  Betts, Clive

  Clapham, Michael

  Blackman, Liz

  243

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Grogan, John

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Gunnell, John

  Clarke. Charles (Norwich S)

  Hain, Peter

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Clelland, David

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Clwyd, Ann

  Hancock, Mike

  Coaker, Vernon

  Hanson, David

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Cohen, Harry

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Coleman, lain

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Colman, Tony

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Connarty, Michael

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Corbett, Robin

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  HeppeII, John

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Hesford, Stephen

  Cousins, Jim

  Hill, Keith

  Cox, Tom

  Hinchliffe. David

  Cranston, Ross

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Crausby, David

  Hoey, Kate

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Cryer, John (Homchurch)

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Cummings, John

  Hope, Phil

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Curtis—Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Dalyell, Tam

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Davidson, Ian

  Hurst, Alan

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Hutton, John

  Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Denham, John

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Dobbin, Jim

  Jamieson, David

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Doran, Frank

  Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Jones, Marlyn (Clwyd S)

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Edwards, Huw

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Efford, Clive

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Ennis, Jeff

  Keetch, Paul

  Etherington, Bill

  Kemp, Fraser

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Fisher, Mark

  Khabra, Piara S

  Fitzsimons, Loma

  Kidney, David

  Flint, Caroline

  Kiffoyle, Peter

  Flynn, Paul

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Follett, Barbara

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Forsythe, Clifford

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Lawrence, Ms Jackie

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Laxton, Bob

  Foulkes, George

  Lepper, David

  Fyfe, Maria

  Levitt, Tom

  Galloway, George

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Gapes, Mike

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  Linton, Martin

  Gerrard, Neil

  Livingstone, Ken

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Love, Andrew

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Godsiff, Roger

  McCabe, Steve

  Goggins, Paul

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Macdonald, Calum

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  McDonnell, John

  244

  McIsaac, Shona

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Salter, Martin

  McNamara, Kevin

  Sanders, Adrian

  McNulty, Tony

  Savidge, Malcolm

  MacShane, Denis

  Sawford, Phil

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McWalter, Tony

  Shaw, Jonathan

  McWilliam, John

  Sheerman, Barry

  Mallaber, Judy

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Mendelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Singh, Marsha

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Marshall—Andrews, Robert

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Martlew, Eric

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Maxton, John

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Meale, Alan

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

  Merron, Gillian

  Snape, Peter

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Speller, John

  Miller, Andrew

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Mitchell, Austin

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Moffatt, Laura

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Moonie Dr Lewis,

  Stevenson, George

  Moore, Michael

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Morley, Elliot

  Stott, Roger

  Mudie, George

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Mullin, Chris

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Stringer, Graham

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Norris, Dan

  Stunell, Andrew

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Öpik, Lembit

  Temple—Morris, Peter

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Timms, Stephen

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Tipping, Paddy

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Todd, Mark

  Pearson, Ian

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Pickthall, Colin

  Tricke tt, Jon

  Pike, Peter L

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Plaskitt, James

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Pond, Chris

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Pope, Greg

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Tyler, Paul

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Vaz, Keith

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Purchase, Ken

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Wareing, Robert N

  Radice, Giles

  Watts, David

  Rammell, Bill

  Webb, Steve

  Rapson, Syd

  White, Brian

  Raynsford, Nick

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Robertson,, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Rooker, Jeff

  Willis, Phil

  Rooney, Terry

  Wills, Michael

  Rowlands, Ted

  Winnick, David

  Roy, Frank

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Ruane, Chris

  Wise, Audrey

  Ruddock, Joan

  Wood, Mike

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Woolas, Phil

  Worthington, Tony

  Wray, James

  245

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Tellers for the noes:

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Mrs. Anne McGuire and

  Wyatt, Derek

  Mrs. Mike Hall.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments):—
  The House divided: Ayes 311, Noes 147.

  Division No. 222]

  [10.13 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Ainger, Nick

  Cousins, Jim

  Alexander, Douglas

  Cox, Tom

  Allen, Graham

  Cranston, Ross

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Crausby, David

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Cryer, John (Homchurch)

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Cummings, John

  Banks, Tony

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Bames, Harry

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Beard, Nigel

  Curtis—Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Dalyell, Tam

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Davidson, Ian

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Benton, Joe

  Dawson, Hilton

  Berry, Roger

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Best, Harold

  Denham, John

  Betts, Clive

  Dobbin, Jim

  Blackman, Liz

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Blizzard, Bob

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Boateng, Paul

  Doran, Frank

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Edwards, Huw

  Browne, Desmond

  Efford, Clive

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Burden, Richard

  Ennis, Jeff

  Burgon, Colin

  Etherington, Bill

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Fisher, Mark

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  Cabom, Rt Hon Richard

  Flint, Caroline

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Flynn, Paul

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bndge)

  Follett, Barbara

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Campbell—Savours, Dale

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Cann, Jamie

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Caplin, Ivor

  Foulkes, George

  Caton, Martin

  Fyfe, Maria

  Chaytor, David

  Galloway, George

  Clapham, Michael

  Gapes, Mike

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Clelland, David

  Godsiff, Roger

  Clwyd, Ann

  Goggins, Paul

  Coaker, Vernon

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Cohen, Harry

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Coleman, lain

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Colman, Tony

  Grogan, John

  Connarty, Michael

  Gunnell, John

  Corbett, Robin

  Hain, Peter

  246

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Hanson, David

  Marshall—Andrews, Robert

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Martlew, Eric

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Maxton, John

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Meale, Alan

  Heppell, John

  Merron, Gillian

  Hesford, Stephen

  Milbum, Rt Hon Alan

  Hill, Keith

  Miller, Andrew

  Hinchliffe, David

  Moffatt, Laura

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Hood, Jimmy

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Hope, Phil

  Mudie, George

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Mullin, Chris

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Norris, Dan

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Hurst, Alan

  O'Neill, Marlin

  Hutton, John

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Pearson, Ian

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Jamieson, David

  Pike, Peter L

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Plaskitt, James

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Pond, Chris

  Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Pope, Greg

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Jones, Marlyn (Clwyd 5)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Purchase, Ken

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Kemp, Fraser

  Radice, Giles

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Rammell, Bill

  Khabra, Piara S

  Rapson, Syd

  Kidney, David

  Raynsford, Nick

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Rooker, Jeff

  Lawrence, Ms Jackie

  Rooney, Terry

  Laxton, Bob

  Rowlands, Ted

  Lepper, David

  Roy, Frank

  Levitt, Tom

  Ruane, Chris

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Linton, Martin

  Salter, Martin

  Livingstone, Ken

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Sawford, Phil

  Love, Andrew

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Shaw, Jonathan

  McCabe, Steve

  Sheerman, Barry

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Singh, Marsha

  Macdonald, Calum

  Skinner, Dennis

  McDonnell, John

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  McNulty, Tony

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  MacShane, Denis

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Spellar, John

  McWatter, Tony

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  McWilliam, John

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Mallaber, Judy

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Stevenson, George

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool 5)

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  247

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Wareing, Robert N

  Stott, Roger

  Watts, David

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  White, Brian

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Stringer, Graham

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Wills, Michael

  Temple—Morris, Peter

  Winnick, David

  Timms, Stephen

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Wise, Audrey

  Todd, Mark

  Wood, Mike

  Trickett, Jon

  Woolas, Phil

  Tumer, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Worthington, Tony

  Tumer, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Wray, James

  Tumer, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Twigg, Derek (Hatton)

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Vaz, Keith

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Mrs. Anne McGuire and

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Mr. Mike Hall.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Gill, Christopher

  Allan, Richard

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Amess, David

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Gray, James

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Green, Damian

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Greenway, John

  Baker, Norman

  Grieve, Dominic

  Beggs, Roy

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Bercow, John

  Hammond, Philip

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Hancock, Mike

  Blunt, Crispin

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Boswell, Tim

  Harvey, Nick

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Brake, Tom

  Heald, Oliver

  Brazier, Julian

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Breed, Colin

  Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Heseffine, Rt Hon Michael

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Horam, John

  Burnett, John

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Butterfill, John

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Cash, William

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Chope, Christopher

  Jenkin, Bemard

  Clappison, James

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Keetch, Paul

  Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey

  Key, Robert

  Collins, Tim

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Colvin, Michael

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Gran, James

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Lansley, Andrew

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Leigh, Edward

  Day, Stephen

  Letwin, Oliver

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Duncan, Alan

  Lidington, David

  Duncan Smith, lain

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Loughton, Tim

  Faber, David

  Luff, Peter

  Fabricant, Michael

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Fallon, Michael

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Fearn, Ronnie

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Flight, Howard

  Madel, Sir David

  Fraser, Christopher

  Maples, John

  Gale, Roger

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Garnier, Edward

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Moore, Michael

  Gibb, Nick

  Moss, Malcolm

  Norman, Archie

  Öpik, Lembit

  248

  Ottaway, Richard

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Page, Richard

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Paterson, Owen

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Pickles, Eric

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Prior, David

  Townend, John

  Randall, John

  Tredinnick, David

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Trend, Michael

  Robathan, Andrew

  Tyler, Paul

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Viggers, Peter

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Wafter, Robert

  St Aubyn, Nick,

  Waterson, Nigel

  Sanders, Adrian

  Webb, Steve

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Wells, Bowen

  Shepherd, Richard

  Whittingdale, John

  Simpson, Keith (Mid—Norfolk)

  Widdecombe, Rt Miss Hon Ann

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

  Willetts, David

  Soames, Nicholas

  Willis, Phil

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Wilshire, David

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Woodward, Shaun

  Steen, Anthony

  Yeo, Tim

  Streeter, Gary

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Stunell, Andrew

  Syms, Robert

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Mrs. Eleanor Laing and

  Mrs. Jacqui Lait.

  Question accordingly agreed to
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House deplores the previous Government's record of under-investment and disintegration in the transport network, its failure to tackle congestion as traffic rose by 75 per cent., the £1.2 billion investment backlog it left on the London Underground and its cut in road maintenance; commends the Government for producing the first Transport White Paper for 20 years, taking a far-sighted and more integrated approach than the previous administration, and linking together planning and transport policy more closely; and notes that the present Government has begun to tackle the inherited problems of under-investment, pollution and increasing traffic congestion, by a new radical integrated strategy, including an extra £1.8 billion for public transport and local transport management, winning back passengers to public transport, improving road maintenance, encouraging greater fuel efficiency, reducing pollution, and introducing the long-term policies needed to increase transport choice and improve Britain's transport system.

  ESTIMATES
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 145 (Liaison Committee),
  That this House agrees with the Report [24th June] of the Liaison Committee.—[Mr. Hill.]
  Question agreed to.

  SELECT COMMITTEE ON BROADCASTING
  Ordered,
  That Mr. Ivor Caplin be discharged from the Select Committee on Broadcasting and Mr. Kelvin Hopkins be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Hill.]

PETITION

  Thorney Bypass
  10.25 pm
  Mr. Malcolm Moss: It is my privilege, as the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire, to present this petition on behalf of the residents of the village of Thorney in my constituency regarding their campaign to reinstate a bypass for their village. The bypass was in the previous Government's road programme but was removed from the programme by the incoming Labour Government.
  The petitioners, therefore, request the House of Commons to urge the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions to consider reinstating the A47 Thorney Bypass into the Government's road building programme with immediate effect.
  And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
  To lie upon the Table.

Iraq
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hill.]
10.26 pm
Mr. George Galloway: I declare an interest, in that I am chairman of the Mariam appeal for cancer victims in Iraq, which has received support from the Governments of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.
I begin by welcoming my hon. Friend the Minister of State to his new and important position in the Government—although I regret, as does the whole House, the circumstances that led to his appointment. The late Derek Fatchett and I had many spectacular clashes on this and related subjects, but I always respected him greatly, and he is sorely missed.
I shall start by telling the Minister what I am not going to talk about. The character of the Iraqi regime has been effectively carpet bombed on many occasions by hon. Members throughout the House. In the 15 minutes available to me, I do not intend to add to the many statements, speeches and interventions on the subject that I have made over the years. I hope that my hon. Friend will take them as read. However, I note that paragraph 14 of United Nations Security Council resolution 687 demands the establishment of a middle east free of weapons of mass destruction. I support that goal and call for the Iraqi regime to forswear such weapons, as I call on Israel—which sits atop an easily verifiable mountain of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons—to forswear them also.
The House has of late been much occupied with the concepts of genocide and of mass graves. I want to take the Minister on a brief tour of that wasteland, which will require him to exercise only a little imagination. Imagine a mass grave into which 6,000 small children are laid every single month. Imagine that those months stretched into years—nine years—and imagine a mass grave in which more than 2 million people, mainly children, or the elderly, or the poorest, or the most ill, are laid one upon the other.
Imagine how mass such a grave would be. Imagine what a mountain 2 million dead people would constitute. Imagine what an ocean of blood is represented by those 2 million lost souls. Such a mountain, such an ocean, such a mass grave is not a figment of anyone's imagination: it is the reality of life and death under sanctions in Iraq.
That reality is testified to by a plethora of United Nations agencies—by the World Health Organisation, by the World Food Programme, by UNICEF and UNESCO, by the President of Finland, Martti Ahtisaari, who performed such service for the Government recently, by Dennis Halliday, the former Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations, by other high officials of the UN, and by other credible sources, such as The Lancet, the Harvard medical team and the delegation of Church of England bishops, recently returned from Iraq, who called the sanctions "ethically untenable".
No one is saying, of course, that those 2 million people were specially targeted, or that they were singled out for extermination. No one is saying that those dead people ever committed any offence against anyone. They could

251
hardly have done so, as most of them were small children. It is much, much worse than that. The killing has been wholly indiscriminate, except in one respect. Those people are dead for one reason only. They are—rather, they were—Iraqis. They had the misfortune to be born in Iraq at this time. I do not need to tell a man of my hon. Friend's legal background the name for the mass killing of people for no other reason than their race or ethnic origin.
It is no longer asserted—it was once—that we are exaggerating. The Security Council, in its recent report, said that it was reporting
"in the context of increasing concern among security council members over the humanitarian situation in Iraq."
The Security Council added that
"the gravity of the humanitarian situation of the Iraqi people is indisputable and cannot be overstated."
In his recent and turbulent debut before the Council for the Advancement of Arab-British Understanding, the Minister said that the Government were
"looking for a way out of the stalemate"
on Iraq, and talked of the "grave humanitarian situation". I genuinely consider it progress that we can agree about the gravity of the situation.
Can we also agree—for it is germane to the future as well as important to the history books—that what I have said in the House to more than one Minister, that the United Nations Special Commission inspectorate was riddled with spies, turned out to be true? After all, we have had the testimony of Scott Ritter, the deputy to Richard Butler, who headed UNSCOM. We have had the ground-breaking journalism of The New York Times and the Boston Globe. Most important of all, this week, we had an admission by Kofi Annan, no less, that UNSCOM inspectors were spying for the American intelligence agencies during their time in Iraq.
As the Minister knows, there is mounting international concern about the cancer epidemic in Iraq, and about the rapidly multiplying number of babies being born with deformities. My hon. Friend may have seen the recent cover story in Tribune, or he may have read Maggie O'Kane, whose reportage from Kosovo has been favourably commented on by the Government. In The Guardian, she quoted a doctor from one hospital, Dr. Zenad Mohammed, thus:
"In August 1998, we had three babies born with no head, in September, we had six with no heads, in October, one with no head and four with big heads and four with deformed limbs or other types of deformities."
There has been a tenfold increase in the number of cancer cases in Iraq over the past nine years, at the same time as there has been a catastrophic decline in the capacity of the Iraqi health service to cope with it. The number of children born with the conditions hare lip or cleft palate has tripled. As a father, the Minister will be able to imagine the horror of that.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Former Taoiseach Albert Reynolds and I saw exactly those conditions in December 1998. My hon. Friend does not exaggerate.
Mr. Galloway: I do not have to imagine the horror. Like my hon. Friend, I have seen it with my own eyes, and I have heard the cries of parents.
252
Please do not tell me that food and medicines are not covered by the sanctions. The Minister and I both know that that is only partly true and that, in so far as it is true, it is misleading. If we subject a country to the tightest of mediaeval-style sieges, bankrupt its economy and freeze its international assets, how much food and medicine can it buy? If we define food and medicines so that vitamins and additives are not foods, so that insulin or intravenous fluid are not medicine and so that everything from syringes to diagnostic equipment is subject to endless delay and subversion by the sanctions committee in New York, what will the effect be on the health of the people?
What is the point of allowing diarrhoea, typhoid and cholera medicines while forbidding the equipment to repair the water and sanitation systems? The collapse of those systems led to the epidemic of water-borne disease in the first place. If the Minister says that members of the Iraqi regime are not hungry and that their children are not suffering, he will merely make my point. The sanctions are not harming the Iraqi regime, which is stronger than it was when sanctions began. The sanctions are laying waste the innocent Iraqi population.
What is the point of doubling, doubling and doubling again the upper limits of the oil-for-food quotas, when the Government know that Iraq can only dream of pumping that amount of oil, given the degradation of the oil extraction and distribution system, when we ban under sanctions the wherewithal to upgrade it and when oil prices, although firming, are still historically low?
Please do not tell me that there are stockpiles of undistributed medicines in Iraqi warehouses. Read the United Nations Security Council's own report on page 9 about the deterioration of warehousing; the lack of handling equipment; communication and transport difficulties; and the lack of tools. Read the World Health Organisation's study, which proves that Iraq's warehouses are operating at less than 20 per cent. of previous capacity.
Please do not tell me that the Iraqi health service is importing frivolous or unnecessary equipment as, sadly, some of our colleagues have been misled into doing—like the canard about the liposuction equipment, when it was falsely implied in this place that it was being imported for the prettification of the wives of members of the regime. That was a deliberate piece of disinformation. I have followed that equipment, which is used as such equipment is used here—in surgery on women suffering from breast cancer and undergoing mastectomies; in surgery on patients suffering from severe burns; and on patients who are having tumours removed and whose own lipid must be moved from one part of the body to another.
If the Minister wants to end the stalemate with Iraq, it really is time to turn down the rhetoric of demonisation which, as he found at the CAABU meeting, is doing our reputation among the Arab peoples no good at all.
I have some questions for the Minister. If he cannot answer them now, I hope that he will do so in writing in due course. My hon. Friend said at the CAABU meeting that "it is nonsense" to suggest that Britain would like to see the break-up of Iraq and that
"Preserving the territorial integrity of Iraq is a fundamental part of our policy".
As President Clinton might say, "It all depends what you mean by 'is'".
After all, as will be seen increasingly in Yugoslavia, if one pursues policies that objectively contribute to the break-up of a sovereign territory, whatever one's

253
protestations, the country will still be broken up. What else is the solely United States-United Kingdom policy of daily bombardment of the so-called no-fly zones, which have no United Nations Security Council authority, if it is not a contribution to the break-up of Iraq and an attack on its territorial integrity?
Lest hon. Members are misled by the relative media blackout on those bombardments, it is worth pointing out that Britain and America have dropped more bombs on Iraq since Desert Fox than we did during that massive operation and that the targets have included shepherds and their sheep, schools, hospitals, oil installations and oil storage tanks, civilian houses and the civilian families living in them.
What else but a contribution to disintegration is the constant use of our territory by American officials and exiled Iraqi opposition groups to plan terrorist operations in the towns and cities of Iraq? I can give the Minister chapter and verse about those meetings—who attended them and what they were discussing.
Does my hon. Friend know that those meetings contravene our law, which was rushed through the House last summer, whereby section 5 of the Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Act 1998, makes it an offence to conspire on British soil to cause explosions, murder and other terrorist acts outside the United Kingdom? I should know, for I single-handedly blocked that law when it was first introduced in the House during the tenure of the previous Administration.
The Minister has a tiger by the tail with those organisations. What else but the break-up of Iraq is sought by the armed Kurdish factions, when they are not murdering each other? What else but the break-up of Iraq is sought by the Supreme Council of the Islamic Revolution, the army of fanatical Shias who wish to set up a pro-Iranian fundamentalist theocracy, if necessary in the south of Iraq? Or does the Minister believe that Iraq can be governed at the centre by Kurdish parties or by radical Shi'ism? What do Iraq's Sunni neighbours—some of our oldest and closest friends—think about that idea? Have we learned nothing from our sponsorship of those other holy warriors, Mr. bin Laden and his Afghan mujaheddin?
Finally, I turn to the recently announced British initiative in the Security Council and express the hope that the Minister can persuade me otherwise than that that is just another twist in perfidious Albion's policy towards Iraq, which intends to find another means of prolonging the agony. I hope that the Minister is not offended when I say that I cannot understand why we cannot support the French initiative, launched by our sister party—a fraternal Government and European ally. That initiative already has the support of a majority of the five permanent members of the Security Council. Our initiative only has the support of the USA—perhaps predictably. Will the Minister tell us what is wrong with the French draft? He well knows that it has the capacity to break the stalemate, while our draft—as he knows equally well—does not have that capacity, and has been rejected out of hand.
My hon. Friend the Minister has answered a parliamentary question from my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen). Let me contradict that answer. During the past 48 hours, Tariq Aziz said that
254
the French draft has real possibilities for the negotiation of a way out of that stalemate. That is contrary to the parliamentary answer that was released today. On the face of it, the British draft is worse than the existing governing resolution 687. Under resolution 687, the sanctions will be lifted in circumstances in which, in the British draft, they would only be suspended. Anyone who saw the US Government's treacherous betrayal of the recent Libyan deal, when they said that, notwithstanding the recent breakthrough, they would not lift their sanctions, will realise how that was regarded in the Arab world.
The draft imposes obligations on Iraq that were not even present in resolution 687, although it was, in effect, a draconian surrender treaty. Why? The burden of proof placed on Iraq in relation to weapons is more onerous than 687; in essence, it formalises what had, hitherto, been only the practice of requiring Iraq to prove a negative. Why? The British draft includes that hoary old myth—beloved of the "Missing in Action" Indo-China conspiracy theorists—the "Kuwaiti hostages". I have the internal discussion document in which the Government decided to change that formulation from prisoners of war because of the greater "emotional power" of the word hostages. However, whatever they are called, the Minister knows that Iraq says that it does not have them and that unknown soldiers die in every war. Again, the Minister is asking Iraq to prove a negative.
The British draft requires the "disclosure of information" rather than only the destruction of weapons, again knowing that that process can be strung out indefinitely, and that it will still leave us embroiled in the very stalemate that the Minister says he wants to break. Time does not allow me to probe this matter more deeply, but I hope that the Minister will consider this debate to be the start of a dialogue on those questions rather than the finish.
In conclusion, it is often sneered—sotto voce—that France is taking a more constructive role in the stalemate in order to further its national interest. Apart from the fact that that is a strange accusation—what are Governments for but to further their national interests?—and that it cannot be doubted that we have sacrificed mightily our own once pre-eminent position in Iraq, the Minister must know that Madeleine Albright was wrong, wrong, wrong when she said to Lesley Stahl on US television that all those dead Iraqi children constituted "a price worth paying". Any ethical dimension to our foreign policy requires us radically to think again.
10.39 pm
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway) has spoken at length, and with his usual passion, on the UN sanctions regime against Iraq. May I make it clear to him and to the House that the Government would be pleased to see sanctions lifted? However, as we all know, Iraq has so far made it impossible for that to happen.
To understand why sanctions are still in place today, we need to consider why they were originally imposed. Sanctions were imposed in response to Iraq's illegal and outrageous invasion of Kuwait. At the end of the Gulf war in 1991, Iraq accepted the terms of UN Security Council resolution 687—the ceasefire resolution. That resolution, and others implementing it, laid down obligations on Iraq

255
relating to a number of matters. They included the obligation to accept the destruction of its weapons of mass destruction under international supervision; to submit full details of locations, amounts and types of weaponry; to undertake not to use, develop, construct or acquire weapons of mass destruction in the future; and to co-operate with UNSCOM in carrying out those obligations.
That same resolution also set out the circumstances in which the Security Council would lift the sanctions regime. It provides that sanctions will be lifted following compliance by Iraq with its obligations relating to weapons of mass destruction and following review by the Security Council of Iraq's policies and practices, including its implementation of all relevant resolutions. Progress is entirely in Iraq's hands, but Iraq has persistently shirked its responsibilities and refused to comply with the very obligations it formally accepted under resolution 687. Perhaps, after eight years, it is easy to overlook the seriousness of those obligations and Iraq's failure to even come close to meeting them. Let me however remind the House of Iraq's appalling record.
On disarmament, the weapons inspectors were faced with persistent evasion, obstruction and mendacity on the part of Iraq. Iraq failed to provide an even remotely credible account of its biological weapons programme, and it failed to tell the truth about the production and weaponisation of the nerve agent VX. That is not a trivial debating point: VX causes death within minutes through nervous system disruption leading to respiratory failure—one drop of VX can kill.
I pay tribute to the weapons inspectors for their huge achievements in the face of Iraqi obduracy, but as the UN expert disarmament panel confirmed earlier this year, serious gaps still remain, especially in Iraq's declarations on chemical and biological weapons and ballistic missiles. Those are potentially horrific capabilities that threaten the security of the entire region. Iraq has already used chemical weapons extensively against Iran and against its own Kurdish civilians, at Halabja, in March 1998, attacking them with mustard gas and the nerve agent Tabun and killing thousands in the process.
Nor should we forget that more than 600 Kuwaitis and others detained by Iraq during the Gulf war are still unaccounted for. That represents about 0.1 per cent. of the Kuwaiti population: to us, the equivalent would be about 50,000 British citizens unaccounted for. Those are not "unknown soldiers", to use my hon. Friend's phrase. Almost all the Kuwaiti missing are civilians, some women and some elderly. To date, Iraq has provided sufficient information to close only three cases. Meanwhile, the families are left to suffer and grieve, not knowing the fate of their loved ones at the hands of the Iraqi regime.
My hon. Friend is right to be concerned about the humanitarian situation in Iraq—the Government are also concerned, but we reject the propaganda that seeks to hold the UN sanctions regime to blame. Let me remind my hon. Friend once again that food, medicines and goods for essential civilian needs are not prohibited under sanctions. That means that Iraq can and does import, for example, food, medicines, bandages, pencils, ambulances, chemotherapy drugs, educational materials, medical journals and school desks. Claims that the United Nations, or the United Kingdom itself, blocks those goods are nonsense.
256
Meanwhile, the Iraqi regime continues to refuse donations of humanitarian aid from third countries. While the Iraqi Government seek to exploit their people's suffering for their own propaganda purposes, the international community does what it can to protect the Iraqi people. The UN first put forward proposals for a humanitarian programme—the prototype for today's oil-for-food programme—in 1991. Iraq rejected them, despite complaints of severe humanitarian need. Faced with huge international pressure, Iraq eventually agreed to the oil-for-food programme in May 1996, but the start of the programme was delayed by seven months, until December 1996, while Iraq haggled over the terms of implementation.
Under the programme, Iraq is currently permitted to sell $5.3 billion worth of oil every six months to fund the purchase of humanitarian goods. In addition to the food and medicine I mentioned earlier, Iraq is also allowed to import spare parts, equipment and materials for use in the water and sanitation, education, agricultural and demining sectors. Subsequent resolutions also expanded the humanitarian programme to allow a certain amount of repair to the Iraqi civilian infrastructure and some upgrading of Iraq's oil infrastructure.
According to the most recent UN report on the implementation of oil for food, the UN humanitarian programme is making a real difference to the humanitarian situation in Iraq. However, for the Iraqi people to get the most out of the programme, the Iraqi Government must also play their part. Once again, Baghdad has refused to engage properly with the UN. Despite constant encouragement from the UN, the Government of Iraq refuse to make any efforts to prioritise properly what is purchased for the humanitarian programme, or to target the programme on the most vulnerable.
The UN special rapporteur on human rights in Iraq, Max van der Stoel, expressed concern in his February report that Iraq had not yet concluded contracts to the full value of available resources for the purchase of high protein biscuits or therapeutic milk. That was reinforced in April by a UN spokesman who said that Iraq was not ordering enough food for its malnourished children and pregnant women. Since late November, Iraq has submitted only two contracts for food, worth only $3 million, although it had been allocated $16 million for that purpose.
The UN special rapporteur further observed continuing problems with Iraqi distribution of goods. The available resources were not being channelled to the people in the southern governorates who were the worst off and in the greatest need. According to the latest UN reports, approximately £300 million worth of medical goods—more than half of all the medicines delivered to Iraq since the oil-for-food programme began in 1996—is still in warehouses awaiting distribution.
It is noticeable that oil for food has had a substantially greater impact on the humanitarian situation in northern Iraq where the Iraqi regime has no involvement in the implementation of the programme. In the north, for example, 92 per cent. of medical equipment procured by the United Nations agencies since the start of the programme has been distributed. According to the latest UN reports, general malnutrition there is decreasing.

257
The suffering of the Iraqi people as a result of the tactics of the Iraqi Government contrasts sharply with the wealth and luxury that is enjoyed by Saddam Hussein and his regime. Forbes magazine recently estimated Saddam's net worth at some $6 billion, ranking him the sixth richest head of state in the world. Such wealth derives from years of exploitation, and lately from smuggling large quantities of oil products out of the country for illegal sale. Needless to say, the proceeds of those sales go straight to members of the regime, rather than to the people who need them most—hence our efforts to crack down on the trade. Instead of spending its money on humanitarian goods, the regime imports vast quantities of whisky and cigarettes—since 1 January, more than 5,000 cases of whisky and more than 53,000 cartons of cigarettes have been delivered to Iraq.
As well as our efforts at the UN to improve the humanitarian situation in Iraq, since 1991 we have donated around £100 million in aid—bilaterally and via the EU—making us one of the largest donors. Our current programme focuses on projects in water and sanitation, hospital rehabilitation, village rehabilitation, assistance to vulnerable groups and demining.
However, we also believe that it is in the interests of the UN, the Iraqi people and the rest of the middle east that Iraq make real progress towards compliance so that sanctions can be lifted. We have therefore been working in the Security Council to make that goal a real possibility.
In April, we and the Netherlands circulated a draft Security Council resolution, based on the findings of the three expert panels established by the council in January to consider disarmament and humanitarian and Kuwaiti issues. Our aim is that that draft will provide a basis for the Security Council to re-engage with Iraq and, if Iraq chooses, provide a way out of the present stalemate.
Mr. Harry Cohen: Will my hon. Friend explain what is in it for Iraq if it accepts the United Kingdom resolution at the United Nations? From Iraq's perspective, the lifting of sanctions has been
258
blocked repeatedly by the United States and the UK—and presumably it will continue to be blocked. Iraq has fought a war against what it views as an intrusive UNSCOM inspections regime, so why should the Iraqis allow it back? Is the UK's measure not just a spoiling motion designed to continue the present hostilities?
Mr. Hoon: That is not correct. Sanctions have not been lifted, because the Iraqi regime has not accepted the terms of the resolution. I explained that at the start of my speech. That is why the resolution was made and why the obligations placed upon Iraq. That would remain the case if the resolution that has been co-sponsored by the UK and the Netherlands were eventually accepted in the Security Council. The reality is that those obligations are on Iraq and they arise out of the invasion of Kuwait and the use and stockpiling of weapons of mass destruction.
The lifting of sanctions has been blocked because Iraq has refused consistently to comply with UN resolutions. We clearly hope that the resolution will be agreed in the UN, and we hope ultimately that Iraq will accept its terms. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Kelvin that his description of the response to that resolution in the Security Council simply is not borne out by the facts. Several member states have already said that they share our view. They include Argentina, Brazil, Slovenia and, most importantly for the purposes of my hon. Friend's argument, Bahrain, which is the Arab representative on the Security Council. All have announced their co-sponsorship of the UK-Netherlands draft resolution.
I point out to my hon. Friends that the draft reminds Iraq of what it needs to do. It imposes no new demands on Iraq, and it addresses the call for the United Nations to do more about the humanitarian situation. It is a reminder that Iraq can enable progress to be made on lifting sanctions whenever it chooses to change its approach. If it rejects that opportunity again, Baghdad's priorities will be clearer than ever. It is open to Iraq to have sanctions lifted whenever it chooses to do so; it simply has to accept its obligations in the United Nations.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at five minutes to Eleven o'clock.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Fur Trade
  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions he has had within the EU on requiring the labelling of fur products to state the country, animal of origin and how the animal has been killed. [87415]

  Mr. Wilson
  The EU has not discussed requirements for labelling of fur products. However, consumers themselves have a role to play here by requesting information about products before buying. The Trade Descriptions Act 1968 and the Control of Misleading Advertisements Regulations prohibit false or misleading information about products. If a trader is unwilling to provide clear information, consumers can exercise their right to shop elsewhere. I have initiated consultation with ministerial colleagues on what further steps might be taken.

  Gender and Science Watch System
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on departmental policy in response to the European Commission's proposals under the Gender and Science Watch System. [87679]

  Mr. Battle
  The Government support the aims of the recent European Commission Communication "Women and science—Mobilising women to enrich scientific research", which includes a description of its activities known as the Gender and Science Watch System. The Commission's approach is consistent with the Government's policies to increase the participation of women in science and complements the initiatives already being taken in the UK, for example The Promoting SET (Science, Engineering and Technology) for Women Unit, located in the Office of Science and Technology at the Department of Trade and Industry.

  Landmines Act 1998
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received about breaches of the Landmines Act 1998; and if he will make a statement. [87885]

  Dr. Howells
  Anyone with any evidence to suggest that there has been a breach of the Landmines Act 1998 should draw it to the attention of the relevant enforcement authorities, to whom any letters alleging such breaches are passed by this Department.

  Export of Goods (Control) Order 1989
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if a company based in the UK needs a licence to export goods covered by the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1989 to overseas subsidiaries. [87955]

  Dr. Howells
  Yes.

  Intellectual Property
  Mr. Hesford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he has taken to increase the ability of UK companies and institutions to protect their intellectual property; and if he will make a statement. [88074]

  Dr. Howells
  The Government's Competitiveness White Paper, which was published last December, includes a comprehensive and ambitious action plan for improving the legal framework which creates and defines rights, for improving access to intellectual property, and for reforming the civil justice system to allow intellectual property rights to be enforced more easily and cheaply.

  In particular, we are pressing for early adoption of a proposal for a European Directive on copyright and the information society. This will introduce changes to the copyright system throughout Europe to ensure that it can deal more effectively with the challenges and opportunities brought by dissemination of copyright works by means of digital networks. Also in the field of information technology, during our presidency of the European Union, the United Kingdom hosted a major international conference on ways to protect computer software, including by patents. As a result of this initiative, we expect the European Commission to bring forward a proposal for a Directive for harmonising the patents regime across member states, and so to encourage innovation in this important area.

  In patents, we are pushing for a unitary Community patent providing rights across all member states. This would present further choice for those who wish to protect their innovations by patents in addition to existing routes via the European Patent Office, through which a bundle of individual national patents may be obtained, and the United Kingdom's own patent office which affords rights in the United Kingdom. Such a unitary system must, however, command the confidence of industry, and we are seeking ways to ensure that rights are underpinned by a high degree of legal certainty.

  Discussions are currently taking place with our European Community partners on the possibility of harmonising so-called "utility models" (or petty patents). If adopted, a Directive would require the United Kingdom to introduce such a system for the first time, although 12 of our EC partners currently operate such regimes. Utility models are for the protection of smaller, incremental inventions. Rights would be granted by registration without the technical and legal scrutiny which precedes granting of patent rights. Acquisition of rights would, therefore, be quicker and cheaper and would present advantages to industry, especially small businesses. However, this carries risk that rights could be found to be invalid, and that rights could be used anticompetitively. It is important that the terms of an eventual Directive benefits firms, especially small businesses.
  89
  Official fees for obtaining patents and trade marks at the United Kingdom Patent Office have been substantially reduced in the last 2 years. Some fees in trade marks and patents have been reduced by 50 per cent. and application fees for patents have been abolished completely—the first intellectual property office in the world to do so. In addition, the Office continues to offer a customer focused service and to grant high quality rights speedily. Trade mark rights are granted within weeks, and patents can be granted within a year of the initial application. Once the impact of the present fees reductions has emerged, we will undertake a review to determine the effects of official fees on the innovation process.

  Access to, and cost of litigation in, the intellectual property field is soon to benefit from changes recommended in Lord Woolf's recent report. New Rules on litigation before the Patent Office should be in force this year and benefits will accrue from more general changes to civil actions.

  The Patent Office is also closely involved with the European Patent Office and the World Intellectual Property Organisation in the establishment and implementation of a global system for introducing e-commerce into the filing and prosecution of applications for intellectual property rights. It is expected that technical standards for this field will be agreed internationally next year and a full system should be implemented by 2005.

  Rural Post Offices
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many rural post offices there were in Scotland, Wales and England(a) at the latest available date, (b) in 1997, (c) in 1989 and (d) in 1979. [88080]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  [holding answer 24 June 1999]: The Post Office have advised the numbers of rural post offices in Scotland, Wales and England as follows:

  Scotland

  Wales

  England

  End May 1999

  1,140

  987

  6,272

  End March 1998

  1,170

  983

  6,535

  I understand that, prior to March 1998, Post Office Counters Ltd. did not break down the numbers of post offices by country but only by its own administrative regions.

  National Minimum Wage
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the monitoring period for the assessment of the national minimum wage, as it affects activity holidays, will end. [88451]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The Low Pay Commission has been asked to monitor and evaluate the introduction and impact of the National Minimum Wage and to report to the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry by December 1999. I understand that the Commission will shortly be writing to interested parties,90
  including groups representing activity holiday companies, inviting them to submit written evidence by mid-September

  Share Purchases
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what responses he has received to the consultation document, Investment Companies Share Repurchases Using Capital Profits; and when he expects to announce his conclusions; [R] [88610]

  (2) If he will make a statement on investment company share purchases using capital profits; [R] [88612]

  (3) What plans he has to table regulations on the issue of investment company share repurchases using capital profits. [R] [88611]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  [holding answer 28 June 1999]: My Department received 42 responses to its consultative document Investment Companies—Share Repurchases Using Capital Profits. Two respondents opposed a change to the law. A summary of responses was issued last week and has been placed in the Library of the House along with the original consultative document. Following the receipt of a number of detailed comments on the draft Statutory Instrument, my Department proposes to undertake a further, limited, consultation on a slightly revised draft SI (but not on the principle of a proposed change to the law) and an announcement will be made as soon as possible thereafter.

  Science Investment
  Mr. Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much the Government are investing in science; and if the information is publicly available. [89293]

  Mr. Battle
  My noble Friend Lord Sainsbury is today publishing the Forward Look of Government-funded Science, Engineering and Technology which sets out the Government's spending plans. We see science as a major priority and a key driver for wealth creation, employment and an improved quality of life both in this country and overseas. We will be investing over £20 billion in this area over the next three years—a real terms increase of £1.8 billion—representing a level of investment higher in real terms than at any time over this decade. Copies have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  City Flyer Express BA Merger
  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will set out the reasons for the time taken to reach his decision on the merger of City Flyer Express and British Airways; and when that decision is scheduled. [88887]

  Dr. Howells
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will publish the Competition Commission's report on British Airways' proposed acquisition of City Flyer Express as soon as is practicable. It is not the practice of my right hon. Friend to comment publicly on the timing or substance of competition cases in advance of publication of the Competition Commission's report.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  European Communities Working Groups
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the European Communities working groups which met over the last 12 months with a representative from his Department in attendance; if he will list the number of times each met; if he will indicate the nature of the Government's representation; and if he will make a statement. [88481]

  Angela Eagle
  The Social Questions Working Group of the Council met on nine occasions in the last 12 months when officials from this Department were present.

  Jobseeker's Allowance
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he is able to announce changes to the regulations in respect of the payment of Jobseeker's Allowance to employees made redundant when their employer goes into receivership. [89031]

  Angela Eagle
  We are aware of the effect of the Jobseeker's Allowance rules in this area and are considering the matter in conjunction with the Department of Trade and Industry to see whether any changes can be made. There are, however, complex issues to be resolved. Meanwhile, there are existing safeguards to protect those most in need as payments can be made if hardship would otherwise result.

  Stakeholder Pensions
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what progress has been made on the consultation on the stakeholder pensions proposals. [89295]

  Mr. Timms
  The consultation paper "Stakeholder Pensions: Employer Access—the Government's Proposals" is published today. This is the second in a series of consultation papers on stakeholder pensions; further consultation papers will be issued in the coming weeks.

  This paper demonstrates our commitment to move ahead with pensions reform. Stakeholder pensions will plug a gap in pension provision by providing low-cost, dependable and flexible pensions for up to five million people who currently do not have the right options available to save for their retirement.

  This consultation paper sets out how employers will play a part in this process, by providing employees with access to a stakeholder pension scheme if they do not offer an occupational pension scheme. Copies of the consultation paper are available in the Library and the Vote Office.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Transport and Works Act 1992
  Mr. Snape
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many applications for orders under the Transport and Works Act 92
  1992 will be affected by the transfer of powers to the National Assembly for Wales on 1 July. [87582]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  No outstanding Transport and Works Act applications will transfer to the National Assembly for Wales on 1 July.

  GM Crops (Cleethorpes)
  Shona McIsaac
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the locations in the Cleethorpes parliamentary constituency where GM crops are being grown. [87991]

  Mr. Meacher
  Within the parliamentary constituency of Cleethorpes, six consents have been issued in respect of small research trials of genetically modified crops to permit growing in 1999. These trials are all located at Dalby Farms Limited, Brigsley. Further details of these trials are available on the DETR public register and on the DETR website.

  GM Crops
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the distance of the pollen barrier at the genetically modified farm-scale trial in Wiltshire; what is the distance which SCIMAC recommend for an isolation distance in their code of practice; and if he will make a statement. [88158]

  Mr. Meacher
  The consent for the farm scale evaluation of spring oil seed rape at Lushill Farm, Hannington, Wiltshire does not specify a pollen barrier. Under the conditions of the release, a 50m isolation distance must be maintained between the genetically modified (GM) oil seed rape and any non-GM oilseed rape to be used for food or animal feed. Any oil seed rape growing within 50m of the GM oil seed rape will in this instance be destroyed after harvest. The 50m separation distance between GM and non-GM oil seed rape is specified in the SCIMAC (Supply Chain Initiative for Modified Agricultural Crops) Guidelines.

  Inland Fisheries (Cormorants)
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment the Environment Agency has made of the damage caused by cormorants to inland fishing.[88194]

  Mr. Meale
  In 1995 my Department, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Environment Agency commissioned a three year programme of research on the problem of fish-eating birds, including cormorants, at inland fisheries. The research was aimed at identifying the populations, distributions and movements of these birds, their feeding ecology, the extent of the problems they can cause and assessing different management techniques to reduce those problems. The final results will be disseminated to the fishing and bird conservation interests at a seminar to be held on 30 September.

  Local Government Finance
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will
  93
  name those authorities in receipt of the area cost adjustment and the additional SSA which they received for 1999–2000. [88188]

  Mr. Meale
  The information requested has been placed in the Library.

  Wind Farms
  Lorna Fitzsimons
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the number of planning applications for wind farms which have been refused; how many appeals against such refusals have been made and in each case on what grounds. [88394]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Information on planning applications made to local planning authorities for wind farm proposals is not held centrally; there have been 27 planning appeals in England since 1990. In most of those appeals weighing visual impact against the benefits of renewable energy is likely to have been an important consideration. Appeal decision letters are available from the Planning Inspectorate.

  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Mr. Lepper
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his oral answer of 13 April 1999,Official Report, column 11, on sites of special scientific interest, when he expects to announce how the Government intend to proceed. [88336]

  Mr. Meale
  We have recognised the need to give thorough consideration to the most effective measures we can introduce, and will be announcing our conclusions shortly.

  Oil Spillages
  Mr. Truswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the(a) level of pollution and (b) threat of pollution arising from spillages from oil storage tanks with insecure stop-cocks; and if he will make a statement. [88195]

  Mr. Meale
  In 1998 the Environment Agency recorded 5,308 water pollution incidents in England and Wales related to oil spillages. In a sample study six per cent. of incidents were identified by the Agency as due to faulty oil tank valves.

  The Government are considering whether further measures to prevent water pollution from industrial, commercial and institutional (residential and nonresidential) oil storage installations are needed. We expect to make an announcement shortly.

  London Underground
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what studies have been carried out into the practical effects of the closure of the London Underground Northern Line between Moorgate and Kennington stations from 3 July until 6 September. [88427]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  London Underground (LU) have made a number of studies into the practical effects of the upcoming Northern Line closure between Moorgate and 94
  Kennington stations. They have modelled the impact on passenger flows across London's public transport system and also modelled in more detail passenger movements in the stations most likely to suffer increased congestion.

  Based on the results of these studies and their experience of the southbound closure of the same section of line in 1996, LU have developed an alternative service to minimise passenger disruption for the period of the closure.

  Planning Policy (Sport and Recreation)
  Liz Blackman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress has been made on the revision of PPG17; and when he expects the revised Guidance to be announced. [88776]

  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to publish the revised Policy Planning Guidance Note 17 on Sport and Recreation. [88458]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I refer to the answer that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Liz Blackman) on 13 January 1999,Official Report, column 215. The text is being prepared for consultation in the Autumn.

  Carbon Dioxide Emissions
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) by what percentage emissions of carbon dioxide were reduced between the years 1990 and 1993; and what were the major contributors to this reduction; [88739]

  (2) by what percentage emissions of carbon dioxide were reduced between the years 1993 and 1997; and what were the major contributors to this reduction. [88740]

  Mr. Meale
  Emissions of carbon dioxide fell by 4 per cent. between 1990 and 1993 (from 168 MtC to 161 MtC) and by 4 per cent. between 1993 and 1997 (from 161 MtC to 155 MtC). A major contribution to the decline during both periods was the switch from coal to gas and to nuclear for power generation. During the latter period (1993 to 1997) the effects of energy efficiency improvements, economic restructuring and the increases in road transport fuel duty in reducing emissions were also significant. Without these trends emissions would have been expected to rise between 1990 and 1997 due to the effects of economic growth.

  Playing Fields
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will assess the advantages and disadvantages of including playing fields in the land use register. [88459]

  Mr. Raynsford
  It is our intention that the National Land Use Database will record all land uses, including playing fields.

  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many school playing fields have been given planning permission for non-sport development since 1 October 1998. [88742]
  95
  Mr. Raynsford
  The information requested is not available. The results of planning applications and appeals are not classified by current or previous land use.

  Rail Services (Shrewsbury)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions he has had with Virgin and Central Train companies regarding improvements to rail services through Shrewsbury; and if he will make a statement. [88455]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  This is a matter for the train operating companies. OPRAF holds regular meetings with both Virgin and Central Trains and although enhancement of services through Shrewsbury have been discussed, I understand that neither company has any current plans for improvement.

  Residential Leasehold Properties
  Mr. Lepper
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the reports which he has requested from the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales about disciplinary action taken by that body in respect of non-compliance with the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 in relation to the accounts of residential leasehold properties in each of the last three years. [88578]

  Mr. Raynsford
  We have not requested any such reports. However, officials have met representatives of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales to discuss the certification of service charge accounts. We are well aware of leaseholders' concerns in this area and are considering what might be done to protect their money more effectively.

  Cumberland Gap (M6)
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to announce a decision on the funding of the Cumberland Gap section of the M6 in Cumbria. [88350]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 28 June 1999]: Following the Roads Review last year we announced that we would not be taking forward the M6 extension scheme between Carlisle and Guardsmill as it was then designed but that the Highways Agency would be tasked with considering lower cost options to upgrade the A74 to motorway standard. Cumbria CC has since been commissioned to carry out the study into lower cost options. Decisions on the timing and finance of the scheme will be made following receipt of the study report which is expected in August.

  Railway Stations (Bicycles)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what percentage of railway stations have secure parking provision for bicycles. [88956]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Figures for the percentage of stations with secure parking provision for bicycles are not held centrally. However, around 40 per cent. of railway stations do provide provision for the storage of bicycles.
  96

  Monsanto
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the trips, facilities, gifts and other offerings of a financial value provided by Monsanto to(a) Ministers and (b) civil servants in his Department since 1 May 1997. [88954]

  Mr. Meale
  As far as I am aware, since 1 May 1997 no Minister or civil servant working in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, its Agencies and its staff working in the Government Offices has accepted any trips, facilities, gifts or other offering provided by Monsanto.

  Large Dams
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 13 April 1999, Official Report, column 70, on rivers, when he expects to receive Dr. Kader Asmal's report on large dams. [87390]

  Mr. Meale
  We understand that Dr. Kader Asmal has been asked to report by the end of June 2000.

  Transport Planners
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 21 January 1999,Official Report, column 568, on transport planners, what was the result of the proceedings of the Steering Group. [87391]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Steering Group, which is drawn from transport providers, passenger groups and local authorities, is continuing to work with the consultants appointed by the Department to assist in the development of the gender audit and the production of a checklist to help transport providers better understand and meet women's transport requirements. We will be finalising the checklist over the summer.

  Fish Farms
  Mrs. Organ
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the organisations and individuals consulted during the consultation to re-band fish farms within water discharge levies. [88414]

  Mr. Meale
  A change in the charge band for fish farms was one of a number of amendments made to the Environment Agency's Charging for Discharges Scheme with effect from 1 April 1999. The Environment Agency consulted 211 organisations and individuals on the full range of its proposals. Those consulted included the following with an interest in fish farms:

  Association of Still Water Game Fishery Managers

  Atlantic Salmon Trust

  British Trout Association

  Cerne Valley Fisheries Ltd.

  Clean Rivers Trust

  Commercial Coarse Fisheries Association

  Council for the Protection of Rural England

  Country Landowners Association

  Federation of Small Businesses: Agricultural Affairs Committee

  97

  Freshwater Biological Association

  Institute of Fisheries Management

  Institution of Water and Environmental Management

  International Fish Meal and Oil Manufacturers Association

  Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  National Association of Fisheries and Angling Consolidation

  National Farmers Union

  National Federation of Anglers

  Royal Welsh Agricultural Society

  Rural Development Commission

  Salmon and Trout Association

  Shellfish Association of Great Britain

  UK Association of Fish Meal Manufacturers

  Water UK

  Welsh Anglers Association

  Welsh Development Agency

  Welsh Office

  Welsh Salmon/Trout Angling Association

  West Country Trout.

  Public-private Partnerships
  Ms Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if, in the context of Public-Private Partnership arrangements, a future private sector partner for National Air Traffic Services will be given a right to review and amend the operational mission of the new Scottish centre project; [88948]

  (2) what role a future private sector partner for NATS would have for MOD air traffic control operations under the Government's Public Private-Partnership proposals. [88952]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Government issued a consultation document in October 1998 seeking views on our preferred proposal of a PPP for NATS. The period for responses to that consultation has now closed and we are considering those received including the views expressed on the new Scottish centre and the relationship with MOD. We will make a detailed announcement on the way forward in due course.

  Scottish Air Traffic Control Centre
  Ms Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if the new Scottish air traffic control centre will only be built as part of the proposed public private partnership for a national air traffic centre. [88947]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Government are fully committed to a new air traffic control centre at Prestwick which is part of NATS' two centre strategy for providing ATC services in the 21 century. It is currently envisaged that the project will be taken forward as part of the PPP for NATS.

  Ms Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if the operational mission currently planned for the new Scottish air traffic control centre comprises(a) en route services, (b) oceanic services and (c) contingency services for the new en route centre at Swanwick. [88949]
  98
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The contract currently under negotiation with Sky Solutions for the New air traffic control centre at Prestwick (NSC) will include the provision of en route and contingency services. The Oceanic flight data processing system is being procured under a separate PFI contract and will be housed in the NSC building.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Genetically Modified Food
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Chairman of the Catering Committee how purchasers of food products on sale within the Parliamentary Estate which may contain genetically modified ingredients are informed that these ingredients may be present. [88633]

  Mr. Dennis Turner
  The Food Labelling (Amendment) Regulations 1999 provide catering establishments with a transition period of six months in order to achieve full compliance. The Refreshment Department is working towards this, and expects to be in a position to inform its customers of food products containing Genetically Modified soya or maize protein or DNA by the required deadline of 19 September 1999.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Jury Trial
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) of 14 June 1999,Official Report, columns 53–54, on jury trial, if he will place in the Library a summary of the responses received during the consultation exercise concerning the proposal to remove the defendant's ability to elect for Crown Court trial in either way cases; and if he will make a statement. [88333]

  Mr. Boateng
  I refer the right hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Efford), on 19 May 1999,Official Report, columns 373–74, by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department. A copy of the summary of responses to the consultation exercise will shortly be placed in the Library.

  Crime and Disorder Audits
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance he(a) has given and (b) plans to give to local partnerships to ensure consistency in the questions asked by local authorities and police forces for the purpose of audits under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. [88317]

  Mr. Boateng
  Previous Home Office guidance to partnerships did not prescribe a specific format for the audits, although it has advised that they specifically seek out levels of racial crime and domestic violence. There are no current plans to amend this guidance.
  99
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 21 May 1999,Official Report, column 467, on crime and disorder audits, if he will list those partnerships that have made road safety a priority issue. [88316]

  Mr. Boateng
  We have not yet completed an analysis of the audits and strategies produced by the local crime and disorder partnerships. The Home Office will carry out a programme of research into the strategies, to inform Home Office guidance to partnerships, but we currently have no plans to publish a full list of priorities so far identified by partnerships.

  Road Casualty Reduction
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the
  Home Department what priority he gives to road casualty reduction within the strategic objectives he has set for the Police Service. [88314]

  Mr. Boateng
  The overarching aims and objectives for the police service, which were published last year, include the reduction of casualties. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made it clear in his letter to Chief Officers of Police and their Police Authorities that he saw traffic policing as central to the police's responsibility for maintaining law and order and reducing crime and that he expected road policing to play a full part in achieving safer communities.

  Jill Dando
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the progress of the police inquiry into the murder of Jill Dando. [88405]

  Kate Hoey
  The investigation of crime within the Metropolitan Police District is an operational matter for the Commissioner.

  The Commissioner tells me that the murder of Jill has triggered an enormous public response: the police have received over 6,000calls, letters and fax messages. The inquiry has raised over 4,000 individual investigative actions; nearly 700 statements have been taken; and there has been a mass trawl of Closed Circuit Television records from private industry, local authorities and the Highways Agency to help track events in Jill Dando's last hours. Following the first phase of gathering, filtering and interpreting the initial information the investigation is now focusing upon developing, examining and testing hypotheses based upon what is now known. The investigation is itself subject to a progress review, in line with new general policy; the Commissioner informs me that the investigating team is following a number of lines of inquiry.

  Prisons (Drugs)
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many dogs are currently used in the Prison Service for the purpose of detecting drugs in prison; where they are located; how many prisons do not have full-time and exclusive access to such a dog; and what the costs are of training and keeping such a dog. [88307]
  100
  Mr. George Howarth
  There are 240 drug dogs in Prison Service establishments, comprising 51 passive drug dogs and 189 active drug dogs. The list shows the location of the dogs.

  Forty prisons do not have full-time access to a drug dog, but there are two area search teams (one based at Maidstone prison comprising six dogs; the others at Swinfen Hall Young Offenders Institution with two dogs) and the National Dog Support Group (comprising 14 dogs) Which are available to give support to these prisons.

  The costs for training and maintaining the dogs are:

  Initial Training passive dog: £3,321

  Initial Training active dog: £3,000

  Annual refresher: £1,000

  The yearly costs of keeping a dog averages £2,088, depending on veterinary care

  Prisons in England and Wales with drug dogs:

  Acklington

  Albany1

  Altcourse1

  Askham Grange

  Aylesbury

  Bedford1

  Belmarsh

  Birmingham

  Blakenhurst1

  Blundeston

  Bristol

  Brixton

  Buckley Hall

  Bullingdon1

  Canterbury

  Cardiff

  Castington

  Channings Wood

  Chelmsford

  Coldingley

  Dartmoor1

  Deerbolt

  Doncaster1

  Downview

  Durham1

  Eastwood Park1

  Everthorpe

  Exeter

  Feltham1

  Foston Hall1

  Frankland1

  Full Sutton

  Garth

  Gartree

  Glen Parva

  Grendon

  Guys Marsh

  Haverigg

  Highdown1

  Highpoint

  Hindley

  Hollesley Bay

  Holloway

  Holme House1

  Hull1

  Huntercombe

  Latchmere House

  101

  Leeds

  Lewes

  Lincoln1

  Littlehey

  Liverpool1

  Long Lartin

  Lowdham Grange

  Low Newton

  Maidstone

  Machester1

  Moorland

  New Hall

  Northallerton

  Norwich1

  Parc

  Parkhurst1

  Portland

  Preston1

  Ranby

  Reading

  Risley

  Send

  Shepton Mallet

  Standford Hill1

  Stocken

  Stoke Heath

  Styal

  Swaleside

  Swansea

  The Mount1

  Thorn Cross

  Wakefield1

  Wandsworth

  Wayland1

  Wellingborough1

  Whitemoor1

  Winchester

  Wolds1

  Woodhill

  Wormwood Scrubs1

  Wymott

  Kent Area Search Team1

  Mercia Area Search Team

  National Dog Support Group

  1Passive drug dog

  Note:

  Other establishments will have an active drug dog or a dual purpose dog (used for both patrol and drug duties).

  Hepatitis C (Prisons)
  Lorna Fitzsimons
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to institute random compulsory testing for hepatitis C in prison. [88674]

  Mr. George Howarth
  There are no plans at present to introduce random or compulsory testing for hepatitis C in prison.

  Personality Disorders
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the compatibility of his plans for new legal powers for the detention of people with dangerous personality disorders with the European Convention on Human Rights. [88626]
  102
  Mr. Straw
  The Government fully recognise the need for the arrangements for the detention and management of dangerous severely personality-disordered people to be compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. This need has been taken into consideration in the work which has been done so far. There will be a process of consultation before final decisions are taken about the precise legal framework and about the facilities within which people will be detained. As the hon. Member is aware, Section 19 of the Human Rights Act 1998 requires second reading of the Bill as to the compatibility of the provisions with the Convention rights.

  Civil Defence Grants
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received about the new distribution mechanism for civil defence grants. [88840]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The sole avenue of consultation on this issue has been the Local Government Association (LGA). In recognition that the issues excites strong views, exceptional approval was given for a joint Home Office/LGA Working Group to examine the issues surrounding grant redistribution. The Group met twice and, although a consensus was not reached, there were areas of agreement and Home Office adjusted its proposals following this consultation.

  Since work began on the new distribution mechanism, written representations have been received from many different types of local authority affected by proposed changes. Some of this has been Ministerial but correspondence has been dealt with by officials.

  The outcome of the new mechanism was announced to Winchester Chief Executives in a letter dated 26 May.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list in respect of each local authority in England and Wales(a) the amount paid in civil grant in 1999–2000, (b) the provisional maximum allocation of civil defence grant for 2000–01 and (c) the provisional maximum allocation of civil defence grant for 2001–02; and if he will make a statement.[88881]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The completion of the local government reorganisation process has provided an opportunity to reassess the distribution of civil defence grant to local authorities in England and Wales, and consultation has taken place between Home Office and the Local Government Associatiion (LGA). An announcement about the new mechanism was made to Chief Executives in a letter of 26 May.

  As the information required is lengthy, tables have been placed in the Library. Copies of these tables were sent to the LGA and the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives (SOLACE) at the time of the announcement.

  Interception of Communications Act 1985
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will make a statement on the relative increases between 1997 and 1998 on the number of Warrants issued by the (i) Secretary of State
  103
  for the Home Department and (ii) the Secretary of State for Scotland under the Interception of Communications Act 1985; [88720]

  (2) what reasons underlie the increase in warrants allowing interception of telecommunications issued by him in 1998 under the Interception of Communications Act 1985. [88719]

  Mr. Straw
  In his annual report for 1998, the Interception Commissioner records that the substantial increase in interception is due to the continuing incidence of large-scale crime and the greater interception facilities available to meet it. He was satisfied that the strict statutory criteria continued to be applied.

  He further recorded that the police and Her Majesty's Customs and Excise, assisted in some cases by the security and intelligence agencies, have had many outstanding successes; and that interception of communications remains an effective and an essential operation in the interests of national security and of safeguarding the economic well being of the United Kingdom, and in the prevention and detection of serious crime. Examples of the value of interception in the fight against serious crime are given in the consultation paper on interception of communications which I published on 22 June.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many warrants issued under the Interception of Communications Act 1985 and in force on 31 December 1998 had as their justification (i) the prevention or detection of serious crime, (ii) the interests of national security and (iii) the safeguarding of the economic well-being of the UK; and how many warrants were issued which did not cite one of the above three reason as its justification; [88718]

  Number of effective calls transferred to each regional office TEB by 0990 service

  Date

  Belfast

  Glasgow

  Liverpool

  London

  Newport

  Peterborough

  Total

  1997

  May

  4,730

  18,540

  27,037

  16,502

  27,987

  21,448

  116,244

  June

  6,545

  21,216

  26,665

  19,283

  29,634

  22,795

  126,138

  July

  5,044

  17,353

  25,740

  38,452

  29,496

  16,767

  132,852

  August

  4,465

  14,687

  19,439

  29,086

  23,472

  15,409

  106,558

  September

  4,094

  14,350

  22,954

  22,273

  27,983

  19,373

  111,027

  October

  2,728

  15,885

  20,255

  18,459

  25,501

  19,201

  102,029

  November

  1,191

  12,561

  14,228

  8,525

  19,094

  15,850

  71,449

  December

  1,555

  11,582

  15,532

  8,559

  18,907

  14,784

  70,919

  1998

  January

  3,302

  15,235

  21,880

  11,447

  33,414

  22,802

  107,090

  February

  2,040

  15,378

  21,855

  13,224

  32,441

  21,587

  106,525

  March

  4,493

  19,367

  28,962

  14,805

  40,089

  23,573

  131,289

  April

  6,092

  17,774

  24,836

  13,573

  37,546

  19,817

  119,638

  May

  7,848

  19,042

  24,840

  18,216

  38,829

  16,098

  124,873

  June

  11,984

  18,383

  26,128

  16,440

  34,901

  14,860

  122,696

  July

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  August

  7,769

  18,861

  19,732

  13,163

  28,431

  17,507

  105,463

  September

  7,771

  18,472

  4,346

  23,971

  35,233

  19,356

  109,149

  October

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  November

  6,707

  18,246

  14,744

  27,337

  26,011

  11,673

  104,718

  December

  801

  12,047

  12,283

  17,077

  18,022

  12,988

  73,218

  1999

  January

  1,948

  16,829

  15,820

  23,017

  24,558

  21,041

  103,213

  February

  2,118

  17,315

  12,929

  20,503

  26,762

  21,460

  101,087

  March

  3,171

  21,262

  9,100

  32,412

  27,148

  22,338

  115,431

  April

  4,430

  16,987

  5,882

  12,964

  21,812

  15,234

  77,309

  May

  4,564

  13,549

  4,411

  10,212

  59,798

  86,662

  101,196

  104
  (2) how many warrants have been (a) applied for and (b) granted under the Interception of Communications Act 1985, where the justification given was to safeguard the economic well-being of the United Kingdom and where the intended target was a UK citizen or citizens. [88721]

  Mr. Straw
  The Annual Report of the Commissioner appointed under the Interception of Communications Act 1985, published on 17 June, records the number of interception warrants issued annually by the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland. Paragraph 29 of the Report gives the reasons for not providing further information concerning the purpose for which warrants were issued. I consider that it remains in the public interest to follow the established practice and not to provide any more detailed breakdown of the figures in the Commissioner's Report. No warrant may be, or has been, issued unless it is considered necessary to do so in the interests of national security; for the purpose of preventing or detecting serious crime or for the purpose of safeguarding the economic well-being of the United Kingdom.

  UK Passport Agency
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the volume was of incoming telephone calls from the 0990 service to each office of the UK Passport Agency in each month since May 1997. [88878]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The number of incoming telephone calls transferred from the 0990 service to each office in the UK Passport Agency in each month since May 1997 is shown in the table.

  In addition to these calls transferred from the 0870–0990 service, each Regional Office receives calls from an alternative number, which is given out by recorded courtesy messages and high street partners.
  105
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the longest waiting time for personal callers at each office of the UK Passport Agency in each month since May 1997. [88962]

  Maximum waiting time (minutes) for personal callers 1997, 1998 and 1999

  Months

  London

  Liverpool

  Peterborough

  Newport

  Glasgow

  Belfast

  1997

  September

  106

  60

  63

  30

  77

  32

  October

  95

  40

  70

  30

  58

  15

  November

  130

  60

  55

  30

  60

  20

  December

  172

  90

  75

  20

  68

  20

  1998

  January

  122

  80

  40

  30

  65

  20

  February

  189

  70

  40

  45

  67

  25

  March

  150

  60

  50

  40

  60

  25

  April

  158

  70

  50

  30

  49

  10

  May

  120

  90

  45

  40

  67

  15

  June

  250

  80

  100

  45

  86

  15

  July

  216

  110

  100

  45

  87

  20

  August

  141

  110

  105

  40

  51

  30

  September

  171

  100

  60

  40

  56

  20

  October

  134

  100

  60

  40

  55

  10

  November

  73

  100

  90

  40

  48

  5

  December

  188

  100

  80

  30

  50

  5

  1999

  January

  114

  100

  40

  25

  57

  20

  February

  169

  100

  55

  35

  39

  25

  March

  225

  140

  60

  45

  56

  15

  April

  238

  140

  90

  50

  56

  60

  May

  323

  140

  150

  55

  75

  60

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many unprocessed passport applications were outstanding at the end of each week since 1 January 1999 at each office of the UK Passport Agency. [88882]

  Unprocessed passport applications 1999

  Week ending

  London

  Liverpool

  Peterborough

  Newport

  Glasgow

  Belfast

  Total

  3 January 1999

  3,938

  9,585

  8,111

  10,630

  22,969

  5,591

  60,824

  10 January 1999

  3,887

  20,444

  14,598

  11,154

  22,364

  5,392

  77,839

  17 January 1999

  2,843

  23,029

  20,466

  10,327

  24,548

  9,632

  90,845

  24 January 1999

  4,180

  30,530

  27,052

  29,641

  30,693

  15,057

  137,153

  31 January 1999

  5,249

  31,173

  39,966

  31,750

  40,532

  18,610

  167,280

  7 February 1999

  5,507

  40,057

  47,715

  39,328

  44,180

  21,632

  198,419

  14 February 1999

  5,976

  52,161

  51,326

  46,823

  47,107

  18,393

  221,786

  21 February 1999

  6,708

  62,526

  60,747

  50,789

  55,247

  17,868

  253,885

  28 February 1999

  8,095

  81,396

  60,206

  57,540

  58,605

  14,351

  280,193

  7 March 1999

  8,088

  74,417

  55,976

  57,446

  61,541

  18,105

  275,573

  14 March 1999

  8,047

  83,115

  61,608

  56,545

  63,942

  20,147

  293,404

  21 March 1999

  22,014

  77,255

  62,484

  61,726

  64,862

  21,639

  309,980

  28 March 1999

  9,748

  76,895

  65,214

  59,839

  65,851

  27,151

  304,698

  4 April 1999

  9,809

  71,387

  68,784

  53,817

  72,810

  24,417

  301,024

  11 April 1999

  9,820

  73,169

  67,893

  55,792

  75,311

  29,195

  311,180

  18 April 1999

  7,342

  79,344

  72,758

  58,517

  82,333

  33,108

  333,402

  25 April 1999

  8,113

  87,892

  88,253

  58,993

  90,121

  33,279

  366,651

  2 May 1999

  9,530

  97,030

  90,403

  61,992

  102,102

  36,016

  397,073

  9 May 1999

  12,505

  107,352

  91,646

  65,888

  108,655

  38,466

  424,512

  16 May 1999

  13,929

  118,055

  95,813

  71,176

  121,258

  38,912

  459,143

  23 May 1999

  13,602

  137,897

  99,398

  76,465

  124,524

  33,999

  485,885

  30 May 1999

  12,470

  147,792

  102,073

  83,256

  128,721

  24,527

  498,839

  6 June 1999

  11,684

  143,093

  93,411

  87,005

  127,416

  25,049

  487,658

  13 June 1999

  13,143

  161,823

  100,214

  104,428

  133,207

  18,570

  531,385

  20 June 1999

  11,607

  184,362

  100,089

  113,007

  136,594

  19,877

  565,536

  106
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The information requested on the longest waiting times for personal callers at each office of the UK Passport Agency in each month since May 1997 is set out in the table.

  Mr Mike O'Brien:
  The information requested on the numbers of unprocessed passport applications outstanding at the end of each week sine 1 January 1999 is set out in the table.
  107
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library copies of the UK Passport Agency's business plan 1999–2000 and corporate plan 1999–02. [88880]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I will place a copy of the UK Passport Agency's 1999–2000 Business Plan and 1999–02 Corporate Plan in the Library of the House once it has been approved, which I hope will be in the next few weeks.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list in respect of each office of the UK Passport Agency the volume of incoming

  Month

  Recorded/courtesy messages

  Belfast

  Glasgow

  London

  Liverpool

  Newport

  Peterborough

  January 1998

  516,045

  13,521

  25,918

  22,512

  37,624

  46,624

  21,596

  July 1998

  563,559

  11,196

  24,457

  15,305

  36,151

  41,376

  25,153

  August 1998

  279,214

  9,047

  26,776

  15,168

  1—

  34,086

  23,936

  September 1998

  202,702

  8,744

  26,724

  26,805

  1—

  1—

  25,592

  October 1998

  291,458

  10,764

  23,576

  30,123

  13,569

  1—

  1—

  November 1998

  131,726

  7,366

  23,348

  31,195

  20,129

  26,481

  15,103

  December 1998

  192,176

  1,412

  17,292

  20,712

  17,969

  22,465

  16,796

  January 1999

  332,296

  875

  21,984

  26,725

  21,445

  32,911

  25,566

  February 1999

  370,537

  4,152

  20,878

  23,691

  17,421

  35,479

  27,982

  March 1999

  668,287

  4,876

  25,914

  38,020

  15,060

  30,148

  29,470

  April 1999

  669,048

  9,249

  19,822

  15,324

  10,914

  25,695

  20,036

  May 1999

  1,388,522

  9,175

  16,706

  17,053

  6,893

  26,240

  12,988

  1Management information not available due to refurbishment work

  It can be seen from the table that an element of the calls are answered centrally by recorded messages, while the remainder are transferred to the local office to be answered by an operator. The percentage of calls answered within 60 seconds by an operator is detailed in the following table. Gaps in the table occur when information is not currently accessible.

  Volume of calls dealt with at each regional office and percentage answered within 60 seconds

  Week

  Volume of calls answered

  Percentage of calls answered within 60 seconds

  Belfast

  4 January 1999

  —

  —

  11 January 1999

  —

  —

  18 January 1999

  1,037

  93.10

  25 January 1999

  —

  —

  1 February 1999

  875

  91.90

  8 February 1999

  1,020

  98.50

  15 February 1999

  1,095

  98.90

  22 February 1999

  1,164

  97.10

  1 March 1999

  —

  —

  8 March 1999

  —

  —

  15 March 1999

  —

  —

  22 March 1999

  1,276

  90.20

  29 March 1999

  971

  92.30

  5 April 1999

  —

  —

  12 April 1999

  1,883

  84.20

  19 April 1999

  2,322

  76.60

  26 April 1999

  2,544

  71.30

  3 May 1999

  —

  —

  10 May 1999

  —

  —

  17 May 1999

  —

  —

  24 May 1999

  2,220

  25.10

  31 May 1999

  —

  —

  7 June 1999

  1,869

  20.30

  108
  telephone calls for each week since 1 January and the percentage of such calls which were answered within 60 seconds. [88877]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The UK Passport Agency's published telephone inquiry number is a single non-geographical number (0870 5210410). The inquiry service is fronted by an automated menu system which, depending on the option selected, then routes calls to either an appropriate recorded message (for general inquiries) or an operator (for specific inquiries). Details of the volume of incoming calls are listed in the following table.

  Volume of calls dealt with at each regional office and percentage answered within 60 seconds

  Week

  Volume of calls answered

  Percentage of calls answered within 60 seconds

  Glasgow

  4 January 1999

  3,829

  24.00

  11 January 1999

  6,124

  51.80

  18 January 1999

  6,703

  63.90

  25 January 1999

  5,328

  75.10

  1 February 1999

  5,059

  69.00

  8 February 1999

  5,109

  67.50

  15 February 1999

  5,325

  74.90

  22 February 1999

  5,385

  91.40

  1 March 1999

  5,344

  86.10

  8 March 1999

  5,732

  88.80

  15 March 1999

  5,463

  88.20

  22 March 1999

  5,837

  87.50

  29 March 1999

  4,430

  85.20

  5 April 1999

  4,185

  70.40

  12 April 1999

  4,541

  74.10

  19 April 1999

  5,348

  89.20

  26 April 1999

  4,867

  78.50

  3 May 1999

  3,896

  72.90

  10 May 1999

  4,705

  74.30

  17 May 1999

  4,500

  60.00

  24 May 1999

  3,606

  51.20

  31 May 1999

  2,696

  28.20

  7 June 1999

  4,187

  57.00

  Liverpool

  4 January 1999

  4,544

  49.10

  11 January 1999

  6,036

  41.80

  18 January 1999

  5,630

  43.20

  25 January 1999

  5,235

  48.40

  1 February 1999

  5,033

  48.90

  8 February 1999

  4,190

  40.40

  5 February 1999

  4,007

  33.80

  109

  Volume of calls dealt with at each regional office and percentage answered within 60 seconds

  Week

  Volume of calls answered

  Percentage of calls answered within 60 seconds

  22 February 1999

  4,191

  39.60

  1 March 1999

  3,684

  52.60

  8 March 1999

  3,099

  45.00

  15 March 1999

  3,387

  61.70

  22 March 1999

  3,141

  74.80

  29 March 1999

  2,476

  84.40

  5 April 1999

  2,767

  79.70

  12 April 1999

  2,459

  80.70

  19 April 1999

  2,124

  78.80

  26 April 1999

  2,045

  91.80

  3 May 1999

  —

  —

  10 May 1999

  1,843

  16.80

  17 May 1999

  2,685

  17.60

  24 May 1999

  1,049

  22.70

  31 May 1999

  —

  —

  7 June 1999

  —

  —

  London

  4 January 1999

  7,304

  86.80

  11 January 1999

  6,738

  86.60

  18 January 1999

  6,565

  88.80

  25 January 1999

  6,118

  93.00

  1 February 1999

  5,714

  95.60

  8 February 1999

  5,990

  93.20

  15 February 1999

  5,902

  86.60

  22 February 1999

  6,085

  95.60

  1 March 1999

  7,700

  87.00

  8 March 1999

  8,070

  75.40

  15 March 1999

  8,315

  77.80

  22 March 1999

  9,386

  87.60

  29 March 1999

  5,606

  71.00

  5 April 1999

  3,225

  24.50

  12 April 1999

  3,653

  15.80

  19 April 1999

  3,999

  25.00

  26 April 1999

  3,390

  10.60

  3 May 1999

  2,153

  12.30

  10 May 1999

  3,775

  18.20

  17 May 1999

  3,560

  14.40

  24 May 1999

  2,870

  6.40

  31 May 1999

  1,668

  4.00

  7 June 1999

  3,027

  8.20

  Newport

  4 January 1999

  8,482

  15.80

  11 January 1999

  8,156

  17.00

  18 January 1999

  8,070

  16.90

  25 January 1999

  8,203

  6.60

  1 February 1999

  8,398

  6.80

  8 February 1999

  8,982

  9.90

  15 February 1999

  8,798

  12.60

  22 February 1999

  9,301

  16.20

  1 March 1999

  —

  —

  8 March 1999

  —

  —

  15 March 1999

  —

  —

  22 March 1999

  —

  —

  29 March 1999

  —

  —

  5 April 1999

  —

  —

  12 April 1999

  —

  —

  19 April 1999

  8,872

  10.30

  26 April 1999

  8,323

  13.50

  3 May 1999

  5,143

  13.10

  10 May 199

  5,492

  7.80

  17 May 1999

  4,618

  0.00

  24 May 1999

  6,130

  0.00

  31 May 1999

  —

  —

  7 June 1999

  —

  —

  110

  Volume of calls dealt with at each regional office and percentage answered within 60 seconds

  Week

  Volume of calls answered

  Percentage of calls answered within 60 seconds

  Peterborough

  4 January 1999

  5,389

  69.40

  11 January 1999

  6,505

  82.30

  18 January 1999

  6,901

  88.50

  25 January 1999

  6,771

  81.60

  1 February 1999

  7,044

  81.50

  8 February 1999

  6,986

  66.40

  15 February 1999

  6,918

  59.80

  22 February 1999

  7,034

  65.80

  1 March 1999

  6,815

  60.40

  8 March 1999

  6,720

  64.30

  15 March 1999

  6,548

  63.50

  22 March 1999

  6,101

  57.90

  29 March 1999

  4,288

  46.30

  5 April 1999

  4,504

  47.40

  12 April 1999

  5,750

  52.50

  19 April 1999

  5,352

  38.60

  26 April 1999

  4,430

  23.40

  3 May 1999

  3,094

  24.50

  10 May 1999

  3,479

  9.60

  17 May 1999

  3,173

  9.80

  24 May 1999

  3,242

  29.10

  31 May 1999

  3,558

  45.40

  7 June 1999

  4,355

  42.40

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average time taken by the UK Passport Agency to send a substantive reply to correspondence from members of the public in each month in 1999 and for the most recent date for which information is available. [88884]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The UK Passport Agency works to a target of 10 working days for replying to correspondence. Performance against this target is measured in terms of the percentage of replies sent within 10 working days and figures for the average time taken to reply are not available. The percentage of correspondence replied to within 10 working days in each month in 1999 is as set out in the table.

  Month

  Percentage

  January

  93

  February

  100

  March

  100

  April

  88

  May

  66

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the progress and conclusions of the 1999 review of the agency status of the UK Passport Agency. [88879]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The 1999 review of the Agency Status of the UK Passport Agency was triggered last May and is expected to deliver its recommendations early next year.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average time taken by the UK Passport Agency to acknowledge correspondence about complex cases was in each month of 1999 and for the latest date for which information is available. [88876]
  111
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The UK Passport Agency normally acknowledges correspondence about complex cases within five working days. These are cases where there are complex issues and it is not possible to send a substantive reply within the ten working day target for dealing with correspondence. Figures are not available for the average time taken to send acknowledgements. However, in most complex cases, the five working day target is being met.

  Personal callers seen within 60 minutes

  Percentage

  Month

  London1

  Liverpool

  Peterborough

  Newport

  Glasgow

  Belfast

  1997

  September

  61.00

  100.00

  92.00

  100.00

  88.00

  100.00

  October

  63.00

  100.00

  98.00

  100.00

  100.00

  100.00

  November

  71.00

  100.00

  100.00

  100.00

  100.00

  100.00

  December

  42.00

  90.00

  96.00

  100.00

  99.00

  100.00

  1998

  January

  85.00

  91.20

  100.00

  100.00

  96.00

  100.00

  February

  58.50

  98.00

  100.00

  100.00

  95.00

  100.00

  March

  66.00

  100.00

  100.00

  100.00

  100.00

  100.00

  April

  89.21

  98.40

  100.00

  100.00

  100.00

  100.00

  May

  57.90

  90.00

  100.00

  100.00

  93.00

  100.00

  June

  1—

  88.00

  92.00

  100.00

  88.00

  100.00

  July

  74.00

  82.00

  92.00

  100.00

  96.00

  100.00

  August

  76.00

  80.50

  88.00

  100.00

  100.00

  100.00

  September

  83.80

  80.00

  100.00

  100.00

  100.00

  100.00

  October

  75.00

  85.00

  100.00

  100.00

  100.00

  100.00

  November

  70.90

  80.40

  94.00

  100.00

  100.00

  100.00

  December

  34.90

  74.00

  88.00

  100.00

  100.00

  100.00

  1999

  January

  82.90

  61.00

  100.00

  100.00

  100.00

  100.00

  February

  64.90

  61.50

  100.00

  100.00

  100.00

  100.00

  March

  38.00

  59.00

  100.00

  100.00

  100.00

  100.00

  April

  39.30

  42.00

  83.00

  100.00

  100.00

  100.00

  May

  39.30

  32.00

  80.00

  100.00

  82.00

  100.00

  1Figures not currently available

  Personal callers seen within 45 minutes

  Percentage

  Month

  London1

  Liverpool

  Peterborough

  Newport

  Glasgow

  Belfast

  1997

  September

  61.00

  70.00

  83.00

  100.00

  80.00

  100.00

  October

  63.00

  100.00

  95.00

  100.00

  95.80

  100.00

  November

  71.00

  81.00

  100.00

  100.00

  97.00

  100.00

  December

  42.00

  79.00

  92.00

  100.00

  97.00

  100.00

  1998

  January

  85.00

  87.00

  100.00

  100.00

  90.00

  100.00

  February

  58.50

  95.50

  100.00

  100.00

  92.00

  100.00

  March

  66.00

  96.80

  97.00

  100.00

  92.00

  100.00

  April

  89.21

  96.60

  97.00

  100.00

  98.50

  100.00

  May

  57.90

  77.60

  86.00

  100.00

  84.00

  100.00

  June

  2—

  83.80

  87.00

  100.00

  81.00

  100.00

  July

  74.00

  57.45

  82.00

  100.00

  90.70

  100.00

  August

  76.00

  60.50

  70.00

  100.00

  98.00

  100.00

  September

  83.80

  67.80

  90.00

  100.00

  97.00

  100.00

  October

  75.00

  72.95

  81.00

  100.00

  97.00

  100.00

  November

  70.90

  59.75

  90.00

  100.00

  99.00

  100.00

  December

  34.90

  59.05

  75.00

  100.00

  98.00

  100.00

  1999

  January

  82.90

  53.25

  100.00

  100.00

  98.50

  100.00

  February

  64.90

  56.10

  90.00

  100.00

  100.00

  100.00

  March

  38.00

  54.00

  85.00

  100.00

  98.00

  100.00

  April

  39.30

  18.00

  70.00

  100.00

  96.00

  100.00

  May

  39.30

  8.00

  60.00

  100.00

  65.00

  100.00

  1London office is 60 minutes (figures reported above are against that target)

  2Figures not currently available

  112
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of personal callers were seen within(a) 60 minutes and (b) 45 minutes at each office of the Passport Agency in each month since May 1997. [88883]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The information requested on the proportion of personal callers seen within(a) 60 minutes and (b) 45 minutes in each month since May 1997 are set out in the following tables.
  113
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if performance-related pay forms part of the remuneration of the Chief Executive of the UK Passport Agency; and if he will make a statement. [88886]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Remuneration for the Chief Executive is linked to the Senior Civil Service pay arrangements and no separate bonus is payable.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average time taken by the UK Passport Agency to send a formal response to complaints in each month in 1999 and at the most recent date for which information is available. [88885]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The UK Passport Agency monitors its performance on responding to complaints on a quarterly basis, in terms of the percentage of complaints receiving a formal response within ten working days. Monthly statistics are not available. In the last quarter (January—March 1999), the UK Passport Agency sent a formal response to complaints within ten working days in 93 per cent. of cases.

  Passport Office, Liverpool
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 26 May 1999,Official Report, column 151, on the Passport Office, Liverpool, what compensation will be paid to applicants for passports who have incurred costs as a result of delays in the issuing arrangements. [88426]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The UK Passport Agency's compensation policy is to reimburse the reasonable out of pocket expenses incurred by customers as a direct consequence of clear operational errors, or failure to provide an acceptable level of service by means of an ex-gratia payment. Each case is considered carefully on its merits and this policy will apply to any claims received relating to delays in issuing a passport. It is not the Agency's normal policy to make compensation payments for distress and inconvenience arising from such errors and failures.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the hon. Member for Walsall, North will receive a reply to his further letter of 2 June regarding a constituent (ref: 7519/99). [89030]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I will reply shortly, but can say that Sukhwinder Kaur was given indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom on 13 June.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Plutonium Transfers
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs at which European Council Ministerial meeting the European Commission Memorandum of Understanding covering the transfer of plutonium processed in the European Union from Belgium to Japan was discussed and endorsed; what debate on the Commission proposal took place; and 114
  if a parallel memorandum covering transfer of United Kingdom plutonium to Japan has been considered by the European Council. [88014]

  Mr. Hoon
  There is no European Commission Memorandum of Understanding covering the transfer of plutonium processed in the European Union from Belgium or the United Kingdom to Japan.

  The Japanese-owned plutonium which is due to be returned to Japan following its recovery from spent fuel reprocessed in France has been fabricated into mixed-oxide (MOX) fuel in Belgium under the terms of a diplomatic exchange of notes between Japan and the European Commission dated 10 February 1997. The exchange of notes was carried out in accordance with Article 101 paragraph 3 of the Euratom Treaty and the European Council were informed.

  The Japanese-owned plutonium to be returned to Japan following its recovery from spent fuel reprocessed in the United Kingdom has been fabricated into MOX fuel under the terms of the bilateral agreement on nuclear co-operation between the United Kingdom and Japan which was renewed in October 1998. The European Commission was informed of the renewal of this agreement.

  Kosovo
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place summaries of notes received from the Government of the Russian Federation about NATO's action in Kosovo during the course of the conflict in the Library. [88331]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Communications from the Russian government received during this period were sent and received in confidence. They are therefore covered by exemption 1 (c) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Iraq
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the current proposals presented to the United Nations relating to Iraq from (i) the UK, (ii) France and (iii) other nations; and what response Iraq has made to each. [88326]

  Mr. Hoon
  The UK has tabled a comprehensive draft Security Council resolution on Iraq which would put the disarmament process back on track, is generous in its humanitarian provisions and would engage the Council more closely on Kuwaiti issues, including the 600 detainees. It would also give Iraq a clear path to the suspension and eventual lifting of sanctions. Our draft resolution is co-sponsored by the Netherlands, Argentina, Brazil, and Slovenia. Russia and France have also circulated draft resolutions. Iraq has thus far shown no inclination to accept any of the draft resolution being discussed.

  Lithuania
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the proposed cultural representation in Lithuania of(a) France and (b) Germany; and if he will make a statement. [88324]
  115
  Mr. Hoon
  The French Cultural Centre in Vilnius has twenty-four members of staff, fifteen of whom are employed as French language teachers. The Goethe Institute employs six members of staff. We understand there are proposals to begin German language teaching.

  The deployment of British Council personnel in the Baltic States is kept constantly under review, in the light of British cultural diplomacy objectives.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the British Council on their proposed representation in Lithuania; how many staff, of what grades, will be deployed and at what annual cost; and if he will make a statement. [88325]

  Mr. Hoon
  The British Council office in Vilnius was opened in 1992. There are seven staff, six of whom are Lithuanian nationals. Under the British Council grading system one is at grade 7, three at grade 9 and three at grade 10. The British Council Director and Deputy Director in the Baltic States, based in Riga, have overall responsibility for Lithuania and visit Vilnius regularly. The annual cost of the British Council's office in Vilnius, including the library, seminar and examination facilities, is £205,000.

  FCO officials are in regular contact with the British Council over their representation in the Baltic States, including Lithuania.

  East Timor
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress is being made towards voter registration in East Timor in preparation for the referendum on 8 August. [88321]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Chief Electoral Officer of UNAMET has arrived in East Timor and a public information campaign has been launched in preparation of the UK organised consultation. Voter registration will begin once UNAMET is fully deployed. The date of the ballot has been put back by two weeks.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the United Nations Security Council on violence in East Timor. [88319]

  Mr. Hoon
  We have played an active role at the United Nations Security Council, piloting two Security Council Resolutions (1236 and 1246) on East Timor. These Resolutions take note of recent violence in East Timor and commit the Indonesian Government to maintaining peace and security in the territory.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received concerning intimidation and displacement of the population in East Timor. [88320]

  Mr. Hoon
  We have received reports that militia groups in East Timor have carried out acts of violence against civilians and continue to exercise an intimidatory influence in some parts of the territory. Since the arrival of UNAMET personnel in Dili and Baucau, the security situation in those towns has improved dramatically. We expect the security situation in the rest of East Timor to improve once UNAMET is fully deployed.
  116
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has received from(a) non-governmental organisations and (b) others about the security situation in East Timor. [88341]

  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 28 June 1999]: We have recently received a large number of letters from non-governmental organisations, parliamentarians and members of the public making representations about the security situation in East Timor.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the human rights situation in East Timor. [88345]

  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 28 June 1999]: We remain concerned at the human rights situation in East Timor. We have repeatedly urged the leadership of the Indonesian Armed Forces to disarm and curb the activities of the militias responsible for much of the recent violence in the territory. We have also called on all sides to show utmost restraint.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contribution Her Majesty's Government have made to the UN Assistance Mission to East Timor; and if he will make a statement. [88357]

  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 28 June 1999]: We have despatched seven British police officers with UN Bosnia experience to East Timor. They arrived on 21 June and formed part of the first contingent of the Civilian Police component of UNAMET. We are also planning to send two Military Liaison Officers to the territory. Our contribution to UNAMET is in addition to our US$1 million contribution to the United Nations Trust Fund for East Timor.

  Somalia
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Government's position regarding the current situation in Somalia. [88591]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The United Kingdom supports the efforts of the Inter Governmental Authority on Development and the Standing Committee on Somalia to bring an inclusive, negotiated settlement to the civil war in Somalia.

  But the main responsibility for achieving national reconciliation and for restoring peace rests with the Somali people themselves. A serious demonstration is now required by faction leaders and tribal elders of their commitment to the reconciliation process.

  MOX Shipments
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his oral answer to the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) of 22 June 1999,Official Report, column 928, what the basis was for the Minister of State's statement that it would require a complex and highly specialised piece of equipment, plant and skills to separate plutonium from MOX fuel. [88654]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Minister of State's statement was based on the advice of the Government's technical experts in the UK Safeguards Office.
  117

  Immigration Cases (DNA Testing)
  Ms Ward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what percentage of immigration cases required the production of DNA tests to prove family relationships in each of the last three years. [88220]

  Mr. Hoon
  DNA testing is used only in determining settlement applications. The statistics requested are as follows:

  Year

  Settlement cases

  DNA tests commissioned

  Percentage

  1996

  40,524

  2,078

  5.1

  1997

  48,149

  1,743

  3.6

  1998

  53,483

  32,310

  6.0

  Details of the number of tests commissioned by individual posts can be obtained from the summary of entry clearance statistics, copies of which are available in the House of Commons Library. The 1998 statistics are being printed and are scheduled to be placed in the House Library within the next two weeks.

  Sudan
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received concerning the violation of ceasefire in February in Twic County, southern Sudan; and if he will make a statement. [88344]

  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 28 June 1999]: We received a number of reports from NGOs of raiders making attacks in Twic County in February. These were taken up within the framework of Operation Lifeline Sudan (OLS).

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of Sudan's treatment of(a) Christians, (b) Animists and (c) Muslims in relation to the UN Commission on Human Rights' Resolution 1999/5 on Sudan. [88342]

  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 28 June 1999]: The UN Commission on Human Rights resolution on Sudan this year expressed its deep concern at the continuing serious violations of human rights, fundamental freedoms and relevant provisions of international humanitarian law perpetrated by all parties to the conflict.

  This was an EU sponsored consensus resolution. It has our full support.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations Her Majesty's Government have made to the United Nations concerning the National Islamic Front's bombing of southern Sudan during Christian festivals. [88412]

  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 28 June 1999]: The EU sponsored consensus resolution at this year's United Nations Commission on Human Rights calls upon the Government of Sudan to stop immediately the indiscriminate aerial bombardment of civilian targets.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how Her Majesty's Government, in consultation with its IGAD partners, intends to monitor ceasefire declarations in Sudan. [88343]
  118
  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 28 June 1999]: While there continues to be a limited ceasefire in Bahr el Ghazal, we continue to call for a comprehensive ceasefire throughout Sudan. The monitoring of such a ceasefire will need to be agreed within the context of the IGAD talks, the next round of which we hope to see start in Nairobi on 19 July.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  East European Partnerships
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the work of East European Partnerships in Russia. [88013]

  Clare Short
  We currently provide substantial support for Voluntary Service Overseas (VSO), part of which is used to fund VSO's East European Partnership programme. The programme in Russia responds to requests for volunteers from a variety of different sectors. At any one time there can be between 15 to 20 volunteers, mainly working with public authorities and supporting the health and social welfare sectors in the Urals area, with some support for the development of children's shelters in the Moscow area.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Churches and Monuments (VAT)
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will assess the advantages and disadvantages of exempting churches and national monuments from the requirement to pay VAT on restoration work. [88791]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State recognises that VAT on repairs to churches and historic buildings is an unwelcome additional cost to the careful conservation of such buildings. There is no zero-rate available under EC law. Current European legislation permits the introduction of reduced rates of VAT only for goods and services specified in Annex H to the Sixth VAT Directive. Repairs to historic buildings and churches do not feature in Annex H and so the Government legally cannot introduce a reduced rate.

  Sports Cabinet
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will add representatives from the Department of Health and the Department for Education and Employment to the Sports Cabinet. [88498]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The Sports Cabinet, which I chair, brings together the Sports Ministers of the four parts of the United Kingdom and others who are closely involved in the development of sport at an elite level and the achievement of excellence. It provides for a collective political discussion of the most strategic priorities for UK sport.

  To assist us in the consideration of policy, the Sports Cabinet will also from time to time draw on a pool of independent figures to provide expert advice on particular issues. This could include non-executive members of the

  119
  UK Sports Council, prominent sports representatives and also Ministers or officials from affected Government departments.

  The Ministers with responsibilities which affect sport in England also keep in close touch, and will continue to do so.

SCOTLAND

  Kosovo
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the impact of the conflict in Kosovo on public services in Scotland. [87522]

  Mr. Macdonald
  Local authorities and the NHS have provided a range of services to meet the needs of the Kosovan refugees who have come to Scotland for care as part of the Evacuation Programme. Local authorities and the voluntary sector are being reimbursed for additional costs incurred. The Scottish Refugee Council and the local authorities involved are to be congratulated for the splendid way in which they are handling this difficult situation.

  Draft Concordats
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had concerning draft concordats between United Kingdom Departments and the Scottish Parliament. [87524]

  Dr. Reid
  The UK Government intend proposing a range of concordats. These will guide working relations between the UK Government and the Scottish Executive.

  Further and Higher Education
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps are being taken to increase access to Further and Higher Education. [87525]

  Dr. Reid
  In Further Education, an extra £100 million over the next three years will enable 40,000 more students from under-represented groups to participate.

  In Higher Education, we have earmarked £60 million for widening access to disadvantaged students. Low income and disabled people will be helped to study part-time.

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

  Traffic Congestion (Aberdeen)
  Mr. Savidge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will investigate possible solutions to traffic congestion problems in the Aberdeen area. [87526]

  Mr. Macdonald
  Traffic management in the Aberdeen area is primarily the responsibility of Aberdeen City and Aberdeenshire Councils. I fully expect that they will address congestion problems in their interim Local Transport Strategies, which are due to be submitted to the Scottish Executive next month.
  120
  We provided in March a further £4 million from the Public Transport Fund for park and ride and bus priority measures on the A956 and A96.

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

  Elections
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will set up an inquiry to investigate the conduct of the Scottish parliamentary and local government elections. [87527]

  Dr. Reid
  My officials will be undertaking a review of the general conduct of the elections with returning officers and others. I am aware of some specific problems on 6 May which are already under investigation by the appropriate authorities and are being acted upon. I do not at the moment see any need for further investigation. From 1 July, conduct of local government elections will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  Air Links (Heathrow)
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the future of Scottish air links with Heathrow. [87528]

  Mr. Macdonald
  The Government recognise the need for good air links between Scottish airports and London airports, and we shall press the case for maintaining access for regional services in any revision of the EU regime. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport recently met a delegation from the Highlands to discuss their wish for an Inverness/Heathrow service. The Government are giving this further consideration.

  Departmental Running Costs
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the running costs of his Department after 1 July. [87529]

  Dr. Reid
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Murphy) on 11 June 1999,Official Report, column 412, about amending running costs provision for 1999–2000. I have been reviewing the functions of my Department after 1 July and I will make a further statement in due course.

  Rail Services
  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what measures the Government are taking to improve the quality of rail services in Scotland. [87530]

  Mr. Macdonald
  This financial year the Government will pay £206 million to secure train services in Scotland. ScotRail, the provider of almost all domestic services in Scotland, is the best performing mainland company in Great Britain.

  Under devolution, Scottish Ministers will assume responsibility for funding the ScotRail franchise together with the authority to give the Franchising Director directions on the type of services expected from the company.
  121

  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps have been taken to reduce hospital waiting lists; and if he will make a statement. [87531]

  Mr. Browne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people in Scotland are waiting for hospital treatment; and if he will make a statement. [87542]

  Mr. Macdonald
  On 31 March 1999, the number of people waiting for in-patient or day-case treatment was 70,227. This is a reduction of 10.6 per cent. on the previous quarter and is the largest quarterly fall in the waiting list for a decade. Hospital waiting lists have been cut by almost 22 per cent. in the past year, and the NHS in Scotland met the Government's target of reducing the waiting list to below 75,000 three years ahead of schedule.

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

  University Funding
  Mrs. Laing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met representatives of the Scottish universities to discuss their funding. [87532]

  Dr. Reid
  I have not met representatives of Scottish universities to discuss their funding. From 1 July, this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament and it would be more appropriate for Scottish Ministers to do so.

  Ministerial Responsibilities
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement outlining the issues on which he will answer questions in the House after 1 July. [87533]

  Dr. Reid
  The Procedure Committee's Fourth Report has made a number of recommendations on the range and details of the questions to be put to UK Ministers and on the consequential reformulation of the rules about Questions which are being considered by the Government. I will make a statement on this matter as soon as I am able to do so.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the economic prospects for small businesses in Scotland. [87536]

  Dr. Reid
  The Government are laying the foundations for high and stable levels of growth. Interest rates are at their lowest level for 22 years, inflation is low, and the public finances are under control. Combined with cuts in the small business tax rate to 20 per cent., and a new l0p starting rate of tax for the smallest firms from April 2000, the economic prospects for small businesses are very encouraging.

  Capital Investment (Schools)
  Mr. Russell Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on capital investment in schools in Scotland. [87537]
  122
  Dr. Reid
  I expect local authorities to increase capital investment in schools as a consequence of additional capital resources from the New Deal for Schools, the Comprehensive Spending Review, and school Public/ Private Partnership projects.

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

  Community Schools (Glasgow)
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has for community schools in Glasgow. [87538]

  Dr. Reid
  Lochend Secondary School in Easterhouse, Glasgow, was one of seven development projects funded in the 1998–99 financial year to illustrate practical aspects of the New Community Schools model. In March, we approved 37 pilot projects across Scotland, including Lochend. Each pilot project will operate for three years.

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

  Defence Expenditure
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the impact of UK defence expenditure on the Scottish economy. [87539]

  Dr. Reid
  On the basis of the most recent figures available, defence expenditure in Scotland at approximately £1.9 billion supports, directly and indirectly, some 55,000 jobs. Clearly, defence expenditure is both substantial and important to the Scottish economy.

  Holyrood (Completion Costs)
  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will provide a breakdown of the estimated costs of the completion of the new Scottish Parliament building at Holyrood in Edinburgh. [87540]

  Dr. Reid
  Legal and financial responsibility for the new Scottish Parliament building at Holyrood transferred from Scottish Office Ministers to the Scottish Parliament Corporate Body on 1 June 1999. The hon. Member can obtain information on the Holyrood Project from the Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament at the following address:

  The Presiding Officer

  The Scottish Parliament

  Parliament Headquarters

  Edinburgh

  EH99 1SP.

  Economic Development (Borders)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what further plans he has to promote economic development in the Scottish borders. [87541]

  Dr. Reid
  The Scottish Office has been keeping in close touch with the Borders Economic Development Forum to support the implementation of the "New Ways" economic strategy.

  From 1 July 1999, this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.
  123

  Drug Misuse
  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what action is being taken to curb drug misuse in Scotland. [87543]

  Mr. Macdonald
  In March the Government enhanced Scotland's drugs strategy with the publication of "Tackling Drugs in Scotland: Action in Partnership". This document put in place a comprehensive action plan for tackling drug misuse in Scotland within a new framework for co-operation across agencies and communities.

  From 1 July, the Scottish Parliament and Executive will have to hand the steps in "Tackling Drugs in Scotland" as they continue the task of reducing drug misuse in Scotland.

  Criminal Law
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the division of Government responsibility relating to criminal matters between his Department and the Scottish Executive after 1 July. [87617]

  Dr. Reid
  From 1 July, Scottish criminal law, procedure and evidence will be matters for the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Ministers, with the exception of matters which are reserved under Schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998 or are otherwise outwith the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament under section 29 of the Act. The Lord Advocate will continue to have responsibility for decisions relating to the institution of criminal proceedings in Scotland and for the systems of criminal prosecution and the investigation of deaths in Scotland.

  Appeals System
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received relating to the system for appeals to the House of Lords from Scottish courts; and if he will make a statement. [87555]

  Dr. Reid
  I have received no representations with regard to the system for appeals to the House of Lords from Scottish courts. The Government have no present intention to change any of the arrangements for such appeals.

  This is a devolved matter.

  Beef on the Bone
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what powers the Scottish Parliament will have to lift the beef on the bone ban in Scotland. [87535]

  Mr. Macdonald
  This is a devolved matter. From 1 July 1999, the Scottish Parliament will have full powers in this area.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Oncologists
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many clinical and medical oncologists are employed per head of population in Northern Ireland; and if she will make a statement. [87870]
  124
  Mr. McFall
  In the Northern Ireland Health and Personal Social Services, at 30 September 1998, there were 0.87 clinical oncology staff and 0.25 medical oncology staff per 100,000 population.

  Purchasing Agency
  Mr. Casale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what performance targets have been set for the Government Purchasing Agency in 1999–2000; and what arrangements have been made for publication for this year's plans. [89252]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  As an Executive Agency within the Department of Finance and Personnel, the Government Purchasing Agency provides a professional procurement service to all six Northern Ireland Departments, the Northern Ireland Office and an increasing number of other public sector bodies.

  The following key performance targets were set for the Agency in 1999–2000:
  To break even in the 1999–2000 financial year by balance Agency income and operating costs.
  To achieve a six per cent. rate of return on capital employed.
  To increase the number of Agency customers by 10 per cent. over 1998–99.
  To increase the volume of customer business by 10 per cent. over 1998–99.
  To achieve a 90 per cent. level of satisfaction in the 1999–2000 Agency survey of customer organisations.
  To achieve a 90 per cent. level of satisfaction in the 1999–2000 Agency survey of suppliers.
  To increase the ratio of outputs to inputs by three per cent. from the 1998–99 outturn.

  Background information is given in the Agency's Corporate and Business Plans, copies of which will be placed in the Library of the House before the summer recess.

DEFENCE

  Royal Irish Regiment
  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many companies have been disbanded in each battalion of the Royal Irish Regiment since the regiment was formed; and how many of these companies have been disbanded in the past two years. [87889]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 22 June 1999]: Since the formation of the Royal Irish Regiment Home Service on 1 July 1992 the following Battalions and Companies have been disbanded or amalgamated:
  6th Battalion, The Royal Irish Regiment was amalgamated into 3rd Battalion, The Royal Irish Regiment in 1993. As a result Headquarters Company, 6' Battalion, The Royal Irish Regiment was disbanded.
  Two part-time companies within 8' Battalion, The Royal Irish Regiment, E Company based at Aughnacloy and K Company at Dungannon, were amalgamated in 1993.
  One full-time/part-time company within 3rd Battalion, The Royal Irish Regiment, B Company based at Kilkeel, was disbanded in 1997 and the personnel amalgamated into companies based at Ballykinler.

  125
  One part-time company within 3rd Battalion, The Royal Irish Regiment, E Company based at Portadown, was amalgamated into D and L Companies in June 1999.

  The following companies have been created:
  C Company, a full-time/part-time company within 3rd Battalion, The Royal Irish Regiment, was formed in Rathfriland in January 1993.
  A Company and F Company, two full-time/part-time companies within 4th Battalion, The Royal Irish Regiment, changed to become full-time companies in November 1995.
  One full-time company within 5th Battalion, The Royal Irish Regiment, F Company, was formed in Ballykelly in 1996.
  One full-time company within 8th Battalion, The Royal Irish Regiment, F Company, was formed in Armagh in 1998.

  There have also been a number of moves by companies within the battalions from one location to another.

  Strengths of Royal Irish Regiment Home Service Battalions 1992–1999

  19921

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  BN

  PT

  FT

  PT

  FT

  PT

  FT

  PT

  FT

  PT

  FT

  PT

  FT

  PT

  FT

  PT

  FT

  3

  304

  257

  594

  616

  561

  633

  502

  624

  483

  580

  467

  544

  464

  529

  466

  517

  4

  506

  604

  481

  613

  481

  603

  444

  588

  446

  535

  435

  504

  415

  474

  396

  462

  5

  420

  380

  350

  387

  255

  390

  221

  376

  205

  360

  206

  369

  210

  356

  194

  386

  62

  335

  407

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  7

  425

  411

  386

  414

  354

  432

  347

  446

  318

  437

  352

  443

  334

  367

  324

  359

  8

  397

  364

  369

  380

  357

  385

  335

  388

  328

  382

  298

  356

  279

  396

  270

  393

  9

  367

  412

  328

  412

  274

  415

  262

  431

  247

  411

  241

  398

  239

  358

  226

  354

  1 The Royal Irish Regiment was formed on 1 July 1992

  2 6 R Iridh was amalgamated with 3 R Irish on 15 January 1999

  Notes:

  1. All strengths as at 31 December except 1999 for which figures are as at 31 May

  2. Figures excluded Regimental Headquarters, Depot and General Service personel attached to Home Service Battalions.

  Antonov 124
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if regular Royal Air Force pilots have been trained to fly the Antonov 124. [88310]

  Mr. Spellar
  RAF pilots have not been trained to fly the Antonov 124.

  Defence Diversification Agency
  Mr. Hesford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the work to date of the Defence Diversification Agency. [88666]

  Mr. Spellar
  Following the publication of the White Paper, "Getting the Most out of Defence Technology" (Cmd 4088) in November last year, the Defence Diversification Agency (DDA) started work in January. The DDA, which is part of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency, is working closely with other central and local government initiatives to improve access to defence-related technology and knowledge. The aim in particular is to provide means of access for small and medium-sized companies in the civil manufacturing sector. I opened the first Regional Office, manned by a Technical Diversification Manager, in Farnborough, at the beginning of April. A second is now open in Rosyth, and we expect two more to open in Malvern and Haslar, Gosport by the end of July. The DDA has already handled over 50 inquiries, from which nine projects have so far been developed. Discussions are underway with the aim of establishing other regional offices in the North West, Northern Ireland, South West, Wales and the North
  126
  None of the changes has resulted in personnel being discharged. Changes to the structure of the Royal Irish Regiment Home Service are based on operational and practical consideration in order that soldiers can be deployed to best meet their operational commitments in support of the Royal Ulster Constabulary.

  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many(a) part-time and (b) full-time soldiers there were in each battalion of the Royal Irish Regiment in each year since the regiment was formed; [87887]

  (2) how many (a) part-time and (b) full-time soldiers there are currently in each battalion of the Royal Irish Regiment. [87888]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 22 June 1999]: The information requested is set out in the table.

  East. The DDA has also established Science Parks at Farnborough, Malvern, Porton Down and Gosport, which already have more than fifteen tenants.

  Service Personnel (Hospital Treatment)
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the criteria and rules governing priority for the secondary treatment of service personnel at his Department's hospital units at(a) Peterborough, (b) Frimley Park and (c) Derryford. [88425]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 28 June 1999]: Following detailed discussions with the NHS during 1997 and 1998, the principles of a new Service Level Agreement have been developed to form a revised contract from 1999–2000 at the three existing MDHUs at Peterborough, Frimley Park and Derryford, and at the new MDHU Northallerton. This model will also form the basis of all future MOD contracts relationships with the NHS for providing treatment for Service patients and the hosting of Service clinical personnel. It contains the following.
  Outpatients—50 per cent. of new referrals to be seen within four weeks and 90 per cent. within 13 weeks.
  Inpatients—80 per cent. of patients requiring treatment to be seen within 3 months of the decision to treat.

  The contract allows for a price premium to be paid if these targets are met. Where there is a pressing requirement to deploy Service personnel operationally, the single Service primary care authorities identify those patients who would benefit from rapid opinion and

  127
  treatment in conjunction with the MDHUs. An assessment would then need to be made on whether a change or intensification of treatment would return them to duty faster.

  RN Hospital, Haslar
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library a copy of the contract or service level agreement between RN Hospital, Haslar and the local NHS trust for the provision of district hospital services. [88423]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  A Service Level Agreement exists between the Royal Hospital Haslar and the Portsmouth South East Hampshire Health Authority. A copy is being placed in te Library of the House.

  Service Accommodation
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he last met representatives of Annington Homes to discuss service accommodation; and if he will make a statement. [88363]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 28 June 1999): I had a meeting with Sir Thomas Macpherson, the Chairman of Annington Homes (Ltd) (AHL) and Colin James the then Chief Executive of the Defence Housing Executive (DHE), on 29 July 1997. Additionally, DHE staff from the Purchaser Interface Unit meet formally with AHL representatives quarterly for Joint Working Boards (the last meeting was 8 June 1999) and bi-annually for Joint Executive Boards (the last meeting was 31 March 1999). Informal contact takes place on a daily basis.

  Compensation Claims
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much his Department has paid in each of the past five years in respect of compensation claims for injuries incurred during(a) military service and (b) non-military service; and if he will make a statement. [88366]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 28 June 1999]: The following amount of common law compensation was paid to members of HM Forces in each of the past five financial years for injuries sustained during service:

  Year

  £

  1994–95

  11,881,178

  1995–96

  12,132,450

  1996–97

  14,532,261

  1997–98

  25,278,430

  1998–99

  26,675,952

  Information regarding the types of activity that members of HM Forces were engaged in when they suffered injury for which my Department subsequently paid compensation can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Road Freight
  Mr. Rapson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of the armed forces road freight distribution systems. [89291]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  In March of this year, I agreed, subject to consultation with the Trades Unions and other interested parties, a proposal to rationalise the current 128
  single-Service road Freight Distribution Systems. The consultation process has now been completed and has raised no concerns that would change the decision to rationalise. I have, therefore, given my final approval to proceed with the rationalisation process.

  This change will result in the formation of a new Defence Freight Distribution Group, whose headquarters will be located in Portsmouth, and which will operate under the new Defence Transport and Movements Agency. Rationalisation and integration of the current single-Service systems should bring savings of nearly one million pounds a year.

  Overall, the rationalisation process will result in a net reduction of some 15 civilian and 2 military posts. Every effort will be made to identify new opportunities for those staff concerned.

  The new organisation will form on 1 July, with full rationalisation by the end of August, once associated work to harmonise current single-Service consignment IT tracking systems has been completed.

CABINET OFFICE

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office on what dates Special Advisers from his Department have travelled abroad on official business since 2 May 1997; which countries were visited on each occasion; and what were the names of the Special Advisers who travelled on each occasion. [86291]

  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  Special Advisers from this Department travelled abroad on the following occasions since 2 May 1997:

  Date of trip

  Location

  Special Adviser

  14–17 July 1997

  Washington

  Andrew Lappin

  7–12 September 1997

  Canada/Boston

  Andrew Lappin

  5–11 October 1997

  New Zealand/Australia

  Andrew Lappin

  19–21 April 1998

  Ottawa

  Mike Trace

  21–24 June 1998

  Washington

  Andrew Lappin

  6–14 June 1998

  USA

  Keith Hellawell

  7–10 June 1998

  New York

  Mike Trace

  13–19 October 1998

  USA

  Keith Hellawell

  4–6 November 1998

  Vienna

  Mike Trace

  28 November–3 December 1998

  Washington/Boston

  Tim Walker

  16–19 January 1999

  Vienna

  Keith Hellawell

  22–28 February 1999

  Dubai/Pakistan

  Keith Hellawell

  23–24 February 1999

  Rome

  Tim Walker

  16–19 March 1999

  Prague/Vienna

  Mike Trace

  23 April-9 May 1999

  Australia

  Keith Hellawell

  7–8 June 1999

  Paris

  Tim Walker

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Immigration Appeals
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what forecast he has made of the average time taken to hear immigration appeals in(a) 2000 and (b) 2001. [87549]
  129
  Mr. Vaz
  The IAA aim to maintain the current waiting times of six weeks to an initial hearing and a further six weeks to the substantive hearing, throughout 2000 and 2001, assuming that the number of cases does not go beyond the numbers forecast by the Home Office.

  Office for the Supervision of Solicitors
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to introduce measures to reform the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors. [87551]

  Mr. Vaz
  I announced to the House on 22 June 1999, Official Report, column 1018, during Report stage of the Access to Justice Bill, the Government's plans to take powers to establish an office of Legal Services Complaints Commissioner. The Commissioner will have powers to intervene to improve standards of complaints handling by the legal professional bodies. However, we do not propose to appoint a Commissioner, and thereby bring these powers into force, unless and until a professional body is clearly failing to make substantial progress in improving its complaints record.

  I am pleased that the Law Society Council approved in principle the recommendations of the Ernst and Young report on the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors at their meeting on 23 June. I believe this is a step in the right direction. I hope the Law Society will be able to put their house in order.

  State Apartments (Visits)
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what recent representations the Lord Chancellor has received about visits to his State Apartments. [87552]

  Mr. Vaz
  Since 1 January 1999, the Lord Chancellor's Office has received 46 letters requesting visits to the Residence, and 14 requests to use the Residence for a fund-raising reception. The office estimates that there have been about 200 telephone calls inquiring about visits to the Residence. 28 letters have been received thanking the Lord Chancellor for the use of the River Room for charitable receptions, which have so far raised over £1.7 million.

  Judicial Appointments
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what progress he is making with his policy of ensuring that membership of the judiciary is representative of society as a whole. [87553]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Lord Chancellor appoints or recommends for appointment on merit those candidates who satisfy the qualifications laid down by Statute and who, in his opinion, best meet the criteria for appointment. Without prejudice to this overriding principle, and in accordance with his commitment to equality of opportunity, the Lord Chancellor would like to see more women and ethnic minority practitioners appointed to the judiciary and has introduced a number of measures to encourage applications from members of those groups, including more flexible part-time sitting arrangements and a work-shadowing scheme.
  130
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to reform the method for appointment of judges. [87558]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Lord Chancellor keeps the arrangements for appointing judges under review. He has taken a number of steps to improve the openness, flexibility and effectiveness of the judicial appointments process. At the level of circuit judge and below, the Lord Chancellor has arranged for judicial and lay members to be involved in the selection of candidates for interview, as well as in the interviews themselves; he requires assessments of candidates to be specifically related to the criteria for appointment; he has introduced greater flexibility into the sittings arrangements for part-time judicial appointments; and he has recently introduced a scheme under which practitioners interested in applying for judicial appointment may apply to "shadow" a serving judge. He has ended the system under which appointments were made to the High Court Bench by invitation only: vacancies are now advertised and candidates may apply for appointment. All but the most senior judicial appointments are now made through a process of open and advertised competition. The Lord Chancellor will nevertheless continue to consider the scope for further improvements to the judicial appointments process.

  Small Claims Courts
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what arrangements he is making to publicise the transitional arrangements regarding the new procedures for small claims courts; and if he will make a statement. [87554]

  Mr. Vaz
  Transitional arrangements were covered in Part 51 of the Civil Procedure Rules, published on 29 January. The Civil Justice Reforms introduced on 26 April changed the way in which small claims are now handled. Defended claims are now allocated to one of three tracks; the small claims, the fast or the multi-track. All tracks were treated in the same way in terms of publicity, as they are the foundation of the new, unified civil justice system.

  The Court Service took steps to inform its customers of these changes. Posters were placed in court buildings in March; information slips were sent out with every piece of outgoing mail; and people attending the court personally to issue summonses were informed of the changes. Copies of "A Court User's Guide to the Civil Justice Reforms" were available in all courts and information was also available on the Lord Chancellor's Department's website. Some local papers published an article about the reforms by the Lord Chancellor.

  Legally-aided Family Mediation
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if legally-aided family mediation will be available under the provisions of the Family Law Act 1996. [88186]

  Mr. Vaz
  Public funding for family mediation is provided under Part III of the Family Law Act 1996, which came into force in May 1997. The provisions of
  131
  Part III of the Act are being implemented by means of contracts for family mediation services granted by the Legal Aid Board. A total of 140 mediation services throughout England and Wales have already been awarded contracts and a further 110 contracts will be awarded by the end of July 1999.

  Family Law Act 1996
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what his Department's timetable is for implementing the remaining provisions of the Family Law Act 1996. [88185]

  Mr. Vaz
  I refer my hon. Friend to my written Parliamentary answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) on 17 June 1999,Official Report, column 213. No decision about implementation of Part II has been made.

  Section 60 permits the making of Rules of Court to allow third parties to apply for orders under Part IV of the Act on behalf of victims of domestic violence. Detailed consultation will be needed to assess the practicality and resource implications of implementing this section of the Act. No timetable has yet been fixed for this process.

  Section 64 enables the Lord Chancellor to make Regulations providing for the separate representation of children in proceedings in England and Wales under Part II, and in certain other proceedings. No decision has yet been made as to whether this should be implemented.

  Basingstoke Magistrates Court
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what representations he has received about the temporary arrangements for the Basingstoke Magistrates Court; and how long he expects these arrangements to be in place. [87550]

  Mr. Vaz
  I have received 5 representations. Basingstoke Magistrates Court will remain temporarily closed until the building works to the adjacent police station are completed in May 2000. I must stress this closure is a temporary measure only.

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what estimate he has made of the number of people in each of the next five years who will be ineligible for legal aid who were previously eligible. [87557]

  Mr. Vaz
  The financial eligibility limits are increased each year in line with other welfare benefits. While there are no formal estimates for future years, we expect that eligibility for civil legal aid will remain at or near its present level. Nothing in the Access to Justice Bill itself will change the position on financial eligibility. However, the Government intend to consult on a number of possible changes to the financial criteria. One of these would be to increase the number of people eligible for advice and assistance, to bring it back into line with that for representation in litigation.
  132

  Legal Services Ombudsman
  Mr. Casale
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when the Legal Services Ombudsman intends to publish her eighth annual report. [89292]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Legal Services Ombudsman has today published her eighth Annual Report, and copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Community Legal Service
  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, when he expects the community legal service to be fully operational. [87546]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Community Legal Service (CLS) will be established under the provisions of the Access to Justice Bill, which is still before Parliament. Our aim is that Community Legal Services will be available to the great bulk of the population of England and Wales by the beginning of 2002.

  As the first step, Pioneer and Associate Pioneer partnerships are being established, as described in the Consultation Paper published on 25 May. These will be operational by the end of 1999 and will cover nearly a quarter of the population of England and Wales. In addition, as the Consultation Paper describes, the Lord Chancellor's Department aims to establish by the end of 1999 core quality criteria for accrediting advice centres to the CLS, and to launch a CLS website on the internet early in 2000.

  Subsequent establishment of further partnerships will depend on assessment of the needs of, and advice delivery systems for, each area in which partnerships will operate. It will also need to take account of experience with Pioneers and Associate Pioneers. Progress will therefore depend on actions by many prospective partners, as well as by the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Legal Services Commission.

TREASURY

  EU Expenditure
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the Communities budget lines frozen following the ECJ ruling of 12 May 1998 (C-106/96); and if he will make a statement on the planned unblocking of these. [86729]

  Ms Hewitt
  Following the ECJ ruling of 12 May 1998, the Commission suspended a number of budget lines which lacked, or were thought to lack, a legal basis for expenditure on the activities to which they related. Efforts were made to free up certain lines—for example, action against illegal and harmful content on the Internet—quickly, in order that the appropriations entered on these lines in the 1998 budget could continue to be accessed.

  Legal bases for a number of other budget lines, or parts of other budget lines, have now been identified by the Commission and funding for these activities has now resumed under a proper legal basis.
  133

  Budget article

  Description

  B2–5122

  Enhancing public awareness of the Common Agricultural Policy

  B2–706

  Action programme to promote the combined transport of goods

  B2–910

  Specific operation in favour of small-scale fisheries and small-scale coastal fishing

  B3–1006

  Promotion and safeguard of regional and minority languages and cultures

  B3–1011

  European voluntary service

  B3–2003

  European cultural development policy

  B3–2012

  European multilingual networks: cinema, television, radio

  B3–2020

  Sport in Europe

  B3–4005

  European Centre for Industrial Relations

  B3–4101

  Co-operation with charitable associations

  B3–4106

  Co-operation with non-governmental organisations and associations formed by people with disabilities and support for their activities

  B3–4108

  Measures in favour of the family and children

  B3–4114

  Measures to combat racism, xenophobia and anti-Semitism

  B3–4116

  Co-operation with non-governmental organisations and associations formed by the socially excluded and the elderly

  B3–4304

  Health and well being

  B3–4310

  Health protection, hygiene and safety at work, including a subsidy for the European Trade Union Technical Bureau for Health and Safety

  B3–4312

  Assistance for victims of accidents in the coal and steel sector and orphans allowances

  B3–4313

  Action for safety at work in Europe (SAFE)

  B3–440

  Combating drugs—Global aspects

  B4–1031

  SAVE II (Promotion of energy efficiency)

  B4–1040

  European Energy Observatory

  B5–100

  Measures in favour of consumers with regard to products and services

  B5–103

  Measures to improve consumer health

  B5–300

  Strategic programme on the internal market

  B5–303

  Customs 2000

  B5–321

  Measures in the social economy sector (co-operatives, mutuals, associations and foundations)

  B5–324

  Action to encourage transfrontier provision of equity capital for small and medium-sized enterprises

  B5–336

  Action against illegal and harmful content on the Internet

  B5–600

  Policy on statistical information concerned with non-member countries

  B5–7210

  Networks for the interchange of data between administrations (IDA)

  B7–4034

  Financial co-operation with Turkey

  B7–535

  Co-operation with the countries of central and eastern Europe and the New Independent States under the Euratom Treaty

  B7–544

  Customs assistance missions in relation to Bosnia-Herzegovina

  B7–6000

  Community contribution towards schemes concerning developing countries carried out by non-governmental organisations

  B7–611

  Integrating gender issues in development co-operation

  B7–643

  Decentralised co-operation in the developing countries

  B7–6602

  New Transatlantic Agenda

  B7–661

  Community co-operation in action concerning anti-personnel mines

  B7–662

  Community participation in the enforcement of economic sanctions and trade embargoes imposed by the international community

  B7–70

  European Initiative for Democracy and the Protection of Human Rights

  B7–851

  Promotion of European Union exports to Japan

  B7–852

  Access to the markets of non-Community countries

  Climate Change Levy
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what reasons the climate change levy exemption is proposed for fuel consumed within the chemical reaction rather than fuel burned to initiate the reaction within chemical industry processes. [88069]

  Ms Hewitt
  The exemption for non-energy use of fuels is based on the broad principle, recommended by Lord Marshall in his report on "Economic instruments and the business use of energy", that processes which do not give rise to emissions of greenhouse gases should not be subject to climate change levy.

  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the revenue which would be generated by charging of the climate change levy on the fuel burned to initiate reactions within chemical industry processes. [88103]
  134
  Ms Hewitt
  It is not possible to estimate revenue derived from individual sectors until the final shape of the tax and the rates have been established.

  Currency Speculation Tax
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the annual(a) worldwide and (b) UK revenues, assuming international agreement, from a tax on international currency speculation set at (i) 0.1 per cent., (ii) 0.25 per cent. and (iii) 0.5 per cent. [88226]

  Ms Hewitt
  The requested information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Sports Clubs
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the cost of allowing voluntary sports clubs to become eligible for charity status. [88580]
  135
  Dawn Primarolo
  Under charity law, most sports clubs are not eligible for charitable status. The cost of extending the charity tax reliefs and exemptions to all sports clubs would depend on the nature of the clubs concerned, but could be substantial.

  VAT
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the cost of reducing to 5 per cent. the requirement to pay VAT on restoration work for churches and national monuments. [88581]

  Dawn Primarolo
  There is insufficient data to provide the requested estimate.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has made to the European Commission with regard to the six-month time limit on claiming VAT in other member states. [88916]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government have made representations to the European Commission about the time limit for claiming back VAT in other member states on two occasions. On both occasions we drew attention to cases where a member state was in breach of the six-month time limit by which tax authorities must either refund the VAT claimed or give the reason for refusal.

  Health Spending
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will increase the funding allocated to the Department of Health under the Comprehensive Spending Review; and if he will make a statement. [88727]

  Mr. Milburn
  The Comprehensive Spending Review provided the biggest ever cash increase for the Department of Health, providing an extra £21 billion to the NHS in the UK as part of firm three-year plans. The spending plans for years beyond 2001–02 will be considered in next year's spending review.

  Percentage of the population who were living in a one-person private household, by age-group and Government office region, 1998 (spring and autumn quarters combined)

  Government office region

  North East

  North West

  Yorks and Humbs

  East Midlands

  West Midlands

  Eastern

  London

  South East

  South West

  All ages

  12

  12

  12

  11

  11

  11

  14

  11

  11

  0 to 17

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  18to24

  6

  5

  6

  5

  4

  5

  7

  4

  5

  25 to 49

  9

  10

  9

  9

  8

  9

  14

  10

  9

  50 to 64

  16

  14

  13

  11

  13

  11

  17

  12

  12

  65 to 84

  37

  36

  34

  32

  32

  31

  37

  31

  30

  85 and over

  58

  63

  61

  60

  64

  66

  61

  61

  54

  Note:

  The South East GOR excludes London—which is a separate GOR

  Source:

  Labour Force Survey

  Deaths where hypothermia was mentioned on the death certificate as the main or contributory cause of death, England and Wales,

  year of registration 1998

  Regional development agency

  All ages

  0–17

  18–24

  25–49

  50–64

  65–84

  85+

  England and Wales

  336

  1

  2

  27

  39

  158

  109

  North East

  17

  0

  0

  1

  1

  6

  9

  North West

  36

  0

  1

  4

  4

  15

  12

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  38

  1

  0

  5

  5

  19

  8

  East Midlands

  24

  0

  0

  2

  1

  13

  8

  West Midlands

  48

  0

  0

  2

  5

  25

  16

  Eastern

  35

  0

  0

  4

  3

  15

  13

  136

  Regional Development Agencies
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will publish the most recent figures showing the number of deaths where the cause of death was recorded as hypothermia in each of the regions covered by the new regional development agencies in the age ranges (i) 0 to 8, (ii) 18 to 24, (iii) 25 to 50, (iv) 50 to 65, (v) 65 to 85 and (vi) 85 years and over; [88652]

  (2) if he will publish the most recent population figures of the regions to be covered by each of the new regional development agencies in the age ranges: (i) 0 to 8, (ii) 18 to 24, (iii) 25 to 50, (iv) 50 to 65, (v) 65 to 85 and (vi) 85 years and over; and what proportion of the population in each age range are (a) male, (b) female, and (c) of ethnic minority origin; [88646]

  (3) if he will publish the most recent figures showing what proportion of the population of each of the regions to be covered by each of the regional development agencies live in households of only one person in the age ranges (i) 0 to 18, (ii) 18 to 24, (iii) 25 to 50, (iv) 50 to 65, (v) 65 to 85 and (vi) 85 years and over. [88647]

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

  Letter from John Fox to Mr. Eddie O'Hara, dated June 1999:
  The Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS) has been asked to reply to your recent questions concerning single occupancy households, death from hypothermia and population figures for the new regional development agency areas. I am replying in Dr Holt's absence.
  The estimated percentages of the population in each age group who were living in a one-person private household in 1998 are given in the table below. The percentages have been estimated from the Labour Force Survey, a sample survey covering about 60,000 private households in the United Kingdom per quarter. The estimated percentages are therefore subject to sampling variability.
  137

  Deaths where hypothermia was mentioned on the death certificate as the main or contributory cause of death, England and Wales, year of registration 1998

  Regional development agency

  All ages

  0–17

  18–24

  25–49

  50–64

  65–84

  85+

  London

  33

  0

  0

  6

  6

  16

  5

  South East

  47

  0

  0

  2

  8

  19

  18

  South West

  33

  0

  0

  1

  2

  18

  12

  Wales

  25

  0

  1

  0

  4

  12

  8

  The population data for males and females are given in the attached table. The latest available data are the mid-97 population estimates.

  The estimated percentages of the population in each age group living in private households (ie not including those living in institutions or the homeless) in 1998 who were of ethnic minority

  Percentage of the population living in private households who were of ethnic minority origin, by age-group and Government office region, 1998 (spring, summer, autumn and winters' quarters combined)

  Government office region

  North East

  North West

  Yorks and Humbs

  East Midlands

  West Midlands

  Eastern

  London

  South East

  South West

  All ages

  2

  4

  5

  4

  10

  3

  25

  3

  1

  0–17

  3

  7

  9

  6

  15

  5

  36

  5

  2

  18–24

  13

  8

  8

  5

  14

  4

  29

  4

  12

  25–49

  2

  4

  5

  4

  10

  4

  25

  4

  1

  50–64

  11

  2

  2

  3

  6

  2

  18

  2

  11

  65–84

  10

  1

  1

  2

  4

  11

  10

  1

  10

  85 and over

  10

  10

  11

  10

  12

  10

  14

  10

  10

  Note:

  The South East GOR excludes London—which is a separate GOR

  Source:

  Labour Force Survey

  Information on ethnicity has recently been published in an article in Population Trends no. 96 (Summer 1999) under the title "The Ethnic Minority Populations of Great Britain—the latest estimates" by Jeremy Schuman. Table 3(b) gives the area of residence by ethnic group for Great Britain, and this is broken down into Government Office Regions which have the same boundaries as the new Regional Development Agencies. Table 4(a) gives the age profile within each ethnic group as a percentage of the ethnic group, and Table 4(b) gives profile by ethnic group within each age group as a percentage of the age group. The text of the article gives information about the concentrations of particular ethnic groups within different regions.

  Total population of English regional development agency areas by age and gender, mid 1997, in thousands

  As percentage of age group

  RDA area

  Total

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  North East

  0–17

  599.0

  307.2

  291.8

  51.29

  48.71

  18–24

  221.4

  114.5

  106.9

  51.72

  48.28

  25–49

  932.0

  467.8

  464.2

  50.19

  49.81

  50–64

  426.3

  210.4

  215.9

  49.35

  50.65

  65–84

  372.9

  159.4

  213.5

  42.75

  57.25

  85+

  43.0

  10.7

  32.3

  24.88

  75.12

  Total

  2,594.6

  1,270.0

  1,324.6

  —

  —

  North West and Merseyside

  0–17

  1,626.2

  833.6

  792.6

  51.26

  48.74

  18–24

  574.2

  296.7

  277.5

  51.67

  48.33

  25–49

  2,476.2

  1,255.6

  1,220.6

  50.71

  49.29

  50–64

  1,129.5

  559.8

  569.7

  49.56

  50.44

  65–84

  956.7

  404.4

  552.3

  42.27

  57.73

  85+

  124.9

  30.5

  94.4

  24.42

  75.58

  Total

  6,887.7

  3,380.6

  3,507.1

  —

  —

  138
  origin are given in the table below The percentage have been estimated from Labour Force Survey, and the estimates shown in the following table marked with1 are based on a sample number of fewer than 30 persons of ethnic minority origin.

  Total population of English regional development agency areas by age and gender, mid 1997, in thousands

  As percentage of age group

  RDA area

  Total

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  0–17

  1,167.4

  598.7

  568.7

  51.28

  48.72

  18–24

  433.4

  225.0

  208.4

  51.92

  48.08

  25–49

  1,821.3

  929.6

  891.7

  51.04

  48.96

  50–64

  816.6

  404.6

  412

  49.55

  50.45

  65–84

  704.9

  302.0

  402.9

  42.84

  57.16

  85+

  93.5

  23.7

  69.8

  25.35

  74.65

  Total

  5,037.1

  2,483.6

  2,553.5

  —

  —

  East Midlands

  0–17

  947.9

  487.5

  460.4

  51.43

  48.57

  18–24

  348.6

  179.4

  169.2

  51.46

  48.54

  25–49

  1,509.0

  764.7

  744.3

  50.68

  49.32

  50–64

  689.2

  345.5

  343.7

  50.13

  49.87

  65–84

  587.5

  259.2

  328.3

  44.12

  55.88

  85+

  73.9

  19.7

  54.2

  26.66

  73.34

  Total

  4,156.1

  2,056.0

  2,100.1

  —

  —

  West Midlands

  0–17

  1,254.0

  643.6

  610.4

  51.32

  48.68

  18–24

  442.0

  227.5

  214.5

  51.47

  48.53

  25–49

  1,906.9

  970.8

  936.1

  50.91

  49.09

  50–64

  885.8

  443.6

  442.2

  50.08

  49.92

  65–84

  743.0

  323.0

  420.0

  43.47

  56.53

  85+

  88.8

  22.8

  66.0

  25.68

  74.32

  Total

  5,320.5

  2,631.3

  2,689.2

  —

  —

  South West

  0–17

  1,060.6

  545.1

  515.5

  51.40

  48.60

  18–24

  383.1

  198.3

  184.8

  51.76

  48.24

  25–49

  1,705.0

  864.0

  841.0

  50.67

  49.33

  50–64

  823.4

  406.6

  416.8

  49.38

  50.62

  139

  Total population of English regional development agency areas by age and gender, mid 1997, in thousands

  As percentage of age group

  RDA area

  Total

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  65–84

  785.4

  339.1

  446.3

  43.18

  56.82

  85+

  118.2

  32.1

  86.1

  27.16

  72.84

  Total

  4,875.70

  2,385.20

  2,490.50

  —

  —

  Eastern

  0–17

  1,209.80

  619.3

  590.5

  51.19

  48.81

  18–24

  427.1

  220.3

  206.8

  51.58

  48.42

  25–49

  1,958.20

  992.7

  965.5

  50.69

  49.31

  50–64

  883.8

  439.7

  444.1

  49.75

  50.25

  65–84

  755

  332.3

  422.7

  44.01

  55.99

  85+

  99.9

  27.7

  72.2

  27.73

  72.27

  Total

  5,333.80

  2,632.00

  2,701.80

  —

  —

  Greater London

  0–17

  1,634.00

  837.9

  796.1

  51.28

  48.72

  18–24

  690

  346.4

  343.6

  50.2

  49.8

  25–49

  2,866.70

  1,450.80

  1,415.90

  50.61

  49.39

  50–64

  1,002.70

  493.2

  509.5

  49.19

  50.81

  65–84

  807.4

  346.8

  460.6

  42.95

  57.05

  85+

  121.1

  31.3

  89.8

  25.85

  74.15

  Total

  7,121.90

  3,506.40

  3,615.50

  —

  —

  South East

  0–17

  1,797.70

  923.8

  873.9

  51.39

  48.61

  18–24

  636.1

  323.6

  312.5

  50.87

  49.13

  25–49

  2,928.90

  1,487.20

  1,441.70

  50.78

  49.22

  50–64

  1,307.00

  648.1

  658.9

  49.59

  50.41

  65–84

  1,121.00

  481.4

  639.6

  42.94

  57.06

  85+

  167.6

  44.6

  123

  26.61

  73.39

  Total

  7,958.30

  3,908.70

  4,049.60

  —

  —

  Note:

  Data have been rounded to nearest hundred

  Source:

  ONS, Population Estimates Unit

  Breast Cancer
  Ms Perham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was(a) the incidence of breast cancer by age breakdown and (b) the numbers of deaths from breast cancer among women in England for the latest year for which figures are available. [88658]

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

  Letter from John Fox to Ms Linda Perham, dated 29 June 1999:
  The Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS) has been asked to reply to your parliamentary question concerning the incidence of and deaths from breast cancer.
  The number of newly diagnosed cases of female breast cancer (coded to International Classification of Diseases Ninth Revision [ICD9] 174) in England in 1994, the latest year for which data are available, appeared in a Parliamentary answer on 17 May (Hansard 90, column 281).
  The mortality data requested are shown in the table below.

  Number of deaths certified as due to female breast cancer

  England 19981

  Age at death

  Number of deaths

  0–4

  0

  5–9

  0

  10–14

  0

  15–19

  0

  140

  Number of deaths certified as due to female breast cancer

  England 19981

  Age at death

  Number of deaths

  20–24

  4

  25–29

  22

  30–34

  87

  35–39

  221

  40–44

  385

  45–49

  572

  50–54

  953

  55–59

  873

  60–64

  1,019

  65–69

  1,088

  70–74

  1,325

  75–79

  1,373

  80–84

  1,175

  85 and over

  1,915

  All ages

  11,012

  1Data for 1998 are provisional

  Influenza
  Liz Blackman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the number of deaths resulting from last winter's influenza epidemic. [88771]

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

  Letter from John Fox to Liz Blackman, dated 29 June 1999:
  The Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS) has been asked to reply to your recent question on the number of deaths resulting from last winter's influenza epidemic. I am replying in Dr Holt's absence.
  Between December 1998 and March 1999, the provisional number of deaths where the underlying cause of death was certified as due to influenza, using the International Classification of Diseases, was 529.

  Rented Residential Accommodation
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the value of tax receipts from corporation tax on privately rented residential accommodation in the last year for which statistics are available. [88818]

  Dawn Primarolo
  It is estimated that some £21 billion in corporation tax liability arose in 1996—1997 on companies' income from land and property. A separate estimate for rented residential accommodation is not available.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the value of tax receipts from income tax on privately rented residential accommodation in the last year for which statistics are available. [88817]

  Dawn Primarolo
  It is estimated that about £900 million of income tax paid by individuals in respect of the 1997–1998 tax year arose from income from land and property. It is not known how much of this arose from residential accommodation.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what basis statistics are compiled by his Department on the revenue raised in the case of(a) privately rented residential property and (b) privately rented commercial property. [88815]
  141
  Dawn Primarolo
  Statistics on the income of companies and individuals from land and property, and the corporation tax and income tax arising from this income, are based on analyses of representative samples of tax returns. As these returns do not show a split of rent income by type of property, separate statistics on the tax revenue from privately rented residential and commercial property are not available.

  No statistics are available on capital gains tax, inheritance tax or stamp duties arising on rented property.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the value of tax receipts from capital gains tax on privately rented residential accommodation in the last year for which statistics are available. [88816]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The information requested is not available.

  Rent-a-room Scheme
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the cost to the Exchequer of the rent-a-room scheme for each year since the introduction of the scheme. [88820]

  Dawn Primarolo
  It is estimated that the annual value of the rent-a-room relief is of the order of £20 million.

  No more precise estimates are available.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will undertake a pilot survey in three different tax districts including West Cumbria into the actual cost to the Exchequer in terms of lost revenue arising from the rent-a-room scheme. [88821]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Most of the Inland Revenue's information on people's incomes and tax affairs arrives via tax returns, to which access for analysis is already available on a sample basis. Little extra information is held by tax districts. Nor do tax districts have any means of knowing which people not completing tax returns are likely to be taking advantage of the relief.

  Labour-intensive Services
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received with regard to the European Commission's proposal for reduced rates of VAT on labour-intensive services not subject to cross border competition. [88914]

  Dawn Primarolo
  We have received a number of representations suggesting services to which a reduced VAT rate might be applied in the UK under the proposed measure.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has made to the European Commission with regard to the Commission's proposal for reduced rates of VAT on labour-intensive services not subject to cross border competition; and if he will make a statement. [88915]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The UK has made no representations to the European Commission about this proposal.
  142

  Company Cars
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 26 April 1999,Official Report, column 55, how many company cars travelled (i) less than 10,000, (ii) between 10,000 and 13,000, (iii) between 13,001 and 16,000, (iv) between 16,001 and 18,500, (v) between 18,501 and 19,000, (vi) between 19,001 and 20,000, (vii) between 20,001 and 23,000, (viii) between 23,001 and 30,000 and (ix) more than 30,000 miles in the last year for which figures are available. [88789]

  Ms Hewitt
  The only available information on the total mileage of company cars is the National Travel Survey, but this does not have a large enough sample size to provide the detail requested. The available estimates, which cover company cars available for private use, are shown in the table.

  Total annual mileage

  Number of company cars

  Less then 10,000

  175,000

  10,000 to 13,999

  250,000

  14,000 to 18,199

  250,000

  18,500 to 29,999

  475,000

  30,000 or more

  450,000

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many company cars for the latest year for which figures are available, were of engine size(a) under 1000cc, (b) between 1000 and 1299cc., (c) between 1300 and 1499cc, (d) between 1500 and 1799cc, (e) between 1800 and 1999cc, (f) between 2000 and 2199cc, (g) between 2200 and 2499cc and (h) 2500cc and over. [88716]

  Ms Hewitt
  The best source of information on the engine size of company cars is the National Travel Survey, which covers only company cars available for private use. However, the size of the Survey allows for only a limited breakdown by engine size. According to the latest Survey, there were about 400,000 company cars with engine capacities up to 1600cc, and about 1,200,000 with larger engine sizes.

  EU Contribution
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what reasons he is not yet able to publish the gross and net contributions made by the UK to the EC in 1998; and if he will make a statement summarising the arrangements for recording payments made and payments received from the EU within the Treasury. [88944]

  Mr. Milburn
  We expect to be able to do so very shortly.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  European Communities Working Groups
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the European Communities working groups which met over the last 12 months with a representative from his Department in attendance; if he will list the number of times each met; if he will indicate the nature of the Government's representation; and if he will make a statement. [88480]
  143
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  In the last year, officials from the Department of Education and Employment have represented the UK at 12 meetings of the EC Education Committee and at 12 meetings of the Youth Working Group. DfEE officials have also attended one meeting of the Social Questions Working Group as observers. The UK is represented on Social Questions Working Group by officials of the UK Permanent Representation to the European Union.

  Teachers (Canadian Qualification)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment for what reasons teachers who qualified in Canada receive lower pay than equivalent teachers who qualified in the United Kingdom. [88728]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Teachers who qualified in Canada do not automatically have qualified teacher status (QTS) in England and Wales. If they work as teachers, they will be paid on the pay scale for unqualified teachers, unless they are working towards QTS through the Graduate Teacher Programme, in which case their school's governing body has the option of paying them as qualified teachers.

  Schools (Performance Indicators)
  Lorna Fitzsimons
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what work is being done on the development of school and teacher performance indicators with particular reference to issues relating to schools with a large percentage of students for whom English is an additional language. [88680]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Our Autumn Package of performance data for schools currently benchmarks school-level achievements by reference to the proportion of pupils with free school meals (as a general indicator of disadvantage), and presents estimates of pupil progress between NC Keystages based on national samples of linked individual performance records.

  The Department, in close collaboration with its education partners, is developing a national system of individualised pupil records which will give assessments of the value added by all schools and the progress made by pupils within them. This initiative will allow comparison of the progress of pupils with similar prior attainments and backgrounds, including the state of their English language development. The introduction of national assessments of school value added are planned to come on stream with the publication of KS3 to GCSE/GNVQ information in the Performance Tables in Autumn 2000.

  Our proposals for a national scheme of school and teacher performance awards do not have features which are specific for schools with varying proportions of pupils with English as an Additional Language. Nevertheless, the School Performance Award Scheme proposed in the Green Paper "Teachers: Meeting the challenge of change" will reward schools whose performance is consistently of a high standard, or of a markedly improving trend, given their general level of disadvantage. The new performance management arrangements for individual teachers will be based on agreed objectives, which will take account of local circumstances.
  144

  Educational Provision (Children)
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what collaborative work he is undertaking with Health Ministers to ensure that all looked-after children receive a high-quality education. [88851]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Department of Education and Employment and the Department of Health are committed to raising the standards of education achieved by looked-after children, to bring these much more closely into line with those of their peers. Local authorities, as corporate parents, have a key role to play. We are currently consulting on draft guidance to local authorities about the education of looked-after children, stressing that:local authority social services and education departments need to work effectively together to support children's educational needs;
  every school should have a designated teacher to liaise with social services;
  every looked-after child should have a Personal Education Plan-recording long-term aspirations as well as short-term objectives;
  care placements should be made only where education provision is also secured.

  This guidance is one element in the joint strategy of the two Departments, channelled primarily through the Quality Protects programme, and Standards fund provision for school inclusion and special educational needs. Over the next few months, we will be developing that strategy in the light of consultation responses, to ensure effective implementation.

  New Deal 50-plus Scheme
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) if the earnings cap rules for people on the New Deal 50-plus scheme will take into account income from other sources with particular reference to investments and occupational pensions; and if he will make a statement; [89032]

  (2) what will be the level of the earnings cap on income above which a person on the New Deal 50-plus scheme will be ineligible for an employment credit. [89033]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Our current proposals are that the Employment Credit will be paid only to people working full-time (over 30 hours a week) with income of less than £15,000 a year or part-time (16–30 hours a week) of £10,000 a year. The assessment of income will take into account earnings from the individual's employment, income from investments, income from property and occupational pensions. There will not be a capital test. The earnings limit is important to concentrate help on those most in need of added support in returning to work.

  Disability Discrimination
  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will publish the National Disability Council's proposals for a revised Code of Practice on Part III of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. [89250]

  Ms Hodge
  We have today published the new Code of Practice on access to goods, facilities and services and it will come into force on 1 October 1999 (replacing the Code issued in July 1996). Copies have been placed in the Library. The Code is based entirely on the National
  145
  Disability Council's proposals which were prepared following extensive consultation with disabled people, service providers and legal advisers.

  The new Code provides guidance on the existing duties under Part III of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, as well as those being implemented on 1 October. The Code gives practical examples of reasonable adjustments which can be made for disabled people and encourages service providers to adopt good practices when considering how to make their services and premises accessible to disabled people.

  The Code of Practice is available from the Stationery Office (ISBN 0-11-271055–7) or from my Department's disability website (www.disability.gov.uk). The Code has been designed to be as accessible as possible and will be available in different formats, such as in Braille and on audio cassette. Further information and leaflets on the new provisions will become available over the summer.

  International Labour Conference
  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will publish the White Paper on the instruments adopted at the 84 (Maritime) session of the International Labour Conference. [892511]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  I have today published a White Paper entitled "International Labour Conference" and placed copies in the Library.

WALES

  Health Service
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he had with(a) health authorities and (b) health trusts in Wales, during April, prior to making his decision on the comprehensive spending review settlement for the health service in Wales, (i) in general and (ii) on the impact on capital projects in their areas of the decision not to make resources available for capital developments in 1999–2000. [87992]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  None. On 1 April, my right hon. Friend met health authority and NHS Trust representatives to discuss the financial position of the NHS, his spending decisions, and the fact that resources which might have been spent on new capital developments had been used to increase health authority revenue allocations.

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

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the indicative figure used by his Department for capital expenditure within the National Health Service in Wales for 1999–2000 as at 1 April; and what is the figure under his comprehensive spending review. [87993]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  My right hon. Friend's announcement on NHS spending on 30 March included capital provision in 1999–2000 of some £83 million—£48 million for Trust discretionary expenditure and £35 million for ongoing major schemes. This represented a £10 million uplift over 1998–99 provision. On 18 May, my right hon. Friend also announced an additional £21 million over the next three years for the NHS from 146
  the capital modernisation fund. Prior to 30 March, additional capital expenditure of up to £24 million on new schemes in 1999–2000 was under consideration, but no decision had been taken on allocating this to particular schemes.

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

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list those health sector capital schemes which had originally been intended to be commenced during the current financial year in Wales but which following the comprehensive spending review settlement made in April have not received capital allocation for 1999–2000; and if he will make a statement. [87997]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  The Department considered proposals for public capital funding during August 1998 and provisionally approved 9 schemes for consideration for future capital funding:Development of medium secure unit facilities at the Caswell Clinic, Bridgend;
  Redevelopment of Mynydd Mawr Hospital, Llanelli;
  Reprovision of mental health services for the Rhondda;
  Development of a new community hospital to service North Merionydd/East Dwyfor;
  Prince Charles Hospital, asbestos and fire precaution measures;
  Bronglais General Hospital, repairs to external cladding;
  Reprovision of Conwy Hospital;
  Reprovision of residential services for learning disabilities—Gwent;
  Remedial works to Iechyd Morgannwg Health Headquarters.

  The proposals for Mynydd Mawr were subsequently withdrawn. The proposed scheme at Prince Charles Hospital is currently undergoing further review.

  My right hon. Friend's NHS spending decisions did not allocate funding to these schemes in 1999–2000.

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

  NHS Trusts (Income and Expenditure)
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will tabulate for each of the last three years for which figures are available for each NHS trust in Wales the total operating income and expenditure, the financial surplus or deficit, the external finance limit performance, the rate of return, management cost (M2), overhead costs, number of employees and the total staff employment costs. [88639]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  I have arranged for copies of the tables requested to be placed in the Library of the House.

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

HEALTH

  Quality Protects Action Plans
  Mr. Michael J. Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what overall assessment he has made of the Quality Protects management action plans submitted by local authorities; and if he will make a statement. [89148]
  147
  Mr. Hutton
  I have today placed in the Library a copy of the report "Mapping Quality In Children's Services: An Evaluation of Local Responses To The Quality Protects Programme".

  When we launched the Quality Protects programme in September 1998, we required local authorities to submit annual Management Action Plans to show how they were intending to improve the management and delivery of children's social services. This report presents the key messages and findings from the first round of Management Action Plans (MAPs) which were received in January 1999. I am pleased that local authorities have responded with energy and urgency to the first stage of Quality Protects and that we were able to approve all 150 Quality Protects MAPs and authorise payment of the children's services grant for this year.

  The report identifies many examples of good practice from across the country, but it also highlights major areas where improvement is urgently needed. It is now crucial that these plans are turned into action and we expect to see evidence of real progress by January 2000.

  Xenotransplantation
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 16 March 1999,Official Report, column 636, for what reason the report of the day's proceedings of the workshop on the possible risks posed by porcine endogenous retroviruses has not yet been published. [88640]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Report of the United Kingdom Xenotransplantation Interim Regulatory Authority Workshop on Porcine Endogenous Retroviruses was published on 23 June 1999. Copies can be obtained from the Department of Health, PO Box 410, Wetherby, LS23 7LL, Fax: 01937 845 381. The report will also be available on the UKXIRA website, address: www.doh.gov/ukxira.htm.

  Copies of the report will be placed in the Library.

  Transplant Surgery
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the Under-Secretary's letter of 1 December 1998 (POH(6) 5437/66) on transplant surgery, what assessment he has made of Japanese research on tardigrades and trehalose and the stabilisation of the structure of cell membranes. [87385]

  Mr. Hutton
  The research mentioned is at a very early stage and it is likely to be several years before any clinical trials take place. We will be keeping a close interest in the progress, however, and assess any further findings as and when they emerge.

  Gene Pool (Commercialisation)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the letter from the Minister of State for Public Health of 4 January (POH/3/5437/69) what assessment he has made of the Icelandic experience in the commercialisation of the gene pool. [87513]

  Ms Jowell
  I believe that the question refers to the Icelandic initiative to set up a centralised health sector database.
  148
  This database consists of a collection of selected health data derived from medical records. The database does not contain samples of either human tissue or DNA.

  The development of such a database raises important questions of privacy and consent which have been extensively discussed in Iceland, both by the public and during the passage of the relevant legislation. The licensing of the database has satisfied Icelandic law and they are satisfied that it does not break any relevant international conventions or agreements. I understand that considerable efforts have been made to inform the Icelandic public about the database and the right of an individual to refuse participation. I shall continue to receive information on this relatively new initiative as it develops.

  Speech and Language Therapists
  Mrs. Organ
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many students entered training for speech and language therapy in each year since 1995. [88417]

  Mr. Denham
  Between 1994–95 and 1997–98, the National Health Service was responsible for commissioning a small number of speech and language therapy places as reflected in the following table. During the same period, the Department for Education and Employment were also funding speech and language therapy education (see notes).

  Since 1998, the National Health Service has assumed responsibility for all speech and language therapy training. This is also reflected in the table.

  Number of National Health Service non medical education and training commissions for speech and language therapists

  Year

  Number

  1994–95

  74

  1995–96

  74

  1996–97

  74

  1997–98

  76

  1998–99

  468

  1999–2000

  477

  Notes:

  Data for 1994–95, 1995–96, 1996–97 and 1997–98 shows actual intakes.

  Data for 1998–99 shows planned intakes and is subject to change.

  Data for 1999–2000 shows forecast intake and is subject to change.

  Prior to 1998–99 funding was available from the Department for Education and Employment.

  The apparent step change in the number of commissions in 1998–99 is as a result of changes to funding arrangements.

  No data is available for the total number of training commissions between 1994–95 and 1997–98 since most of the training during this period was funded through mainstream DfEE education.

  Mrs. Organ
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average waiting time for a patient to be(a) seen and (b) treated by a speech and language therapist in each health authority. [88419]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information relating specifically to appointments with speech and language therapists is not collected centrally.

  Mrs. Organ
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of speech and language therapists have left the profession in each year since 1995. [88416]
  149
  Mr. Denham
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Mrs. Organ
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many unfilled posts there are for speech and language therapy in each health authority. [88418]

  Mr. Denham
  In January 1999, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, during his appearance at the House of Commons Health Committee, suggested that the Department should conduct a survey of staff shortages by the end of 1998–99. The results of this survey will be published in due course.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. McWalter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the effect on the asset base of the NHS of the increase in the number of PFI schemes. [88641]

  Mr. Denham
  Twenty five major hospital developments, worth almost £2.5 billion, have been given approval to proceed under the private finance initiative since 1 May 1997, 13 of which, worth nearly £1 billion, have already signed final contracts and begun building. As these developments will replace outdated hospital capacity with modern facilities and equipment, no separate assessment of their impact is necessary.

  Bed-blocking (West Country)
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he has taken to stop bed-blocking in each county in the West Country; and if he will make a statement. [88082]

  Mr. Denham
  The South West Regional Office of the National Health Service Executive and the Southern Office of the social services inspectorate have been working closely with health and local authorities in the South West to ensure that robust local plans are in place to reduce the number of delayed discharges. The number of delayed discharges in the South West Region fell by 18 per cent. in the year to 31 March 1999.

  Smoking in the Workplace
  Dan Norris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps the Government are taking to restrict smoking in the workplace. [88215]

  Mr. Meale
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government's action on smoking was set out last December in our White Paper "Smoking Kills". The White Paper announced that the Health and Safety Commission would issue a consultative document asking for views about whether to introduce an Approved Code of Practice about smoking at work under the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974. The Commission intends to publish its consultative document at the end of July.

  The draft Code on which the Commission is to consult gives advice to employers about how to devise and introduce, in consultation with their employees, appropriate smoking policies at work.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Belgian Food Contamination
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list those countries which have had limitations placed on their exports by third parties as a consequence of the present Belgian food contamination situation. [87378]

  Mr. Rooker
  All EU member states, including the UK, currently have either bans or restrictions placed on food exports as a result of the problem of contaminated food in Belgium.

  Mouse Breeding Facilities
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the annual cost of maintaining his Department's mouse breeding facilities; and what steps are taken to ensure that no mice are bred which are surplus to requirements. [87859]

  Mr. Rooker
  The annual running cost to maintain mouse breeding facilities at the two MAFF supported agencies is approximately £150,000 including staff costs.

  All research projects which require mice follow a pre-planned experimental design which the agencies also clear with Home Office officials. This allows the number of each strain of mouse required by each project to be forecast in advance. By combining the requirements of each project, a breeding programme is devised which can be tailored to the research requirements.

  Gluten
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to encourage food producers to include gluten content on their products' labels. [87871]

  Mr. Rooker
  In the last year, we have amended the Food Labelling Regulations 1996 to require "starch" and "modified starch" used as ingredients of foods to declare their specific vegetable origin where they may contain gluten. These changes will become compulsory with effect from 14 February 2000.

  We are taking every opportunity to press the European Commission to bring forward more general proposals for identifying ingredients which could cause allergic or intolerance reactions and develop rules for gluten-free claims.

  Poultry (Belgium)
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the Belgian authorities notified the United Kingdom Government that some of its poultry products were contaminated with dioxins. [87844]

  Mr. Rooker
  I refer my hon. Friend to the statement given by my right hon. Friend the Minister on 8 June 1999,Official Report, columns 480–81.

  Inland Fishery
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the moneys available to the Environment Agency for inland fishery work for each of the last five years. [88193]
  151
  Mr. Morley
  The information requested for England and Wales is as follows:

  £ million

  Year

  Grant in aid

  Licence and other revenue

  Total

  1994–95

  11.1

  12.6

  23.7

  1995–96

  9.7

  13.7

  23.4

  1996–97

  7.5

  15.1

  22.4

  1997–98

  7.4

  15.2

  22.6

  1998–99

  122.1

  —

  122.1

  1999–2000

  7.4

  14.7

  22.1

  In 1998–99 there was a temporary change in the rules whereby all revenue from licence fees was returned to Treasury but with an equivalent increase in grant in aid

  Note:

  Figures showing revenue and total income for 1999–2000 are forecasts only

  Common Fisheries Policy
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the estimated cost of the study announced by his Department into the discarding of fish at sea; and by whom it will be funded. [88576]

  Mr. Morley
  The total cost of the study into discarding of fish at sea to which my Department is contributing is 313,000 euro (approximately £205,000). It is mainly funded by the EU Commission together with national contributions from France, Netherlands and the UK. The UK contribution, which will be met by my Department, is £25,000 spread over the 18-month life of the project.

  Small Abattoirs
  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will publish the European Commission's response to his letter seeking clarification on the existence of derogations for smaller abattoirs and cutting plants which go beyond purely structural requirements; [88232]

  (2) if the low-throughput abattoirs identified under Directive 64/433 are required to have the same level of veterinary supervision as the fully approved premises defined in Article 10 of the same directive. [88233]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 28 June 1999]: The level and frequency of supervision of licensed low throughput (permanently derogated) slaughterhouses and cutting plants is under consideration as part of the Meat Charges Impact Study following recent guidance on this subject from the European Commission. An announcement will be made once the Study is completed. A copy of the Commission's guidance will be placed in the Library of the House at that time.

  Extensification Schemes
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he plans to make to the Commission to ensure that the extensification proposals take account of the larger stocking densities on British farms. [88347]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 28 June 1999]: Member states have discretion to apply either one of two models for making extensification payments in the beef sector. The single-tier model offers 100 euros per head of eligible livestock to producers with stocking rates of less than
  152
  1.4 livestock units (LUs) per hectare, while the two-tier model offers 33 euros per head to producers with stocking rates of 2 LUs or less and 77 euros to producers with stocking rates of less than 1.6 LUs. I shall shortly be consulting the industry on which model we should adopt but would recommend the two-tier model (for the introduction of which we pressed in the negotiations of CAP reform) as being more nearly suited to UK farming practice.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the number of farmers who would undertake extensification schemes if the stocking rates were set at(a) 1.6, (b) 2.0 and (c) 2.5 animals per hectare. [88346]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 28 June 1999]: The Government do not have at their disposal sufficient data on the basis of which to make reliable estimates of the kind requested by the right hon. Member. Our "best guess" is that, were the UK to adopt the single-tier model for extensification payments, about 50 per cent. of the 73,000 or so producers receiving such payments under current rules would no longer qualify for them. We believe that with the two-tier model, this figure might reduce to 20 per cent.

  Calf Processing Scheme
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the consequences to the beef sector of discontinuing the calf processing scheme from the end of July. [88349]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 28 June 1999]: Closure of the Calf Processing Aid Scheme on 31 July will benefit the beef sector. By removing the artificial floor in the market for calves, it will encourage UK production of manufacturing quality beef to displace imports.

  Lindane
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what assessment he has made of the relative risk to operators in the application of lindane(a) in closed systems for seed treatment and (b) in open systems for fumigation or other purposes; [88377]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the alternative pesticides to lindane for the treatment before sowing of (a) cereal seed against wireworm and (b) oil seed against flea beetle; [88376]

  (3) if he will defer withdrawal of lindane for those applications for which no suitable alternative pesticide is available. [88375]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 28 June 1999]: The Government's first priority in respect of pesticides is the protection of people and the environment. In taking decisions, we are informed by the expect advice of the independent Advisory Committee on Pesticides.

  In the case of lindane, the Committee considered the data available from the UK and EU reviews of lindane on effects on people and the environment. In particular, the

  153
  Committee assessed the risk to operators from each of the approved uses of lindane and advised that exposure during the seed treatment process was unacceptably high. On this basis, the Committee advised and the Government accepted that this use of lindane should end, subject to any representations regarding this decision.

  In addition, the Committee advised that further data were required for other uses, specifically sprays applied to soil with subsequent incorporation, agricultural and horticultural smokes and dry powder applications, to refine the operator exposure assessment. The Government also accepted this advice.

  Companies have been given until 28 June to make representations and we will consider any further cases they choose to make. However, the Government do not consider the absence of alternatives to be a reason to delay the withdrawal of pesticide approvals where unacceptable risks from short-term exposures have been identified. In the case of uses of lindane treatment of cereal seed against wireworm and oil seed against flea beetle, there are other approved products.

  Milk Quota
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will oppose proposals in the Council of Ministers for the allocation of extra milk quota to Ireland and Spain. [88356]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 28 June 1999]: The dairy reform proposals in the Agenda 2000 package agreed by the European Council on 24–25 March 1999 included specific allocations of milk quota to Italy, Spain, Greece, the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, and a 1.5 per cent. linear increase in quota, phased in over three years, for all other member states including the UK. The legal texts of the Regulations implementing this agreement were adopted by the Agriculture Council on 17 May 1999.

  Bovine Passports
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the current average time it takes to obtain a bovine passport. [88348]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 28 June 1999]: Currently, the British Cattle Movement Service send out around 90 per cent. of passports within three days of applications being received at the BCMS building in Workington.

  School Milk
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has made to the European Commission on the EU subsidy for the supply of milk to certain school children. [88373]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 28 June 1999]: My right hon. Friend the Minister raised the subject at the last Agriculture Council where he received considerable support for our view about the value of the current scheme.
  154

  Veterinary Medicines
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the costs of veterinary medicines in(a) the UK and (b) other European countries. [88355]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 28 June 1999]: The pricing of veterinary medicinal products is not controlled by either UK or European Community legislation. Decisions on the wholesale costs of veterinary medicines are matters for the companies manufacturing the products, taking into account commercial factors such as development and production costs and anticipated volume of sales in the member state concerned. None the less, we have received representations about comparatively high prices of veterinary medicinal products in the UK and we are carefully considering the issues and whether further action is called for.

  Flood Meadows
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what actions he has taken in 1999 in respect of the protection of flood meadows. [87388]

  Mr. Morley
  The importance of flood meadows and the need for their protection is recognised in the UK Biodiversity Action Plan for coastal and floodplain grazing marsh which encompasses flood meadows. Our English agri-environment schemes, including the ESA and Countryside Stewardship schemes, provide payments for farmers and land managers for the protection and enhancement of this habitat.

  In the three years 1999–2000 to 2001–02, an additional £40 million will be available in England for improvements and enhancements to the agri-environment schemes. Flood meadow land, along with other priorities, will benefit from this extra funding.

  To date, over 8,000 ha of land have entered into Countryside Stewardship and over 40,000 ha are under ESA agreement in wet grassland areas identified by English Nature, which includes flood meadow habitats. These areas are target habitats under both schemes and additional land will be coming under agreement this year.

  On 25 May, I announced proposals to add payments under the Countryside Stewardship scheme for raising and maintaining high water levels in grassland, including flood meadows.

  During 1999, MAFF has continued to make good progress with its Water Level Management Plan initiative which is also an important tool in the protection of flood meadows. It has set up a Water Level Management Plan Advisory Group to encourage production of plans for floodplain wetlands. One of the first tasks of the Group is to produce additional guidance on preparation of WLMPs to help operating authorities. This task is progressing well and it is hoped that the guidance will be published shortly.

  In March 1999, MAFF and the operating authorities agreed a new interim target of completing WLMPs for all European Sites by the end of March 2000, and for all other SSS1s by the end of 2000.

  In the last 12 months, MAFF has approved grant aid in relation to WLMPs for two Internal Drainage Boards. These are the Rivers Idle and Ryton IDB for

  155
  refurbishment of Wiseton Pumping Station (total cost £71,000) and the Lower Yare Third IDB for pump replacement (total cost £22,000).

  Water Discharge Levy
  Mrs. Organ
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received 156
  from (a) the British Trout Association and (b) the Country Landowners Association concerning water discharges levies made by the Environment Agency. [88413]

  Mr. Morley
  I met the chairman and other members of the British Trout Association on 15 June and they made clear to me their concern about the level of discharge charges. I have received no representations on this topic from the Country Landowners Association.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Gloucester.
Viscount Portman Viscount Portman—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

The Lord Chancellor: Leave of Absence
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, before the commencement of business, I take the opportunity to inform the House that I am to attend the Opening Ceremonies of the Scottish Parliament on Thursday 1st July and I am to address the Worldwide Conference of Common Law Judges in Edinburgh on 5th July, when the House will sit. Accordingly, I trust the House will grant me leave of absence.

Junior Hospital Doctors
Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones asked Her Majesty's Government:
What are their plans for restoring the morale of junior hospital doctors.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hayman): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Minister for Health met the junior hospital doctors' representatives on 10th June and had a positive and constructive meeting, identifying areas where we can continue to make progress in improving the working lives of all doctors in training. We greatly value the commitment and dedication of junior hospital doctors to providing a quality service to NHS patients. The Government have introduced a range of progressive staffing initiatives to make sure that juniors' working lives are enhanced and that good employment practices exist in all trusts.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer so far as it goes, but evidence of low morale among junior hospital doctors is quite clear from the facts that they are now contemplating industrial action for first time since 1975 and some one in four junior doctors are leaving the service. Does the Minister believe that £4.02 per hour for bank holiday and weekend working for junior doctors is adequate, especially over the millennium period? Is not the most straightforward way of restoring morale to junior doctors to improve their levels of pay when they work at night, weekends and on bank holidays? As the Minister mentioned that the Government have started negotiations with the junior doctors, will they now firmly commit to improving their out-of-hours pay?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the noble Lord is right that junior doctors are concerned about a number
168
of issues at the moment. He mentioned an out-of-hours hourly pay rate of £4.02, but that is the absolute minimum payable to the most junior of doctors and relates to on-call payments which are not the same as NHS overtime. That leads to a great deal of confusion. Most juniors will get considerably more than that as an hourly rate and possibly up to twice that.
The pay of junior hospital doctors is set by the doctors' independent pay review body. We have implemented in full its recommendations on junior doctors' pay. One would expect all this to be determined by a professional contract, but under the situation that we inherited, it is not. About two-thirds of their pay is a basic sum and the rest results from a complex series of calculations which resembles pay systems that went out of date in industry some 30 years ago. We are meeting junior doctors to secure practical improvements in conditions. Talks will continue. We are willing to consider with the junior doctors changes to their pay structures, if that is what they want.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that junior doctors face many more stresses than just pay? I refer to the availability of beds, access to food at night, paperwork and providing cover for consultants, among other matters.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the noble Baroness is right to draw attention to that. That is why we have set up a working group including juniors' representatives. It is looking at current New Deal guidance on living and working conditions, seeking more robust standards which can be better enforced through improved monitoring, and a stronger commitment from local employers, backed by postgraduate deans, especially as an integral part of the New Deal accreditation process. The noble Baroness is right that issues such as accommodation and lack of access to a hot meal can be the final straw for people who are working very hard.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the last government increased the number of consultant posts by 3.5 per cent every year, whereas this Government are responsible, whether they like it or not, for a cut of 33 per cent in the number of consultant obstetricians? Can the Minister offer us some reassurance? Is she going to put this terrible cut right?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the noble Lord will be aware from several exchanges across the Dispatch Box that there is a problem related to specialist registrars in obstetrics and gynaecology which we seek to address. We are looking at ways to ensure that people who come to the end of their contracts are offered advice and help in planning their future careers. We are looking at ways to improve not only the situation of that particular group of doctors but also the efficiency of workforce planning in future. As to the record of the Government, in our first year we increased the number of NHS doctors by 2,200; the CSR settlement provided

169
for 7,000 more doctors over three years; and only last week we announced 1,000 new places at medical schools.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I have listened with care to all the Minister's answers. Is the problem too few doctors, too little pay and too long hours? If so, I fail to understand from the noble Baroness's answers what on earth the Government propose to do about it.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I suggest to the noble Lord that that is something of an oversimplification, although I am sure that most people would prefer shorter hours, higher pay and more people to share the workload. There are very complicated arguments about the length of training that people must undergo in order to achieve consultant status, which is obviously the pinnacle for junior hospital doctors. Despite the lengthy training and sometimes arduous working hours, medicine remains a very attractive profession for the highest calibre students. However, the noble Lord is right to point out that, in order to meet our commitment to reduce the working hours of junior hospital doctors, we shall have to increase the medical workforce, and, as I explained in an earlier reply, we are doing that.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is very difficult to improve the conditions of junior doctors except at the cost of the conditions of senior doctors—in particular, consultants? Does she also agree that the Government can do something about the long hours of junior doctors by making senior doctors work at weekends, and that we shall have more happy junior doctors if they are given some of the income which senior doctors earn from private practice?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for an extremely constructive and useful contribution which will be read carefully by all the parties to the negotiations.
Lord Colwyn: My Lords, can the noble Baroness say whether there is any evidence of increasing claims for negligence against junior hospital doctors who work long hours formerly reported through the Crown Indemnity Service and now through the NHS Litigation Authority?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, it is recognised that there is an increasing level of litigation throughout medicine in both the NHS and the private sector. I do not have any information as to whether that relates specifically to claims against junior doctors; nor am I sure that those details are centrally collected, but I shall look into it and write to the noble Lord.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, can the noble Baroness tell the House how this problem is dealt with in Europe, particularly bearing in mind restrictions in regard to long hours of work?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, certainly different countries deal with the issue of workforce planning in
170
different ways. Recently, I was in Italy, where there is a large number of unemployed doctors arising from oversupply, which raises a problem of its own. The Government are committed to a reduction to a 48-hour week for all workers, but we must take time to implement that in a way which safeguards patient care. We cannot produce large numbers of doctors with a snap of the fingers.

Channel Islands: Taxation Laws
2.47 p.m.
Lord Waddington Lord Waddington asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they can require the Channel Islands to change their taxation laws if these constitute harmful tax competition.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, the report of the Royal Commission on the Constitution, known as the Kilbrandon Report, sets out in paragraphs 1497 to 1513 the limited circumstances in which, in its view, the United Kingdom Parliament would be justified in using its paramount powers to legislate for the Channel Islands and Isle of Man. Legislation on taxation has always taken the form of laws enacted by the island legislatures.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. Is it right that in purported compliance with the Code of Conduct on Business Taxation, which requires member states to report measures constituting unfair tax competition to the Code of Conduct Group, the Government reported for possible elimination 11 tax measures in Guernsey and Jersey? What right had the Government to do so when the Channel Islands are not territories of the United Kingdom within letter M of the code but self-governing dependencies of the Crown, and the Code of Conduct is not, therefore, an international agreement requiring the Government to interfere in the islands' affairs? What right have the Government to interfere when the islands are not members of the EU and, in the words of the very report to which the noble Lord referred (at paragraph 1535), the taxes that they impose, and their level, remain a matter for the islanders to decide?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, is right in his description of the constitutional relationship. The islands are self-governing Crown dependencies, each with its own internal independent legislature. The Code of Conduct group is being chaired by my right honourable friend the Paymaster General. I am happy to reassure the House about an important point upon which we struggled and which we insisted upon having incorporated in the code. It requests member states to apply its principles to its dependent and associated territories only,
"within the framework of their constitutional arrangements".
That point is extremely important.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, harmful tax competition is a serious matter, whether it applies to the Channel

171
Islands, the Isle of Man or even Bermuda, where the noble Lord was recently a distinguished governor. However, are not these matters best dealt with at an international level? Is the Paymaster General having serious discussions in the EU to bring forward a helpful directive to stop such harmful tax competition?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, my noble friend is right in saying that this is an international matter. A number of approaches are being taken. We have set up the Code of Conduct Group; the draft directive on savings is still subject to my earlier caveat within the framework of the constitutional arrangements; and an OECD forum is compiling a list of tax havens for November this year. I should stress that the islands are taking part in that exercise and it is fair to all concerned to draw to the attention of the House paragraph 14.10.3 of Andrew Edward's report which states:
"The island authorities have argued with force that the issues involved in harmful tax competition are far from simple or straightforward".
Turning to the point made by my noble friend Lord Barnett, the report continues:
"They have made known, rightly in my view, that they wish to play a full and constructive part, through whatever channels are available, in the global discussions".
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, do the clauses which the Minister quoted from the Kilbrandon Report not make it absolutely clear that this country does have the right to override the islanders' wishes in tax matters if our international obligations, such as those contained in the Treaty of Rome, so require? In those circumstances, can the Minister tell the House what is the outcome of the recent deputation of civil servants from the islands to the EU Commission in Brussels to discuss this problem?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, paragraph 1499 of the Kilbrandon Report identifies five headings where paramount powers might be capable of being exercised. The important rejoinder I would make is that the report states:
"We would stress cur view that an element of opinion and of political judgment may sometimes enter into a decision whether or not the exercise of paramount powers is justified".
I believe that the proper way ahead—and I have tried to do so constantly since I took over the responsibility—is to have as full discussions as possible. The islands' authorities have constantly told me that they welcome discussion and recognise that they have their part to play. They ask—and reasonably, in my opinion—that their concerns and troubles shall be heard. As regards the noble Lord's last question, I believe that discussions are continuing.
Lord Short of Stepney: My Lords, the questions could cause great and unnecessary worries in the Channel Islands. My noble friend has said, first, that under our constitutional arrangements we do not legislate in tax matters for the Channel Islands. That is their prerogative and we intend to uphold it. Secondly,
172
thanks to a protocol negotiated at the time, the Channel Islands are outside the European Union, and therefore its authority.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, asked me specifically about the European Union and I agreed with his description of the constitutional relationship. I repeat that legislation on taxation has always taken the form enacted by the legislatures. We do not exercise jurisdiction over their tax systems. However, we have our own domestic interests which I and my colleagues in other departments try to reconcile with the legitimate interests of those who live in the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, does the Minister believe that taxation could be imposed on the Channel Islands without the consent or agreement of their elected representatives?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, life is not so simple. One cannot cut out the quotations because the Kilbrandon Report describes the relationships. I repeat that we have never legislated for internal taxation for the islands. We do not exercise the jurisdiction. We should listen carefully to what they say; they have always been courteous enough to listen to what Her Majesty's Government have to say.

Diabetes
2.55 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton Baroness Masham of Ilton asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will have enough diabetic specialists to deal with the projected rise of diabetes and its complications in the 21st century.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, we have announced that we shall be drawing up a National Service Framework for diabetes over the next two years. While it is for National Health Service trusts and health authorities to determine the numbers and grades of staff they need in order to provide good quality services, we shall consider issues of staffing and professional education and training as we develop the National Service Framework.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Is she aware that about 100 consultants in district general hospitals dealing with this most complex condition, and in sole charge of patients, desperately need cover? Does she agree that there is a need for more specialised dieticians and nurses working within the hospitals and the community?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I agree that dieticians and nurses specialised in diabetes are key members of multi-professional teams co-ordinating care pathways for patients and that they need to work across the primary, secondary and tertiary care sectors. We must

173
ensure that we continue the training of qualified nurses with post-registration awards in diabetes care so that people are available to undertake that job.
Furthermore, I understand that at the end of September 1997, 297 consultants in England and Wales specialised in diabetes. There has been an increase in the number of trainees, and it is estimated that by 2005 there will be 472 consultants. They ought to be able to provide the cover to which the noble Baroness referred.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the increased incidence, to which the Question refers, does not relate to Type I insulin-dependent diabetes, but to Type II non-insulin-dependent diabetes, which tends to develop in older people? Does she further agree that one of the major factors responsible is the increasing number of cases in Western society of another disease; namely, obesity? What advice are the Government giving to the public at large about the dangers of over-eating?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I believe that the public at large would prefer to take advice from the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, than from me. He is right to highlight diet, which is important in lowering the risks of obesity and cardio-vascular disease. That applies not only to people with diabetes, but across the population. I am sure that our forthcoming White Paper will, in dealing with the broad public health issues, take account of the noble Lord's suggestions about diet and, I would add, exercise.
Lord Rea: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that one way of reducing the load on diabetic specialists is to develop proper diabetic clinics in primary care and that the nurses she mentioned should play a major part in running those clinics? Furthermore, perhaps I may put in a plug for the Parliamentary Food and Health Forum, of which I am chair. It is holding a meeting at six o'clock this day week on obesity.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am sure that Members of your Lordships' House will have noted the meeting, just as they note the times of the weigh-ins held by the noble Baroness. Lady Fookes, for those of us who wish to lose a little weight. My noble friend is absolutely right to highlight that a great deal can be done in primary care in terms of the care and education programmes for patients suffering from diabetes. Nurses specialising in diabetes lead education programmes to ensure that colleagues who are general practitioners and practice nurses are equipped to care for patients locally.
Lord Balfour of Inchrye: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for asking those questions. I have an interest in that my wife is an insulin-dependent diabetic. Bearing in mind the expected rise in Type I and Type II diabetes, can the Minister indicate whether plans are in hand not just to increase the number of diabetic
174
nurse specialists but in particular to encourage GPs and practice nurses to take a greater interest in the problems associated with diabetes?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, it is because we want to improve the care for patients who suffer from diabetes that the National Service Framework is being drawn up. In 1997 we issued guidance on key features of a good diabetes service. We want to build on that. The work we have been doing on the National Service Frameworks for coronary heart disease and mental health shows how we can use these as vehicles both for improving the quality of care overall and for improving the access to high-quality care in different parts of the country. The National Service Framework for diabetes will be a step forward in that respect.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, in view of the massive, threefold increase expected in diabetes over the next 10 years, can the Minister say whether the Government will commit to a national screening programme for diabetes? What is the state of current consideration by the National Screening Committee?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, certainly we must look carefully to see whether there is potential for screening programmes both for Type II diabetes and for diabetic retinopathy. The National Screening Committee, chaired by the Chief Medical Officer, is currently considering both those cases. I believe that preliminary advice may well be available at the turn of the year. However, many possible different approaches are being considered. Consideration of Type II diabetes screening is still at an early stage, but we hope to have some progress from the screening committee towards the end of the year.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords—
Lord Carter: My Lords, we are in the 25th minute. I think that we should move on to the last Question.

Sub-surface Underground Lines
3.02 p.m.
Baroness Ludford Baroness Ludford asked Her Majesty's Government:
How a proposal to award a London Transport contract to Railtrack regarding sub-surface underground lines meets the requirements of European Union tendering rules.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, I should stress that no contract has been awarded to Railtrack. My Statement of 15th June signalled the commencement of discussions with Railtrack. The Government's view is that, given the characteristics of the PPP contract and the special position of Railtrack, the negotiations with Railtrack now under way are consistent with the requirements of the EC Utilities Directive.

175
There is no question of our seeking to contravene the EC competition rules. We will keep the position under review as negotiations develop.
Baroness Ludford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. However, in his Statement of 15th June he stated:
"We shall engage in negotiations immediately [with Railtrack] and we hope to conclude them as rapidly as possible".
So, it seems that things are moving on.
I am not convinced by the Answer. Surely, this is a public works contract in the category of building and engineering works which falls under the directive. It was described in his words as being for the purpose of maintenance and upgrading of the sub-surface lines and building links between the undergrounds and national rail lines. Therefore, it is concerned with construction and infrastructure. Surely, only operating services for rail fall outside the directive. I therefore press the point that the EU competition rules should apply.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, clearly the EU competition rules have to be taken into account in relation to any such contracts. However, our understanding is that, because the principal aspects of this contract would come under Part B of the EC Utilities Directive, the full EU competition rules would not apply. If further clarification during negotiations with Railtrack leads us to a different conclusion, we shall have to take different action, but that is our current understanding.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, would it not be more sensible to leave the outcome of these negotiations to London Transport and Railtrack and not involve the European Commission, which, after all, has recently been shown to be one of the most corrupt bureaucracies on the face of the planet?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I appreciate the noble Lord's views on these matters. However, we are bound by treaty to observe the competition rules. The Question raised by the noble Baroness is whether the full tendering procedure would apply in this particular case. Our view is that it would not. If the negotiations were to show that we fell under those rules, I fear we would have to obey them.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord satisfied that the European Union tendering rules are applied evenly among all the other member states?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, this is some way from London Underground. Nevertheless, our information is that the rules are observed at least so far as one can view the tendering procedures. All contracts which fall under those rules are advertised across the European Union. We believe that is the case in all member states. As regards how the contracts are awarded, I would need to return to that, but the rules and procedures are certainly observed.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, irrespective of whether or not this particular contract
176
falls under the rules, which I think is in dispute, is not it desirable to have the best possible contractors to carry out whatever processes need to be carried out on our infrastructure? Is not that better done through a process of open contracting than by negotiations with a single potential partner? Finally, with respect to the other contracts to be let by London Underground, can the Minister assure us that full, open contractual processes will be undertaken within or without the rules of the European Community?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as far as the two other groups of lines are concerned, we intend to submit them for open tender. As concerns Railtrack and the sub-surface lines, we believe that there is considerable potential benefit in terms of services into London to be gained through integrating those lines with the overground lines which Railtrack owns. We are exploring those potential benefits. If they prove to be there, we will negotiate a contract with Railtrack. If they are not, clearly we will deal with this group of lines in the same way as the others.
Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare: My Lords, can the Minister explain why, over the past two years, his department has continually run down Railtrack as a company and then offers it an exclusive contract for London Underground?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I do not believe that the performance of Railtrack requires the Government to run it down. There have been some severe failures in terms of the operation of the infrastructure of what was British Rail. We believe that a number of improvements are now entering into Railtrack's operations. We consider that tighter rules are required in that respect. We shall shortly introduce legislation to achieve that end. Nevertheless, Railtrack is the source of an enormous amount of expertise in this area. There are great potential benefits in integrating the sub-surface lines with other lines which come into London and are currently controlled by Railtrack. It is therefore in the interests of Londoners that we explore such possibilities to the full with Railtrack.

Breeding and Sale of Dogs (Welfare) Bill
3.9 p.m.
Read a third time, and passed.

Road Traffic (Vehicle Testing) Bill
Read a third time, and passed.

Immigration and Asylum Bill
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.

177
Immigration and asylum are among the most sensitive and difficult issues. Decisions in individual cases can mean the difference between life and death. They raise human rights questions and impact directly on the lives of applicants and their families.
We want to uphold this country's long-standing tradition of giving shelter to those who flee persecution. However, there is no doubt that the asylum system is being used by those seeking to evade immigration control. The number of asylum applications has increased 10-fold over the past 10 years. In 1998, nearly 70 per cent of asylum applicants given refugee status or exceptional leave to remain came from just four countries. By contrast, within the next top 30 asylum producing countries, there was a group of 16 countries which accounted for no more than 156 acceptances, or just under 2 per cent of the total acceptances. Together those countries accounted for 13,865 applications in 1998. In other words, there were a number of countries from which very few, if any, applicants could establish their claims.
We have to face those facts and improve the system to protect genuine refugees and to sustain public confidence in our procedures. We have to strike a series of balances. We must speed up the system, but ensure that all applicants have a fair hearing. We must make the system fairer, but minimise the scope for abuse. We must balance a firm immigration control with our strong commitment to human rights and to race equality. The Bill tries to strike those balances. It represents the most radical reform of immigration and asylum law for decades.
Part I of the Bill contains provisions essential to modernise and make flexible the operation of immigration controls. For example, the Bill enables a visa to confer leave to enter which will accelerate procedures at ports. The Home Secretary, as well as immigration officers, will be able to grant or refuse leave to enter. This is aimed at improving the handling of certain types of casework. The provisions will not change the fundamental basis on which our immigration control operates—all arriving passengers will continue to be seen at the port of entry, and will be refused entry if they do not qualify.
It is a fact of life that there will always be some people in the United Kingdom who are not entitled to be here. That may be because they entered illegally or, although they entered legally, their circumstances have changed and they no longer qualify to remain. Part I therefore makes provision for the removal of certain persons from the country. In future, overstayers—those who have overstayed their leave and are here unlawfully—will be liable to administrative removal, not deportation as now. Clause 9 will enable the Dublin convention—which governs the return of asylum seekers to the European Union member state responsible for considering their asylum claim—to operate more effectively. Clause 11—and other provisions in Part VII of the Bill—extend the power to fingerprint certain persons to assist identification and removal: the power to fingerprint asylum seekers was introduced in 1993.
178
This Government are as keenly committed to stamping out racial discrimination as they are to ensuring firm immigration control. Clause 18 therefore re-emphasises to employers their duty to avoid racial discrimination in their recruitment practices when seeking to establish the statutory defence under Section 8 of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996. It places on the Home Secretary a statutory duty to issue a code of practice aimed at ensuring that employers do not breach the provisions of the Race Relations Act 1968.
Your Lordships will be well aware of the recent phenomenon of clandestine entrants emerging from the backs of lorries and other vehicles, sometimes on the hard-shoulder of motorways miles from a port. More than 9,000 clandestine entrants were detected in 1998 compared with under 500 in 1992. Illegal immigration on that scale represents a serious threat to the integrity of control and we are determined to tackle it.
Part II therefore provides for a new civil penalty to apply for each clandestine entrant brought to the United Kingdom concealed in any vehicle, ship or aircraft. The Bill provides for defences, for example, when the responsible person was acting under duress, or for those who can demonstrate that they have an effective system in place for preventing the carriage of illegal immigrants and that it has been properly applied. The Home Secretary must issue a code of practice setting out the procedures that should be followed by road hauliers and others who operate a system to prevent clandestine entrants from using their vehicles, which will be taken into account in determining whether such a system is effective for the purposes of the statutory defence. Part II also replaces, and extends to buses and coaches, the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987 and introduces provisions enabling the detention of transporters as security for payment.
I turn now to the provisions of the Bill which deal with the arrangements for immigration detainees. Part III introduces important new safeguards for immigration detainees. It introduces a more extensive judicial element into the detention process by means of a system of routine bail hearings, but the Government have decided that we should go further. The Government intend to bring forward amendments during the proceedings in this House to provide for a statutory presumption of bail, with exceptions to ensure effective immigration control and enforcement.
Part VIII of the Bill provides a proper statutory framework for all aspects of the management and administration of detention centres and for the escort of detainees. Taken together, the provisions regarding bail and detention centres will provide significant additional safeguards for immigration detainees.
Part IV of the Bill deals with immigration and asylum appeals. Reform of the appeals system is an essential element of our long-term strategy. Appeals have an important part to play in securing a fair system, but the current process is complex, and the existing multiple rights of appeal delay the final resolution of cases. That, uniquely among appeals systems, works to the advantage, not the detriment, of some appellants by

179
enabling those with no legitimate claim to remain in the United Kingdom to manipulate the system and prolong their stay here.
Part IV therefore introduces a one-stop comprehensive appeal which aims to cover in one stage all aspects of a case that carry a right of appeal. When an application is refused, or in certain cases as soon as it is made, the applicant will be invited to set out all the grounds on which he or she wishes to remain in the United Kingdom, including asylum or ECHR grounds. The subsequent appeal will then consider all the factors in the case on which an appeal may be brought. Unless a ground for staying in the United Kingdom has been set out at this stage, it cannot form the basis for an appeal by the applicant unless he had a reasonable excuse for not mentioning it when invited to do so, or, in the case of an asylum claim, provided he is not making the claim solely to delay his removal.
Under Part IV, as a general rule, only persons who are lawfully present at the time they apply for permission to remain longer and where a refusal would require their departure may appeal while remaining in the United Kingdom. Those who are here unlawfully, such as overstayers, will have no right of appeal while they remain in this country, except where they are claiming asylum or ECHR rights. They will be removed under administrative arrangements in accordance with Clause 8.
Part IV also fulfils a manifesto commitment to reinstate a right of appeal to those who are refused a visa for the purpose of a family visit. The previous Government removed that right by the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993. We think that that was wrong. The measure in the 1993 Act caused great resentment in ethnic is minority communities who had relatives living abroad who wished to visit their family here, and Part IV puts that right.
Part V of the Bill fulfils a further commitment in the manifesto; that is, to regulate immigration advisers. There is no place in this country for unscrupulous advisers who prey on the vulnerable for their own profit. Part 5 therefore creates a statutory scheme to regulate both unqualified and, to a degree, legally qualified advisers. It will be a criminal offence, punishable on indictment by up to two years' imprisonment or a fine or both, to provide advice in breach of the scheme. The scheme will not be brought into force in respect of legally qualified advisers unless the Home Secretary and, as appropriate, the Lord Chancellor or Scottish Ministers, consider that the relevant designated professional body has failed effectively to regulate its members who provide immigration advice and services.
The regulation of immigration advisers will be administered by an immigration services commissioner who will have powers to investigate complaints against advisers and to withdraw registration or, in the case of registered and some other advisers, to lay a disciplinary charge. In the interests of fairness there will be an immigration services tribunal to hear any disciplinary charges laid by the commissioner, to which an aggrieved person may appeal against a decision of the commissioner.
I turn now to one of the most important parts of the Bill. Part VI contains provisions for a new national system of support for asylum seekers in genuine need.
180
The current arrangements are chaotic. Under them, cash benefits are available to those who seek asylum at ports of entry until their claim is decided. Beyond that point they are at risk of destitution. Those who apply after entry are also denied benefits and are immediately at risk of destitution. This unacceptable result of the 1996 Act led to intervention by the courts, the result of which is that the burden of supporting asylum seekers has instead fallen on local authorities and that burden has been particularly acute in London and the south-east.
This Government are simply not prepared to see asylum seekers destitute in our country. We are determined to provide support to those in genuine need, but to do so in a way which minimises the incentive to economic migrants who undermine public support for genuine refugees.
Under Part VI, support will be provided completely separately from the main benefits system. The only exception to this will be unaccompanied children, for whom existing arrangements under the Children Act will continue. The new scheme will be administered by the Home Office. Accommodation will be offered to asylum seekers on a no-choice basis. This is no different from what can happen in respect of UK residents who present themselves as homeless, usually because accommodation is more readily available in places outside London and the south-east. None of this is to mean that asylum seekers will be placed in accommodation isolated from other support systems. Accommodation is likely to be in clusters, taking account as far as possible of the support available from existing communities.
Other non-accommodation support will be given partly in vouchers and partly in cash. The Government have decided that the cash element of the non-accommodation support should be £10 per person per week. So a family of two adults and two children, for non-accommodation support, will each week receive £40 cash and just over £50 in vouchers.
A good deal was said elsewhere about the impact of these arrangements on families with children. Those concerns have been responded to. Clause 113 imposes a new duty on the Home Secretary to meet the accommodation and essential living needs of destitute asylum-seeker families with minor children. The assistance they will receive in this way will be comparable to what would otherwise be available in respect of accommodation and essential living needs under Section 17 of the Children Act 1989. All other safeguards for children contained in the Children Act will continue to apply. We will ensure that there is 24-hour cover so families will always have somewhere to turn in an emergency. Nevertheless, the Government are aware of continuing concern about the level of provision for children and I will therefore be giving this further consideration.
As part of our strategy for speeding up the asylum system we have set a target of delivering, by April 2001, most initial asylum decisions within two months and most appeals within a further four months. We have decided that from April 2000 initial asylum decisions on new asylum applications from families with children

181
should be delivered in an average of two months. Average waiting times for appeals are already below four months. Our intention is to maintain this for the future for all categories of cases. If we cannot achieve these targets for families with children, we will not bring these applications into the new support arrangements in April 2000. We will only do so when we are satisfied that the targets for these cases can be met. For those people who remain on the support arrangements for more than six months, through no fault of their own, we shall be introducing an additional discretionary payment to assist with the cost of replacement items they may need.
Part VII concerns immigration officers' powers to arrest and search and extends the power to fingerprint. Effective enforcement is an essential part of a fair and firm immigration control. Under current legislation, immigration officers too often have to rely on a police presence to perform basic low-key enforcement tasks. This is not the best use of police time or immigration service resources. Part VII therefore extends the existing powers of arrest of immigration officers and provides them with powers of search, entry and seizure in respect of immigration offences equivalent to those the police already have. These powers will be subject to safeguards similar to those which cover the police under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act.
Finally, Part IX of the Bill with Clause 20 provides marriage registrars with new powers aimed at tackling abuse of marriage for immigration purposes. The Government are making these provisions to deal with the growing problem of sham marriages being used as a means to circumvent immigration law and immigration rules. Your Lordships will have seen reports in the press about rackets where women settled in the United Kingdom go through marriage ceremonies with a number of different men solely to enable them to remain in the United Kingdom. We believe that these reported cases are probably only the tip of an iceberg.
Clause 20 therefore imposes a new statutory duty on marriage registrars throughout the United Kingdom to report suspected sham marriages for immigration purposes to the Home Office. This builds on the existing informal arrangements. If this new duty is to be effective, registrars need greater powers to establish the identity of parties to a marriage. Part 9 therefore provides power to request evidence of name, age, marital status and nationality. In addition, couples will normally have to give 15 days' notice of marriage and to attend personally to give that notice. The registrar cannot refuse to marry on immigration grounds; he can refuse to marry only where he is not satisfied that the parties are legally free so to marry. There will be a right of appeal in such circumstances to the Registrar General.
These changes in the marriage law are aimed at curbing the abuse of civil marriage for immigration purposes. They do not and cannot in any way affect those who marry in the Church of England or the Church in Wales after ecclesiastical preliminaries; those preliminaries are different and there is no evidence of their abuse. Because they affect all civil preliminaries,
182
they will affect religious marriages after such preliminaries, but are unlikely to cause any difficulties in practice for genuine couples.
By any standards this is a comprehensive reform of immigration and asylum law. It is essential to deliver the fairer, faster, firmer system to which we are committed. It is a large and complex Bill. It is important to get it right. It therefore comes to this House following a wide-ranging process of consultation and scrutiny by a special standing committee in another place.
We have already made a number of amendments to the Bill to reflect points made in that process. For instance, as I said earlier, we will be introducing amendments to provide a statutory presumption of bail. We intend to introduce safeguards on Police and Criminal Evidence Act lines in relation to the powers for immigration officers. We shall be introducing other amendments in relation to provision of additional immigration services, provision of escorts for removals and in relation to Home Office travel documents.
Perhaps I may say, as I have on earlier occasions, that any amendment put forward that is consistent with the purpose of the Bill and sympathetic to its underlying approach will be given open-minded consideration. As I have said in introducing earlier Bills, if any of your Lordships, with or without advisers, wish to see me, with or without officials, the door is open. I repeat, any amendments consistent with the purpose of the Bill and consonant with its underlying spirit will be given fair scrutiny.
What we are looking to, and what we must deliver, is a modern, flexible and streamlined system capable of dealing with the pressures which are constantly growing and the demands that are increasing. It should, if we get it right, serve the interests of all our people; it should, if we get it right, better serve the interests of those entitled to visit or to settle here and the interests of genuine refugees. It will give immigration staff, who are hard pressed, the tools that they need to operate a modern, decent and efficient immigration control system.
Moved, that the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
3.30 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, the background to this Bill is, of course, the problems and, in some respects, the chaos in the immigration and asylum system of this country. As the Minister said, the problems have escalated over the past decade. The previous government were opposed in almost all their efforts to tackle those problems by the then Opposition. But since the general election, it seems to me that the problems have been made worse by the present Government. Their arrival in government sent, by itself, a signal that controls would be relaxed and that the situation would be made easier as far as concerns people in these circumstances. Their early actions and statements reinforced that idea. Flowing from that, the backlog of cases of asylum seekers has increased and the number of applications is at an all-time high. Simultaneously, and for various reasons that we

183
discussed on other occasions, the Croydon Immigration and Nationality Directorate is in a similarly chaotic situation to the Passport Office—and that is saying something!
However, the result has been that the Government have now—rightly, in my view—changed to a tougher approach; indeed, it is tougher in some important respects than the approach of the previous government. That is why there is a need for action and a need for this Bill. We support the aims of the Government in bringing in this legislation; but I emphasis the word "aims". In company with a wide range of organisations whose members have to deal with the situation day by day, we still have great reservations about many of the provisions.
The first aim of the Bill is to speed up the decision-making system. That is certainly a most desirable aim in itself, but it also seems to me to be absolutely crucial to the whole Bill. If the effect of these measures is not to speed up the processes and reduce the tremendous backlog, then other provisions in the Bill will become increasingly draconian. References have been made to a report by Stoy Hayward on the feasibility of meeting these targets. That report was prepared for the Government and was, I believe, due to be delivered to the Home Office about 10 days ago. I am sure that it would be helpful to your Lordships to know what were the conclusions of Stoy Hayward as a result of that study as to whether or not the Government's targets in speeding up the process are likely to be met. As things stand, I think that there is grave doubt about the possibility of achieving those targets.
As the Minister made clear, the Bill sets out to streamline the appeal process with one-stop appeals, and so on. But there are also new opportunities for appeals under the European Convention on Human Rights. These will provide new opportunities for delay for those who have sought in the past, and who still seek, to spin-out the process in their own interests. Partly, I suppose, for these reasons, the Bill also sets out to remove the incentive for delaying an application by cutting down the support that is given to asylum seekers and eliminating it altogether for those who, having failed on appeal, go to judicial review. Incidentally, there seems to be some doubt about how that provision about no support for those going to judicial review stands with the ECHR. But for those who do get support, it will be some 70 per cent of basic income support levels.
The new system of vouchers and accommodation provision is to be organised by a new section of the Home Office within the Immigration and Nationality directorate. I see from the Explanatory Notes to the Bill that the staff proposed for this new organisation will number 300. They will inevitably have to dispense accommodation, vouchers and some cash to tens of thousands of people—indeed, it was about 52,000 at the last count, but obviously the Government hope that that number will be reduced—to the value, initially, of some £350 million a year, which it is hoped will be reduced as the backlog cones down. However, that is an average of more than £1 million of vouchers and
184
accommodation, and so on, a year to be distributed per civil servant employed in this new system. That seems to me to be unlikely—and I put it no stronger—to produce a smooth-running and fair system for dealing with small sums of money, vouchers and accommodation to individuals and families who, by definition, are in a foreign country and who often will speak poor, little or no English, many of whom are among the most traumatised people in the world. Moreover, many of them will have health and psychiatric problems, which will need to be dealt with. It is asking a awful lot of this new agency.
The 300 staff of this new agency will necessarily be distributed all round the United Kingdom. That will be particularly so because of the dispersal policy which is to be followed under the Bill and which I believe is a sensible policy. They will need to provide a 24-hour service, not least to deal with children who turn up needing care, just as local authorities have to do at present. The Minister said—and I welcome this—that the aim would be to provide 24-hour cover; but I do not really see how 300 staff can provide that in every necessary area throughout the country, unless they all sit in relatively few places and use the telephone instead of actually seeing the people concerned and thereby understanding the problems for themselves. So there are real difficulties with such proposals.
It seems to some that this new support system should, therefore, not come into force until the numbers involved have deceased. That is a fair enough point on the surface, but the problem is that these tough new measures are, as I said earlier, a major part of the efforts to bring the numbers down in the first place. So if the tough measures which are supposed to bring down the numbers are not to be implemented until the numbers are down, it is difficult to see how we will ever reach that point.
We shall, of course, want to probe these matters in the later, more detailed debates on the Bill in this House, especially as they relate to children. All refugees are vulnerable, but the children are the most vulnerable. When children come here in these circumstances, it is rarely, if ever, their choice. It may be the parents' choice, but it is not the children's. But the Bill removes from those children the protection of the Children Act 1989, the basic, all-embracing measure for the protection and support of all the children in this country.
One of the other aspects we shall want to probe particularly, both in this context and also wider and covering other provisions, is that of the many provisions throughout the Bill for power to be taken to do things by statutory instrument. We shall obviously want to look carefully at the report of the Delegated Powers Committee when it becomes available. Without information, and indeed undertakings, on the use of the powers and what is intended, it is very difficult to be sure about the effects of the Bill. Everything we say about it must be taken with that caveat.
Clause 1 starts as the Bill means to go on, by giving the Secretary of State power to lay down any conditions for the giving or refusal of entry into the United Kingdom. This has to be done by order, subject to the

185
approval of both Houses, but it is a very sweeping power. The noble Lord the Minister said just now that there was to be no change in the basic immigration rules. If so, one wonders why the power in Clause 1(7) for the Secretary of State to vary conditions of entry is necessary. That is followed by literally dozens of order-making powers right through the Bill, and we shall want to probe the intended use of all those powers and their expected effects.
The noble Lord the Minister ran necessarily rather briefly—I do not complain about it—over all the clauses in the Bill in general terms. As he said, it is a very long and complex Bill. I do not want to refer to all the clauses at this stage; that would delay your Lordships unnecessarily. But the provisions regarding marriage registration; exchange of confidential personal information between agencies; the proposed but still very vague bond scheme; the powers of arrest, search and fingerprinting, to which the Minister referred; the proposals regarding employers: these are all significant matters about which your Lordships will be concerned, and all have attracted adverse comment from relevant bodies.
The detention provisions, too, will need special attention. The detention of children is envisaged as possible; indeed, necessary in some circumstances. But it is not clear whether the normal secure accommodation regulations will be applied to detention centres. It is not clear also to what extent it is proposed to contract out detention. Given the contrasts that were drawn yesterday by the Chief Inspector of Prisons between Wormwood Scrubs and privately run prisons, I can see a great advantage in contracting out in some circumstances, but we do not know at the moment what is intended.
I could not see in the Bill, although from what the Minister said it seems I may have missed something, provision for the proper judicial overview of the decision to detain. In Scotland, at least, it has been suggested that those detained while seeking asylum are to be treated worse than those accused of crimes.
Part V provides for the regulation of immigration advisers. I can support the principle behind this power, but some very pertinent questions have been asked about how it will work and the costs involved to the relevant organisations. We shall need to look at that. I am not clear also whether a Member of another place will in future be forbidden to give any advice to constituents on immigration matters. I presume not, but I am not sure how he or she will be able to do that under the Bill. The same applies to organisations like the citizens advice bureaux. Not all their staff, presumably, will be able to give advice under the Bill.
There is also great concern, as the noble Lord the Minister acknowledged, about the liability provisions for carriers in Part II, and in particular the consequences for lorry drivers. Most lorry drivers are law-abiding people who want to do their job properly and conscientiously, but the Bill seems to start from the opposite assumption. Again there is some vagueness,
186
but the provisions for fines, confiscation and codes of practice are a matter of concern.
The main problem is one of blame. Is the lorry driver really to blame if there are clandestine immigrants in a container owned by one company, on a trailer owned by another, when he is in the tractor owned by a third company, presumably his own employer, and he then collects the trailer and container, and incidentally the clandestine immigrants within, from a depot or park in France? If he later discovers, on the journey, on arrival or whatever, that, say, a family of four is on board, what is he to do? He can either say, "I have discovered these people", in which case there is an automatic fine of £8,000 on him plus, I think, £8,000 on his employer, and the possible confiscation of the lorry, which will not make him popular. That does not seem a sensible arrangement to put in the Bill.
No one can object to the principles of fairer, faster and firmer, which are the aims of this legislation, as set out originally in the White Paper and subsequently, but there is great concern about how the Bill will work. We all want the same thing. It is a very difficult and complex area of policy, as the noble Lord the Minister said in almost his first words. But we all want to admit genuine asylum seekers and legitimate immigrants with the maximum toleration and humanity. We all want to refuse those who try to enter illegally, or overstay, as promptly as possible, consistent with fairness. But there is room for grave doubt whether the Bill will achieve those aims.
I therefore welcome the Minister's policy, which he stated, of looking carefully at all amendments, and we shall do our best to give him something to consider.
3.48 p.m.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, immigration and asylum issues are fairly emotive matters. Let me make it clear that no one, least of all we on this side of the House, advocates an open door policy. Despite the nature and effects of various immigration and asylum legislation, the circumstances surrounding it remain contentious. Every country has a right to determine its immigration and asylum policy. That cannot be disputed. Those policies will command more respect if control procedures are manifestly seen to be fair.
During the debate on the Queen's Speech I said that we would scrutinise the proposed legislation carefully. We want to ensure that fairness has not been sacrificed in favour of a firmer and faster policy. I have some sympathy for the Government. They inherited a situation which was in a shambles. The heavy emphasis on excluding the ineligible, rather than giving prompt attention to the rights of those who are eligible, led to administrative practices which result in an adverse effect on asylum seekers in this country. The result was for all to see. The current system is in disarray and in a mess. There are thousands of applications awaiting determination and a similar number awaiting appeals.

187
In July 1991 the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees stated:
"the protection which is owed to refugees under the 1951 UN Convention on Refugees may be rendered meaningless if persons in search of protection and assistance are unable to reach the territories of States party to this convention".
We believe that Part II of the Bill is a barrier to human rights protection. It seeks to prevent those at risk of persecution from fleeing from their persecutors. Almost all avenues of entry are now closed. It does this by penalising the airlines or lorry drivers who may unwittingly bring the victims of persecution to the United Kingdom. We find it unacceptable that these agencies should be forced to act as immigration officers. How, I ask the Minister, can a genuine asylum seeker, too frightened to obtain appropriate documents in his own country, enter the United Kingdom in order to seek refuge from persecution? It may sound too emotive, but the controls we are introducing would have penalised men such as Oscar Schindler for saving people from death. The Bill as a whole emphasises exclusion, control and removals. Such an approach ignores the fact that a proportion of today's refugees will be tomorrow's citizens and will make a valuable contribution to the economic development of the United Kingdom. The case of over 28,000 Ugandan Asians is a good example.
The message that seems to permeate from the various clauses is that immigration and asylum seekers are devious and dishonest and that their reasons for coming to the United Kingdom, or attempting to do so, are unmeritorious. The effect of such a message is clear. It has led to false, misleading and lurid press reports of immigration issues which, according to the Commission for Racial Equality, incite fear and xenophobia thus damaging race relations. We already have a situation where housing providers, health authorities, the Benefits Agency and employers are expected to check immigration status. Research has shown that when aspects of immigration control are handed to other agencies, people from ethnic minorities suffer unjustifiable attention, delay and unfair decisions about their entitlements. My noble friend Lord Russell will have more to say about welfare and support provisions in this Bill.
This Bill has implications about racial discrimination in employment. In opposition the Labour Party recognised that Section 8 of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 would place,
"a dangerous and impractical burden on employers"
and create an,
"incentive not to hire black staff or people with foreign sounding names".
The Labour Party pledged to repeal this provision. The retention by the Government of Section 8 of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 is the most disappointing indication of their commitment to racial equality. There is no evidence that Section 8 has provided an effective deterrent to illegal working or racketeering. What it has done is to increase the cost to employers and to add to the barriers which genuine applicants face. The opinion
188
of the CRE, the TUC, the CBI and the Federation of Small Businesses is that Section 8 should be repealed. There is already a provision that those who flout immigration controls in this context commit serious offences for which they could be prosecuted.
Clause 20 and Part IX provide a major rewriting of the powers and duties of registrars of marriage in order to bring aspects of immigration control within their statutory duties. We all object to sham marriages designed to avoid immigration controls. The duty places an inappropriate burden on public officials. There is also a danger of a practice of indirect discrimination by the exclusion of the established Churches on the ground that religious preliminaries already provide sufficient safeguards against abuse. The Government have already explained what a "sham" marriage is, but this will require regular training on the content of current immigration law and rules for those who are asked to implement them. Stereotyping will, of course, influence judgments and it will be people from the African, Caribbean and Indian subcontinent whose marriage plans will be disrupted while they prove that their marriage is genuine. It took a long time for the Government to get rid of the primary purpose rule, which affected genuine marriages. Let us hope that the new measure does not discriminate against genuine relationships.
The Bill gives immigration officers powers to arrest a person for a list of immigration offences. It also gives them wide powers to enter and search, including premises of family and employers, to look for evidence of any of these offences. New powers include personal search on arrest, and strip search if the person is detained at a police station. Immigration officers, police constables, prison officers, officers authorised by the Home Secretary and staff of private contractors who manage detention centres are all authorised to take fingerprints of immigrants or asylum seekers in a range of circumstances, most of which do not involve illegality. Reasonable force can be used by anyone authorised (Clauses 132 and 133) in the taking of fingerprints.
Immigration officers will not have had the same training or experience in the use of arrest and search powers or the appropriate use of force. Unlike the police, the Immigration Service is not directly accountable to a public authority. While the Government have announced a strengthening of the Immigration Service complaints procedure, currently it is little used and not equipped to respond to the types of complaints likely to arise when immigration officers take on new coercive powers. Private contractors have no public accountability and are unlikely to give their staff race equality training or to operate a complaints procedure. Concern has already been expressed about this and the Government have agreed to make sure that the provisions of the relevant part of the PACE codes of practice will apply. But much more than that is needed; namely, appropriate training such as police officers now receive in the implementation of PACE.

189
The Bill is a matter of concern to many bodies working on immigration and asylum matters. It provides that the Secretary of State may "make regulations" or,
"may by order make further provision",
or in
"such circumstances as may be specified",
and so on. In many areas the details are missing, as was rightly pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley. The Immigration Law Practitioners Association has identified over 70 areas where there is no such detail. None of us can be confident that we will have more efficient and effective machinery. The situation—and I avoid mentioning the Passport Agency—in Croydon has been a scandal for most of this year. There are complaints about inaccessible files, unopened post and massive delays. The immigration and asylum appeals system is chaotic. The Bill does little to improve it. It fails to rectify the injustice whereby many people have no right of appeal before expulsion, and indeed removes such a right from people who have it now. With certification it retains the complex two-tier system of asylum appeals. There is, however, a right of appeal for some visitors refused visas. Practitioners need to be convinced that the appeals system will become more efficient and effective. On the basis of their briefing material this is unlikely.
The removal of rights of appeal against expulsion will lead to injustice and to continued unfounded applications for asylum because there will be no other way to have cases considered. However, I welcome the commitments made by Mike O'Brien in the other place. We now look forward to revised rules to ensure that all the factors such as age, length of residence here, family ties and compassionate circumstances will be considered before a deportation decision is made. Before the 1997 elections the Labour Party promised that each applicant would be given swift, individual attention and would be guaranteed a proper and effective right of appeal. The Bill does not necessarily provide this.
We welcomed the provision in the Bill about unscrupulous advisers and the Government's intention to regulate previously unregulated advisers. What we want now is some remedy to address the problem of an inadequate supply of good quality immigration advice. Bodies such as the Immigration Advisory Service, the Refugee Council, the Refugee Legal Centre and many others are working under severe pressure. It is in the Government's interest to ensure that assistance to such bodies will assist in improving the system. We ask that the Immigration Services Commissioner should be properly accountable. Simply preparing a report himself on his own effectiveness is not good enough.
There are obviously certain issues which are not addressed in the Bill. There is likely to be a devastating impact on women and children fleeing rape and other violence. It is estimated that a substantial number of women seeking asylum have been raped, and yet rape is not recognised as persecution and therefore grounds for asylum. There is a need to be compassionate.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, in looking at the whole area of advice, does the noble Lord agree that it
190
is extremely important that people—and there are too many of them—who are prepared to take advantage of those who are in desperate need of advice should be legislated against most effectively where they take serious advantage of such people? Does the noble Lord recognise that this is a serious problem which has been long neglected and which requires attention in the Bill?
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, certainly I welcome that particular provision. A long time ago I put a question to the Minister about that matter. Unfortunately, to date there has not been a single prosecution brought against any such unscrupulous immigration adviser. I hope that the Bill will contain such a provision.
The matter of bail and detention provisions in the Bill will be addressed by my noble friend Lord Avebury. Needless to say, we currently detain some thousands of people each year for varying periods of time, in some cases for two years or more. Those of us who followed the passage of the Bill in the other place took note that the Government committed themselves to consider several issues raised by the Members of the Standing Committee. I do not see evidence of such amendments included in the Bill before us; nor do I ask the Minister to respond now to the issues I am about to raise, but it will be helpful at some stage if he could reply to some of the points.
The Government agreed to consider whether the role of the independent monitor might be extended to cover broader issues, such as the operation of the bond scheme in compliance with race relations legislation, as well as the refusal of entry clearance.
The Government agreed to introduce a statutory presumption in favour of bail for detained asylum seekers. The Government agreed to consider an amendment which seeks equality with the Bail Act for the second bail hearing. This would mean that the second bail hearing would be a full one, in which the same points as those made in the first hearing could be repeated, as well as additional ones. The Government agreed to consider an amendment that would ensure that someone arrested in relation to breaking bail conditions would be brought before the court within 24 hours rather than "as soon as practicable".
The Government have undertaken to reconsider the composition of the immigration appeal tribunal; amendments have been tabled pressing for three members rather than one. The Government agreed to consider bringing forward an amendment so that Clauses 6 and 47 come into force at the same time. This would mean that removals under Clause 6 would not begin before those involved could challenge the removal as being unlawful under the Human Rights Act. The Government said that the 14-day move-on period may need more flexibility. All these are matters which were promised in the other place, but we see no evidence of them in the Bill.
The Government are considering making funds available to support asylum seekers who are unremovable because of the conditions in their country of origin, or for those who have been granted leave to move for judicial review. A commitment in this area is important.

191
There are, of course, other issues of concern. The Government's plan to channel resources into making decisions on families with children within the target times is likely to lead to single adult asylum seekers having to wait much longer for their decisions. There is a large backlog of cases at the Immigration and Nationality Department, the great majority of which precede the reorganisation; for example, there are currently more than 100,000 cases in the IND's casework in progress store, many of which are five years old. The problems are neither temporary nor superficial. Even the unions representing IND staff are sceptical that the caseworking programme will deliver the efficiencies intended.
There is some good in the Bill, but it is far outweighed by the restrictive range of measures I have identified. The Bill has sacrificed fairness. We are left with a fast and firm method of dealing with asylum and immigration matters. I do not believe that the Bill will deliver these objectives.
4.3 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark: My Lords, there are many elements in this Bill which those of us in the Church who have first-hand experience of working with refugees and asylum seekers welcome, not least the commitment to faster decision-making and the ending of some of the present confusion where different local authorities respond to providing support in very different ways. But I also feel duty bound to bring to the attention of your Lordships the widespread and deep misgivings which are felt about several aspects of the Bill, and particularly about Part VI and its provisions for support. We are not at all sure that the Bill has successfully achieved the number of sensitive balances to which the Minister referred earlier.
It perhaps should be said that we in the Church are very much an interested party. In my own diocese, which covers most of south London, the Church has either refugee centres or centres for the homeless in more than half the boroughs—indeed, there is such a centre within a hundred yards of where I live in Streatham—and my colleagues and I have ample opportunity to speak directly with many asylum seekers and those who seek to assist them.
Indeed, yesterday afternoon I met a young Ugandan woman, heavily pregnant, who had fled with her three children from a situation where all the members of her family had been killed. Deeply traumatised, she has been placed in a small furnished flat in the borough of Sutton. Fortunately, she is receiving help and advice from a local refugee charity, which has helped her to obtain basic furniture, yet even it has been unable, after three months, to find a place in a local school for her eight year-old daughter. She is not an economic migrant but a fellow human being in deep despair. I know from my own personal experience that there are many, many like her.
We in the Church then are an interested party because we are already involved. We can be absolutely sure that if there are flaws in the proposed legislation, the consequence will be more people like broken packages showing up on our vicarage doorsteps and church halls.
192
What are some of our misgivings? It is widely recognised that the withdrawal of entitlement to benefits since 1996 for large numbers of asylum seekers has caused enormous hardship. Had it not been possible for local authorities to resort to the National Assistance Act 1948 there is no doubt that thousands of asylum seekers would have been absolutely destitute. It was thanks only to a series of judgments, some of which were given by noble Lords, that even that Act was allowed to be used.
Under the proposals in the Bill before us, the National Assistance Act will no longer be able to be used to provide support for asylum seekers. It must be admitted that the Act was never designed to be the last resort, let alone the main means of support, for asylum seekers. But many of those who have been working with asylum seekers had expected something better in its place. Having seen the Bill in its present form, they feel disappointed.
The concerns are well known. The Bill does not provide a statutory guarantee that asylum seekers who are "destitute or likely to become destitute" will be given assistance commensurate with that given to UK citizens who rely on the benefits system for support. The Bill would allow the present and subsequent Home Secretaries to determine the amount of support at whatever level they saw fit. We have been told that initially this will be set at some 70 per cent of the normal benefit rates. Yet even the normal benefit rates have recently been demonstrated to fall short of people's actual needs and expenses. This has been convincingly set out in two reports, Low Cost but Acceptable and Low Cost but Just, which have been promoted by the Zacchaeus Trust and which were lauded by the late Cardinal Hume at their launch last month.
Seventy per cent of what is already an inadequate figure—much of which is to be provided in vouchers not cash—would seem to be a recipe for hardship. One cannot exchange vouchers for cassava or sweet potatoes in a northern supermarket; one can buy them for modest amounts of cash in Peckham market.
The Bill withdraws from children seeking asylum—and indirectly from their parents or guardians—the rights currently afforded to them by the much praised Children Act 1989. Thanks to the protection of the Children Act, they are now eligible to receive cash payments. If the Bill is passed in its present form, they will not. As I understand it, children in families, as well as adults, are to be transferred to the voucher system, with all the shame and stigma that that can involve and which would be so acutely felt by children in particular.
The Children Act spells out a whole range of rights designed to put the welfare of the child first. If the Bill proceeds in its present form, most of those rights will go. Of course, Home Secretaries will be required to ensure that those needs are addressed, but there will be little statutory guidance to ensure that they are clearly identified and treated as rights. The assurance that the Minister gave us earlier in the debate that he will give further attention to the needs of children is welcome and I hope that the outcome satisfies those most concerned with the welfare of children, as we all should be.

193
However, in general the Bill deliberately offers assistance at a level known to be less than adequate, in a manner known to be humiliating and according to a criterion known to be indiscriminate. Deterrence is a major objective. The restrictions will apply to anyone seeking asylum, regardless of the manifest merits of their case. Because some people abuse the system, all must pay the price. Were we to adopt such an approach in allowing our citizens access to the health service, our schools or the benefits system, we would rightly feel ashamed. By what right, then, do we use a different standard for people seeking asylum? It is maintained that the admittedly less than perfect arrangements are bearable because the cases of asylum seekers will be dealt with swiftly and successful families and individuals will then benefit from the full system of support and protection.
Knowing the problems that the Home Office has had with processing asylum applications, particularly the major problems with the computing systems at Croydon in my diocese, I have grave doubts that it will be successful in its aspirations. If there are no amendments to the Bill, asylum seekers could find themselves under the system of a voucher economy for years, not months. We would wish to support any amendment that lessens this risk. We welcome the Minister's assurance that the new support arrangements will not be implemented for families with children until the desirable target has been achieved, but we would wish this sensible decision to extend to all asylum seekers.
Then there is the question of accommodation. The Bill reflects a desire to relieve the mounting pressure on London's local authorities. That is understandable, but we must question whether the problem is best solved by the Bill's proposal to require asylum seekers to go to any part of the country to which they may be sent without regard to any choice on their part or the risk that support from specialised charities, such as that to which I referred earlier assisting the young mother from Uganda, will not be available. With no specialised help on hand and no cash with which to travel to find it, vulnerable people will be even more confused than at present.
I have confined my remarks to Part VI of the Bill, but I must express concern about the attitude underlying most of the provisions—that of crude deterrence. I share the disappointment of many Christians working with asylum seekers that, by adopting such an approach, we seem to give more credence to those who perhaps exaggerate the real problem of abuse than to the sufferings of those who have fled persecution and to the contribution that such people can make to the country granting them asylum.
Before my appointment to Southwark I had the privilege to serve for seven years as Bishop of Leicester—a city whose economic and cultural life was enhanced dramatically by the arrival in the early 1970s of tens of thousands of Asian asylum seekers from Idi Amin's Uganda. Asylum seekers need not always add to the problems of society; they can be part of the
194
solution by helping to create a prosperous and just community. I would like to see something of that understanding reflected in the Bill before it leaves your Lordships' House.
4.14 p.m.
Lord Warner: My Lords, despite some of the comments made by previous speakers, I support the Bill. I do so from a perspective of having seen from within the Home Office how badly the immigration and asylum system needs a complete overhaul. I was also director of social services in Kent for six years and I have seen how the weaknesses of the present system have placed an unfair burden on that county and many London boroughs. The Bill is ambitious in scope, but the Government are right to undertake a comprehensive modernisation of the immigration and asylum system. The piecemeal attempts at reform under the previous government with the 1993 and 1996 Acts have not worked. Indeed, the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 was the cause of many of our present problems.
The Government's White Paper made the case for reform. It demonstrated how the present system is too complex and has failed to keep pace with the increasing volume of people seeking entry to this country as a result of turmoil in various parts of the world, economic migration and easier global travel. Paragraph 3.1 of the White Paper summarised well the problems that we face and it bears brief repetition. It says:
"Despite the professionalism and dedication of staff at all levels, the complexity of some rules, too many outdated procedures and chronic under-investment make it increasingly difficult for the system to deal quickly with those entitled to enter or remain and to deal firmly with those who are not".
That situation has not arisen in the two years since the present Government came to office. It arises from the failure to tackle the problem effectively before 1997. Immigration and asylum today present some uncomfortable problems and truths for us all. Although there are many genuine asylum seekers whom we should do our best to help, there are also thousands of economic migrants seeking a better life in this country and the rest of western Europe. We need robust immigration controls if we are to preserve social harmony in this country and avoid serious social disruption and problems in some of our communities. We have to strike a balance between the needs of asylum seekers and those of many of the disadvantaged groups living in our communities. We tend to lose sight of that fact.
It is worth reflecting on the fact that if the present number of asylum applications were accepted on a continuing basis over the next decade and people were allowed to settle in London we would be accommodating the equivalent of two to three new London boroughs within a decade. That would impose tremendous pressures on many of the people living in those communities now.
It is also worth bearing in mind that the Dublin convention—signed, if I may say so, by the previous government in 1990—has not worked well and has led to a game of pass the parcel with asylum seekers who are undocumented or who will not provide information

195
that would establish whether another EU state is responsible for them.
A whole new industry has grown up around immigration and asylum over the past two decades. Some of that industry is an exploitative trade in human beings and human misery. There are some worthy successors to the slave traders of the 18th century now charging people fur clandestine entry, bogus marriages and ways of cheating the system or controlling entry. Immigration and asylum work is now an important part of the functions and earnings of the legal profession. Not surprisingly, some parts of that new industry do not like the changes that the Government are proposing. We have to bear in mind that some of those interests are vested as well.
The Bill is a managerial piece of legislation, but I believe that it is all the better for that. It recognises that immigration and asylum require better rules, better processes and better systems. It attempts to tackle the never-ending process of appeals that has grown up, with an excessive use of judicial review. The Bill is buttressed by the managerial changes that the Government are putting in place, which will be the key to its success. The new case working system in the Home Office has got off to a bad start, but it is delivering much-needed higher productivity in decision-making. The increasing expenditure and staffing will improve matters further—although I suspect that the Treasury will have to accept the need for further investment. I welcome the commitment by the Home Secretary to firm time targets for decision on appeals for asylum seekers, for without adherence to those the system will sink back into chaos. The new asylum support directorate promises the prospect of far better arrangements for supporting asylum seekers provided it is adequately funded, staffed and managed.
Better arrangements for supporting asylum seekers are long overdue. The Government deserve congratulations on grasping the nettle and tackling the mess they inherited. Part VI of the Bill needs to be considered against the situation the Government are trying to deal with. We can all feel enormous sympathy for genuine asylum seekers uprooted from their homes by fear of torture and death in their own countries. But large numbers of those claiming asylum today across western Europe are not those for whom the 1951 convention was designed. A large proportion are economic migrants seeking a better standard of living than is available to them in their own countries. As my noble friend the Minister pointed out, there has been a 10-fold increase in the annual number of asylum applicants in the past decade. That is a rise from about 4,000 a year to 45,000 a year.
It is worth reflecting on some of the nationalities that submitted claims for asylum in 1998. Among the countries from each of which over 1,000 applications were received were Sri Lanka, the former Soviet Union, Pakistan, India, China, Poland and Romania. Nearly a third of all applications came from those seven countries, but the percentage of applicants recognised as refugees
196
from each of those seven countries was 3 per cent or less. Yet from some countries such as Afghanistan, Iraq and Somalia—
Earl Russell: My Lords, can the noble Lord explain to the House why, from a similar sample of refugees, the proportion recognised as legitimate in Canada is so dramatically different from what it is in this country?
Lord Warner: My Lords, I cannot explain what has gone on in Canada. I have not studied the situation there. I sought to demonstrate the contrast between what has happened in relation to applications from particular countries and what has happened in relation to Afghanistan, Iraq and Somalia. From those three countries we accepted as refugees over 90 per cent of the applications. I suggest that those statistics make it clear that we are able to recognise genuine asylum seekers and distinguish them from those whose claims are not well founded. We must face up to the fact that a large proportion of applications for asylum are not well founded and that we need robust systems that deter—I do not shrink from using that word—the growth of such applications.
Much has been made of the fact that the Government will not restore entitlement to social security benefits for asylum seekers while their applications are being determined. Social security benefits are for those who have established a right to be here, which applicants for asylum clearly have not. That seems to me a principled position and one that most taxpayers, who fund non-contributory social security benefits, can understand. Nearly nine out of 10 asylum seekers are single people without dependants; over three-quarters are male; and two-thirds are aged between 21 and 34. Making social security cash benefits available as of right to asylum seekers in that group will act as a considerable pull factor. We cannot run away from that fact. The evidence when the Conservatives changed the benefit rules demonstrated that. We shall simply collect more unfounded applications and that will make it more difficult for us to deal with genuine asylum seekers, especially those with families. We shall also give encouragement to those who operate internationally to organise the trade in human cargo.
I believe that the Government had no option but radically to reform the system of support for asylum seekers. Councils such as Kent and the London boroughs have been left with an unfair burden. There have been considerable disparities in the treatment of asylum seekers according to where they have ended up. In addition, we have seen the indigenous homeless of some London boroughs dispersed from London because all the spare accommodation has been taken up by asylum seekers. Social unrest has reared its head in some areas as a result of tensions between new arrivals and the home population.
Dispersing asylum seekers out of London in cluster areas where they can be properly accommodated and supported has to be the right policy. There is more spare accommodation outside London and we should make use of it. It will be impossible to make a dispersal policy stick if people can simply drift back to London without

197
any consequences. I believe it is right that the asylum support directorate should provide and pay for housing for asylum seekers. That seems to me preferable to using housing benefit and private landlords, with all the scope for serious fraud and abuse that that would present.
Like many others, I have been uneasy about some of the arrangements proposed for accompanied children. I have never been a particular fan of vouchers, whether for disposing of beef mountains or for use in connection with asylum seekers. There is a strong counter-argument that, used with single people, they can deter unfounded asylum applications. I welcome the decision of the Home Secretary to increase the balance between cash payments and vouchers, especially for families with children. As my noble friend the Minister indicated, we now have a situation in which a family of two adults with two children will receive cash payments of £40 a week alongside £50 in vouchers, as well as—and this has often been lost sight of—the asylum support directorate paying for accommodation, water, heating, lighting, cooking, furnishing and domestic equipment and travel to asylum interviews. Those are much better arrangements than now, especially in the context of the new fast-track processing arrangements proposed by the Home Secretary from April 2000 under which initial decisions on families with children will be made within two months and the changes will not be introduced until those targets have been achieved, as the Minister indicated. We shall have to monitor closely how the new arrangements work in practice. But we should not be afraid to grasp this opportunity to seek improvements.
Finally, I welcome the decision of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary to introduce amendments to make it clear that he will be under a duty to meet the accommodation and essential living needs of destitute families in a way that is comparable with the duty on local authorities under Section 17 of the Children Act 1989. That is a significant safeguard, which many people concerned with the welfare of children wanted to see.
This is a well constructed Bill, producing much needed reform. I hope that we can give it a constructive passage through the House.
4.27 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, Britain has a long-standing practice of receiving people from all parts of the world at times of crisis. That tradition of help for those in need has saved many lives over the centuries. Although refuge has been given without thought of return, it has not been an unrewarded generosity. This country has benefited from the different skills, energies and ideas that have been brought here by different cultural groups over the years.
The time was when Britain had open doors—I arrived as a typical Australian dentist, in the 1950s. I came for six months. I am still here. There are many residents in the United Kingdom today in just the same position. Because of when we came, we have a right of abode and are not affected by changing immigration laws. Although I personally am not directly affected, my
198
family most certainly is, as are all Australians. None of my Australian-born relatives could simply arrive here now in the way that I did.
Controls have been introduced, and some of them are very tough—as they are now in all parts of the world. There are much greater restrictions on entry into Australia than there are here.
I welcome the introduction in Clause 1, under the rubric "Leave to enter", of subsection (2)(b) which anticipates new technological developments and would allow the use of smart cards. It is my hope that such a system might be able to make some special concession for a small group of Commonwealth citizens who feel, I believe justifiably, that the contribution that they have made is not valued. I am referring to World War II veterans, who were most upset by having to get visas to visit the VE Day celebrations. In letters to me they emphasised that they were now an ageing group and did not feel that it would be easy for them to wait in queues for clearance at the airport. I contacted the Home Office at the time, and special arrangements were made to ease their entry. They later sent notes of appreciation, but the resentment lingers. They were prepared to give their lives for Britain: surely there could be some easier access when they wish to visit.
As I said, they are a declining number and many of them will never come again, but I mention this at the beginning of my speech because that is where it arises in the Bill. I am hoping that the smart card technique might be able to do something for that very small number of veterans.
Long before I took my seat in your Lordships' House in 1981, I took a keen interest in each immigration or nationality Act and for this reason I am very aware of the genuine anxieties raised in the minds of those who are new to this country or who wish to come here. I was a member of my local community relations committee and I heard about, and shared, many of these worries. As time passed, it became clear that many of the alarms were false alarms. Anxieties caused by scaremonger tactics are very unfair. I hope that the Government will make every effort to allay unnecessary worries and be very clear as to what the Bill is intended to do.
There are a number of very genuine anxieties and, as a woman, I must draw the Minister's attention to the need to recognise rape as a legitimate reason for women to seek asylum. Women who have been raped have been victims of violence in one of its most terrifying forms. As UK representative on the UN Status of Women Commission, I was one of a small group studying confidential communications. Violence against women, particularly sexual violence, in detention and at times of armed conflict was the most common complaint to that commission from all parts of the world. This should be acknowledged and not ignored.
Another genuine anxiety is that an asylum seeker's application will be prejudiced by a health problem. There have always been powers to have medical checks carried out and I think it is important that these should be done, wherever there is any question. I recall, as a local authority health committee chairman, that a new

199
immigrant who presented at the chest clinic with active tuberculosis was found to have already infected 15 other people after his arrival in London only weeks earlier.
The incidence of HIV infection is very high among some ethic groups in the United Kingdom. I quote from a paper from the Terrence Higgins Trust:
"almost 80 per cent of infected women and the majority of infected babies and children in the United Kingdom are African".
It is in their interest that this infection is detected early, so as to protect contacts and to provide the necessary treatment. Having sat as a member of the AIDS inquiry panel last year, I am aware of the special sensitivities of this issue and of the stigma that attaches, particularly within the African community, to being diagnosed as HIV positive. I am also aware that many who gave evidence to us had no idea that they were infected and had no thought of applying for a test. This issue must be handled sensitively but it is essential to stop the spread of this terrible disease, and diagnosis is just a first step. I cannot accept the argument that it is right for people to conceal their condition for fear of discrimination. Information and education on this matter are required to remove this concern.
Wherever asylum seekers are settled, adequate social and health services must be provided, and can be. I recall the time when these services did not exist in London: now we take them for granted. The right reverend Prelate referred to the fact that you cannot buy cassava in some parts of the north of England, but I remember the time when you could not buy it in London. All these foods appear wherever there is a market for them to be bought, and I have no doubt that if people were settled in some other part of England, the foods that they like would appear there very rapidly.
There is huge resentment in this country as regards illegal immigrants and overstayers, and rightly so. I think it is a good provision in the Bill that appeal for extension will only be applied within the legal period in the United Kingdom. Presumably some time will be allowed for existing overstayers to come forward, and information should be made widely available to enable them to do that, so they would be within any time limit to apply for consideration of their cases. An Australian journalist told me that there are an estimated 40,000 Australian overstayers here. There must be even greater numbers from many other countries with larger populations.
I welcome the clampdown on unscrupulous immigration advisers and those trafficking in human misery, charging people their life savings, and more, to bring them here illegally and thus condemning them to living in the shadows in this country. I also welcome the restrictions on judicial review which have been so abused in their use as a delaying tactic.
The bond scheme, for family visitors is a good one and I wonder whether, in terms of those cases where detention might apply—not family visitors but other cases of detention—the Minister has considered the possible use of a tagging system in lieu of detention. Would this be appropriate? I heard the Minister say that finger-printing is not new as it was introduced in 1993, which I had not appreciated.
200
However, I am strongly in favour of identity cards. I am convinced that they would remove many of the concerns and fears of discrimination that exist. This subject was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, and really I think we should all have identity cards.
When we read in the press that so many surplus houses are available for sale in Salford, that the price is very low—£2,000 was quoted—it is clear that there is accommodation available in other parts of the country. If asylum seekers are placed in such homes, they will need to have the support of those who understand their cultural background and needs, but they could provide good homes and settled communities. I must make a plea here for one of the services to be provided to these people to be the teaching of English as a language. It is much easier for anyone to live in the United Kingdom if he or she has at least some knowledge of the language. I am quite amazed at the number of housing benefit cases there are—people who have lived in this country for years without any employment, without any occupation, and yet they have never attempted to learn a single word of English.
We must avoid the drift back to London which has caused such pressure on local authorities in the capital. I think that subsections (1) and (2) of Clause 87 are very clear and good. I support them, but I am rather upset by Clause 87(3), which seems to wriggle out of subsections (1) and (2) because it says that by order everything in subsections (1) and (2) could be amended. As I say, I thoroughly applaud subsections (1) and (2). I am worried about subsection (3) and I hope that the Minister can reassure me that the first two subsections will not be thrown out.
As I say, we must avoid the drift back to London, which has caused such pressure on local authorities in the capital. How can that be done? ID cards would be one answer. Another would be to have a number of compatriots in the area so that people would not feel alone and would want to stay in the place they had gone to. We all oppose "ghettoisation", but newcomers to a country find comfort and reassurance in being with others of the same background. I have never lived in Earls Court, but it used to be "kangaroo valley". Before that it was "little Poland". As a dentist, I worked in Aldgate East, which was then intensely Jewish. Now it is Bangladeshi, and indeed the kosher restaurant has gone.
Past records show that not all asylum seekers need help or are genuine and it is essential that the help we give is given to the genuine asylum seekers. It is important to identify bogus claimants. Local London authorities have continuing worries about matters that are not clear in the Bill. Those matters are: what is the position of asylum applicants already accommodated by London local authorities? What is the long-term resettlement position of such people? The biggest problem is that one-third of them are now drifting back to London. What is the position with regard to asylum seekers who have exhausted all appeals? The greatest concern of all relates to the cost and care implications with regard to unaccompanied children and young adults because of the ongoing responsibility until they reach

201
the age of 18. Councils are concerned that the proposed grant rates do not match their obligations and the cost of caring adequately for those unaccompanied children.
In conclusion, I am pleased that the Minister said that there will be opportunities to discuss such matters. This is a good Bill and I commend it to the House.
4.40 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, it may be a good Bill, but it is certainly a large and complex Bill, as the Minister said, and it needs your Lordships' careful attention. That is particularly so given that at the end of Report stage in another place the Government tabled a whole raft of amendments which were guillotined and not discussed at all. That is wholly unprecedented on such a major piece of immigration legislation. Therefore, we have a special duty to pay close attention, as the Minister put it, to the provisions in the Bill and especially to those amendments which were introduced at the very last moment in another place and those which, even now, have not seen the light of day.
My noble friend Lord Dholakia referred to those amendments. They include the promise to consider extending the role of the independent monitor appointed to monitor refusals of entry where there is no right of appeal, so that he or she could also look at broader issues such as the operation of the bond scheme and compliance with race relations legislation. My noble friend did not mention the undertaking to bring forward an amendment to bring what are now Clauses 8 and 55 into operation at the same time, so that a person who is to be removed without right of appeal can challenge the removal as unlawful under the Human Rights Act. There are three important promises about bail, with which I shall deal in a moment.
We all agree with the objectives set out in the White Paper, Fairer, Faster and Firmer, and that we should seek, among other things, to ensure that asylum seekers have their applications reviewed promptly, fairly and efficiently, so that people who are escaping from persecution and tyranny have the opportunity to start a new life as soon as possible, and to refuse equally promptly those who are simply using the asylum system to come here and enjoy the economic benefits of life in Britain.
As the Minister mentioned, a large number of people do come here and apply for asylum, and not all of them are properly qualified. There has to be a system for examining claims, and testing them against the criteria of the refugee convention. Only a small proportion of the applicants are detained, but even so, hundreds are being kept in prison because there is not enough accommodation for them in the detention centres provided for the purpose. That is the aspect of the problem on which I should like to concentrate.
As the Asylum Rights Campaign states:
"The detention of asylum seekers is the most disturbing aspect of the UK's present … asylum policy".
The Minister, Mr Mike O'Brien, said a year ago in another place that refugees should never be held in prison. He went on to point out that some people are
202
now applying for asylum at the end of a prison sentence for a serious offence, such as murder or rape, just to postpone their return to the countries of their origin, and one can see the point of keeping those people under secure conditions. However, at the end of May 1998, only 38 of the 742 asylum seekers in custody were subject to deportation orders.
I have suggested on previous occasions that the law should be amended to allow deportation orders to be served, objections to be lodged and appeals to be disposed of within the currency of longer prison sentences, so that in the small number of cases involved, the persons do not have to be detained after the expiry of their sentences. Perhaps the Minister could look again at that proposal. We have considered it previously, but it seems to fit in well with the Bill's objective of disposing of cases as expeditiously as we can.
At the end of April, there were 968 Immigration Act detainees, of whom 518 were in prison, most of whom were not charged with any criminal offence. I believe that all of the few who are considered to present a threat to security are held in Belmarsh. At the latest count, they accounted for only 11 of the 968, so it is quite a small problem.
Of the asylum seekers in custody at the end of March, 438 were awaiting initial decision, 186 were awaiting the result of an appeal, and 110 were awaiting the result of a further challenge, or awaiting the documentation for their removal. The Government have said that detention should be concentrated towards the end of the asylum process, but evidently that is not happening. The Minister must pay attention to that point because the Government's objectives are apparently not being achieved.
The Prison Service order on the management of Immigration Act detainees states that as far as possible they are to be accommodated in four main holding centres, but that any local prison may be required to hold detainees. According to the information that the Minister has been giving me in response to my request for statistics on month-end detainees, over 50 local prisons have been used to accommodate such people. It must be quite a burden for prisons that are not used to the special needs of these detainees, and which have to provide interpreters and translators; to ensure that detainees have access to aid agencies; to make suitable provision available for officers of the IND to conduct interviews and surgeries; to facilitate communication between detainees and their families, legal advisers and aid agencies, and to provide foreign language information packs in the languages understood by the detainees. It ought to be extremely rare for an applicant awaiting initial decision to be kept in prison at all, but to the extent that it is necessary, only a few specially designated prisons should be used, where the requirements that I have mentioned can be routinely satisfied.
Much of the debate concerning the detention of asylum seekers has focused on the absence of a statutory presumption in favour of liberty, as exists in criminal cases under the Bail Act 1976. As I understand it, that would put the onus on the IND to give substantial

203
reasons for detention, related to the individual. The unsupported opinion of an immigration officer that the person was likely to abscond would no longer be sufficient.
In the very useful minutes of the Special Standing Committee in another place, close attention was given to the report of the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, which recommends that asylum seekers are detained only for reasons recognised as legitimate under international standards, and only when other measures will not suffice; that detention should be for the shortest possible period, and certainly not for the long periods of up to two years that are experienced currently.
I understand that the Government now accept that there should be a statutory presumption of bail, and the unanimous evidence of the agencies which gave evidence to the committee was effective in persuading them to change their minds, where Parliament alone might have been unable to do so. I hope that we shall see the criteria for detention set out, if not on the face of the Bill then at least in orders made under it, and that legal aid will be available for applicants at bail hearings.
The Minister in another place said—this may have been overtaken by the undertakings given later—that legal aid would only be provided by a combination of Section 23 of the 1971 Act and Clause 45 of the Bill, under which grants may be made to bodies such as the Refugee Legal Service and the IAS. Since those organisations are currently able to deal with only a small fraction of the cases, asylum seekers have been driven into the arms of unscrupulous and incompetent practitioners. I am glad that the Government are tackling that problem. However, nothing has been said about the level of grant to the IAS and the Refugee Legal Service in future years when the new bail provisions come into operation, yet if they are to cope, those organisations will obviously need more money.
As we still need to do all those things to ensure that we are not vulnerable to action under the Human Rights Act, and as the Government have now agreed to do them, I am surprised that the Minister felt able to sign the statement of compliance with the Human Rights Act on the front of the Bill.
As the Minister in another place pointed out, the impression of the working group was that a large majority of people were economic migrants and only a small percentage were genuine asylum seekers. There are no statistics published on this matter, but if one takes the figure of 10,000 people detained each year and assumes that three-quarters are asylum seekers, that can be compared with Amnesty International's evidence that of those detained in 1997, 89 went on to get refugee status and 132 were granted ELR. On those figures, only 3 per cent of the detainees were successful in getting leave to remain one way or the other, but that does not mean that all the remainder were properly detained or that all of them were economic migrants. It is not an either/or situation. Somebody who is an unsuccessful applicant for refugee status or ELR is not ipso facto an economic migrant. Many people with claims to come here, such as the Ugandan woman described by the right reverend Prelate, may not fall within the provisions of
204
the convention on refugees because the harm done to them, for example rape, is not one of the criteria set out in the convention.
For those who await the first decision, the question is not whether they have a right under the convention but whether they comply with any conditions imposed on their temporary entry while their applications are being considered. We need to go into that more thoroughly at Committee stage, because that does not seem to be the practice at the moment. The working group expressed concern that decisions on detention were being made on the basis of the availability of space in the detention estate rather than the objective merits of the case. Looking at the month-end figures, the variation since last August has been from only a minimum of 913 to a maximum of 989. It is very difficult to believe that that represents a true reflection of the objective need to detain.
It is a worry that by enlarging the detention estate we shall simply be encouraging the IND to detain even more people. I suggest that when Aldington is rebuilt the Prison Service should be made to reduce the number of places that it makes available to the IND by a corresponding amount. In that way one will not have an extra number of detainees corresponding to the accommodation available in Aldington.
Finally, the reduction in the numbers in detention—which is costing the taxpayer some £50 a year, plus the cost of keeping them in prison—depends critically on, among other things, the success of the PFI partnership project with Siemens on the IND's casework system. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, in a Written Answer on 19th May said that testing of the system was due to begin on 14th June and that it would be in full operation by early 2000. Has the Minister had any feedback from the testing so far, and can he give any more precise indication of when full operation will begin? The Minister said that as of 13th May over 76,000 asylum applications were waiting to be determined. That is an increase of 41 per cent on the numbers when the Government took office.
Can nothing be done to reduce the appalling backlog until the system is ready? It was not reassuring that Mr O'Brien could only tell my honourable friend Mr Richard Allan, who asked what would happen if there were further delays to the project:
"We are thinking about what to do if that happens and have formed some views on the matter. I cannot give the honourable Gentleman a firmer answer than that. We shall have to plan for these things".—[Official Report, Special Standing Committee, Commons, 18/5/99; col. 1618.]"
Asylum seekers and their advisers, not to say Parliament, are surely entitled to a better response than that, and I hope we shall get one from the Minister today.
I have concentrated on detention, because it is universally agreed that it is wrong in principle and expensive in practice to lock up a group of people who are not criminals. The Government have had more than two years to do something about this, and in spite of their good intentions up to now the situation is no better than when the Tories left office. Under this Bill, steps can be taken to see that detention is used only in cases

205
where it is absolutely necessary and that people who have suffered persecution at the hands of their own governments do not have to endure the further ordeal of imprisonment when they come here as refugees.
4.54 p.m.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal. When I was first appointed in 1986, the main workload of the tribunal consisted of the determination of family cases from the Asian sub-continent. The introduction of genetic fingerprinting immediately resolved any questions of family relationships and the determination of primary purpose of marriage cases formed the bulk of the caseload.
From the early 1990s we began to see an increasing number of asylum cases. Most of the applicants came from north and west Africa, the Indian sub-continent and Sri Lanka, with some from Turkey and Iran. These claims were interspersed with a variety of applications for entry as visitors, students, dependent relatives or working holidaymakers, for example. In the past four years or so most of the applications to the tribunal have been claims for asylum, some as much as four or five years old.
From relatively simple beginnings since the 1971 Act immigration law has grown exponentially into a complex amalgam of UK primary and secondary legislation, European law and the 1951 United Nations convention relating to the status of refugees. Almost every asylum appeal to an adjudicator or the tribunal contains an element of definition. There is an urgent need to redefine the meaning of "refugee". For example, more and more often the situation of a single or widowed Moslem lady with no male member of the family to protect her has become a reason for a claim to asylum. I believe that to be a very valid reason.
As the Minister said, the Bill strengthens previous legislation that has not worked. I share the fears of many that this legislation will not necessarily solve the problems. What really makes the whole system chaotic is the overwhelming number of people who try to enter this country. The image of the dispossessed refugee fleeing tyranny in his or her homeland is a tragic icon and it is a state to which one can imagine no one aspiring, yet millions queue to join the ranks. The noble Lord, Lord Warner, gave some of the reasons. Something has gone fundamentally wrong.
The key to the problem is that, in the aftermath of the Second World War, the embarrassment and horror of genocide of the Jews, gypsies and the disabled led all right-thinking nations to sign up to the United Nations convention so that it should never happen again and refugees would always find someone to give them succour from tyranny. The drafters of the convention did not foresee the advent of easy international travel or satellite television. As the economic gap between the first and third world has widened, the poor of Asia, Africa and Latin America can see a better life portrayed daily on their screens. They come in their thousands, assisted by unscrupulous agents who have made a
206
profitable business from arranging their travel and coaching them in fabricated claims for asylum, because we have progressively changed our laws to make it impossible for them to enter the UK under any other category.
My curiosity is increasingly aroused by the number of asylum seekers who tell us that they are brought into the UK by agents who appear to travel with impunity particularly between the airports of the Asian sub-continent and Heathrow. Presumably, they do not pass through immigration control at this end. Can nothing be done to prevent these agents from travelling freely and dumping their human cargo at immigration control at Heathrow?
I do not wish to give a false picture. There are people in desperate need of refugee status in certain regions of the world, for example Kurds in the Middle East, victims of tribal conflict in sub-Saharan Africa fleeing torture and execution, and both Albanians and Serbs fleeing the revenge in Kosovo. The problem is to identify this deserving minority, which would in itself number some hundreds or thousands a year, in a hopelessly under-resourced and appallingly managed immigration system overwhelmed by bogus claims, of which I understand there were about 50,000 in past year, corrupt agents and advisers, and political confusion.
Fundamental change is needed in our system of control at points of entry. Those seeking asylum must be interviewed promptly before they leave the port of arrival. All too often, essential evidence is not revealed until the case gets to a tribunal, possibly years later. All too often, by the time a case reaches a tribunal, an appellant has been thoroughly coached in his original story or has embellished it. This is when deciding upon credibility becomes a major factor.
It is vitally important that the interviewers are skilled. It should be made absolutely clear that this is the time for a full and open statement of facts, and that there is no need to be afraid of the authorities in this country on the basis that what is revealed may be passed to the authorities in the country of flight. Interviewing officers should have immediate access to accurate and up-to-date information on the current situation that pertains in the country from which the claimant has fled. Legal representation should be offered and independent medical reports should be prepared at this time.
The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, who is not in her place at the moment, raised the problem of women applicants. For women and children, both interpreter and interviewer should be women, especially when rape or other sexual assault is a possibility, simply because women from certain ethnic groups would not reveal for any reason whatever any such information to a man.
With the possible exception of those with young children, who should be offered special facilities, claimants should remain confined in humane, purpose built surroundings, not prisons, for reasons made clear by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, until a decision to grant or withhold refugee status has been made by the Home Secretary. That decision should be made within one week. Each case should be dealt with on its individual merits. Instead of the general-purpose refusal

207
letters which currently emanate from the Home Office, with minor, often inappropriate changes to paragraphs for individual cases, particular attention should be paid to accuracy in detailing the circumstances relating to the claimant. That would prevent a large number of appeals which ultimately fail.
Those who appeal should remain confined for a little longer, perhaps two or three months, as they are in some Nordic countries. They should also know that if their appeal fails they will be physically removed from the United Kingdom. The example of immigration control in some Nordic countries seems to work. The bogus claimant is deterred. The genuine refugee is in no way disadvantaged. Status would be recognised rapidly, enabling claimants to become integrated into our society and to rebuild their lives without a prolonged period of anxiety while their claims are decided. The economic migrant would be discouraged.
Government resources should be directed at providing the Home Office with effective means of entry control, accommodation for claimants, and deportation measures. Those resources may readily be found from the millions currently spent on income support and housing benefit for bogus asylum claimants who eventually disappear into the black economy.
There is absolutely no point in having an appeals system if there is not absolute certainty that those claimants whose appeals fail in the final court are not deported. Far too many failed asylum seekers and those in other immigration categories who have exhausted the system go to ground. In order to solve the problem of a perpetual backlog, the possibility of processing separately existing claims, and claims which arise after the enactment of this legislation, should be considered.
On a technical note, the Home Office appears to have been reluctant to use its powers to grant exceptional leave to remain, rather than full refugee status, to those with a credible short-term need to be out of their homeland; for example, where a civil war is likely to be temporary, or in the current circumstances in Algeria, or where a government have effectively ceased to exist and there is no practical way of the claimant returning, as in Somalia.
I believe that these are practical solutions to the present problem. They are a great deal more relevant than, for example, the appointment of a commissioner or the establishment of tribunals to determine grievances on matters of welfare and support, or the effectiveness of claimants' representatives—proposals of Kafkaesque irrelevance to the core of the problem. A system of recognition of non-legally qualified representatives is certainly needed, but it can be readily established under the Immigration Appeal Tribunal, which is effectively a court to be headed by a High Court judge. The same tribunal is in the best possible position to hear these appeals.
There has been a proliferation of legislation in this field in the past 20 years. It is a pity that the Government have not chosen to consolidate existing legislation in the Bill. The Bill is widely opposed by many working in the field of immigration for failing to get to the heart of the problem and for many of the draconian measures it
208
contains. I share many of those concerns. I look forward to following in detail the progress of the Bill through your Lordships' House.
5.5 p.m.
Baroness Uddin: My Lords, I support the Bill. I have spoken to a number of people both inside and outside this House. They agree that the Bill is the most fundamental reform of immigration and asylum law for many years. It is always controversial to deal with difficult issues of putting up borders to prevent outsiders entering, especially when all over the world many people in many countries face violent abuse of their human rights. It is a brave government who will take a fairer, firmer and consistent attitude to dealing with these issues and I believe that this Government are one.
For 20 years, we have struggled to get in place a balanced view and a practical policy for dealing with immigration and asylum often with a race bias. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the good work of many organisations, including the JCWI and the Refugee Council to name but two. I believe that the current intention is a definite and humane approach—the White Paper sets out an integrated strategy, which we have demanded for a number of years—alongside the Government's commitment to advance a multi-cultural, multi-racial and anti-racist agenda. That is an important aspect of the Bill. Surely, no one can doubt that this Government are committed to that agenda in the post-Lawrence era.
The current arrangements for supporting asylum seekers are inconsistent and unacceptable. Noble Lords in all parts of the House agree with that. Often, on arrival someone at the right destination would receive some or adequate support, but on arrival at another would be treated like a criminal waiting to be put away or thrown out. No one in their right mind would want to see that continue.
As a leading member of a local authority, I speak from some limited experience of dealing with the extra demands made on local authorities. I was sometimes unhappy with the services available to my own constituents, but as an officer of another authority I was in a politically sympathetic environment, able to provide adequate support using the Children Act and community care legislation. That is illustrated by this example of the social services department in my authority of Newham. We began to give cash to asylum seekers, which brought the department to a practical and financial collapse. It was subsequently decided to rely on vouchers alongside the provisions for housing and a daily cash allowance. We believe, and we were told, that a number of asylum seekers felt lucky to be in Newham. By contrast, Tower Hamlets, which is my borough of residence, and Westminster provided much more limited support.
There is no doubt in my mind that a caring government could not allow such discrepancy to continue. I endorse the contribution of my noble friend Lord Warner, who dealt with a number of points I wanted to raise. I shall not repeat them. I intend to restrict my comments to matters of principle rather than

209
refer to individual clauses and concerns, which have been covered with much experience and integrity by a number of noble Lords.
I hope that the debate will ensure that the final legislation takes on board many of the concerns expressed here and in the other place. To that end I am reassured by the opening speech of my noble friend the Minister that he will consider amendments seriously.
I wish to draw attention to particular concerns expressed about this Bill by a number of my noble friends and honourable friends in another place, not necessarily in an official capacity but mainly in the corridor. I am also concerned about those who have talked to the media off the record to express their deep concerns about the Bill without feeling able to place them on record. I myself have deep faith in the parliamentary process and in the workings of this House to deliver a Bill which will have been amended in the usual way to take on board a number of those concerns.
During the passage of the Bill many of us have been asked to express our concerns in various outside meetings. The Floor of the House is the right place to air those concerns rather than media opportunities which are currently available and accessible. A number of us have been asked to appear on radio and television and share our concerns about the Bill. A number of honourable friends have suggested privately that if they speak out about the Bill they risk being assigned to the Back Benches for ever. I have reservations about this kind of method of opinion sharing because I believe that it has added to some of the anxieties outside in the community as well as in the media.
I urge my colleagues in the other place and in this House to state on record their real fears so that we can tackle them and redress the Bill with appropriate amendments so that we have something to which we can all sign up.
One other fundamental concern which we have all shared in contributing to this debate, both inside and outside the House, is that the Bill is governed by the premise that each application is bogus and that there is a racist connotation and undertone widespread in the country. It is my opinion that this Bill has been unjustifiably accused of reinforcing that stereotype and that agenda. However, it is a very serious allegation and it does not bode well for a government who have tried so bravely to tackle racism. I urge the Minister to take back to his colleagues in the Home Office the fact that we must place greater emphasis on ensuring that this point is put across to the community at large and is challenged at every turn.
In the spirit of my previous remarks, I wholeheartedly endorse the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, in relation to the impact of the Bill being in danger of damaging race relations and support his call to the Government to take a very clear position. I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, that the Bill will not achieve its objective. It is up to all of us to ensure that the Bill passes through this House amended appropriately so that we can agree to it. This is an opportunity.
210
This is the right place to acknowledge the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, who is not in her place, about women's applications, especially those who have been, or fear being, raped. I wholly endorse her comments that we need to take that on board. In addition I agree wholeheartedly with the comments of the noble Countess, Lady Mar, who talked about appropriate staff being available to deal with women's applications.
I belong to the all-party group on children. Deep concerns have been expressed by most of the children's organisations. I urge the Government to re-examine some of the issues raised by children's organisations, not because they have a monopoly over children's rights over and above the Government, but because, as a local government officer, I was for a long time and am still all too aware of papers and Bills being introduced by officers who could not always appreciate the political implications and the realities of implementation.
The current faster, fairer policy may be a new concept and I am not suggesting that in assisting us to legislate the Civil Service has not caught on to the new agenda. I am suggesting that we can look at some of the ways in which the Bill is proposed. We cannot struggle with yet another Bill that stands accused of missing the point. I believe that something is missing when the most caring government for many years are accused of this by its various publications despite their intention to be fairer and to administer a Bill that is consistent. This must be refuted and corrected if appropriate. I am assured by noble Lords that requests for serious amendments by children's organisations will be taken to the Home Secretary and I look forward to the Bill being amended to take on board some of their concerns.
I welcome the Bill. It has afforded us an opportunity to put in place a way forward. Let us correct that with which we are not happy. I do not take seriously Members on the Opposition Benches in the other place who decry those involved in the community or in national politics but who cannot have failed to notice the inertia of 18 years of government when individual authorities were left to their own devices, sometimes using blatantly divisive means to deal with immigration and asylum issues. I am ambitious and confident that once we have debated and amended the Bill we will have many of the desired amendments to make this Bill into something that cannot be associated with yet another attack on black and immigrant communities.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, the aspirations and intentions underlying this Bill are laudable, but a year ago, in July 1998, the Home Secretary, in his preface to the White Paper, described the situation then as a shambles. Is the situation any better now and do we really believe that the situation will be better soon?
The central problem as I see it is one of timing and delay. This is a matter which is not directly addressed in the Bill, although one recognises that there are a

211
number of provisions which should bring about some streamlining. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, in his very thoughtful and interesting introduction to the Bill a little while ago, made reference to intentions of timing: this would be done by 2000, that would be done by 2001. I have to point out that there is absolutely no mention of those timings in the Bill nor in the Explanatory Notes to the Bill. Indeed, if you look at the Bill and you suddenly see mention of the word "delay" in the margin, and you think "Oh, perhaps something is going to be addressed, this is Clause 98", it is not delay in processing applications which is in question.
For some time I have been concerned about the colossal backlog of cases of longstanding applicants for asylum, some of whom have been in this country for more than six years, without any indication of a decision, still less the award of the status of exceptional leave to remain, or any consideration whatever by the Home Office. Of course, any asylum seeker must be grateful for the refuge accorded by this country and the material support given. However, on 16th March last year in a Written Answer to a Question I tabled (WA 102) the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, stated:
"the overall number of outstanding cases which pre-date 1994 can be estimated".
"Around 10,000" was the answer—
"an accurate breakdown … could only be achieved at disproportionate cost by examination of individual case files. … it is also not possible to establish accurately the number of undecided applications, if any, which were lodged prior to 1988".
This is the world of Kafka. To have in this country applicants for asylum who have been kicking their heels for a decade, unable to settle their futures and at the expense of the British taxpayer, is absurd. Some of them are young people—perhaps I should say "were" young people—anxious to get some training and embark upon useful careers. But without some decision, if only exceptional leave to remain, they are denied access to the relevant training.
I have in my possession a letter from the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment, dated 6th February 1998 in which she states:
"Asylum seekers whose applications have not yet been decided by the Home Office are not eligible for student mandatory awards or loans".
Perhaps the Minister will confirm that in these circumstances, they are also charged overseas fees although they are resident in this country and have been for up to 10 years. Even if a student living in this country has been here for five or six years—
Lord Warner: My Lords, could the noble Lord tell the House whether he raised any of these issues of the backlog and some of the individual cases he mentioned with his colleagues in the previous government?
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, that is an entirely valid point. The answer is no, I have only become acutely aware of this matter in the past two years. I have only recently complained about it seriously. The noble Lord has a point, but the present
212
Government have been in office for two years and the time comes when they must take responsibility for the circumstances. I am concerned because I do not believe these matters are being addressed in the Bill; indeed, they are not being referred to.
I return to the point which I was making. Even if a student has been living in this country for five or six years and would, in normal English, have passed the formal requirement of being,
"ordinarily resident in the British Islands throughout the three years immediately preceding the start of his course"
there is the "Catch 22" that such residence does not count for an asylum seeker since he does not have settled status.
I am aware that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, has great sympathy with this position. On 27th January 1998, in answer to a Starred Question on this point, he observed:
"I entirely agree with the noble Lord. It is utterly demoralising. … no human being should have to be left in doubt and limbo for that period of time".—[Official Report, 27/1/98; col. 104.]
The five years are now six. I do not in any way question the sincerity of the noble Lord. My concern is with the efficacy of the solutions presented in the Bill. In his Written Answer to me of 25th August 1998, the noble Lord wrote:
"We will start by clearing the undecided cases which date from before 1st July 1993, and hope to be able to decide most of these by early 1999".
We are past early 1999. Has that happened? I can assure noble Lords that in many cases known to me it certainly has not.
I should like to ask the noble Lord a question of which I tried to give him notice and which I hope got through: how many cases of application for asylum made before 26th July 1993 when the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act came into force, have been cleared since his estimate of 15 months ago that there were 10,000 remaining? How many cases remain where no decision at all has been made and no reply given to applicants for asylum who entered this country before 26th July 1993?
This Bill lacks reality because the assurances which were given when the White Paper was introduced have not been met. We are all familiar with the current chaos in the Passport Office. That has had plenty of publicity because it inconveniences British citizens and they have rightly reviled the Home Office for its monumental inefficiency in relation to their holidays. We are familiar also with the comparable chaos as concerns visa applications in the Home Office's Immigration and Nationality Directorate. As The Times remarked yesterday in its leading column:
"Thousands of people's visa applications have been lost, leaving them either unable to enter Britain or stranded here. In March the National Audit Office criticised the Home Office's handling of this project and made a wider point which every minister should heed. There are many examples of bespoke projects such as this one, which in retrospect can be seen as too ambitious".

213
It continues:
"That is an understatement".
It certainly is.
These are the cases which attract attention because they inconvenience—
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. The noble Lord said that the Bill lacked reality. Can he explain what he means by "lacking reality"?
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, I certainly can. However, I do not want to speak at greater length than I had intended. It seems to me that the central problem is the colossal backlog which currently exists. The Bill does not explicitly state how it will deal with the backlog of existing cases. I imagine that most existing cases will be dealt with under the existing law, though the noble Lord opposite will correct me if I am wrong. It may be that the Bill will operate retrospectively, but I do not assume that to be the case.
So, what will be done about the existing cases? The Bill has no remarks to make about that. We are told—I shall refer to this later though I shall conclude my speech briefly—that it is hoped there will be a two-week decision time by the year 2001. When that point is reached, the situation will work admirably. However, to anticipate what I was planning to say, Explanatory Note No. 393 states that 300 extra officers will be recruited to implement the Bill and deal with the backlog. My noble friend Lord Cope of Berkeley also referred to this point. Perhaps I may say, in retrospect, to the noble Lord opposite, that that simply is not enough. Why not 3,000? Three thousand officers might cost something of the order of £60 million. That is still a small sum in relation to the annual sums being paid out to accommodate and offer subsistence to the 50,000 or more people who constitute the present backlog. I hope that gives a sufficient answer to the noble Lord. These matters are not addressed in the Bill. That is why I believe that it lacks reality.
In his Statement of 27th July, the Home Secretary stated:
"All told, we aim by 2001 to have average process times for initial asylum decisions of two weeks, and for appeals of a further four months".—[Official Report, Commons, 27/7/98; col. 37.]
That would be grand—
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I believe that the Home Secretary stated "two months". I do not want the noble Lord to mislead himself.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, I am grateful for the correction. That is, indeed, an important point so I shall state the quotation correctly:
"initial asylum decisions of two months and for appeals of a further four months".
However, if noble Lords believe that we shall reach that point in the year 2001 without some very special provisions being undertaken, they are optimistic indeed.
214
Urgent measures are now needed to deal with backlogs which have been allowed to build up over a period of many years in the previous regime as well as the present one, as the noble Lord, Lord Warner, correctly observes.
This is not just a matter of changing the legal position as the Bill sets out to do; it is a matter of efficiency, providing the resources to do the job and noting that the budget of social security benefits will, in some respects, be reduced thereby. Indeed, when we look at the passport office and the situation regarding visas, it is perhaps not unfair to say that it is a matter also of competence. A year ago it was hardly reasonable to criticise the Government for a situation which they had inherited. But the time comes when Ministers have to shoulder responsibility for the continuing position. The Minister will no doubt tell us that the present Bill is designed to reduce the pressures on the immigration department and thereby alleviate these problems; but, what will the present Bill do to alleviate the existing backlog of long-standing applicants?
This is now a public scandal and one which is more serious than delays with passports for holidays or visas for short visits. These are people whose lives have been on hold for five, six or maybe 10 years. I should like to ask the Minister how many such people there still are and what is he going to do about it. Unfortunately, the present Bill does not address the problem. It has its merits but I fear that it misses the central point.
5.29 p.m.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, in particular in reinforcing the point he has just made about the omissions in the Bill and the need to face the separate challenge of clearing the backlog of outstanding cases. I agree with him that the legislation does not go to the heart of that problem and, therefore, we may be wasting much parliamentary time in dealing with yet another piece of legislation that misses the point.
When I was a Member in the other place I served on the Standing Committee that considered the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996. In preparing for today's debate, I revisited the Second Reading speeches. Mr Jack Straw was the principal Opposition spokesman and he set out the context in which that legislation was being promoted. Many of the arguments that he advanced then in the other place hold good today, so your Lordships will readily appreciate the irony that Mr Straw now holds the legislative ring.
In the Second Reading debate, Mr Straw said:
"asylum policy is about the protection of that most basic right, the right to life".
He added:
"Above all, we must act in a way in which prejudice is not fanned, and people must not be led to believe that immigration is out of control … there must be a balance between fairness and firmness, between justice and control".—[Official Report, Commons. 11/12/95; col. 711.]
We are in danger of overexaggerating the scale of the problem. The last time I tabled Questions about the numbers of immigrants arriving here, the Answer revealed that in the year in question some 5,000 more

215
people left the United Kingdom than came into the United Kingdom. Of the 215,000 who had arrived that year, 90,000 were in any event British citizens.
As Mr Straw himself said when we last considered these issues, we must not overexaggerate the problem and suggest that immigration is out of control. If we compare the numbers today with the numbers of those who arrived here 30 years ago, we see the right context in which to place this debate.
The noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, mentioned resources and it is worth commenting not just on the disproportionate amount of parliamentary time that we spend on the issue, but on how resources are allocated. I was told, again in answer to a parliamentary Question, that the previous legislation cost more than £200,000 to promote and took some 8,000 hours of civil servants' time. I am told that 400 extra staff will be required to administer the new voucher system. My noble friend Lady Mar and the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, talked about the cost of holding people in detention. Those are considerable sums of money and if they were allocated to dealing with the backlog of people who are being held and seeking the right to remain in this country, and who will be returned if their cases are not upheld, it would be a more expeditious and useful way of dealing with the problem and a better use of resources.
In 1995 it was my strong contention that Michael Howard's legislation failed to meet the test of fairness and firmness, justice and control. I regret that, like my noble friend Lady Mar, I do not believe that the Bill will do any better.
I have three points to make, including, first, a few words about the process that produces these ill-considered Bills and some remarks about the effect on children and the persecuted. In 1995, the Bill was rushed through Parliament fewer than three years after Ministers had assured both Houses that the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 was the definitive answer to asylum abuse cases. We can all be forgiven, therefore, for a sense of déjà vu.
When a group of us tried to persuade the other place to set up a Special Standing Committee with the power to take evidence and hear witnesses, the amendment was defeated by 314 votes to 287. Inevitably, that led to the charge being made against the then government that they simply wished to look tough before the impending general election. The Times said that the Bill could "sour race relations"—a roint echoed in our debate today. It continued that it could put Britain,
"in breach of its obligations under the 1951 United Nations Convention concerning the status of refugees".
The Economist called it a "nasty Bill". The Daily Telegraph said:
"Mr. Howard is certainly playing, to use that most dog-eared of metaphors, the race card".
Mr Straw called in aid an argument from the Financial Times—which is particularly pertinent in the context of today's debate—that,
"it was too much to expect business to act in such a policeman's capacity".—[Official Report, Commons, 11/12/95: col. 720.]
He also said that the Bill had plain "racial implications".
216
The Bill today also needs to be measured against the charges that were made in 1995. I know that on this occasion a Special Standing Committee was established in the other place, and I welcome that. It is a sign that the Government wanted a less adversarial and confrontational approach. However, I wish to draw to the attention of the House the experience of the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture, perhaps the most respected organisation in the field, which said:
"This is a very large and unwieldy Bill, with much of its effect hidden away in a host of regulations not to be published, even in draft form, until after the Bill becomes law. Much work was done to clarify the meaning of the provisions in the Special Standing Committee of the House of Commons. However, a truncated third reading in the Commons means that the benefits of this scrutiny have yet fully to be realised".
That point supports the remarks made earlier by the noble Lord. Lord Avebury. In addition, the Medical Foundation said:
"We have been consulted. On some parts of the Bill extensively, on others in a cursory fashion, on others not at all. On fundamental issues such as the shortcomings of Home Office decision-making and the systematic social exclusion of asylum seekers, our views have been solicited, expressed and rejected".
It should give the House cause for concern that although superficially we appear to have improved the procedures since 1995, one of the most respected organisations dealing with the issues can say that its views have been rejected.
The Minister made a conciliatory speech at the outset of our debate. I welcome what he said about looking forward to seeing constructive amendments and I hope that he will bear in mind the importance of involving organisations which have far more experience on the ground than any of us can possibly have. I would have thought that it would be a more constructive way to proceed to establish a permanent standing advisory committee made up of those many organisations to advise the Government before they bring forward legislation.
Along with other Members of your Lordships' House, I have been inundated with briefing material about today's debate and about this third Bill in six years. Those representations professed profound concern about the Bill's consequences. How much better would it have been if the petitioners, the charities and the advocacy groups could have been involved in the drafting of the Bills. The moral of the three Bills has been that if we legislate in haste we repent at leisure. However, considerations about the inadequacy of our legislative process pale into insignificance when measured against the effects that the laws will have on the vulnerable and the destitute.
I shall illustrate my point by reference to the plight of children. Notwithstanding the Government's new clause, entitled "Support for Children" and tabled on 16th June, the Children's Society and the Children's Consortium, of which the Children's Society is part, say that the concession does not,
"significantly improve or change the situation of children".
They recognise that Mr Straw is at heart a decent man, and those of us who know him know that. Any charge of racism is absurd. However, they say that the new

217
clause is not enough, because a less benign Secretary of State could choose to act in a draconian manner because the good intentions have not manifested themselves in a legal framework of principles, safeguards and standards in the Bill.
Indeed, the effect of Clause 113 could fairly be described as wholly malign. It removes the duty of local authorities to protect children of asylum seekers as a distinct group of children in need within Section 17 of the Children Act 1989, in respect of their accommodation and living needs. In future parents will have to prove that they are impoverished and unable to provide for their children before their family can qualify for support. This undermines parental dignity and self-respect. It creates a begging bowl culture. If the Government wanted deliberately to create a hidden class of "illegals" who will live in the shadows and on the margins of our society, this would be the way to do it. Shanty towns of destitute people living below the levels against which our own nationals would be safeguarded, in terms of the drawing of a poverty line, hardly smacks of social progress.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark spelt out the realities for refugees on the ground, like the woman from Uganda whom he cited, and the recipients of vouchers. In addition, the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, reminded us that the price we will pay in damage to race relations is too great to justify either this social exclusion or the so-called deterrent effect.
The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, suggested that we should ensure that families with children are dispersed into the country and that we should use empty property to help them. It is true that in cities such as Liverpool, although she did not mention it by name, there are some 8,000 empty properties in the public and private sectors. It was recently suggested that some of them should be used for Kosovan refugees. The fact is that these are hard to let properties, out of which people were moved five years ago as being unsuitable for ordinary British nationals to live in. Are we serious that these are properties into which we should dump people who have been fleeing persecution in the most terrible circumstances?
There are questions to be faced here regarding the practical effects on children. The Children Act 1989 was one of the best pieces of legislation implemented by the last government and they are to be congratulated on that. Significantly though, in the light of my earlier remarks, it entered the statute book after it emerged from a long period of consultative gestation and it received all-party support. That is not a bad model, perhaps, for what we should be doing today. It provides a universal yardstick by which children are to be treated. Now we are being invited to remove the children of asylum-seeking families from the legislation, and they are arguably one of the most vulnerable groups of children protected by that Act.
218
This sets two pieces of legislation against one another. How can this Bill sit alongside an Act which states that
"the child's welfare shall be the court's paramount consideration",
but states that
"a court shall have regard in particular to the ascertainable wishes and feelings of the child—[and] his physical, emotional and educational needs".
Clause 113 is also at variance with the assertion in the 1989 Act that a child is best supported within the context of the family.
Asylum seekers' children will have lived through harrowing experiences of violence, discrimination, famine, perhaps war and frightening journeys from captivity to safety. If this is the best we can offer them when they arrive in a country which has a liberal and civilised tradition, and which was once set apart from much of Europe by the standards we upheld, it really will not do.
The provisions concerning practical support are also disadvantageous to families with children compared with those of our own nationals. At present, asylum-seeking families with children are entitled to receive 100 per cent of current income support. The destitute child of an asylum-seeking family will have all the same physical needs as any of our own children in a comparable situation.
Although recent changes mean that a family with two children will now receive £40 rather than the £21 previously announced as cash payments, the overall package remains at £90.80 a week in total. This is just 70 per cent of current income support levels. In legislating for this package we leave ourselves open to the charge of discrimination and mean-mindedness. Any of us who occasionally go to shop for our own family's weekly basic needs, such as food or clothing, know how far these sums will go.
When I last looked asylum seekers accounted for one quarter of 1 per cent of all social security claimants. Again, let us put this matter into some kind of context and perspective. It is hardly an unreasonable demand on our national resources, and yet we spend disproportionate time and effort on singling out this one group. Doubtless there are bogus claimants among these people, just as there are bogus expense claims and bogus tax claims made by some of our own nationals.
Let me end by mentioning the persecuted. Last week I was fortunate enough to go to Jerusalem and, with a group of people mainly from the Anglican Church, went to Yad Vashem, where we saw the Forest of the Righteous Gentiles. The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, has mentioned Oscar Schindler. We saw the tree that was planted there for him and that which was planted for Raoul Wallenberg. It is worth remembering that if Raoul Wallenberg or Oscar Schindler were involved under the terms of this legislation, manufacturing papers to enable people to flee from persecution, whether religious or political, then they would be collaborators; they would be arrested and they could be fined. That should give us pause before placing this legislation onto the statute book.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I am very pleased to follow the noble Lord, Lord Alton, particularly in relation to the last passage of his speech. For my own part, and I make this declaration of interest, I had the great privilege of being chairman of the Refugee Council for a number of years. I pay tribute to them and indeed to all the ether bodies who speak out for and offer support to those who come to this country, who seek, against a very difficult background, to make a worthwhile life here, sometimes to seek refuge.
Yes, there are those who abuse the system too. Sometimes, for very narrow political reasons, there are deliberate attempts to distort the situation so far as they are concerned. There are people who come here whose legal status may be uncertain, but to describe them simply as bogus is to distort the whole situation. Many of them do not satisfy the strict requirements of immigration law, but there is great uncertainty about their future. Very often they come here because they see no hope for their children's future, and they need help and understanding. To characterise them in the way that people sometimes do—and the word "bogus" lingers on the lips of too many—is the wrong approach. If they are in breach of the law, they should still be treated with dignity and respect. Sometimes that simply does not happen. It does not happen at the point of entry.
I recall listening to debates going back to 1971, to my very first Act in another place, the Immigration Act. The language on the part of some was totally insupportable. They were years when the then government reacted to situations, I believe, with a degree of spite and of malice, in order to pacify a number of people in this country who quite deliberately wanted to seize political advantage out of the scenario. It is as unacceptable to do that today as it was then; it is more inexcusable.
It is extremely important always to keep this in perspective. I do not wish to speak as someone lecturing to the House from on high. That is not my objective at all. There are great problems associated with immigration and asylum. One cannot flood the country and I am not suggesting that at all. The criteria to be adopted, however, are those which are applied with a measure of sympathy and understanding for the plight in which so many of these people find themselves.
My grandparents were refugees. They owed a great deal to this country. I am not sure whether all my noble friends will agree with that when they look at me, but I am the residue. The fact is that when they came here they had to put up with much opprobrium, and that situation has not radically changed. I do not think for one moment that politicians from any of the responsible political parties today would adopt the line that was taken in the 1905 legislation, about which my noble friend Lord Merlyn-Rees and I had a good deal to say in those debates of the early 1970s. It is the duty of politicians not to fan the flames in any sense but to ensure that people approach these issues with a degree of responsibility and care. Many of the people who come to this country have a great deal to offer. Yet, underlying this, and even on the part of those who
220
ultimately prove their right to be here, there is that degree of hostility which is unacceptable in a responsible and civilised society.
I do not believe that the Government, of whom I was very proud to be a member, have approached this issue in a discriminatory or deliberately provocative way. This is a hugely difficult problem and they undoubtedly inherited a mess when they came into power in 1997. However, I am not convinced—we will go into this matter more in Committee and subsequently—that they are entirely applying the right approach now in respect of a number of material issues. But, having said that, I reject the idea that I have heard from some quarters that the Government have set out on a prejudicial course. I do not believe that of my noble friends, least of all of my noble friend Lord Williams who speaks for the Government today.
However, as I said, there are problems; for example, are we applying the right criteria as regards those asylum seekers who use false documents in order to escape persecution? Sometimes these people do not notify immigration officers of such facts on arrival. Is it right that they should be prosecuted under the new offences established in Clauses 22 and 24? I ask my noble friend the Minister: would that not breach Article 31 of the 1951 refugee convention? Then there is the question of pre-entry controls and visa regimes. Should they be imposed on countries where serious human rights violations are occurring at present? Would that not trap refugees in the countries where they are in fact being persecuted? I ask that question because I think it is exercising the mind of the Refugee Council at present. Is there not a need to ensure better examination of refusals of entry clearance as far as concerns monitoring the impact of carriers' sanctions on those fleeing persecution?
I turn to the question of detention, with which I shall deal briefly. Does my noble friend the Minister believe that clearer safeguards should be introduced into the system so that asylum seekers are detained only when it is absolutely necessary? I am not convinced that that is the case at present. Further, should not asylum seekers—I hope that my noble friend will go along with this—also be entitled to challenge the deprivation of liberty promptly before a competent, independent and impartial authority?
I welcome the moves that have been made by the Government to introduce automatic bail hearings for those who are detained under the powers of the Immigration Act. That should be done—and, indeed, is to be done—very promptly. But is it enough? As the Bill stands, the courts will not be able to examine the original decision to detain against clear criteria, and there is no presumption of liberty in asylum cases, as there is under ordinary criminal law. Moreover, there is no maximum period of detention and no necessity for continued judicial supervision after the second bail hearing. Is it not important to recognise that there are deficiencies here, which will require careful scrutiny when we come to consider further aspects of the Bill at a later stage?

221
I would also prefer to see an extended judicial control of the decision to detain. I do not think that that is adequate at present and it is important that that should be imported into the provisions of the Bill. Perhaps it is among those further amendments that are being considered by the Government, about which we shall hear at a later stage. I do not wish to detain the House by speculating in that respect. However, it is important that people who are faced with detention hearings should not have them heard in prisons or in immigration detention centres. It gives the wrong impression; indeed, that is not the impression of impartiality. It is perhaps the impression of the wielding of a heavy hand by the state. In the main, I believe that they are people who should not be exposed to that treatment.
I now turn to immigration advisers. I have to say that I have been a solicitor for a long time now; indeed, some would say too long. However, I still enjoy being a solicitor and still believe that it is a worthwhile profession. I used to do a lot of immigration work, but I think that a miserable importation was the work of some of those people who proffered advice and who were not really entitled to do so. Money was the sole objective and they fleeced unfortunate people—that is, people who looked to them for succour but who were in fact cheated. Unfortunately, there are some of them in my profession who have not covered our profession with great glory. But it is a small minority. In the main, I think that people from the solicitors' profession who are engaged in this area of the law, which is not a profitable one, deserve commendation. There are, of course, exceptions and I hope that the Government will deal with both those aspects of the unfortunate way in which some people who are in trouble are dealt with.
I move on to the destitution which faces some asylum seekers. I remain to be convinced that the voucher system is the right way to proceed. We have not gone into the matter in great depth, but we will have the opportunity to do so later. The burden of establishing that rests on my noble friend the Minister and his noble friends who will be dealing with the Bill. But what will happen? Is it right that there will be periods in which no support will be provided if, for example, an asylum seeker seeks judicial review through the courts or appeals against a refusal to provide support? Am I right in that assumption, or is it something that the Government will ensure does not take place?
For my own part, I believe that the benefit system is the fairest and the most equitable way of proceeding. However, I should tell my noble friend the Minister that I am perfectly happy to be convinced in that respect, if I can be sure that justice can be done to people who are in fact destitute and facing real problems.
I turn finally to the question of the powers of immigration officers to search and arrest. I am concerned about extending those powers. I am concerned that there is no independent complaints body available to investigate a misuse of those powers. Why not? I am also concerned that immigration officers should secure proper training and that there should be accountability for their actions. It seems to me that there is a need for guidelines
222
to enable them to carry out those additional powers with proper safeguards. I look to my noble friend to answer that point, too.
We have an important task in undertaking proper scrutiny of the Bill. It is a matter which goes to the very heart of civil liberties in this country. When one is dealing with people who are frightened, they do mislead sometimes. When one is dealing with people who are destitute, of course they panic. Of course, one will also have people who are crooked. We must balance all these considerations to arrive at the right and just result in terms of dealing with the matter.
I speak with considerable care and compassion, because I have been involved in this area for a very long time, as a solicitor and somebody who has been involved in the Refugee Council. But also I can never forget where I come from.
6 p.m.
Baroness Ludford: My Lords, I am pleased to follow the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. I agreed very much with what he said.
I cannot agree with those who call this a good Bill. There are few good things in it, including the regulation of immigration advisers, provision for appeal against refusal of visas for family visits and the target time for decisions, but on the whole I find it a depressing and even nasty Bill, which will make it more difficult even than under the terms of the 1996 Act for those fleeing persecution to come here.
The Bill as a whole emphasises exclusion and control, not, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, pointed out, fairness and justice. There is a puzzling inconsistency in the Government's approach generally between the good things they are doing and the bad. On the one hand, they show evidence of being reformist, pluralist, inclusive and enhancing liberty. On the other hand, they are authoritarian, illiberal, stigmatising, excluding—and, yes, even I am afraid, prejudiced. In the Home Office as a whole, with exceptions, we find too much of the latter tendency, coupled, which makes it worse, with poor management and inefficiency. As others have pointed out, there is also inconsistency between the Bill and Labour's stance when it was in opposition.
The third aspect of inconsistency is the Jekyll and Hyde approach to, for instance, Kosovar refugees, treated in two different ways depending on how they arrived here recently. The Government should have concentrated on making the system more efficient—not only the processing of applications, but also the effective pursuit, removal and deportation of those who are found to have no valid claim.
I must disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Warner, who is no longer in his place. It is a mistake to say that cash payments are a "pull factor". The statistics simply do not bear that out. The biggest reasons why our system in the UK is overwhelmed, with far fewer numbers than in, say, Germany, are the slow decision-making process and Dickensian working

223
conditions in Lunar House. Indeed, the Minister, Mr O'Brien, said in Committee in another place on 18th May:
"increasing the speed at which decisions are taken is a key to resolving problems in the asylum system. That is the best deterrent and the best way of resolving the appalling shambles that is our current system".
One curious aspect is the employment of 300 staff in the newly set up asylum support directorate in the Home Office to process and administer the voucher scheme. Deploying them as processing applications would seem a rather more effective deployment of staff.
The Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, said in his introduction that the Government would be willing to consider amendments that were sympathetic to the underlying spirit of the Bill. Since organisations such as Justice and Amnesty International disagree strongly with the Home Secretary's claim that the Bill is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights, and believe that it infringes some aspects of the 1951 convention, and since the Children's Society says that the Bill fails to comply with the 1989 Children Act and with the UN convention on the rights of the child, it is difficult to know where to start to find amendments, if only those sympathetic with the underlying spirit will be acceptable.
I have time to pick out only some of the worrying features of the Bill. In particular, I will not touch on the bail and detention aspects and the powers of immigration officers, which others have dealt with. There is serious concern that the Bill will worsen race relations. The message it sends out is that immigrants and asylum seekers are dishonest, grasping scroungers, seeking to bum off the honest British taxpayer. What happened to the proud British tradition of welcoming refugees and integrating immigrants? Of course, there have to be controls, but they should be fair and respectful of people's dignity, recognising the contribution those people can and will make to our society and economy—often a disproportionate one, because of their energy, get-up-and-go and intelligence, which have often led them to leave and often led them to be persecuted in the first place. Let us think of the 1,000 refugee doctors in this country who are unable to work for various reasons, when we have a desperate shortage of doctors in the National Health Service.
I have concern about the provisions which have the effect of privatising and exporting immigration controls. I am also concerned about not only the carriers' liability part of the Bill, but also the duties placed on registrars and clergy, other than clergy of the Church of England and the Church of Wales, and on employers. I find it curious that a government who are so insistent on the maintenance of border controls within the European Union should extend the range of internal controls. I should have thought that it was at the border that immigration control should take place.
For employers it is a great disappointment that the Government have not carried through their opinion in opposition that Section 8 of the 1996 Asylum and Immigration Act, now Clause 18 of the Bill, should be repealed. Indeed, they pledged repeal before the 1997 election. The Better Regulation Task Force has
224
recommended repeal, because the section simply does not meet the criteria for good regulation. It is ineffective and expensive, and its impact is bound to be racially discriminatory, because employers are wary of hiring job-seekers who might lead them to infringe the legislation. It would be far better to use Section 25 of the 1971 Immigration Act to tackle the problem of racketeers.
It is inappropriate to make registrars and clergy of religions and churches other than the Church of England and the Church of Wales carry the burden of immigration control, for which they have no training. It is also bound to result in racial discrimination and stereotyping. I hope that the Government will be open to amendments in this area.
I turn to the support system, where the charge of inconsistency applies forcefully. How can the Government reconcile their laudable commitment to reducing social exclusion and promoting racial justice with the creation of a new social underclass under the voucher system?
I come now to the question of the dispersal of asylum seekers. As a London politician, indeed, a London borough councillor, I am obviously aware that London boroughs cannot shoulder all the burden of support. The best way to make this a national responsibility is through the social security system, as the Labour-majority Association of London Government said in 1996, though it seems, shamefully, to have changed its mind.
There is concern that groups who are dispersed to towns and cities where they are few in number may be isolated and become targets for racist attacks. Will not the Government at least consider the expression of reasonable preference as to preferred location? There is great concern that if asylum seekers feel lonely and lack community support and access to services such as the Medical Foundation which has an office only in London, they will not stay in their allocated location and will drift back to London with no money and no benefits. They may turn to begging, crime and prostitution to stay alive. That would be an appalling situation.
As regards the voucher system, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, said, it is important to remember that this is not a right. People will have to prove that they are destitute. But while the cash value of the voucher system will be only 70 per cent of income support, and the system has all the disadvantages of inflexibility—it can be exchanged only for a limited range of goods—it will be more cumbersome and costly to administer than social security benefits. I do not know how it meets the test of best value that all government departments are meant to be working towards. I understand that Switzerland dropped vouchers because they were impractical as well as demeaning. There is no evidence that the withdrawal of cash payments acts as a disincentive to migrate. The voucher system is much more costly to administer than benefits even without adding the cost of the 300 staff in the Asylum Support Directorate.

225
The noble Lord, Lord Warner, is not present at the moment. However, I say to him that his colleagues who still work in Kent County Council social services believe that vouchers are a nightmare. They create community tensions due to the stigma attached to them and the fact that they hold up supermarket queues. There are great fears of a black market emerging with refugees being forced to sell their vouchers below value because of their desperate need for more cash for, say, travel, stamps and 'phone cards. I hope that the Government will reconsider this matter and place all applicants on the cheaper system of income support. I hope at least that the new system will not come into force at all until the Government have reduced the average decision making time to six months, and that in individual cases families will receive benefits automatically after six months if their cases are not decided. I hope that the Minister will be able to make those changes.
I have two further points. First—this has been touched on by others—I refer to the treatment of women, particularly women who may have been raped. That women may be raped by police and soldiers as a weapon of war has been tragically borne out yet again in Kosovo, as it was in Bosnia. Rape is a weapon of war as an expression of contempt and as an exercise of power. We need gender-specific guidelines for processing asylum claims, as I believe exist in Canada and Australia. I hope that the Minister can give some assurances on that point. Even if this matter is not within the terms of the convention, will the Minister consider extending exceptional leave to remain arrangements in case of rape claims? As the noble Countess, Lady Mar, mentioned, there is a need for female interviewers to interview female refugees, and special training for assessing rape claims.
I shall not mention children as others have done so and I am running out of time. So, finally, I refer to the European aspect. With the Amsterdam Treaty now in force which moves the whole area of immigration and asylum into the Community competence instead of intergovernmental competence—apart from, of course, the UK opt out—I hope that the European Union will prioritise the obligations of international human rights and refugee law and the European traditions of humanitarian policy and democracy. We shall need to look for improved judicial and democratic oversight through the European Court of Justice and the European Parliament. I know that there will be a special justice and home affairs summit in October in Finland. I hope that member governments will look to those aspects and not just see management as restricting immigration and refugees. Of course we need a common policy but we must also be positive in our approach to refugees.
As the noble Countess, Lady Mar, said, it is perfectly possible to have a system that deters bogus asylum seekers and allows genuine ones true refuge, protection and welcome—other European Union countries manage to have such a system—in other words, a real firm, fast and fair system, which despite the Government's claims, this Bill unfortunately does not provide
6.15 p.m.
Lord Sheppard of Liverpool: My Lords, thinking of this Bill reminded me of when I led a delegation from all the Churches to the Home Office when I was chairman of the Church of England Board for Social Responsibility. That visit occurred when Michael Howard was Home Secretary. He repeatedly told us that Britain was regarded as a "soft touch", so much so that when we left I was clear that what he wished was that the word would go around the world that Britain was a brutal touch and that people would be influenced not to attempt to come here.
The objective of a fairer, faster and firmer policy is a fine one. We need all three objectives. I listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Warner. I recognise—as we all must do—some of the complexity and difficulties involved in this issue. We need a robust and clear set of rules. In spite of the tough measures of the 1996 Asylum and Immigration Act, we are told that Britain has more persons seeking asylum than ever. Perhaps that is because more people now are being displaced or threatened. However, it was important to listen to the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, put the "numbers game" into context.
I hope it is common ground among all of us that Britain as a settled and wealthy country should expect with a good heart, along with partner nations, to take its share of those distressed people around the world who need asylum. I congratulate the Government on what I believe are their real intentions to make the process faster. That will have an enormous influence. The uncertainties of long delays have been damaging. Looking at this Bill one might say that it is a business efficiency answer to some major problems. However, as my noble friend the Minister made clear, there are great human needs to be met. It will not be an efficient Bill unless we pay attention to those human needs.
I want to make brief reference to four parts of the Bill. One or two noble Lords have mentioned Clause 18 on employers. Like other noble Lords, I remember opposition to this part of the 1996 Act, Section 8. I had hoped and expected to see it repealed. The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, has reminded us of the race relations implications of this measure. My understanding is that Ministers have regarded Section 8 as an effective weapon for prosecuting racketeers who exploit illegal immigrants. The CRE tells us that to date there has been only one prosecution under this section. I recognise the difficulties of preventing exploitation in this often confusing area, but I ask my noble friend whether he agrees that a high price is being paid in race relations for keeping this section. The CRE says that, as we all anticipated, Section 8 has stopped some employers from considering job applications from those whose appearance or name or command of language suggest that they may involve the employer in committing an offence. It is easy to understand that an employer feels it is not worth the hassle of checking documents.
Clause 18 of this Bill requires the Secretary of State to introduce a code of practice as to the measures that an employer must take, or not take, in order to avoid

227
unlawful discrimination. But why should we think that those employers will take any notice if they have ignored what the Race Relations Act has long said and what government and CRE guidance said before Section 8 came into force? As a number of noble Lords have mentioned, the Better Regulation Task Force has identified Section 8 as failing the test of good regulation. I hope that the Minister will listen to the voices here and to those other bodies mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, which have called for Section 8 to be repealed.
Secondly, and briefly, I shall turn to the question of appeals. When the 1996 Bill was being debated, I remember that many of us made a major issue about appeals. We even persuaded the Archbishop and the Cardinal to approach the Government about it together. It is a very important principle. Like other noble Lords, I welcome the provision of a right of appeal against breaches of human rights. That will make possible appeals by asylum seekers on the ground that a return to their own country would put them at risk of suffering torture or degrading treatment. I am also glad about the proposal for a single, comprehensive appeal. I think I heard my noble friend say that that would make it possible for all reasons why a person should not be removed from the United Kingdom to be reviewed. Perhaps he will confirm that that is the case.
My third comment concerns pre-entry controls. I am concerned about the threats to carriers and especially about the insistence on correct documentation. If someone is genuinely fleeing from persecution, he or she is not likely to be able to obtain a visa. The Roman Catholic Bishops' Conference said in April that this proposal to strengthen the carrier liability Act will,
"strengthen the existing barriers preventing asylum seekers who need to escape from the it countries of persecution".
The noble Lords, Lord Dholakia and Lord Clinton-Davis, movingly made those points.
I am led to under stand that Articles 27 and 28 of the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees 1951 make it clear that asylum seekers may be in a signatory state without proper travel documents. Therefore such persons must be permitted to travel to and enter the territory of a signatory state without documentation. I hope that my noble friend will say how the Government regard Articles 27 and 28.
The noble Lords, Lord Alton of Liverpool and Lord Dholakia, asked whether Jews fleeing from Germany in the 1930s would have escaped if the carrier they approached had insisted on their possessing the correct documents. The same applies today with refugees from Iraq or other countries we could name.
Fourthly, and lastly, I come to the question raised by many noble Lords about support for asylum seekers and their families. I am glad that my noble friend said that he would listen especially to matters relating to children. Like other noble Lords, I have read the Children's Society brief on its east London project which tells us that families and children who depend heavily upon voucher systems are often subjected to racial harassment and discrimination in local shops and markets. In addition, the vouchers can be exchanged for only a
228
limited range of items which often fail to meet children's specific dietary, cultural and religious needs. Children in the playground are called "voucher children". The stigma of being called names does not help them to feel welcome and accepted.
At least some of those seeking asylum will be given permission to stay in this country. The first few weeks in Britain are crucial. How will the family adjust to their massively changed circumstances? How will children come to feel that this could be home, where they will belong and make their contribution?
There has been some argument about whether the support package is worth 70 or 90 per cent of income support. But why is it not 100 per cent? Other noble Lords have made that point. Poverty is poverty. Income support is not generous; it simply provides what is necessary for a very modest standard of living. We should be not apologetic but proud of spending whatever is needed to provide a fairer, faster and firmer system.
I strongly supported the Government's military intervention in Kosovo. As a child I recall Mr Chamberlain saying that we should not want to risk British lives on behalf of "a little country far away". Those words have always stayed with me and frequently come back. I am proud that our nation was willing to spend whatever it took to deliver from oppression one little country far away. I hope that we shall not grudge spending more to help restore that little country and other Balkan countries which are suffering from the fall-out of war. There are other little countries far away: the fall-out of war and oppression leave many others suffering as a result. We should not be grudging in spending what it costs to provide our proper humanitarian share.
We made a point last time round on this subject, a point which we should not hear: most refugees in the world are cared for by much poorer nations than ours in Africa and in Asia. We are being asked to take only our share. For these people in desperate need—not in impossible numbers—I hope that the Minister will agree that human need and not cost-cutting should be the greatest factor in providing firm, fast and fair action and support.
6.27 p.m.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, it is only three years since the Conservative Government were under siege from a strong cohort, at that time led memorably by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. It is no surprise to me that the new Government are already in similar difficulties. It is not customary to spend much time commending a Bill—and it might sound like faint praise if I were to do so—but it should be remembered that the previous Government, whose caring voice rings today rather strangely, had allowed the Home Office to build a mountain of problems over nearly two decades. No one could expect this Government to deal with them all at once. Indeed, it is refreshing that under pressure from their own MPs and members of the Special Standing Committee in another place they are still revising a Bill even at this late stage. I therefore apologise to the Minister in advance if I have not caught up with all the amendments.

229
If anyone should think that this Government have now got it about right they should look at the huge volume of briefings coming in from refugee agencies. The Government may well point to the "shambles" left behind by the Conservatives, but what other word would describe the scene in the IND's new computerisation project early this year, with thousands of unopened letters and as many files deemed inaccessible?
We all accused the Tories of the "deterrent" of their new legislation, but again the emphasis of this Bill seems to be on preventing refugees from coming, not on giving them asylum. I realise that these things are easy to say for someone outside the system, but they are also being said by those whose daily task is to look after refugees. I understand how hard it is to change attitudes and practices in the Home Office; equally, we in Parliament must continue to scrutinise change and criticise delay and inefficiency, whether it is in passports for our own citizens or visas for those from other countries.
There is of course a cost to this country in maintaining its great tradition of asylum. But sometimes even intelligent people forget that asylum is not a burden on the taxpayer but a clear commitment from ordinary citizens through their elected Parliament. In that sense, asylum is like international development. The two should complement each other. Both areas of government suffered severe cuts at a time when Europe's economic wealth was still expanding in relation to developing countries, however much our Chancellors would have us believe that we were hard up and close to recession. If the Government have at last decided to reverse that process in the case of international aid, why are they cutting the support that they give to asylum seekers? Asylum cannot be seen just as a cost. Like development overseas, it brings us economic and cultural benefits as well.
Many people, including the Special Standing Committee, have tried to distinguish between immigrants and asylum seekers. As we have heard, there is a major industry built on that proposition. If we think of the motive of economic betterment as a purely negative factor—as we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Warner, that is not just a characteristic of the previous government—we shall undermine a process of wealth creation. As the noble Lord, Lord Janner, often reminds us, many of us come from other cultures and the vast majority contribute to our society. In the generosity table we are well down the European list at number nine or 10, after all our Scandinavian and German-speaking neighbours.
As we look through the Bill, the Treasury pruning knife seems to have been applied across the board, to protection and human rights on the one hand and to support on the other. That is a disappointment to me. The Chancellor recently spoke to the Church of Scotland General Assembly about one moral universe,
"in which, by the strong helping the weak, all of us become stronger".
I am disappointed because the Government have not influenced the political and the legal framework that determined the previous Bill or the famous culture of
230
disbelief in the Home Office that Labour so fiercely criticised from the Opposition Benches. I should be grateful to hear from the Minister that that is not the case. I look forward to his reply to the sensible suggestions made by my noble friend Lady Mar.
As a brief illustration, we all have in our minds the drama of the Kosovan refugees. How quickly it was decided in the Home Office that the new refugees must be genuine and could qualify immediately for benefit, while those with five year-old claims, perhaps from the same villages, would have to wait their turn. When there is political will allied with public interest, something can be done quickly. Somehow, as the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, urged, that will must be regenerated to reduce the backlog and support genuine refugees within our international obligations.
The Government have already made some significant advances and have learned from and worked with refugee agencies. That is a tremendous step forward. The agencies fully acknowledge that we have a listening government. All that they need is a government who will act on their advice. In some instances they certainly have that. There has been a greater use of extended leave to remain, such as in the case of Afghans and Congolese in 1998 as well as Somalis. Acceptance rates went up last year to 17 per cent for refugee status and 12 per cent for ELR. The Minister helpfully hinted at new measures for children in line with the Children Act. There has also been a greater judicial element in the detention process, which I know that many people welcome.
However, the Government know that they have to go further. The Minister may be able to explain why they cannot. We are told that a statutory presumption in favour of bail will now be included in the Bill, but that there will be no presumption in favour of liberty, in defiance of the ECHR and the Human Rights Act. It would help if there could be parity with the Bail Act 1976 for the second bail hearing. Half of the 53 bail applicants surveyed recently by King's College, London were still awaiting a Home Office decision. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, suggested that the true proportion was considerably higher. The overall number of detainees is going up, with a consequent strain on prisons.
There is no maximum period of detention and there can be no challenge to a decision to detain. Legal aid is not available to all bail applicants. There is no recognised right to medical treatment and private detention centre staff are given powers similar to those of prison officers, but without the safeguards of proper training. Detained asylum seekers reasonably wonder whether they are unconvicted prisoners. At Rochester, for example, they cannot receive telephone calls and at Haslar they are not allowed even to show visitors—in some cases their only visitors—lawyers' letters that they have received.
The Law Society describes immigration and asylum as,
"the only major area of law where there is resistance to legal representation".

231
It seems incredible that the Immigration Appeal Tribunal is the only legal forum in which an applicant can be without legal representation. The position has improved and the Government now say that there will at least be a presumption in favour of an oral hearing for those on appeal. However, there is a paradox. According to the Refugee Legal Council, there is an imbalance between the extra resources given to the immigration appellate authority for the number of hearings and the cuts in funding to excellent organisations such as the RLC and the IAS, which represent refugees. The Government know that those agencies are doing an essential job. Perhaps the Minister would like to comment on that contradiction. When a voluntary agency is able to afford to represent asylum seekers on appeal, it has a higher chance of winning. For example, the Refugee Legal Council achieved a 24 per cent success rate on substantive appeals.
There are many examples in the Bill of a presumption of guilt rather than innocence, which flies in the face of the new human rights legislation and makes one wonder whether the Home Office is running the Government rather than the other way round. There are still concerns about the safe third countries removal.
Two years is a short time to turn round a policy of two decades. I may have spent too long with NGOs to understand the reality of day-to-day government, but there are stories arising from some agencies such as Asylum Aid about the nightmares of being a refugee which make one wonder if we are living in Kosovo or Rwanda.
I shall add only a few words on dispersal. I have read the representations of the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture. On its past record, the foundation is unlikely to exaggerate its fears. It wants only to avoid any new arrangements that would cause further suffering to refugees in its care. We all remember the amazing amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard. The foundation believes that survivors of torture, who are supposed to be protected by the legislation, are still at risk of detention in spite of efforts made in the Special Standing Committee. As the noble Lord, Lord Alton, has said, the foundation believes that it has been inadequately consulted on some of the fundamental issues, including detention, dispersal and support. I remember the mistakes made at the time of the Vietnamese refugees.
It is unreasonable to expect asylum seekers who have survived torture and many others living from hand to mouth on the new voucher system to move away from London and centres where they know that they can receive regular medical support and legal advice. The case for revoking or reviewing the policy of dispersal is already overwhelming and I urge the Minister to confirm that the Home Office is seriously rethinking it.
Finally, it is hard to see how the Government can meet their targets for reducing the backlog, although we all want to see results quickly. There is no time scale or clear plan. It appears that families deserve to be in the six-month category, but that will mean penalising individuals who may be equally or more deserving.
232
Would it not be better for the IND to reduce the worst case load and get closer to an overall six-month target before setting so-called priorities for families?
The noble Lord, Lord Warner, did not have time to take up the lessons of the Kent experience of the new voucher system, but it shows that the new system will lead to queuing, black markets and stigmatisation, as the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, and the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, have said. Why are the Government ignoring that advice? The extra cash and other add-ons are of some improvement but expert opinion suggests that the new system still provides barely 80 per cent of the value of income support, ensuring that asylum seekers, for this and all the other reasons that I have mentioned, are still to be treated as second-class non-citizens.
6.39 p.m.
Lord Ahmed: My Lords, I welcome the Government's aim of a firmer, fairer and faster immigration and asylum system, including improved advice on asylum and the regulation of unqualified immigration advisers. Like many noble Lords, I have some concerns that I should like my noble friend the Minister to consider, although most of the points I had intended to make have already been made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark and the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford.
Perhaps I may turn first to Part VI of the Bill, which includes reference to the voucher system. The point has been made by almost all speakers that the system is expensive and bureaucratic. It was tried, and failed, in Switzerland. It has created an administration nightmare. Councils such as Hackney have given evidence to the effect that it costs three and a half times more, and it stigmatises people. The IND, which already has a great many problems, will be running the system; so people will not have confidence in it when it comes into operation in April 2000.
The noble Lord, Lord Sheppard of Liverpool, said that the voucher system represents 90 per cent of income support. Why should it not be 100 per cent? At present, income support is set at a very basic level. It causes people a great deal of hardship. My fear is that it will also create begging, illegal work and crime. There will be repercussions. There will also be race relations problems.
My second point relates to Part VII, dealing with the new powers of arrest, search and entry to premises. I am particularly concerned about the power that is to be given to immigration officers to enter places of worship: mosques, synagogues and temples. I hope that the Government will restrict those powers. If it is necessary to enter places of worship, local magistrates should have the power to issue warrants. They understand the local situation. It could be very sensitive. Most immigration officers are based at regional level and do not understand some of the local issues.
Thirdly, I am concerned about the removal of appeal rights for people who over-stay and are threatened with expulsion from the UK. I fully understand that there are people who abuse the system and prolong the expulsion

233
process. But my concern is with genuine people who have problems because they do not understand the immigration system and do not know that they have to apply for indefinite leave. I know of dozens of cases where people have over-stayed and the Home Office is asked to reconsider. Sometimes the department does reconsider; but it takes a long time. Sometimes the cases go to appeal. If those rights are taken away it will cause difficulty. Taking the figures for 1997, out of 4,620 people in regard to whom a decision to deport was given, only 890 appealed, less than 20 per cent. It is a natural right that people should have. Again, as regards judicial review, the fact that some may abuse the system does not mean that genuine people should have their right taken away. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will take my concerns into account with a view to re-examining those parts of the Bill.
6.44 p.m.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, perhaps I may briefly examine the wider context in which the Bill reaches this House. In this country families tend to be small, with two or fewer children. The population is ageing; and the numbers of those who are very old likely to rise for some years more. By contrast, the majority of immigrants come in at working age, bringing with them at least some skills or education, together with great powers of adaptability. Immigrants are consumers as well as producers. Their presence tends to create jobs. They often undertake the kinds of work which others are unwilling to do, whether in local shops, transport or the health services.
I strongly agree with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark, who made an excellent speech. I join him in paying tribute to the great quantity and high quality of work that is being done by a wide range of people who are working with and helping immigrants and asylum seekers and who are motivated by personal faith.
In these circumstances, it should be possible to present a positive view of immigration. That, in turn, will have implications for government policy, not only on straightforward immigration but also on asylum and related matters such as "exceptional leave to remain". A positive presentation will require courage, not only from the Government but also from parliamentarians in general. If that kind of courage can be found, it will lead to a more humane and less callous system than the present one. We should remember the many areas of Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and perhaps the North of England which would welcome additional population if only they could attract it.
I turn now to the guiding principles that should govern immigration to this country. The probability of reasonably easy acceptance and integration into British society should underlie all that we do. We should build on the families already living here. Family reunion for close relatives and dependent family members is the first principle. It is one that seems to reflect the settled policy of the Government; namely, to encourage family life. Already, that principle is being honoured, in that the great majority of those accepted for permanent
234
settlement are spouses or dependent children. That could be extended, particularly in cases of ELR, where it should apply considerably sooner. We should note the provisions of the Canadian Immigration Act 1978 and recognise that family reunion accords well with the right to family life, upheld by the European Convention on Human Rights. Reunion will build up the power of existing families to contribute to the common good. Its importance will, however, need to be fully explained to the general public.
My second guiding principle is that those coming here should, whenever possible, have a good grasp of English. That will enormously increase their chances of employment and acceptance. In border-line cases—that is, people who could either be accepted or rejected—a knowledge of English could well be the deciding factor. Some could perhaps be told, in appropriate circumstances, to reapply when they had learnt English. Again this should be a factor taken into account in decisions about ELR, or early admission of dependants. It might also affect presumptions under the 1951 Convention on Refugees, replacing a too literal application of the first-safe-country rule.
My third principle is to ask: is there an existing ethnic religious or linguistic community which is likely to accept and support the newly arrived immigrant or asylum seeker? Community support of this kind can make relatively easy what might otherwise be a difficult or painful process of adaptation to new and different circumstances. This principle therefore is contrary to the notion that asylum seekers and others can be dispersed in an even way across the country. Such policies were tried without success in the cases of the Vietnamese boat people and the Ugandan Asians, as was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Sandwich. Both groups, it was found, usually moved towards their fellow countrymen as soon as they possibly could.
The Government have stated that the earlier White Paper and the current Bill have made human rights the cornerstone of their policy. Their own advisory service, the IAS, however, comments:
"Immigration policy is open to executive abuse, as the media and public opinion climate is seldom favourable to those who suffer under it".
The IAS continues:
"The Government certainly has not heeded the advice it has been given—This will lead to bad legislation".
Here I follow the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, and I would go on to say that it may be too much to hope that the Daily Mail will abate its flow of articles about "bogus refugees"—37, I believe, since 1995—or that other tabloids will refrain from using headlines about floods of refugees pouring into the country and swamping it.
I trust, nevertheless, that more sober counsels will prevail in your Lordships' House and that amendments will build into the Bill something of the three principles that I outlined earlier; namely, family reunion, knowledge of English and community support. I ventured to make some suggestions in a debate in your Lordships' House on 25th February 1998. I asked for cash benefits and not for vouchers or aid in kind. I asked

235
that detention be only used for decided cases and that prisons be reserved for those awaiting judicial deportation. I pointed then to the huge backlog of cases, which has since grown. In my view, there is a duty on Her Majesty's Government to explain in some detail how in practice the present backlog of cases and appeals will be reduced.
Your Lordships have the opportunity to make this Bill more humane, principally by helping government to end the culture of disbelief and to improve the quality of decision making. Speed in itself is not enough. We really do need quality decisions. If we could achieve those things, it would cut the present number of appeals and make the whole system fairer. The opportunity exists, and I urge the House to grasp it.
6.52 p.m.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, among the sadness and human misery of so many asylum seekers, which has been so eloquently described, it is my role to bring the House down to earth with a bump. I feel I should express concern that the Bill appears to be turning most cross-Channel lorry drivers and train drivers into potential criminals, and possibly bankrupting them. My concern is with carriage liability in Part II of this Bill, which was commented upon by the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley.
My noble friend the Minister put this problem into context when he said that there were about 9,000 clandestine entrants last year. Most of them come in ships, vehicles and aircraft. My interest is in the lorries and trains. It is true that the numbers are increasing and the operators are worried. It is also true that most of the immigrants get into the vehicles without the operators knowing. That is the, problem.
I declare an interest, as chairman of the Rail Freight Group, but I shall also speak about road freight because this is a problem in both areas. My concern is that the Bill extends the carriage liability Act to buses, coaches and lorries. I am not sure about trains: they are not mentioned in Clause 25, defining a clandestine entrant The Bill says that tile Secretary of State can fine train operators. If immigrants do not come in by train, that may be something for my noble friend to think about. I am not sure whether freight trains are covered as well as passenger trains. Perhaps my noble friend can deal also with that point.
Why is it a problem? Most lorry drivers, in theory at least, load in a safe parking area on the Continent—Bulgaria, Romania, Italy, Germany, wherever. The lorry is sealed, and it remains throughout. But the driver does not always have control over where he picks up goods or where he stops for a rest. He may just be picking up a trailer; he may be delivering the trailer to a Channel port and the load will then come across the Channel as what is known as an "unaccompanied trailer", to be picked up by another tractor unit in this country.
The problem is that immigrants get in through the roof; they sometimes break the seals and get aboard, sometimes with the collusion of people on the ground. It very often happens without the knowledge of the driver: in fact, it is usually without his knowledge. It can
236
happen anywhere along the route through any number of European states, and he often cannot tell where it has happened. The immigrants are inside for several days, and obviously the load is in a mess when they come out. Often the company loses its revenue for the transport, because the customers do not want that load because it has been tampered with.
On top of that, he is now going to be fined. The incentive for the lorry driver to report immigrants is not high—I would say it is probably nil—because if he does report them there will probably be a fine, and that could lead to bankruptcy. The driver may even be attacked. One can understand, though of course one must not approve, drivers stopping in a lay-by and allowing the doors to be opened. That is not very good for the immigrants; they may get away but they could be somewhere in the middle of the countryside. It is not very good for the Government. It is a temptation which we have to recognise and deal with.
In the case of trains the position is even worse, because they stop in many places. There is one particular place in Italy where it is well known that trains stop for several hours. One train from northern Italy stops for several hours in a siding where, I am told, several hundred refugees camp around it. When they decide it is time to move on they find a suitable rail wagon, climb on the top and break in. There is no means of knowing that they are in there unless somebody stands on a bridge, and there is not much incentive for people to stand on a bridge. It is very difficult for drivers to check for illegal immigrants, unless they cut a hole through the roof, because they do not usually carry ladders with them; so it is remarkably difficult.
When it comes to the question of who is liable for this, I am sure that all your Lordships have read the relevant section of the Bill. I will give an example, a swap-body or container belonging to a United States hire company is hired by an Italian forwarder to send some marble from Spain to the United Kingdom. It sits on a German trailer and is driven by a tractor driver through Spain to a port. The container is then put on a ship on a special trailer to come to the United Kingdom. It is then loaded on to a different trailer in the United Kingdom and collected by a United Kingdom haulier for delivery to the purchaser of the marble. Who is responsible? The Bill does not say. What is the chance of collecting a fine from any organisation outside the United Kingdom? Why should the UK haulier—the person who has collected the freight from the port—pay for the alleged failure of security on the Continent?
It is even worse with trains because the box container may be loaded onto a German wagon in Italy; hauled by Italian railways to the frontier; be connected to a French locomotive, under contract from French railways; travel to Calais where either EWS or SNCF will haul it through the Channel tunnel, and hauled here by EWS. It is not a main contract because SNCF is contracted to somebody for the French part of the journey and EWS is contracted for the UK leg. The French Government are responsible for Channel tunnel security, but apparently not for dealing with clandestine entrants to the UK, so there are great big security inspections for bombs and so on, but nothing in the UK.

237
I know that this is not Committee stage, but it is interesting to note that the Bill states that the person responsible, the train operator, is the operator of trains who embarks that person on that train for the journey to the UK. In the scenario that I have just painted, it would be interesting to know who "the person responsible" would be. The immigrants might have come from Romania. Do the provisions really mean that the Government will fine French railways £2,000? I think that they might be told to go and whistle—
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is my noble friend proposing to become an examiner in private international law? The questions that he poses are redolent of my student days.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right, but perhaps on this occasion I should describe him as "my noble and learned friend". However, in this difficult matter I am merely posing questions; I am not giving the answers.
Moving quickly to consultation, the Road Haulage Association has been consulted. It recently received a copy of a code of practice on how the provisions will be implemented. The association states:
"It must be said that the draft was extremely unsatisfactory in its current form and our response has been little short of a complete rewrite".
EWS had its first meeting six days ago. As my noble friend the Minister did not even mention rail freight in his speech, perhaps it is not included within the scope of the provisions. I have been seeking a meeting with Mike O'Brien, the Home Office Minister, for three months, so far with no success. I hope that if there is a draft code of practice, we shall be able to see it before the next stage.
The Government are seeking to make transport operators their immigration officers. That will cause confrontation and aggravation. I believe that this is a matter for governments and neighbouring member states to negotiate. Screening equipment is available in the US which—I must repeat to the House this lovely quotation—
"can detect biomass through even container sides".
It works on the Tex-Mex border of the US. If the Government are to insist on these provisions, perhaps they should consider installing such equipment at Calais and other places through which these immigrants are alleged to travel. It is for the Government to negotiate this. I believe that the industry would prefer to work with government and not to see every driver made a potential criminal. Is it really worth all this for the 9,000-plus clandestine entrants? I believe that implementation is the Government's responsibility and that industry would co-operate on something feasible, if given some encouragement. It is important to remember that the Government's policy is to encourage rail freight; these provisions will do the opposite.
I believe that the consultation so far has been inadequate and started much too late. I should like all these provisions to be withdrawn from the Bill and
238
replaced by an agreement with the road and rail freight industries so that government and industry can work together positively and proactively to ensure that the very few criminals—there are criminals in every business and I am sure that the road and rail freight industries are no exceptions—are apprehended and that the others in the industry can go about their daily business unhindered, and perhaps even help in this matter. The Government should not turn the entire road and rail freight industries into potential criminals. With that, I look forward to an early meeting with my noble friend the Minister.
7.4 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, in this Chamber I have listened many times to the Minister making speeches on civil liberties or race relations. I have been proud to be able to hear those speeches. Nothing that I may say in the course of the passage of this Bill will in any way suggest that I have forgotten that; I shall not have done so. However, I know that the Minister is also a great advocate. It must be the skill of a great advocate to make the best of a very weak brief. If sparks should fly in the later course of the passage of the Bill, the Minister will, I am sure, understand that it is the brief and not the advocate with which I am irritated.
I shall speak mainly on Part VI, but as I am replying to the debate from these Benches, perhaps I may touch first on some of the points that have been made. I agree entirely with what the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, has just said about the limits of carriers' liability, and in particular with his point about a driver's limited control over his lorry. The driver is the ideal scapegoat.
I listened with great pleasure to the speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Clinton-Davis and Lord Sheppard of Liverpool. I take the point about false documents. This is a regular Home Office problem. The Home Office thinks about immigration law and asylum law in the same box. False documents indicate that someone is a false immigrant, whereas someone would be much more likely to be a false asylum seeker if he had genuine documents. I shall not say that no asylum seeker can have genuine documents. I know that that happens. It happened even when people left Germany in the 1930s. However, it is of the nature of asylum-seeking that documents are likely not to be genuine, as is illustrated by what has been happening to documents in Kosovo. We should never forget that. So, I think that the presumption being made is wholly impertinent and immaterial to the matter we are discussing. I also agree rather strongly with what the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, said about the powers of immigration officers.
I am particularly grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark for introducing the problem of placing in schools the children of asylum seekers. I am even more grateful to him for giving my noble friend Lord Tope notice of what he had to say. The individual case is being investigated. However, the problem is much more general. The right reverend Prelate will find that it was discussed in the evidence to the Standing Committee in another place on 18th March last. The

239
point was made there about the dislocation that is caused to a school when there are sudden floods in and out of children with special needs.
Another point was made, which again stretches far beyond the Bill, relating to the problems caused by the present system of school admissions, in which schools or local authorities are very far from having complete control over their admissions procedures. I shall not take that point any further now, but the right reverend Prelate may find it interesting to read the debate of a Motion tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, last winter about the working of the code of guidance on school admissions. He may also be interested in consulting Shelter about its joint research with the University of London into the equivalent problem with regard to the homeless. I am glad that that point was raised. It is the sort of interdepartmental problem that tends to get neglected.
I agree strongly with what my noble friend Lord Avebury and the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, said about the review of detention. Incidentally, that is a subject on which we owe the Minister thanks for the fact that anything is there at all. However, I wonder about the form in which it occurs. According to Article 5(4) of the European Convention on Human Rights, anyone,
"shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court".
The Minister has signed the certificate of compatibility. He must have considered how far, and on what grounds, bail hearings really meet that provision. I should be grateful for his answer on that. I am sure that I would learn from it.
I am also glad that the noble Countess, Lady Mar, said what she did about persecution and gender. I draw her attention to a judgment of the Appellate Committee of this House only about three months ago which ruled that gender could be a particular social group within the meaning of the UN convention. I am sure that the Minister has the detail available. I regret that I did not bring that particular cutting with me among so much else. It needs to be remembered not only that all women tend to find rape extremely hard to report but that some cultures, of which the Kosovar Albanians are one, find it particularly difficult to report because it tends to destroy marriage prospects.
I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, said what he did about the interests of the child being paramount. I hope that we shall return to that. I also hope that we shall return to the very narrow definition of a dependent child. There are many children—Kosovo reminds us of the problem—who come out with both parents dead. Is it possible that the Government can stretch a point enough to regard these children as the dependents of their uncles, grandparents or other next relatives who are willing to take responsibility for them? To concede that may save public money and it is also a matter of common humanity.
I turn now to the central fallacy of the whole Bill. Since it underlies Part VI as much as any other I must spend a little time on it. Paragraph 8.5 of the White Paper states:
240
"The real issue is how to run an asylum system which serves the British people's wish to support genuine refugees whilst deterring abusive claimants".
The aim is not ignoble, but it is absolutely pie in the sky until the claim has been heard and it has been determined whether or not the applicant is a genuine refugee. I recall that once before when I put this matter to the Minister at Question Time he replied that a seasoned advocate was capable of recognising, on the face of it, which claims were likely to be true. I accept what the Minister says, but he is too good a lawyer to suppose that it is the same point. It is not given to us to be able to sort the sheep from the goats at one glance. That is not a human power.
I agree with the Minister that there are people who use asylum claims to evade the immigration system. The question is whether it is possible to know who those people are before there is a hearing. If there is any way in which that can be done I have yet to hear it. I agree with the Minister about the ten-fold increase in applications, but I believe that the reasons for that stretch outside the responsibilities of the Home Office. His noble friend Lady Symons of Vernham Dean may be able to comment on the matter rather more appropriately than the Minister.
Last night I happened to read a speech by my right honourable friend Mr Ashdown at Chatham House in 1996 in which he pointed out that of the 82 armed conflicts in progress at the time he spoke no fewer than 79 were not wars between states. What we see is the breakdown of the state's monopoly of armed force. That has a great deal to do with the increase in the number of refugees. It does not result from an increase in original sin because I have never been convinced that sin is more original in one period than in another.
I also have very considerable doubts about the legality of the attempt to deter applicants. Under the UN convention of 1951 we are bound to give a hearing to those who claim asylum from us. That has been incorporated—or semi-incorporated—through Section 2 of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993. If we try to deter them from coming we are impeding their claim to a hearing, which is a legal right. I am also very much bothered about the practicality of the idea that people can be deterred. It assumes a knowledge of British legislation that is quite rare in this country, let alone in the back streets of Jaffna.
The Refugee Council points out that since the 1996 Act the ratio of in-country applicants who do not get benefits to port applicants who do has remained constant; and in Scotland where in-country applicants can still get benefits there has been no proportionate increase in the number of applications. That seems to suggest that they do not follow these matters quite as carefully as the Home Office computer supposes. The same mistake was made by F. E. Smith who said that the Welsh Church Disestablishment Bill had shocked the conscience of every Christian community in Europe.
"Do they trembling, groaning, bleeding, wait the news from this our City;
Groaning, 'That's the Second Reading'; hissing, 'There is still Committee'.
If the voice of Cecil falters, if McKenna's point has pith,

241
Do they tremble for their altars? Do they, Smith?".
I am afraid that they do not, which is why the whole policy of deterrence rests on yet another fallacy.
The other fallacy on which it rests is the belief that an asylum seeker, who gets out by the first means available and is bound by the safe third country rule, has very much choice as to where he goes in the first place. Even supposing that he does, is it really a good idea for the world's powers to have a Dutch auction about who can be less generous to refugees than everybody else? Will that not give us a world of flying Dutchmen? Will not the airlines have a fit—and quite right too?
Incidentally, we always discuss this question on the assumption that British benefits are more generous than anyone else's. They are not, as Eurostat tells us. If the assumption were correct we should already be getting a much smaller proportion of applications than we were getting 20 years ago. Once again, they do not know what is going on in British legislation.
When we come to the system of support, it costs more and provides less. My noble friend Lady Ludford's point about best value was well taken. I hope that it will be crystal clear that local authorities who co-operate with any part of this system will be immune from the provisions of best value legislation while they are doing what they are required to do by government legislation. It would be just like government in all centuries to forget to make that clear, and I hope that this Government will not do so.
The whole point of this is to make it all more unpleasant than it would otherwise have been. I agree with the point about the effect of the vouchers and concentration of accommodation in one place. I have not forgotten one evening in Greece when it turned very cold and rainy, as once in a blue moon it does. Everyone congregated in a taverna where on a television they could see a film of the burning of the refugee hostel in Lübeck. I watched the faces of the Germans sitting at the table next to me. They were absolutely horrified to the core. I do not want on a future holiday to be in the position of those people.
The loss of entitlement is also serious. That is achieved by the use of regulation so flexible as to entitle the Minister to take away the right of support from practically anybody he likes. I was pleased to hear the Minister's remarks about the duration of support—until the claim is heard. I shall read that extremely carefully when I am here tomorrow. That could be a concession for which one might be grateful.
The objective of deterrent shows through with painful clarity. Take this: Clause 87(2), the Secretary of State exercising his power to say where refugees shall live. To say that they can only live in one place seems to me to be on the slippery slope that leads towards internment. In the words of the Bill, the Secretary of State,
"may not have regard to … any preference that the supported person or his dependants (if any) may have as to the locality in which the accommodation is to be provided".
242
Those words seem to me to approach the sadistic. If by any random chance the Home Secretary were to put people where they actually wanted to go, he might be offending his own legislation. That can surely not be what was intended.
After all, when people come out of the experience of becoming a refugee, they tend to be in a rather traumatised state. In those circumstances you want to congregate round your friends, the people you recognise and the people who speak your own language. The CAB has already reported cases like the Somalian who has been sent to Brighton where no one speaks his language and he cannot communicate with anyone. It is not going to make matters any easier.
I heard what the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, who is no longer in her place, said about drifting back to London. I have supported her many times in the past on the burden on London local authorities, but that was because the burden was put on local authority budgets. When the burden is put on central budgets it is to a very large degree a different matter, and the accessibility of legal advice in London is unrivalled.
One should also look at the other things which are being done here. Clause 107(1), the National Assistance Act 1948, the safety net which came unexpectedly to our rescue last time, is being cut away just in case it does it again. Clause 108(2), the National Health Service Act 1977, disentitled refugees to protection under local authorities' powers for the prevention of illness. I think that the Government have there shot themselves in the foot. Cholera is not dead. Cholera is one of the things which did a great deal to put an end to laissez faire. In fact, it did more damage to laissez faire than socialism ever did. We already have a rapidly growing amount of TB among the destitute. If the local authority cannot intervene at an early stage and try to stop diseases like this among people who malnutrition will make all too prone to them, we are going to end up spending a great deal of public money which could have been spent to much better purpose.
I wonder also: is this deprivation of support legal? It appears to me to contradict section 24 of the UN Convention on refugees 1951. I know the Government put up an argument to claim that people are not refugees until their claim is recognised. I find it very hard to reconcile all that with the actual words of the 1951 Convention. Its definition of a refugee is having a:
"well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion. nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable, or owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country".
That begins from the moment of being outside your country. It is in the grammar of the words. That is the interpretation of the UNHCR handbook. The principal intention of the legislator means that we need to listen to the UNHCR. It is also the judgment of Lord Justice Nolan, as he then was, in the Koboko case. There is a very strong ground for arguing that it is the law. Justice is also doubtful about how far it is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. It invokes Articles 3, 8, 14 and, in extreme cases, Article 2. There

243
may be extreme cases. Article 2 is the right to life. The Minister will have considered that argument and dismissed it. I should be grateful to know why he did so.
Before concluding I shall turn briefly to the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Warner. He said that he thought we did a fairly good job of recognising which were genuine and which were not. It leaves us with a problem of the contrast between what we do with a body of applications and what Canada does with a very similar body. We cannot both be right. There are also sudden and sometimes dramatic variations in the treatment of applications from particular countries. I remember when John Major, not the most squeamish of politicians, described the death of Ken Saro-Wiwa as murder by the sword of justice. I looked at the figures for the treatment of refugee applications from Nigeria. The previous year's figures were: refused 1,485, exceptional leave to remain four, refugee status zero. These seemed to me to be an offence against the law of averages. I am not sure that we do quite as well as he thinks.
7.27 p.m.
Lord Warner: My Lords, would the noble Lord concede that in 1998 the number of acceptances of applications from Nigeria was about 7 or 8 per cent, rather higher than he is suggesting?
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am extremely glad to hear that information, which was the kind of information I hoped I might elicit from the noble Lord. I welcome it, but the point illustrates that error is possible. One should not be too confident, and the pool factor is subject to all the arguments about deterrents which I have already made.
I used to quote in this Chamber, apropos of Secretaries of State for Education, an American folk song with a chorus which went, verse after verse: "I married another far worse than the other, and I longed for the old one again." I knew it applied to Secretaries of State for Education. I am dismayed to find it applies to Home Secretaries.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am not sure whether I should be agreeing or not with the noble Earl, Lord Russell, on his last remarks about Home Secretaries, but I shall certainly not attempt to emulate him in his verse.
This is an important Bill. Immigration and asylum are difficult issues. This country has always benefited from those who have come to our shores, but modern communications mean that almost anyone anywhere in the world can formulate a wish to come to Britain. We cannot accept all economic migrants, but we must accept genuine asylum seekers. I believe that all your Lordships agree that basic premise.
Since coming to power the Government have repeatedly announced measures to reduce the number of asylum applications made in this country and to create a fairer, firmer and faster system. That is a laudable aim. But, after more than two years in Government the immigration and asylum system remains in crisis. The
244
backlog of asylum applications has increased, the number of asylum applications has reached an all time high, and havoc and chaos reign supreme in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate in Croydon. Under this Bill cash benefits for asylum seekers are replaced with a mixed system of cash and vouchers. While we do not oppose this move in principle, we have deep concerns about how the new system will work in practice.
The entire basis of the Bill appears to be built on the assumption that asylum seekers will have their cases decided within six months. Currently, they have to wait nearly two years. I should be the first to accept that the Government have inherited some of the problems from the previous government. However, I must point out that since the Government came to power, delays and backlogs in the immigration and asylum system have multiplied. It now takes an avenge of 22 months for a decision to be made on asylum applications.
I believe that the Government's proposal to reduce the decision time to six months is hopelessly optimistic. Can the Minister answer the point made by my noble friend Lord Renfrew on how that will be achieved? How many officials will be required? My noble friend mentioned an additional 300 officers, but I understand that they will be involved with the new support system and not the backlog. Perhaps the Minister can explain the position.
We support the principle of the Government's plan to replace cash benefits. However, there is the underlying assumption that asylum seekers will not have io wait long for their cases to be decided. That is unrealistic. How long will it take the Government to reach that target?
I turn to some aspects of the Bill which have already been mentioned and some which have not been raised. I begin with the carriers' liability on lorry drivers, mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. The existing legislation levies an automatic fine of £2,000 on the lorry driver for each clandestine entrant. There is no opportunity for lorry drivers to plead mitigating circumstances, even if they acted in a public spirited way in alerting the authorities about refugees. That seems to us to contradict even the most basic principles of criminal justice.
I turn to the appeals system. Despite the Government's claims of a comprehensive one-stop-shop for appeals, the Bill fails to establish that. Those who are minded to string out their cases through successive appeals will be able to do so under the Government's system. As my noble friend Lord Cope said, we are concerned about the position of children as outlined in the Bill and are opposed to Labour's plans to take away the protection of the Children Act 1989 from the children of asylum seekers. That protection should be in place for all children, which is the intention of the Act.
Our other concern is that many of the powers which the Government propose in the Bill could be used to lay the foundation for a European system of immigration control with the subsequent loss of security at borders and a potential infringement of civil liberties through internal police checks.

245
I shall return to some of those issues in detail, but should like to examine the rise in the number of asylum seekers. In 1998, there were 46,000 applicants for political asylum, compared with 35,000 in 1997. In addition to the 46,000, there were 12,000 dependants. As the noble Lord, Lord Warner, said, the majority were from just four countries. The total number of applicants in 1998 was the highest on record and there is no sign of this influx falling. There were 14,400 applications in the final quarter of 1998, compared with 8,455 in the final quarter of 1997.
This country welcomes genuine refugees, but one has to say that the vast majority of the applicants are not genuine. As your Lordships know, what is considered to be genuine is set out in the 1951 UN Convention relating to the status of refugees, as well as in several other UN Conventions dealing with human rights. I wonder whether the Government have examined the 1951 Convention and considered whether the definitions are relevant to the present day.
Criminal organisations are exploiting the immigration system. Many of those who are asking to stay here have destroyed all their papers in an attempt to make it more difficult for the Immigration Service to check their stories. In that way, Albanians, for example, can claim to come from Kosovo where people are genuinely fleeing from persecution. We must always remember that the greater the number of applications by economic migrants the more difficult it is for genuine asylum seekers to seek entry into this country.
As outlined in the White Paper, the Government have made changes to the immigration system without legislation. In granting a virtual amnesty for the 10,000 who arrived in this country prior to the coming into force of the 1993 Act and making settlement easier for the 20,000 who arrived between 1993 and 1996, the Government are sending out entirely the wrong message to would-be asylum seekers, which may account for the rise in the number of people trying to come here. I accept that a large number of people who want to come to this country do not know the details of our legislation, but they quickly get an overall message.
I return to the subject of vouchers. We support in principle the Government's plan to replace cash benefits for asylum seekers with a mix of vouchers and cash. However, we are concerned about the Government's timetable for creating the system. How will it work? It can work only if the new asylum support arrangements are speedy. The Government have said that what makes the system acceptable is that asylum seekers will be in it for only a short time before their cases are dealt with. How will the Government introduce the system? When will it be introduced? Indeed, can it be introduced before the reorganisation and computerisation of the immigration and asylum systems?
The voucher system will be complicated to manage and I shall be interested to hear the Minister's response to questions, particularly those asked by the
246
right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark. Will the Government consider inserting into the Bill a provision for changing the voucher system if it does not work? The voucher system is a laudable aim, but it may be difficult to introduce. Some countries use vouchers in their social security systems. For example, the American social security system gives vouchers which can be used in food stores. In this country, the voucher system will be new. It will not be run by the Department of Social Security but by the Home Office and I believe that it will be difficult to introduce. When one looks at the Home Office, one has to say that its record as regards the asylum determination system does not provide huge encouragement that the voucher system will be introduced without problems.
I return to lorry drivers. We are concerned that the proposals contradict even the most basic principles of criminal justice. It will be extremely difficult for lorry drivers to establish that they were acting in a public spirited way. We believe that the regime proposed by the Government is unfair to them and it is likely to be counter-productive. Throughout our debates on the Bill we must try to produce good law: law which will work. If it is not good law, it will not work.
We support the objective of the streamlined appeals system. Part V makes provision for a one-stop-shop appeals procedure and for lodging appeals under the 1951 Convention and the HCR grounds. However, despite the Government's claims for a one-stop-shop, the Bill fails to establish it. We believe that people will spin out the procedure. Indeed, the Bill creates new areas of right of appeal based on alleged breaches of human rights.
What is the removal rate of those who have lost their appeals? Looking at the figures, it appears to us that few people who have had their appeals rejected are ever removed from the country. Do the Government have figures to show that many people have been removed? Are those people still here? Indeed, do the Government even know where they are? What is the estimate of over-stayers? I realise these are technical questions. I shall be happy for the Minister to write to me. I am sure he will not be able to answer all the questions tonight, but this is an important point. Will the changes in the Bill increase the number of asylum seekers in centres such as Campsfield? Will further provision be needed? If so, will such provision be contracted out and how will it work?
As I said, we are concerned about the position of children as outlined in the Bill. We are extremely concerned about the Government's plans to take away protection under the Children Act 1989. One-third of the 41,500 asylum applications lodged in this country in 1998 involved families with minor children. This is an area of concern to all your Lordships. I am sure that we shall have to return to it in great detail in Committee.
The asylum support system provides help only to parents arriving in this country with their own children. Asylum seekers who come to this country with other people's children do not receive the same

247
support. The Bill proposes that grandparents who arrive in this country with their grandchildren will not be eligible for family benefit. We believe that children should remain with their families, even if that is with their grandparents, and that they should not be penalised for so doing.
Perhaps I may briefly mention one subject which has not been raised by your Lordships. The Bill makes almost no provision for asylum seekers who are genuine victims of torture prior to their arrival in this country. We believe that the Government have not developed a system for establishing whether asylum seekers are genuine torture cases and, if they are, for ensuring that they receive the correct treatment. That is a matter we shall consider in Committee.
Many of your Lordships are concerned about housing. The Secretary of State is specifically directed not to have regard to any preference which an asylum seeker may have as to the locality in which their accommodation is to be provided. This seems to denote that accommodation is on a "no choice" basis. My noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes was concerned about that point.
We are not opposed in principle to dispersal. We think it may be appropriate in some circumstances. However, many have warned that the way the Government intend to go about it will result in asylum seekers drifting back to particular areas and perhaps causing social problems. Should not asylum seekers at least be allowed to state their preference for where they wish to go—even if they do not get there—which would perhaps be near friends or family?
Many of the powers which the Government propose in the Bill could be used to lay the foundation for a European system of immigration control with a subsequent loss of security at borders and potential infringement of civil liberties. The Immigration Services Union has raised serious concerns about Clauses 1 to 3 of the Bill. It is concerned, for example, at measures which allow staff other than immigration officers to grant or refuse entry to this country, opening up the prospects of administrative control and immigration by remote officials employing pre-established criteria.
It is also concerned at the granting of leave to enter by visa officers which could reduce the control on entry to dealing with nationalities considered "immigration problems." At present an immigration officer may ask a visa holder questions. He can refuse entry if he discovers either that the material facts have changed since the visa was issued or that the visa officer was deceived. Under the Bill, the act of issuing a visa at a British embassy abroad would also constitute the granting of leave to enter this country.
Can the Minister clarify whether officers at the point of entry will still be able to turn away people who have received visas in another country if, for example, they consider that the circumstances of that person have changed? The Government have put in place an appeals system for visas which may be helpful in the application of this process. However, it is important, too, that we are able to deter visa fraud which exists in many places.
248
Some of your Lordships mentioned the provisions on employers, brought in by the 1990 Act. We welcome the code of practice in principle, and we welcome the Government's support of the original clause. As my noble friend Lord Cope, stated, scattered throughout the Bill are many provisions for the Secretary of State to use the negative resolution procedure. We shall have to consider carefully the fact that the Bill grants huge powers to the Secretary of State. The noble Lord will not be surprised if that is an area which will cause concern to this House, as it always does.
We support the aims of the Bill. I remember being involved with the previous Bills of 1993 and 1996. The Labour Party voted against every Conservative Bill on this issue. Perhaps if they had been more supportive, in the constructive manner of this Bill, some of the problems the Government face today might not have happened. I refer, for example, to the fact that when in opposition the Labour Party was adamantly opposed to fingerprinting and fought against it tooth and nail. Now, in the Bill, the Government are widening fingerprinting. They are also bringing in important changes to the marriage laws which will put onerous responsibilities on registrars. We want to consider such issues with great care.
I have had my minor "dig" at the Minister and his party, perhaps because I sat through the Bills of 1993 and 1996 when we were criticised by the Opposition morning, noon and night, or so it seemed. However, we welcome the aims of the Bill. The Minister introduced it in a helpful and constructive way. We shall do our part. I hope we will be a constructive Opposition. We shall support issues which we believe will improve the Bill. I am sure that the Minister will be bombarded by amendments from all sides, including his own. We will play our part to ensure that when the Bill leaves this House it will be a better Bill.
I planned to conclude by quoting from yesterday's issue of The Times. Unfortunately, my noble friend Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn has already done so. I was about to say that great minds think alike when I realised that, given the academic distinctions of my noble friend, it would be extremely presumptuous of me to say anything of the kind. However, perhaps I may make the point again because it is worth noting. The National Audit Office, in referring to the computer project at the Immigration and Nationality Directorate, stated:
"There are many examples of bespoke projects such as this one, which in retrospect can be seen as too ambitious".
We want to ensure that there is nothing in the Bill which will not be too ambitious, such as vouchers which will not work. We shall certainly play our part in trying to improve the Bill as it passes through your Lordships' House.
7.48 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful for the debate. The response, though critical on occasions, has been generally in the spirit which I invited, and I am glad to have it reciprocated;

249
namely, if there are improvements to be made, I am perfectly happy to look at them with an open mind. Some points strike me as being extremely powerfully made. I shall want to consider them with some care. I believe that apart from myself there have been 20 speakers. And several hundred questions have been asked. If it is agreeable to the House I propose to repeat the thrust of our policy which underpins the Bill and to deal with some general points and some specifics. It is impossible for me to deal with every question. Although occasionally duplicated, mostly the questions were not. I propose therefore to write to noble Lords. I shall place in the Library a copy of every response that I send. If I mis-apply a letter, three or four of your Lordships having asked the same question, copies of responses will be available in the Library.
I believe that the Bill represents the most comprehensive overhaul of immigration and asylum for decades. As stated by the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, among others, it is important that we get it right. We shall continue to listen. I can genuinely say that I look forward to further debates. I anticipate further debates in any event, if I do not look forward to them!
I recognise entirely—and not only because of the passions that are aroused—that we must examine the technicalities with great care and that it is a proper discharge of our function to do so. I confirm that we will continue to consult bodies outside government with a particular interest in the Bill's provisions, such as—to deal with the point raised by my noble friend Lord Berkeley—the road haulage industry in relation to the civil penalty; and practitioners in the field of immigration and asylum appeals in relation to the point made so powerfully by my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis. In particular, I also welcome any help we can get from children's organisations. Some of the briefing that has been sent out has been overtaken by amendments and events, but I welcome all discussion that can assist us.
The Bill is necessary to deliver a fairer, faster and firmer system. It is not a racist Bill: it is intended to be efficient. It is not motivated—to answer the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell—by the desire to make everything more unpleasant.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the Minister will admit what the White Paper says—that many provisions in the Bill are meant to deter. Is not that synonymous with what I said?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Not really, my Lords. One can deal with people in a fair, decent and appropriate way that is not designed to make life unpleasant but is not saying that we have an open-door policy for economic migration. I have said in the past, and I shall repeat the point if your Lordships will allow me the indulgence, that I sympathise with everyone in the category of economic migrant. If any of your Lordships or I had children and dismal domestic circumstances, such as lack of
250
work opportunities or other problems, we would want to move. We would want to follow the trail west, as many people did to the United States of America in the 19th century.
However, no government of whatever complexion would reintroduce the policy that once obtained to the eternal benefit of us all when, as she said, the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, came here as an Australian dentist—neither part of which I take as a term of reproach. We shall never be back in that situation and it is deeply unkind to pretend that we ever shall. The United States of America in the early and continuing years of the 19th century is not a model for what our society can ever want or hope to become. That means that decisions will be disagreeable and unpleasant, but the systems need be neither: they need to be fair and proportionate.
We have set ourselves targets to be achieved by April 2001, for most asylum decisions to be made within two months of receipt and, on average, for most appeals to take a further four months. If we can deliver that, we shall have done a considerable service for the people of this country and for those who apply for asylum and appeal. At the moment, average waiting times for appeals are below four months. To meet the two-month target—I am dealing specifically with the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, and I shall go into more detail subsequently—we are spending an extra £120 million on the IND over the next three years, including £60 million on case work. Hundreds more staff will be deployed as case workers, including 200 who are being actively recruited now. The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, was quite right to say that that is a different figure from the 300 referred to by your Lordships earlier. Asylum decision-making at the moment is running at 900 per week. That is 160 per cent of the levels achieved before the new team-based system came into effect. Those are the facts.
In the new asylum support arrangements we want a coherent national system that serves asylum seekers and relieves the current burden on local authorities. No one is to be left destitute and the needs of families with children will be fully protected. It is our intention that families with children should receive broadly the same value of support as that which asylum seeker families with children currently receive on the emergency income support rate. I am aware of concerns about the level of provision for children and, as I mentioned when I introduced the Bill, I undertake to give that matter further consideration.
I have to deal with the points raised by several of your Lordships, not least by my noble friend Lord Sheppard. It is important to bear in mind what is being offered before a conclusion is reached about whether it is appropriately generous. The support arrangements will consist of free accommodation, which will be furnished. I stress that, because I have picked up the example mentioned by the right reverend Prelate of the Ugandan young woman who was left in difficult circumstances in unfurnished accommodation. That is not what we are providing.

251
The accommodation will contain domestic utensils and equipment necessary for a decent level of existence, including linen, pots and pans, cutlery, crockery and so forth. In addition, council tax will be paid and the utilities—gas, electricity and water—will be paid also. The Family Expenditure Survey for 1997–98 shows that households in receipt of social security benefit spent, on fuel and power alone, some £13.12 a week. Those bills will all be paid in addition to the vouchers and cash. We will provide all those benefits—and I make no complaint about that. I simply wish to put the record straight, because there has been much public concern, based on misapprehension.
Vouchers and cash will be paid at a level equivalent to 70 per cent of the income support rate. Of that, as I have said, £10 per week per person will be in cash. We can fairly take the view that the package as a whole is broadly comparable to that which an asylum seeker family in receipt of social security benefits could expect to receive. I do not pretend that that is wealth untold, but it is not unreasonable for a relatively short time if we can deliver on the two-month and four-month targets.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, if it is broadly comparable with the benefits that are received already, what is the point in recruiting 300 extra staff to the Home Office to administer the system, when the social security system is already in place?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, we wanted to have a different system and the people who will run the support system under the control of the Home Office will not simply be concerned with the administration of the voucher scheme. They will also be concerned with support and assistance for those families. In my view, it is prudent to provide an alternative system. At the moment, as I have heard many representatives of London authorities complain, the south-east takes a disproportionate burden. I have already mentioned the social problems and the scarce accommodation resources in London. It is commonplace that units of accommodation are available outside London that are not under the same pressure—I take the noble Baroness's point—that London and other south-east local authorities have had to bear.
My noble friend Lord Sheppard asked whether we would consider all relevant issues before a person is removed from the United Kingdom. Yes, and the Immigration Rules will make it clear that it is the Secretary of State's duty to do so.
The noble Lords, Lord Alton and Lord Avebury, and the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, who has had a continuing interest in the issue, raised the question of the detention of asylum seekers. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, said that in his judgment asylum seekers should only be detained when absolutely necessary. I agree. We have begun to take steps to ensure that those who are not convicted of crime are not kept in prison establishments. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, mentioned one scheme that is presently under way
252
with a single institution ceasing to be used for prison custody purposes and being used for detention purposes.
Most asylum seekers are not detained. No one is detained just because he is an asylum seeker. It is the regrettable fact that we have found some people who will not comply with the terms of temporary admission or release. More than half of those given temporary admission, who would otherwise he liable to detention, simply abscond and that is one of the reasons why I cannot give satisfactory details about who these people are and where they are. For many of them we do not know. I do not think we can tolerate that if we can possibly avoid it.
We are introducing into the Bill—and I am not sure if anyone offered credit for this, so I shall again attribute it to myself—a presumption in favour of bail. That is a presumption in favour of freedom and, I believe, entirely consistent with ECHR and the principles which underpin it.
We have to recognise also that detention will be necessary to effect the removal of those whose claims have been rejected and who refuse to leave the country on a voluntary basis. My Lords, if anyone has a solution to that problem which does not involve detention, I would be most obliged to hear it.
We are going to have routine bail hearings. In using the word "routine" I do not for a moment disregard the importance of these hearings. "Routine" means that this is a protection for the individual. It means bail hearings within eight days after detention and again between 33 and 36 days. Those are important and I believe that if one has a system then one is more likely to be fair.
A question was raised about the opposition to bail hearings in detention centres and prisons. Our intention is to give the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor maximum flexibility in providing suitable facilities for hearings. Where there is a suitable magistrates' court which can cope and can provide proper custody facilities at the court, that will be used. Where that is not the case, we shall only consider using a detention centre or prison where there are discrete facilities provided, first of all to uphold the dignity and independence of the court and, secondly, to provide for public access. I have always thought that there was considerable virtue in at least considering bail applications in these circumstances: where you avoid the disruption of the day and where you avoid sometimes quite lengthy travel.
I stress that detention is used as a last resort. Two of your Lordships were good enough to say that at any one time the percentage is in fact very small. Some detainees have been kept for long periods. It gives me no pleasure to have to say that in the majority of those cases it is because there are last-minute appeals and representations against removal from the United Kingdom.
If one wants to manipulate the judicial review system in this country, it is not difficult to do so. That, pace the noble Earl, Lord Russell, is something which is well known to people and their advisers

253
when they get to this country. If one looks at the timescale to obtain leave for judicial review and at the timescale which follows in what I will put in inverted commas as a "hearing with expedition", "expedition" in that context is not something which I would recognise as being expeditious. One can play the system perfectly easily.
We are going to provide additional places in purpose-designed centres. We do not want to continue the situation which I have personally witnessed at Rochester Prison, which I and my colleagues have always said is not satisfactory.
We propose to set out on the face of the Bill the exceptions to the presumptions of bail, which will in effect provide guidance to magistrates and adjudicators in the immigration service. The Bill makes provision for representation which we believe is appropriate.
My noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis asked whether there would be support for asylum seekers pursuing judicial review. By that stage, they will generally have been considered by the Home Office and the independent immigration appellate authority. Destitute families will continue to be entitled to support under the new arrangements for as long as they remain in this country. Single people will not get support after they have received a negative decision, but we will be making financial provision for the voluntary sector to continue to support cases, where appropriate, where someone is waiting for judicial review.
The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, asked questions, echoed by others of your Lordships, relating to—he did not put it in this way but others did—burdens put on registrars and ministers of religion. I do not think there is any danger of discrimination here. The problem is confined to marriages after various preliminaries. We do not need to train registrars in immigration law; they simply have to report their suspicions. They have to do that fairly, of course, and their suspicions may relate to those with white skins as well as to those with black skins; but they do not need any particular training for that. It is not discriminatory to say that because the ecclesiastical preliminaries are different in the Church of England and the Church in Wales there is any feeling that those who seek marriages in registry offices are in any way second class or should be discriminated against. In specific answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, there are no new duties put on clergy or ministers.
The duties to report suspicious marriages are to be placed on registrars only. We intend to issue guidance on the relative factors for them to take into account. I am happy to be able to say to both the noble Baroness and to the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, that the content of the guidance is being consulted upon with the CRE and with other representative bodies. I hope that is an earnest of our good faith.
Immigration officers who will be able to use the extended powers in Part VII of the Bill will have full comprehensive training before they can exercise them. They will be cautious and start with a small number of officers only.
254
The noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, posed a particular question about the need for the judicial intervention of a magistrate to provide a warrant for entry. That is provided for in the appropriate part of the Bill.
My noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis asked about Article 31 of the Refugee Convention. That would be taken into account in deciding whether or not to prosecute; but I have to remind your Lordships that that provision applies only where a refugee has come directly from a country where his life or freedom is threatened. Most of the asylum seekers with whom we are concerned will have transited a safe country or safe third countries before they arrive here.
My Lords, I am most grateful for the courtesy of the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, in giving me notice of his question; that is, how much of the pre-1993 case backlog has been cleared? We have dealt with about 3,500 of the pre-1993 cases. We expect to have dealt with all those cases, now estimated at about 6,500 in total by the end of September. I have to agree that the process was slow initially, because of the need to contact the individuals concerned; that is not always easy with the passage of time. Well over 1,000 cases from the 1993 to 1995 backlog have also been cleared. We are now deciding more of those cases and clearing about 200 per week. I took the trouble to check that because I was about to sign a Written Answer on this question, and the backlog has since gone down even further, which is excellent news.
A question was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, about those who act for humanitarian reasons in assisting persons to enter this country. The extended offence of facilitating entry, Clause 23—about which I think the noble Lord was oncerned—does not apply to those who are not acting for gain. It is designed to catch those who do it for commercial reasons, not humanitarian reasons.
Again arising out of the noble Lord's question, carriers' liability charges for carrying inadequately documented passengers are waived when there is a successful asylum claim.
The noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, also asked whether the existing asylum cases would be dealt with under the new or the old law. The asylum claims will continue to be considered in accordance with the 1951 convention. There is no change in that. The Bill does make important changes to some processes, however. An existing case which reaches the appeal stage after the Bill is enforced will therefore be dealt with on the new system, and we shall have to provide transitional arrangements.
The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, asked about monitoring entry clearance in the context of Clause 19. I have to say that the Government are very grateful to the Monitor, Dame Elizabeth Anson, for the wide-ranging manner in which she has carried out her work. We do not think that the clause needs to be amended to specify in any detail which detailed provisions the Monitor can comment on. I believe that my right honourable friend made that plain in another place. Doubtless the Monitor will want to comment on the proposed bond scheme in Clauses 12 and 13.

255
I personally think that we should welcome such comments, which, judging from past experience, are likely to be constructive and helpful.
We are not undermining the Children Act. That is a very important point. It was necessary to consider this quite carefully because there were a number of concerns expressed, both in the House of Commons and outside. Indeed, much was said in the other place about families with children and we have responded. So Clause 113 imposes a new duty on the Home Secretary to meet the accommodation and essential living needs of destitute asylum seeker families with minor children. This will be comparable to what would otherwise be available in respect of accommodation and essential living needs under Section 17 of the Children Act. I need to stress that all the other safeguards for children contained in that Act will continue to apply. We will ensure that there is 24-hour cover so that families will always have somewhere to turn to in an emergency. As I said a little while ago—too long ago, I am afraid—I shall, as promised, give this particular aspect further consideration.
The noble Lord, Lord Alton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, asked whether we had paid sufficient attention to the children's charities and similar organisations. I repeat my willingness—indeed, my full willingness—to listen to anything that they have to say and to have such meetings as are thought appropriate.
The noble Countess, Lady Mar, asked whether we would be reluctant to use exceptional leave to remain. I can say that the Home Office is ready to grant ELTR in the sorts of cases mentioned by the noble Countess; for example, in Somali cases, which do not necessarily merit the grant of asylum, and in cases from countries like Algeria, Iraq and Afghanistan.
The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, asked about Clause 87(3). This clause is needed as a fall-back because we may need to make some changes and that provision will be available as a facilitator. It is not intended to do away with Clauses 1 and 2, but simply to amend them if necessary.
I can tell noble Lords that we considered tagging, and we are still assessing the introduction of tagging in the criminal justice system. Home detention curfew tagging has been going since 28th January. To be candid, it is too early to know whether it would be useful in the immigration context. One of the problems is that tagging will tell the monitoring contractor where the person is not—namely, at home between 7 o'clock at night and 7 in the morning—but it does not help us to prevent absconding. At present, once the tag is removed, or the tag wearer has removed himself, it is not possible to trace him. The technology in this respect is certainly developing and we are considering it. However, I am not able to give a more positive assurance other than to say that we shall keep this very much in the forefront of our considerations.
Questions were asked by the noble Baronesses, Lady Ludford and Lady Gardner, about women who have suffered sexual indignity, including rape. Indeed,
256
the noble Earl, Lord Russell, also mentioned this point. Certainly rape may be part of the evidence that an asylum applicant has been persecuted or is at risk of persecution. All the circumstances must be considered, including the allegation of rape. We are revising guidelines about how we deal with female asylum seekers—a point that was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford. We will revise the guidelines in consultation with outside bodies with an interest in this field. I entirely endorse what was said: women asylum seekers must be appropriately treated and appropriate treatment for men is not always appropriate for women.
Several questions were raised about the position of carriers. The noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, asked a number of detailed questions. I should stress that I am more than happy to hold a meeting with officials and the noble Lord, who has a vast knowledge here. I have to say that even a cursory reading of Clause 27 indicates to me the availability of significant defences; for example, subsection (3) provides that the carrier,
"did not know, and had no reasonable grounds for suspecting, that a clandestine entrant was, or might be, concealed [that he had] an effective system for preventing the carriage of clandestine entrants … [and] that on the occasion in question the person or persons responsible for operating that system did so properly".
I do not think that that is quite as draconian as was suggested on one or two occasions by a number of your Lordships. However, I am more than happy to revisit that area.
It seems rather a long time ago now, but the noble Lord, Lord Cope, asked a particular question about the Stoy Hayward team. My up-to-date information indicates that that report is being finalised this week. The team has identified some useful areas for improvement, which will help us to achieve our targets. There will not be government support for those pursuing a judicial review. However, as I said, we will provide funding to the voluntary sector.
The noble Lord, Lord Cope, raised, with some interest, the prospect of his former colleagues in another place possibly being imprisoned because they had actually discharged their duty in a surgery by giving advice. I have to disappoint the noble Lord: Members of another place of any party will not be able to go to prison because they are not providing advice in the course of a business. To make it an offence, I am advised that it has to be done during the course of a business. That is dealt with under Clause 72(2).
On a more serious note, although there is little more serious than the prospect of Members of Parliament going to prison, citizens' advice bureaux will be able to seek exemption from registration under Clause 75(4). So those bona fide persons, if I may put them in that category, including MPs, will not be subject to criminal sanction.
Questions were raised about ECHR and whether or not an application for bail was a sufficient discharge of obligations under the convention. It is not in itself

257
of necessity, but it would still be possible to bring judicial review or habeas corpus proceedings to review the legality or otherwise of detention.
My noble friend Lord Berkeley pointed out that trains are not included in Clause 25. They are not included because, at present, they are not subject to the civil penalty for carrying clandestines. Passenger trains are subject to carriers' liability under Clause 32. Having been kind enough to focus our attention on freight trains, I have to tell the noble Lord, Lord Cope, that, following his helpful intervention, we are now considering extending to freight trains the civil penalty for carrying clandestines. But I promise to consult him before that is done.
I believe that I have generally answered most of the questions that were raised. I think that the Bill is convention compliant. The mere fact that we are looking to improve it does not suggest the opposite. I repeat: although the speeches were relatively short in number, I do not think it could be said that anyone made a wasteful, partisan or negligible point. I stress that I entirely agree with what the noble Viscount said before sitting down; namely, that we all have a good deal of work to do. Indeed, he was echoing what all your Lordships said. We should all work at it co-operatively because it is an opportunity in regard to which we need to discharge our duties properly. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Company and Business Names (Chamber of Commerce, Etc.) Bill
8.18 p.m.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
We now move into a less controversial measure; certainly a much briefer discussion will, I hope, ensue on this small piece of legislation. Perhaps I may begin by saying how much I welcome my noble friend Lady Buscombe, who will be making her first speech from the Opposition Front Bench tonight.
This Bill has been promoted in another place by Andrew Lansley, the Member for Cambridgeshire South.
In the other place the Bill had an extensive discussion. In fact, I am rather surprised that a small measure, long overdue, quite uncontroversial and highly commended by all parties and by the Government, should have merited so much attention. Since no amendments are required, none were proposed, and none are likely to be proposed, I hope that we can abbreviate proceedings in your Lordships' House.
Chambers of commerce have had a long and honourable history. They represent traders in a locality or in a defined geographical area. There are also many bilateral chambers of commerce. Here I must declare
258
an interest, in that I am the honorary vice-president of the Brazilian Chamber of Commerce in Great Britain, which has counterparts in the British Chambers of Commerce in both Sao Paulo and Rio. I am also an honorary vice-president of the British-Argentine Chamber of Commerce, which has its counterpart body in Buenos Aires in the Argentine-British Chamber of Commerce. There are many similar bilateral chambers of commerce, and many British chambers of commerce overseas in the variety of countries in which we trade.
Above all, there are vast numbers of chambers of commerce in the British Isles, and it is with them that we are concerned tonight. The fact is that the words "chamber of commerce" are not protected in any way. They could be misused by some unscrupulous businessman who wanted to start up some project and thought that this would give it credibility. The object of the Bill is to provide precisely that missing protection, without in any way restricting the variety of bona fide organisations and proper representative bodies.
The various clauses provide for the Secretary of State to give approval for the use of the words "chamber of commerce" and to consult with the main umbrella organisations, such as the British Chamber of Commerce for England and Wales, and the Scottish Chamber of Commerce, in Scotland. Northern Ireland is outside the scope of the Bill.
The chambers of commerce movement, with which my noble friend Lord Boardman has been associated for many years, has been pressing for this measure for a very long time, as it will ensure that the high standards which the chambers of commerce have been very forceful in maintaining will be maintained at all times.
With that short explanation, I hope that we can move this very simple measure rapidly on to the statute book.
8.22 p.m.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend Lord Montgomery of Alamein. I must declare an interest in that I was president of the Association of British Chambers of Commerce from 1977 to about 1980, when the body still retained the word "Association".
I strongly support the Bill. It has been the wish of the chambers of commerce for many years to obtain the limited protection that it provides. The chambers of commerce have made a massive contribution to commercial life in this country. They provide a link between responsible commercial firms in a specific area, and they supply services, training and many assets to commercial life.
I recall that during a time of some industrial trouble, when the government badly wanted to know how commerce was operating in certain parts of the country, it was to the chambers of commerce that they looked for their returns. The CBI is marvellous, but it makes a national response; the chambers of

259
commerce have local, strong branches throughout the country and have provided very important lines of communication to government.
The contribution of the chambers of commerce to this country's exports has been very large. The trade missions that they send abroad are very important. The quarterly surveys of the chambers of commerce are very much valued and are very meaningful as to the prosperity of commerce in various parts of the country.
So I strongly support the Bill. It is right that the work of the chambers of commerce should be protected from intruders that may otherwise seek to cash in on the name "chamber of commerce" to achieve a wrong respectability. I hope that the Bill will go through as my noble friend has said.
8.24 p.m.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Montgomery for bringing forward this Bill to the House. It has been fully debated in another place and carries considerable support among what I might describe in this context as bona fide British chambers of commerce.
I should also like to congratulate Mr Andrew Lansley, MP, on introducing the Bill. It is an excellent measure and will produce a much needed improvement in the law. It is an important Bill, given the clear need, particularly in recent years, to protect the quality and integrity of British and Scottish chambers of commerce. As my noble friend Lord Boardman said, the chambers of commerce have for many years wished for that protection.
There are currently 230 approved chambers of commerce providing a comprehensive range of services covering national and international trade, export support services, information services, representation of business and access to training sources. The overwhelming majority of companies and businesses in Britain—indeed, it is thought 95 per cent—now have reasonable access to a chamber of commerce and have good cause to expect a high standard of service.
The Bill has two primary purposes: first, to protect the standing and integrity of approved chambers of commerce from abuse by individuals and groups of individuals who have sought to use the title "chamber of commerce" and pass themselves off as genuinely representative of the business community when they are not; and, secondly, to ensure that bodies describing themselves as chambers of commerce, even though they may properly be chambers of commerce, do not do so on the basis of an inappropriate geographical description.
With regard to the parameters of the Bill, it is not intended to prevent groups organising themselves to represent the interests of the business community in new and different ways in the future, nor to cover situations in which it may become appropriate for a chamber of commerce to be deregistered or for there to be reversibility—that is, power to remove members' names from the chamber. In essence, it has a narrow, albeit important, purpose: to ensure that bodies which register
260
as chambers of commerce embody the necessary characteristics recognised by the community at large, being that the chamber of commerce is owned by its members; that it operates not in the commercial interest of a member but in the wider interests of the area that it serves; that it relates specifically to the geographical area described in its title; and that it is genuinely representative of the businesses in that area.
I do not believe that it would be helpful for the Bill to be amended in any way. Therefore, I am pleased to support it as it stands.
8.28 p.m.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, first, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, on her first appearance at the Dispatch Box.
I endorse the remarks made in support of the Bill. I should also like to thank the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery, for bringing the Bill before the House. All noble Lords who have spoken have supported the Bill admirably briefly. I shall endeavour to do the same.
This Government have formed excellent relationships with the British chambers of commerce and Scottish chambers of commerce, and we expect these national and local partnerships to continue and strengthen. The noble Lord, Lord Boardman, talked about the strong local branches and the importance of their relationship with government. We see them as valuable partners in progressing the competitiveness agenda at both national and local levels.
The work of chambers of commerce at the local level allows them to advise government of the complex and varied issues and concerns that businesses have on the ground. We value this contribution and the work that the British chambers of commerce and Scottish chambers of commerce undertake in partnership with government departments across Whitehall. For example, the BCC is a key partner in the BusinessLink network, a key deliverer of business support services and is fully involved in the drive to ensure that high quality, appropriate and effective business support is available to all businesses in England.
I am sure noble Lords are aware that the network is now complete, but the BCC continues to work with government and other national partners to ensure that the quality of these services continues to rise. We very much appreciate the enthusiasm and commitment. Both the BCC and the SCC have moreover been at the forefront of promoting public recognition of the title "chambers" as one which is synonymous with quality. That is why this Government fully support this Bill which will establish a statutory right for the BCC and SCC to be consulted when the Secretary of State is considering whether to approve new business or company names which include in their title "chamber of commerce" or specific related titles.
The Bill will ensure that the Secretary of State consults the BCC or SCC in determining whether expressions such as "chamber of commerce", "chamber of trade", "chamber of commerce training and enterprise" and similar expressions may be used as part of a registered company or business name. It does so by providing for these names to be specified by statutory instrument under existing companies and names legislation. This link will

261
help to advertise more widely to the business community that it will need to seek approval before it can use a relevant name for its company or business. The Bill will have the additional effect of ensuring that the expression "chamber of commerce" and its Welsh equivalent could not be removed from these regulations without primary legislation.
The Bill provides for the Secretary of State to issue guidance on the definition of "chamber of commerce" to which the Secretary of State of the day would have regard when he or she considers an application to use a relevant name. The Department of Trade and Industry will of course consult fully on this guidance with the BCC and SCC. In the interests of transparency the results of that consultation will be placed in the Library of both Houses.
Finally, noble Lords will note that the Bill will apply in Great Britain. It will be for the new Northern Ireland Executive to put proposals forward for consideration by the Northern Ireland Assembly on any legislative action in this field.
I end by reiterating the Government's warm support for the work of the BCC and SCC. The Government are pleased to support this Bill which provides a clear and workable statutory basis for consultation with those bodies on company and business names.
8.32 p.m.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to my two noble friends for supporting the measure. I am also grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, for the clear way in which she has outlined the Government's support for this measure and the way it will work. This has been extremely helpful and I am sure that we are all grateful to her for that.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Cathedrals Measure
8.33 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of London The Lord Bishop of London rose to move, That this House do direct that, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, the Measure be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent.
The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, my predecessor Bishop Bloomfield once stood on Ludgate Hill in the first half of the 19th century staring up at St. Paul's Cathedral and remarked to a friend, "I look at that great cathedral and think of its large revenues and great responsibilities and ask myself: what good is it doing to this great city?—and I feel compelled to answer, not any to a single soul in it".
That story reveals that I have an interest to declare in my own contemporary involvement in the affairs of St. Paul's, but all the evidence would be against echoing Bishop Bloomfield's judgment now. Since its reconstruction at the turn of the 17th and 18th centuries,
262
St. Paul's has probably never been so densely thronged by visitors or its services so well attended and appreciated as is the case today.
There are similar stories from elsewhere. In an age of great mobility cathedrals are high places of Christian worship and teaching which attract the seeker who is not ready for the commitments inescapable in more intimate settings. As we all know, cathedrals also contribute greatly to the general artistic and cultural heritage of our country. I very much welcome this scrutiny of the Cathedrals Measure as an aspect of Parliament's concern that the Church of England should remain free from any merely sectarian mentality and that it should continue to strive to be serviceable for the people of this country as a whole.
Your Lordships will be aware of one or two cases which in recent years have raised concern about the adequacy of the arrangements for the governance of our cathedrals. The commission, established at the request of the Association of English Cathedrals under the chairmanship of Lady Howe of Aberavon, certainly had these unsatisfactory cases in mind; but the context for the broad terms of reference which guided that commission's work was set by the great increase in the activity and the salience of cathedrals in Church and community life over the past decades. The report of the commission published in 1994 was entitled Heritage and Renewal and covered many aspects of cathedral life. The recommendations have been broadly welcomed and there has been great appreciation for the constructive acuity displayed by Lady Howe and her team. Many of the suggestions in the report have already been implemented and the Measure before your Lordships' House today stems from the recommendations on governance which can be implemented only by legislation.
Briefly, the Measure seeks to extend proven good practice in some cathedrals to them all, while preserving the capacity in the framing of statutes for particular cathedrals to take account of diverse traditions and needs. Legislation cannot of course by itself compel people to work together harmoniously but it can create a framework which will help them to do so. This is obvious from the history of St. Paul's. The frustration arising from the statutes of a cathedral which did not begin life as a monastery and did not therefore inherit any abbatial command structure from pre-Reformation times can be plainly seen in Dean Inge's diary where we read of the impotence of the dean who at St. Paul's—said Dean Inge—was a solitary mouse closely observed by four predatory cats, the residentiary Canons. That old constitution was a recipe for divided leadership and inertia and also for waspish observations such as Inge's entry in his diary, "Canon Newbold died this morning and I have been trying to feign regret".
The Measure provides that the governing body of a cathedral will be a Chapter larger than that which operates in many cathedrals at present. It will include both the senior clergy of the cathedral, with a clear leadership role assigned to the Dean together with other colleagues, including a proportion of lay people.

263
A number of cathedral Chapters already profit from lay participation and the advantages of this arrangement are now to be available to all.
All modern cathedrals have huge financial obligations and challenges and the Measure provides for an extension of the good practice in some cathedrals of having a dedicated finance committee composed of people with appropriate expertise. There will also be an administrator who may be a voting member of the executive Chapter.
One new feature introduced by the Measure is the creation of a cathedral council to which the Chapter will be accountable and which can be available for advice. Its membership will reflect wider diocesan and community interest in the cathedral. The council chairman will be chosen by the Bishop in consultation with the Chapter. The council will consider the annual budget and decide on future changes in the constitution of the cathedral in the light of this Measure.
There is also a continuing place for the honorary canons of each cathedral and for the "cathedral community", those who regularly worship in or work for the cathedral. In cathedrals where there has not previously been art electoral roll, there will now have to be a roll kept of the cathedral community, especially since it will have the right to representation on the council.
This common structure of organisation and accountability still permits cathedrals to retain their own distinctive local traditions. I am so far from being a member of the Proudie tendency to be glad that it is so. For example, at St. Paul's we decided that if your Lordships approve this Measure we intend to retain the pre-Reformation designation of minor canons of the cathedral as "cardinals", as well as other distinctive usages. 'There is no desire to make a fetish of bureaucratic tidiness. The overriding intention of the Measure is to ensure that the cathedral fulfils its historic task as the seat, the kathedra of the bishop and a centre of worship and mission.
The Measure received overwhelming support from the Synod—only three members voted against it—and it has been found expedient by the Ecclesiastical Committee. Many cathedrals are actively preparing to implement the Measure should it be your Lordships' pleasure to approve it. I therefore invite the House to consider this Measure. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do direct that, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, the Measure be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent.—(The Lord Bishop of London.)
8.41 p.m.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, I warmly welcome the Measure; I think it is a very good one. I am a bit ambivalent about cathedrals because I live a long way away from my own. I believe that three or four cathedrals are nearer to me than the one in my diocese, including one or two in France.
264
As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London so accurately said, the Measure modernises the governance of cathedrals, spreads best practice and ensures accountability. I warmly welcome the fact that it has laity on the new Chapter. I believe that, as a result of this, cathedrals are beginning to bring in job descriptions for canons in the cathedral and providing them with accountability and a regular system of appraisal. This will all be conducive to efficiency as well as to spirituality in cathedral teams.
I am also encouraged that the community of the cathedral is being enhanced under this Measure. Cathedrals are centres for worship and mission, which need to be encouraged at every step. I believe that this Measure gives effective links for the cathedral with both the bishop and the diocese. Whether the Measure will iron out conflicts that have historically occurred between bishops and deans I do not know. I very much hope that with the help of this Measure the Church of England will be able to bury the problems that Trollope used to enjoy writing about. I warmly support the Measure.
8.43 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Winchester: My Lords. I, too, should declare an interest as a diocesan bishop whose ministry and diocese is closely hound up with a particular cathedral, in this case Winchester. I wish to make only two points—both in support of my friend the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London—from the particular experience of that one cathedral, Winchester.
Both in Ecclesiastical Committee and in the other place questions were raised about whether the whole enterprise of the Howe Commission and of the Cathedrals Measure was undertaken simply because of particular difficulties in particular places. Our experience is much more broadly based than that. Winchester, like every other cathedral, has been steadily developing over recent decades its extraordinary rich ministry and opportunities. It has been doing so—like almost every one of its opposite numbers—without scandal; it has been doing so with a constantly developing range of fruitful relationships and growing collaboration with the very wide range of people, employed and volunteers, many hundreds in most cathedrals, who together make up its ministry.
Winchester was, under the leadership of the previous dean, alongside the rest of the Association of English Cathedrals, among the most eager to call for the kind of report that Lady Howe and her colleagues eventually produced—not for dealing with particular difficulties but in the general sense that the legal and other structures of cathedrals needed fresh assistance and a fresh look. It has gladly contributed to the process and it is finding beneficial the work that it has embarked upon in waiting for your Lordships' agreement to this Measure.
Secondly, the right reverend Prelate spoke of no wish for a fetish of tidiness. Perhaps I may give an example of that. We find in Winchester—as is found in London—that there is every opportunity both to

265
consider seriously and freshly the whole range of the cathedral's statutory basis and to make proper provision for the various and particular things arising out of long history, particular situation and detailed opportunities which mark Winchester out from others. We have recently had confirmation that that is how both we and one of our neighbours are doing this work. We agreed with one of our neighbours that we would exchange our working procedures. We have been very interested to discover the significant difference within the legislation between the way in which we and our immediate, ancient neighbour are setting about this work. I, too, hope that your Lordships will give this Measure the appropriate green light.
8.47 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I have seen something of different cathedrals over the years although my main involvement—both as a boy and now as an occasional singer—has been with Westminster Abbey. I am conscious of the immense transformation of the role of cathedrals—even more of the Abbey—over the past 50 years. When I was a boy we had the occasional trickle of tourists into the Abbey. Last year, when it was discovered that 20 minutes after each Eurostar arrival at Waterloo there was a noticeable rise in the number of visitors, it was recognised that there had to be a limitation along with consideration of charges, the long-term implications of the income that was raised, and the subsequent financial obligations and so on.
The multiple roles of cathedrals as public buildings which are also church buildings, as buildings which serve the entire community, as centres of music, both concert halls and places where music is used for worship, both contemporary and traditional, as ancient monuments, and, increasingly, as focuses for tourism, raise very large issues. I hesitate to welcome the idea that best practice and modern management techniques should be involved in these roles, but I also recognise that they have to be part of the response to the intense pressures.
Perhaps I may say a little about the role of the Royal Peculiars because it was one of the questions very much raised in the Ecclesiastical Committee's discussions. The Royal Peculiars serve the Crown. If one is going to change the function of the Royal Peculiars, one is beginning to get at the Crown. There have been many somewhat intemperate discussions of current events. I would remark merely that when Henry Purcell was organist of the Abbey he had to be sharply reprimanded by the dean for charging visitors to the organ loft. There have been many old scandals, some minor, as there are today.
What we need from the Measure is the widest possible involvement of the lay community and stricter financial controls for centres that will become among the more income-generating of the Church of England. The question of where the money goes will be
266
increasingly important. Multiple functions will continue to be carried out under increasing pressures. I welcome the Measure.
8.50 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of LondonMy Lords, I am very grateful for the tone of the contributions. I am very grateful for the emphasis put by the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, on the centrality of worship and mission to the cathedral and for the emphasis put by my friend, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester, on the freedom for manoeuvre that the Measure gives.
I particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, for his sensitive and sympathetic appraisal of the current position of cathedrals. I have to declare another interest in that I am Dean of the Chapels Royal and am therefore responsible for another range of Royal Peculiars. The noble Lord will know that there is a separate inquiry, inspired by the results of Lady Howe's commission, which will meet at the request of the Deans of the Royal Peculiars. It will bring together Professor Averil Cameron from Keble, the Dean of York and Sir Brian Jenkins to examine the problems to which the noble Lord referred.
Every cathedral has had difficulties with the organ loft. When Mendelssohn came to play in St. Paul's he went on so long that the vergers finally cut off the bellows. Before that happens to me, I crave your Lordships' support in approving the Motion.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Care of Places of Worship Measure
Lord Carter: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Care of Places of Worship Measure, has consented to place her prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Measure, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Measure.
8.52 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of London The Lord Bishop of London rose to move, That this House do direct that, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, the Measure be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent.
The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, I am grateful for the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Carter.
At the outset, perhaps I may refer to a printing error in the version of the Measure that comes before your Lordships. In line 9, Clause 1(2) should say,
"Subject to subsection (5) below",
and not subsection (4), as printed. That will avoid my having to come back to the matter.
At this stage in the evening, your Lordships' House may be pleased to note that the Measure is modest in length and does not compel anyone to do anything unless they wish to. However, it helps to fill in a gap in the existing arrangements.
Noble Lords will know that while churches belonging to the Church of England are in use for ecclesiastical purposes they and their graveyards are covered by the faculty jurisdiction controls. That is a rigorous system, although it takes account of the need to use the building for its primary purpose of Christian worship and mission.
However, there are certain buildings of an ecclesiastical nature that, under the Ecclesiastical Exemption (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Order 1994, are subject to neither Church nor secular controls. Those buildings include ecclesiastical peculiars which are outside the jurisdiction of diocesan bishops, buildings belonging to religious communities, chapels belonging to educational institutions and some buildings shared with other Christian denominations.
In view of some of the anxieties expressed by some members of the Ecclesiastical Committee, I should stress that the Measure relates only to places of worship linked to the Church of England, not to those that belong wholly to other Christian Churches or other faiths.
It is clearly unsatisfactory that there should be such a gap in the regulatory system. I pay tribute to the officials from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport who, together with English Heritage and representatives of many of the institutions that would be affected, have shaped the Measure.
In brief, the Measure provides an opportunity for those responsible for places of worship in the above categories to opt into the faculty jurisdiction should they desire to do so. Otherwise, and if the buildings are listed or in a conservation area, they will normally come within secular control when the relevant sections of the 1994 order are revoked.
The Measure provides that if a place of worship falls within the definitions offered in Section 1, the appropriate authorities can have it entered on a list kept by the Council for the Care of Churches, which advises the Church of England on the use, care and conservation of places of worship. The process is not irreversible and the same authorities can request that their place of worship be removed from the list. Copies of the list will be available to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, English Heritage and local planning authorities and it will be open to public inspection.
It will therefore be clear to all which system of control is in force for any particular place of worship. This modest Measure will enable the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to make progress in revoking the temporary exemptions under the 1994 Order. Based on extensive consultation, the present Measure proved uncontroversial in Synod and has been welcomed by many of those whose buildings will come within its scope. I ask the House to give sympathetic consideration to this further measure of protection for a significant part of this country's cultural and religious heritage.
Moved, That this House do direct that, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, the Measure be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent.—(The Lord Bishop of London.)
8.56 p.m.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, as I stand up for the second time this evening, I am racking my brains for the correct word to describe being the jam between the sandwich of two senior Bishops. I have not been able to find an answer.
I warmly support the Measure, which brings a number of buildings, as detailed in Clause 1, within the faculty jurisdiction if those responsible for the buildings so wish, as the right reverend Prelate, whom I thank for so clearly introducing both Measures this evening, said.
One point that I hope that I clarified correctly in the Ecclesiastical Committee was that the Measure deals with the exemption from listed buildings consent and does not in any way affect legal planning consent provisions. There is no financial obligation on the state as a result of the Measure.
I warmly appreciate the wide consultation that went on through Synod with the different organisations that the right reverend Prelate mentioned. The Measure has the support of the Government. It will clarify but keep flexible the position of faculty jurisdiction for the buildings concerned. I warmly support it.
8.58 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Winchester: My Lords, I speak in support of the Measure, as an interested party in at least three respects and in relation, at the latest count, to at least 14 buildings. I have visitatorial or quasi-visitatorial responsibilities in relation to five Oxford colleges, all with medieval chapel buildings, two public schools, one Church college of higher education, one 12th century alms house charitable institution, four religious communities and the medieval chapel with a restoration interior of the official house of the Bishop of Winchester. All are in regular, if not daily, use for worship according to the rights and ceremonies of the Church of England. It seems to me entirely appropriate, indeed necessary, that those who are responsible for all the other buildings and I in relation to the chapel of Wolvesey should have this opportunity. The Measure offers the option for the care and development of such buildings to be regulated by an appropriate body with an understanding of the subtleties and delicacies of historic buildings whose purpose continues to be the worship of almighty God. I hope that noble Lords will support the Measure.
9 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I echo the right reverend Prelate's reference to "subtleties and delicacies". I am a member of both the Church of England and the National Trust. Those, however, are different bodies. Important problems arise for a church that has to take care of a large number of historic

269
buildings but also use them as "living" buildings for worship, as community centres and as centres of college life.
I remember a rather bitter debate within the governing body of my own college, King's College, some time ago, when a rather beautiful picture, which now hangs at the east end, was presented to the college. One of the Fellows said that he saw no reason why that perfectly decent concert hall should be converted into an art gallery. There are, however, other uses for colleges at Oxford and Cambridge and elsewhere. This Measure tidies up the arrangement.
I am learning the complexities of faculty jurisdiction as my own church, in the diocese of Southwark, attempts to reconstruct some minor elements of a rather beautiful Victorian church. I recognise that the subtleties and delicacies of changing habits within the Church, and efforts to give reality to the needs of
270
worship, often come up against the problems of historic buildings. Passions are always raised. This Measure makes a useful contribution.
9.1 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of London: My Lords, I am grateful for the subtle and delicate way in which noble Lords have responded. I am deeply envious of the right reverend Prelate's portfolio of medieval chapels. I am grateful for the general support that the Measure has received, and I ask the House to approve the Motion.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Grand Committee with amendments: Bill ordered to be printed as amended.
House adjourned at one minute past nine o'clock.

Official Report of the Grand Committee on the Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty Bill
Tuesday, 29th June 1999.
The Committee met at half-past three of the clock.
[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux) in the Chair.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux): Before I put the Question that the Title be postponed, it may be helpful to remind your Lordships of the procedure for today's Committee stage. Except in one important respect, our proceedings will be exactly as in a normal Committee of the Whole House. We shall go through the Bill clause by clause; noble Lords will speak standing; all noble Lords are free to attend and participate; and the proceedings will be recorded in Hansard.

The one difference is that the House has agreed that there shall be no Divisions in the Grand Committee. Any issue on which agreement cannot be reached should be considered again at the Report stage when, if necessary, a Division may be called. Unless, therefore, an amendment is likely to be agreed to, it should be withdrawn.
Title postponed.
Clause 1 [Purposes of designation of areas of outstanding natural beauty]:
Lord Rotherwick Lord Rotherwick moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 11, leave out ("maintaining") and insert ("sustaining")
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 2 and 3. To some Members of the Committee, this amendment may be seen simply as a matter of linguistic pedantry. However, if this Bill is to become law, it must be absolutely clear not only what it intends to achieve but also what is to be enforced in order to protect and enhance our areas of outstanding natural beauty. The key word is "enhance". We must not simply maintain an area of outstanding natural beauty as though it were something preserved in aspic at a random moment in time, but we must sustain areas of outstanding natural beauty.
In "sustaining" as opposed to "maintaining", we are allowing for areas of outstanding natural beauty to continue to be dynamic—a living part of the rural environment. Ideally, they should be managed in such a way as to be sustainable areas. Where possible, they should contribute to the overall well-being of the local area in economic as well as recreational terms.
We must avoid the creation of a series of dead, museum-like areas in the middle of a living countryside. That would be harmful to the countryside as a whole, to rural communities as well as to areas of outstanding
CWH 2
natural beauty themselves. There are virtually no areas in England that can truly be considered to be natural. Our countryside has been moulded by the presence of man. That includes those areas of outstanding natural beauty. When we talk of any part or aspect of the countryside, we must remember that we are not talking simply of the flora, fauna and wildlife, but also of the people who own, live and work on the land. Thus, the use of the word "sustaining" as opposed to "maintaining" is not mere pedantry but a crucial difference that takes account of the needs of AONBs and the countryside in its full meaning.
On Amendment No. 2, I would say that in wishing to alter the word "maintaining" to "sustaining", we are attempting to harmonise the preceding subsection with this current one. Not only do the addition of the words "livelihood" and "communities" help to make this clause of the Bill clearer, more harmonious and consistent with what has gone on before, but it also gives due recognition to the fact that the countryside must be seen primarily as its people.
As it stands, this clause fails to see AONBs as part of the wider countryside. AONBs are not all isolated wildernesses that can be preserved as if man were nothing but a dispassionate observer and preserver. In fact, most of them form part of a living and working countryside. Our landscape is a managed environment and it has been moulded and shaped over the centuries by the people who live and work on that land. For example, the magnificence of our heather moorland still exists thanks to man's custodial care, yet it is economically viable because of game conservancy and shooting.
It is precisely because of man's role—an active role—in the natural order of things that this balance is maintained and the countryside can be enjoyed by the nation as a whole. This amendment recognises rural people and ensures that in the designation of AONBs and the subsequent activity of sustaining them, the needs and roles of rural people are properly integrated into that strategy. AONBs must not become a burden on rural communities but a much treasured, loved and viable rural asset for the present and future generations. Without this amendment, the Bill falls short of adequately recognising this intrinsic relationship between the land and the people.
Amendment No. 3 seeks to substitute "incongruous and insensitive" for "intrusive". It is quite clear what is meant by "intrusive". At least, I know how I would interpret it. However, it is a word open to abuse by those who would oppose any future change and development in areas of outstanding natural beauty. Any development or alteration is, by the very nature, an intrusion: it alters and therefore intrudes upon the status quo. Similarly, by intruding it has an effect. That may sound to some Members of the Committee as though it is nothing more than a lawyer's argument. We are, however, only too well aware of how badly-worded legislation can be used by those misguided persons—for example, of the eco-warrior type—who would like to see the British countryside perhaps frozen, like some preserved relic at some undefined point in time.
While such people and other campaigners, wrong as their methods so often are, draw our attention to the threat proposed to our countryside in our time, it is important that the countryside is allowed to live. It must not become a decaying museum but must continually develop and thus be stimulating in its freshness. As any biologist will tell, one of the characteristics of something living is growth or change. Healthy living things and environments are also, generally speaking, self-sustainable. Therefore, AONBs must not become little enclaves of an imaginist rural ideal. Rather, they should continue to grow and develop as an integral part of the rural landscape, including rural communities and livelihoods.
As everywhere, a balance must be struck between preservation, progress and the need for people. This amendment would ensure that continued progress and development in areas of great beauty was possible where such changes were genuinely needed for the future of a community and/or an AONB. Any activities or developments would be judged for their sustainability on their individual merits and according to the two eminently sensible criteria contained in this amendment of congruity and sensitivity. I beg to move.
Baroness Byford: I rise to support my noble friend on the first of the three amendments, particularly with reference to "sustaining". "Maintaining" has very specific implications and those of us who work and live in the countryside would very much support "sustaining".
I take this opportunity to thank all Members of the Committee for the kind messages I received and give my apologies for not being at Second Reading, in particular to my noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry. My brother unfortunately died the previous night and I had to go home. I am very grateful for the messages of support and sympathy that I have received.
I am anxious to try to respond to the sensible suggestions that have come forward from my noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry with the amendments he put forward. I hope that, in this instance, he will be able to accept "sustaining" as it is a very good word which expresses exactly what we need. The countryside must be a living and working environment.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: I thank all noble Lords who are attending this afternoon for the attention that they are giving to the AONB Bill. I believe that this is a rather unique occasion. I do not know that a Private Member's Bill has ever moved into Grand Committee before; and it is the subject of some interest that we are causing a little piece of history.
More important, of course, is what we shall do to areas of outstanding natural beauty. In his more general remarks, my noble friend Lord Rotherwick spoke about areas of outstanding natural beauty and the need for them not to become, in his words, "little enclaves". I should like to touch upon that briefly on the Question that Clause 1 stand part of the debate. That might give
CWH 4
everyone an opportunity to express some more general thoughts about the purposes and designations of areas of outstanding natural beauty.
I have listened to what has been said about Amendment No. 1 which inserts "maintaining" rather than "sustaining". If that is the general wish of the Committee, I should certainly not wish to block it. It is arguable that "sustaining" implies putting your hand underneath and holding up, whereas "maintaining" means more regularly pushing forward. I do not believe that "sustaining" is a better word. However, it is not a matter of huge importance and if, as my noble friend has just said, she and others feel that it would be a better word as regards our common interest in the improvement of AONBs, I have no problem in accepting it.
I should have difficulty in accepting Amendment No. 2, because the idea of sustaining livelihoods and communities has too much an impression of sustaining the past rather than moving forward. All of us will say, I am sure, in a debate on the Question that Clause 1 shall stand part that we want to see the AONBs as living active communities. However, inevitably people change jobs. They change the work they do; they change their livelihoods. I do not believe therefore that "livelihoods" and "communities" are the right words to insert. It gives an impression of looking backwards rather than forwards to how there should be active communities in the AONBs in the future.
On Amendment No. 3, I should prefer the word "intrusive" to "incongruous and insensitive". I am sure that noble Lords do not wish to spend time arguing about differences of definition, but to me "intrusive" is a rather stronger word and something we wish to avoid in,
"safeguarding such areas from intrusive development and its effects."
"Incongruous and insensitive" in my book would be open to more subjective interpretation than the word "intrusive". For that reason, therefore, I prefer not to see Amendments Nos. 2 or 3 go forward. However, if it is the wish of the Committee I for one would gladly go along with Amendment No. 1.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I am pleased to hear the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, welcome us here. I am afraid that by the end of this Committee stage he might wish I was not here. I have to declare an interest. Most of the times that I have come into contact with conservation do-gooders have not been particularly happy as far as I am concerned. The amendment on which I wish to dwell is Amendment No. 3, which leaves out "intrusive". I gather that the noble Lord would like to keep this in the Bill, although I have to say I disagree with his views on Amendment No. 2. I am more interested in people than I am in birds and plants. However, as regards "intrusive", I wish to make the point very strongly that any development is naturally intrusive. These developments are absolutely essential to our rural well-being, which at the moment—noble Lords may be unaware of this—is in a state of crisis. Very few farms today are making money unless it is from outside agriculture, and I speak with great feeling both for Wales and Oxfordshire. At present activity

CWH 5
outside agriculture is keeping us going, and allowing us to do all the sorts of things that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and other noble Lords want us to do, such as keeping up our hedges. If there is no money we cannot do so.
I am worried about that, but I would not cross swords about the words. However, I am most anxious that we should be encouraged to do "intrusive" things. I hope that the noble Baroness may change the word perhaps to "diversification", but diversification always requires some form of intrusion. Perhaps I may give one perfect example. At the Oxfordshire farm, we wished to make a reservoir. It was encouraged by the water authority. This was strongly opposed by conservation bodies because while we were making it—and I make no bones about it—there was a horrible mess. However, now it is finished I have yet to find anybody who does not think it is absolutely delightful because it has improved the environment altogether. I should be worried if the Bill does not accept the whole principle that the first priority of the countryside is human beings; and I should also be worried if there was any form of stopping development.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My name was added to this amendment in error. There may have been a misunderstanding as I have had to ask for my name to be added to two other amendments. I should like to say that I was delighted to hear my noble friend Lord Renton say that he would accept Amendment No. 1 if other Members of the Committee were so minded. I would hope that Members of the Committee would accept "sustaining" rather than "maintaining". Perhaps I might give some encouragement to my noble friend Lord Renton. I believe that there is an active part of the word "sustaining" in the modern sense when we talk about sustainable development. It has taken on a completely new meaning in the past few years. Whereas perhaps when I was studying 30 years ago, I might well have agreed with him as to the difference in the application of the words "sustaining and maintaining", in the context of this Bill and within the context of modern political understanding of sustainable development, the "sustaining" might well meet his original objectives.
In deference to my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley on this occasion, as in some others, I have to disagree with him on Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 and on this occasion agree with my noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Chorley: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Renton, I do not really mind one way or the other on Amendment No. 1. Being old-fashioned, I suppose I shall stick with "maintaining".
Again, like him, but for different reasons, I object to Amendment No. 2 because the main purpose of the 1949 Act, and therefore of this Bill in relation to that Act, concerns landscapes. We picked up livelihoods and communities, but as a subsidiary, socio-economic factor when we come on to later amendments—and my Amendment No. 6—that is where the emphasis should
CWH 6
be. This is not a Bill about non-landscape issues. The primary purpose of this Bill is about outstanding landscapes. I do not agree with Amendment No. 2.
Again I do not have any particularly strong views one way or the other in relation to Amendment No. 3. Is the Minister, who, incidentally is to be congratulated on her birthday today, able to tell us whether there are any technical connotations—for example in planning—which might affect the absence of the word "intrusive"?
Lord Jopling: I came here today having spoken at Second Reading and having declared an interest as a farmer but in neither a national park nor an AONB. I came here with no great feelings of enthusiasm for this Bill, but no great feelings of antagonism either. I must say that the comments of my noble friend Lord Renton frightened the life out of me when he spoke of his reactions to Amendment No. 2. He used a phrase which I do not begin to understand. He said that to insert the words "livelihoods" and "communities" into the Bill was looking backwards. I urge him to explain to us exactly what he meant by that.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: I must say to my noble friend that it is coupled with the word "sustaining". I was making the point that, in my judgment, if we couple the word "sustaining" (which I am prepared to do) with the words "livelihoods" and "communities", that has too much of a backward look to it. We are not arguing about livelihoods. We are going to move on to amendments which I support in relation to AONBs having social and economic purposes. That is the amendment which I support. My specific reference was to the phrase "sustaining livelihoods".
Lord Jopling: I am sorry but I still do not understand that. I should have thought it was immensely important, if we are going to impose on these areas the possibility of a new layer of democracy, that one of its first and prime objectives should be to sustain livelihoods and communities. We are not talking about the situation in the United States where national parks are areas where people do not live. They are desolate areas. We are talking about something totally different. As I said at Second Reading, I speak with some experience on this, having previously represented in another place areas containing two national parks and two—I said one before—areas of outstanding natural beauty which were part of them.
If we are going to impose a new layer of bureaucracy, it must be prepared to have as one of its prime objectives, as well as looking after the landscape and the flora and fauna, the sustenance of the local communities and their livelihoods. It has been said many times before that so much of the beauty of these places is man-made by the local communities and the people who make their living in those areas. It is therefore essential that we include those words in the Bill. I hope that my noble friend Lord Rotherwick will

CWH 7
not give way on this. We can discuss it again on Report and, if necessary, vote on it. I am happy to vote on this issue, which is very important.
Lord Bridges: Perhaps I may approach these amendments from a slightly different direction. It would interest me to know whether the amendments moved by the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, would fit well with the Department of the Environment's existing policy of planning guidance—I believe it is No. 7—on what is permitted inside an area of outstanding natural beauty. From recollection, what the PPG notice says is that no major commercial development shall be allowed inside an AONB unless it meets two tests: first, national need; secondly, absence of an alternative site. It seems to me that if we are to avoid major developments of a quasi industrial nature from outside, we ought to know about that. Possibly the noble Baroness could take an opportunity to inform us in her comments.
I should like to make one other comment which derives from a visit last year to the Italian national park of the Abruzzo in the central Appennines to the east of Rome. I was interested to discover from the chairman of the park that they had a very intensive debate on precisely this matter. It is an area of pretty high mountains going up to 6,000 feet, largely cloaked in mature historic beech forest—a very beautiful place. The local inhabitants were resistant to the creation of a national park because they felt that it would destroy the economic activities which they and their predecessors had enjoyed for many years. However, the park has been going for some 20 or 30 years and it is evident that the prosperity of the inhabitants has substantially increased because of the number of visitors to the villages in the park and the economic activities to which it gives rise. It is to be borne in mind that the maintenance of these parks or areas of outstanding natural beauty does not necessarily mean fossilising the economy; it can lead to additional sources of income from the people who visit the park.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: First, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, for his good wishes. The only thing I can think of that would be more pleasant than discussing this important issue of areas of outstanding natural beauty would have been to have spent the afternoon visiting at least one of them and then to have gone for a quiet evening meal in a countryside setting. Failing that, I am pleased that the Committee has the opportunity today to consider the possible content of the Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry.
The Government will take into account the views which Members of the Committee express today in their continuing consideration of their response to the former Countryside Commission's advice on the future management and protection of our AONBs. An announcement of the Government's intentions can be expected soon although it might be helpful if I made clear at this stage that there is no certainty that an announcement of the Government's intentions on the South Downs and AONBs will be made before the Summer Recess. It may well be later. I should explain
CWH 8
that, although I propose to indicate in appropriate cases the Government view on amendments coming forward, the Government consider that the hurdles to be surmounted by the noble Lord's Bill are such that it cannot be expected to reach the statute book.
I turn to the three amendments before the Committee. The established purpose of areas of outstanding natural beauty is to conserve and enhance the natural beauty. There are advantages in sticking with that accepted central purpose. The Government cannot therefore accept Amendment No. 1.
The drafting of Clause 1 and some of the amendments to it demonstrate the difficulty in trying to come up with new words. The debate so far underlines that. There is little to chose between "maintaining" in the clause as drafted or "sustaining" natural beauty as proposed in Amendment No. 1. However, it is doubtful whether either of them are any better than "conserving" or "enhancing".
The Government cannot accept Amendment No. 2 either. We should wish to look at the question of socio-economic duties in the context of the wider powers and duties of local authorities. Amendment No. 2 would provide for the continuing conservation of livelihoods and communities in AONBs. We need to look carefully at how the interests of communities in AONBs are taken into account, and what responsibilities conservation boards should have if those boards come into being. I am not convinced that the phrasing of the amendment is likely to prove the best choice.
Unfortunately, the Government also cannot accept Amendment No. 3 because we consider that the terms employed are too imprecise. Descriptions such as "intrusive development" or "incongruous and insensitive development" are extraordinarily difficult to define. I fear that they would give lawyers, consultants, objectors and NIMBYs a field day. Were the Bill to progress further towards the statute book, the Government would wish to look carefully at how to address the concept which various Members of the Committee are trying to define.
Lord Rotherwick: I thank Members of the Committee who have spoken to the three amendments. I am grateful for the support for Amendment No. 1, but it is not possible to accept it because it has not achieved the consensus of the whole Committee. We may return to that issue.
On Amendment No. 2, as my noble friend Lord Jopling said, it is extremely important that we go back to the point about accepting "sustaining livelihood". We are going in the same direction; that is, that we are both anxious not to be stuck in the past, but to be moving forward. I am sure that at the end of the day we shall devise a solution with which we all agree.
I understand the arguments that Members of the Committee have put forward on Amendment No. 3 but perhaps we may return to this matter at a later date. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment Nos. 2 and 3 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: Perhaps I may take this opportunity to say a few general words about my approach to the Bill and why I tried to introduce it as a Private Member's Bill in the first place.
We all accept what the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, told me. None of us expected this to become law. It would be a pleasant surprise if it went to the other place in early July and no one objected. I am enough of a realist to know that as, I am sure, is everyone else here today.
My aim was to set out a template with noble and like-minded friends as to which areas of outstanding natural beauty may find it useful in the future as a means of setting up a conservation board, if that were the wish of local people, local authorities in the area, local amenity groups and so forth.
I stress the point strongly. Comment was made in the Second Reading debate about this being prescriptive. My noble friend Lord Marlesford made the point that it is very definitely not so. This is intended as an opt-in arrangement. It would be a template for those AONBs whose local people think that a conservation hoard would be useful to have a template. They could then say to the Secretary of State, "This exists. Why do you not now pass secondary legislation to enable us to set up a conservation board that particularly suits us, with representation from local people, from the NFU, from the CLA and such-like?".
The reason for that was echoed by the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, just now when she told us not necessarily to expect any announcement from the Government this side of the Summer Recess. It was only yesterday that I heard Michael Meacher, the Minister for the Environment, saying at a conference to launch the Countryside Agency that he expected "pretty soon" to announce a package that AONBs and national parks would find very interesting, and by "pretty soon", he meant this side of the Summer Recess. In 24 hours the views of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions have obviously changed. That is very worrying for some of us involved with AONBs.
We were very interested 12 months ago when the Countryside Agency published its proposals on the future structure of AONBs. That is a pattern which I have followed in this Private Member's Bill, with some personal alterations for which I take responsibility. When these proposals were announced we were told that the Government would respond "very soon". Very soon became "later", and it has now gone down in history that when Michael Meacher—or Alan Meale, another Minister in the DETR—was asked to define the difference between "very soon" and "soon" he said, "Very soon is sooner than soon". We now have the "pretty soon", and that has gone as well.
There is a problem here for some AONBs. The Sussex Downs is one such area where I am chairman of the conservation board. I suspect the Chilterns is another of those areas. Currently we find ourselves in a position in which we are very much dependent on local authority
CWH 10
and Countryside Agency funding which has no guaranteed future and which is short-term. If we are to plan ahead and employ good people on our small staffs, we need to know what the future holds. We shall come to the clauses on finance and so forth in a few minutes. However, it was against that background that I felt it was worth going through this exercise of introducing a Private Member's Bill, with the help of other noble friends in this House, in order to show the Government that this is a template which could work. For that reason, parliamentary counsel have looked at the Bill and have come forward with their suggestions. I very much hope that even though someone may object to this Bill, it will nevertheless provide a template which the DETR, sooner rather than later, will look at and incorporate into legislation, as a way to help conservation boards to be set up in those areas of AONBs which want it. It does nothing more than that.
From my own experience of 18 months as chairman of the Sussex Downs Conservation Board, a job which I inherited from the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, who had performed it extremely well for five years, I have learned that that board concentrates on the values of conservation, enhancement and restoration of landscapes, and encouraging biodiversity. That is very much within the context of a living and active community. No one that I know in Sussex talks about AONBs as being a chocolate-box rural scenery. It is not in our language; it is not in our thinking.
I would point out to my noble friend Lord Jopling that my objection to the use of the word "livelihoods" is that Amendment No. 2 would refer to the continuing conservation of their livelihood. That is what I mean about looking backwards rather than forwards. I do not believe that that is appropriate. The AONBs must look forward and consider how, with the pressures on farming today—sheep farming is the speciality of the South Downs and industrial development presses in on that beautiful narrow belt of downland, only four miles wide, stretching from Winchester to Eastbourne—we shall conserve, enhance and protect it for the next century within the context of people working there, having a livelihood and keeping a community alive. The pressures are so great that it is not easy to see how we shall do that. We need a strong voice in strategic planning which is referred to in the Bill. However, in our judgment, we do not need to be the sole planning authority. Quiet enjoyment and improving access for walkers, bikers and riders also must be part of our objective.
In putting down the purpose of designating areas of outstanding natural beauty, it was my wish to do so. The Countryside Commission would have preferred me to stick to the existing words: for the purposes of preserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the areas specified in subsection (1) of the national parks Act.
We need to go further than that. That definition was written 50 years ago. AONBs have moved on too and we must expose AONBs to the argument as regards their purpose now. When the national parks Act was passed 50 years ago, it set up national parks and a system for running them. It set up AONBs but no system for managing or funding them. That is the situation we are

CWH 11
considering today and at which the Government will have to look in the near future. I hope that "pretty soon" will become very soon and that we shall have an announcement as soon as possible. For some of us in the AONBs, this continuing uncertainty makes it very difficult to enter into long-term plans on a purely co-operative basis with local farmers, for example, on ideas for land management. It makes it increasingly difficult for us to employ staff. It causes staff unease in a situation, which I am sure the Government do not want.
4 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: The Government well understand references to the conservation and enhancement of natural beauty and I was remiss earlier in not responding to the query about PPG7. It was quoted correctly and neither the words "intrusive" nor "incongruous and insensitive" are compatible with current planning guidance, which is why we would wish to look very carefully at the possibility of the introduction of any new concepts such as these.
I appreciate the stress on urgency which the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, has reiterated today. From my short experience of your Lordships' House, compared with that of the noble Lord, if anyone were to be able to define to the exact day or week the meaning of "soon", "pretty soon" or "fairly soon", pretty soon the civil servants would come up with another term which was not as capable of precision. The noble Lord's first experience leads him to understand that it is impossible to be that precise in a department where work is being considered carefully.
Lord Jopling: I have listened with great care to my noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry explaining the background to the Bill, as I did at Second Reading. I am sorry to appear so querulous and difficult about this Bill but one particular phrase was used to which the noble Lord referred twice in his remarks. He began by saying that these boards would only be set up if it was the wish of the local people. Can he say where, in his Bill, it is made clear that these boards will only be set up at the wish of the local people? Since he spoke, I have not had time to go through every paragraph of the Bill, but I cannot recall it being stated that they would only be set up if it was the wish of the local people.
I make this point because I referred to this situation at Second Reading. Around 10 years ago the North Pennines area of outstanding natural beauty was created and there was massive local opposition to it. A good many changes were made in the proposal at that time, which to a certain extent allayed local opinion. But the truth is that when the North Pennines AONB was set up, it did not have the support of local people. Both I and my noble friend Lord Whitelaw, whose former constituency was also affected, were involved in all that and neither of us was at all happy about it. The previous government did, however, push through—against local opinion—the creation of that area of outstanding natural beauty.
If the government of the day can override, as they did, the views of local people and create an AONB, would the noble Lord please explain to us what is different here that
CWH 12
would prevent the government of the day pushing a board of this sort into creation against the wishes of the local people? I am not at all clear how the sticky fingers of central government could be prevented from going totally against what the noble Lord said in his speech. He said, twice, that they would only be created if it was the wish of the local people. This is why I am so concerned about it.
I stress that I detected no desire from the AONBs for boards of this sort, except on very few occasions. It may be that the Sussex Downs AONB board is running out of money but it does not seem a good enough reason to have this new layer of democracy foisted on areas which do not want it. I would be most grateful to know from the noble Lord what is different here that would prevent government again from overriding the wishes of the local people.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: In brief reply to my noble friend, I know that he made this point in the Second Reading debate and past experience clearly sits bitterly with him. The Association of Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty made it plain to us that it supports this Bill because it is clear that it is not prescriptive as such. It is simply setting up a mechanism—and I quote the words again for the noble Lord—for local people to use. I refer my noble friend to new Section 88B, subsection (2),
"Before making an order under this section the Secretary of State shall consult—

(a) the appropriate countryside body or bodies;

(b) every local authority whose area consists of or includes the whole or any part of the area of outstanding natural beauty; and

(c) such other local authorities as he considers appropriate".

An amendment adds to that, "any relevant body", which we will be discussing later. Apart from consulting the appropriate countryside body or bodies, local authorities are democratically elected; they are locally accountable. The board which I chair has 24 members of local authorities on it. It would never have come into being if it had not been the wish of the local authorities with the Countryside Agency, supported by their own electorates. I feel, therefore, that my noble friend's fears, which are based on unhappy past experience, are unjustified.
I was at a meeting for AONBs yesterday: Cotswolds, Chilterns, High Weald in Sussex and West Sussex. All four are, I think it is fair to say, strong supporters of this Bill, though it is only likely that the Chilterns will make use of it.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Duty of certain bodies and persons to have regard to conservation and enhancement of areas of outstanding natural beauty]:
4.15 p.m.
Lord Rotherwick Lord Rotherwick moved Amendment No. 4:
Page I, line 23, after ("authority") insert ("and any land occupier or manager")
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 4 I wish at the same time to speak to Amendment No. 22. One of the great weaknesses of this Bill as it currently stands is in its general and, I hope unintentional, failure to take due notice of rural communities and the rights

CWH 13
of landowners, occupiers and managers. A Bill that does not give adequate weight to human dimensions of an AONB will not only be bound to fail but also will be deeply resented by country people.
It is surely not unreasonable that those individuals and communities who will be most affected by this legislation, and indeed may even bear some of the indirect costs, should be adequately represented and consulted. This amendment ensures that that will be the case. It plugs an unfortunate oversight in the Bill as drafted, and recognises that at the day to day level it is the owners and occupiers who will be the most significant factor in caring for and developing AONBs, and as such it is they who must address this Bill.
Amendment No. 22 again attempts to address the major weakness of the Bill: the indifference of its effect on the stakeholders. The people most directly affected by the management plan are the only parties ignored in consultation. I assume that the management changes will place new responsibilities, liabilities and restrictions on the stakeholders, and that they would be informed of them. It seems reasonable that the stakeholders should be made aware of the proposals and the new responsibilities and restrictions before they are adopted. That is the argument underlying the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I follow the remarks of my noble friend Lord Renton on Clause 1 stand part. He referred to the representation on his particular AONB by local councillors and bodies, to which I am not objecting. In many areas of outstanding natural beauty the local authority, indeed the parish council representation, is increasingly from immigrant populations who commute out, or are retired. (I know that it will be said, "I would say that, wouldn't I".) They are in the countryside but they are not part of it. They are not, therefore, representative of those who work there. Those people are more articulate than we are as farmers, and they also have more time to express their views.
Perhaps I could add one point, and perhaps the noble Lord will explain the position to me. At the end of the day the membership of the boards will be will be similar to that for national parks. As I understand it—and I am sure I shall be corrected if I am wrong—at the moment the Secretary of State appoints one half minus one, and one half plus one are representatives of the wider national interest; the remainder are parish representatives. Therefore, it is argued that that is local representation of people who live and work within the park or, in this case, the AONB. As I pointed out, I do not believe that that is so.
I am sure that the Countryside Commission will put this forward as a reason as to why we should not adopt my noble friend's argument about those who work and live in the countryside. As I said, they are not necessarily representative—in fact, far from it—of those who work and live there.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I speak first to Amendment No. 4. The Government cannot accept the amendment. We see the attraction of the principle but it
CWH 14
is not a practical suggestion to bestow a legal duty of this nature on private citizens. That was not done in the 1995 Act for national parks and we should need to look at that point very carefully indeed.
The Government also cannot accept Amendment No. 22, which requires copies of AONB management plans or proposed amendments to be copied to every property manager, owner or occupier. That would be a very wide group and difficult to define. There are many thousands of such people in many AONBs.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: With the greatest respect, I believe that we were debating Amendments Nos. 4 and 20.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Amendment No. 22.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: But Amendment No. 22 refers to,
"every affected property manager, owner or occupier".
I thought that the noble Baroness was talking about the consultation process.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: No, Amendment No. 22.
Lord Rotherwick: I am grateful once again to Members of the Committee. I am slightly sad that the Government have difficulty in accepting the first amendment in this group. The aim of both the amendments is to make certain that the people who are at the sharp end have an ability to put forward their views. Likewise, Amendment No. 22 tries to make sure that everyone knows what those conservation boards are doing. We must return to that matter at a later stage. We are very worried that conservation boards may embark upon a course of action which the land occupiers and managers know nothing about and have no opportunity to put right.
However, since I cannot achieve a general acceptance of the amendment, I must therefore beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Management and conservation of areas of outstanding natural beauty]:
Lord Rotherwick Lord Rotherwick moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, line 22, after ("promote") insert ("and ensure")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 5 and I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 8. It may be important to find new ways to promote wildlife, habitat and landscape. But it seems even more important to seek traditional solutions to conservation problems. The steps that have been taken to create those areas of outstanding natural beauty are likely to be needed in future to enable them to continue to be beautiful.
The word "ensure" supports the notion of sustainability. We must take a long-term view when considering these matters. The structures which we put in place will have a profound impact on our countryside for many years. If we run from one promotion to the

CWH 15
next without an eye on sustainability, we shall be left with the ruins of conservation rather than the living, working countryside which we desire. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I speak first to Amendments Nos. 5 and 8. The Government cannot accept them. We do not believe that they are a practical suggestion. These amendments would place a duty on local planning authorities and conservation boards to ensure, as well as promote, the conservation and enhancement of the AONBs. We are not sure it is practical to give these bodies a duty towards outcomes in this way. Many things which might affect the AONBs could be beyond their control. They should certainly try their best, which would support a duty to promote conservation and management.
Turning to Amendments Nos. 10 and 11, these too we cannot accept. We would wish to look very carefully at the precise groups which should be consulted. We think that the requirement for the Secretary of State to consult "any relevant body" (Amendment No. 10) would be far too imprecise. Those who wish to add to the list of bodies to be consulted should come up with a researched list. The bodies and persons introduced by Amendment No. 11 might be difficult to define, but we would want to look further at who should be consulted.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I should have risen before but, in relation to Amendment No. 11, I can see us getting into a muddle over this Bill. It probably goes better with my Amendment No. 15, and I am grateful for what the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, said on that, but I would wish to speak to that again later.
Lord Rotherwick: I thank the Minister for what she had to say. I suppose it was a little too much to hope that I could table such a strong amendment and obtain her agreement. I agree with her that it is a little strong, and we would probably seek to come back at a later date with something less strong. We are all after the same thing and are just trying to find how best to describe it.
At the same time, I failed to speak properly to Amendment No. 10. Again, we come back to the same argument; that is, we are anxious that the conservation boards do not just talk among themselves and with official bodies. We are anxious that they make the workings of these bodies open to groups of concerned citizens and that those concerned citizens have a chance of making their feelings known.
Since I do not have the agreement of the whole Committee, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Chorley Lord Chorley moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 2, line 24, at end insert—
("(1A) Subject to subsection (2) and in pursuance of its duty under subsection (1), every local planning authority whose area consists of or includes the whole or part of an area of outstanding natural beauty shall also seek to foster the economic and social well-being of communities within the area of outstanding natural beauty.")
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 6, I shall speak also to consequential Amendments Nos. 7 and 9. During the Second Reading debate, and again today, reference was made by a number of speakers to socio-economic considerations. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, readily agreed in that debate that they needed to be taken on board. Indeed, the drafting of the amendment is his rather than mine. I am delighted also that the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, added their names in support. I hope that this is one of the least controversial amendments.
All our AONB landscapes depend in large measure on the hand of man; on farmers cultivating over many centuries. However, these landscapes do not depend solely on farmers. As farming in many AONBs becomes less economic and is likely to continue to become less economic, it is important that alternative activities are furthered. Sensitively handled this need not be to the detriment of those landscapes. I can think, for example, of a number of National Trust projects which have facilitated alternative activities, in particular in finding new uses for redundant farm buildings such as barns. A great deal can be done. These AONB landscapes depend on the people and the communities who live and work in them. If we want to protect those landscapes we cannot ignore those people. They are the stewards. This is the view of the National Trust. In response to the Government's invitation to consult on the forthcoming rural White Paper, the CLA said much the same. There is common ground between us. I beg to move.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: I support the noble Lord, Lord Chorley. The purpose of these amendments is to place a duty on both local planning authorities and conservation boards to foster the economic and social well-being of the communities within areas of outstanding natural beauty. Concern about this was expressed by several noble Lords in the Second Reading debate. I understand that the amendment has the support of the Country Landowners' Association. I very much hope that the Committee will accept it.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I am glad that the amendment has been moved, and wish that the Government would place a duty on all local authorities to pursue the economic, social and environmental well-being of their communities. I look forward to their bringing in a Bill to do so.
We have not tabled amendments on this Bill, mainly because much in the Bill needs to be encompassed in a wider countryside Bill. We have heard comments from noble Lords about those people who should be heard and those who do not deserve to be heard because they may have retired to such areas. Such comments miss the point that it is a community. Social and economic well-being must involve the entire community. Those who retire and leave the towns are often the people who volunteer to build stiles and clear footpaths because they have the time to do so.
The amendment encompasses the belief that it should be an inclusive process. For that reason I welcome the amendment.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: This is one of the occasions when I am in agreement with my noble friend

CWH 17
Lord Stanley of Alderley. I support the amendment to which I have put my name. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, for moving them and for the support that my noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry has indicated. The amendment meets the objection which I raised at Second Reading, when I spoke on tourism. I voiced my concern about the position of those who live and work in the areas of outstanding natural beauty, and whose livelihoods might be jeopardised by the Bill in its current form.
Comments have been made in Committee that the Bill does not face any realistic chance of getting on to the statute book. Those outwith this Chamber may wonder why so many of us in this quite well-attended room take such a deep interest in the issue; and why a shadow spokesman on tourism might be so interested. I say to such people, as my noble friend Lord Renton pointed out, that there is a deep significance in this Bill. The noble Lord seeks to provide a template which might be adopted later. At this stage we should take the opportunity to probe the intentions behind this Bill. We are aware that some aspects of this Bill may subsequently become part of the government draft Bill. This is something one has to bear in mind. Therefore it is proper to take a fairly detailed view of the issue at this stage—and perhaps even at Report stage as my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley commented.
Also one must have regard to all those who have done so much work in preparing the briefings for this Bill, and those whose views they represent outwith this Chamber. I have received more briefings on this from interested bodies than on many a government Bill.
Reference has already been made by my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley to the fact that farmers are now facing their worst crisis in 60 years. When I was the opposition spokesman in this place for agriculture last year I was very much aware that farm tourism might at one time have been a way of bringing pin money into the family income system. However, it is now taking a much greater part in the importance of their economy. It is a vital source for other people carrying on other businesses within AONBs.
It is important, therefore, that farmers should be able to diversify into farm tourism. It is something which will grow over the coming years and not diminish and it is vital that the Bill does nothing to hinder that ability to diversify.
Consumers have already shown that they want farmers to diversify into tourism, including in areas of outstanding natural beauty. That is proved by the fact that farm visits is the area of tourism that has boomed over the past few years. The Deloitte & Touche Visitor Attraction Survey of 1996–1997 revealed that the biggest percentage growth in any tourist activity in that period was for farm visits. So tourism of this kind is not only beneficial to the farm owners and managers who are setting up businesses, but it also brings an income stream into other businesses within the area.
I was pleased to see the launch of the English Tourist Board's listing of top farm attractions last year. It illustrates a new professionalism in the way farmers
CWH 18
approach the business of catering for tourists and it points to the enormous potential that exists for well-run farm attractions to thrive.
If I may be forgiven for directing a comment at the Government—though I appreciate that it is not the duty of the Minister to answer questions today from Members of the Committee—I have a concern with the re-launch of the English Tourist Board into the English Tourism Council; its metamorphosis is on 19th July. The change in its powers may mean that we will lose this excellent new publication for farmers because the English Tourism Council has been stripped of the English Tourist Board's remit for marketing and for promotion nationally. I am, therefore, concerned whether the national listing of farm attractions will be one of the casualties of this change into the English Tourism Council. This is something I shall take up with the Minister and her colleagues in DCMS as I hope this is a publication that can be assisted to survive.
I am delighted that the amendment has the support of several Members of the Committee and I hope it will receive the Government's support as well.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I shall try not to be the black sheep with my noble friend Lord Renton or my noble friend Lady Anelay, particularly as one cannot even get rid of black sheep's wool at the moment—we have to burn it to the detriment of the environment.
I am delighted to put my name to this amendment. It raises the point that I referred to on the first amendment. I do not believe we shall agree entirely on how far we should go down the road of commercialism in relation to farming. I shall perhaps not be able to get my point over as to how serious it is and how much we do not want to be hindered. Some of these bodies hinder us in the way in which my noble friend Lord Jopling pointed out so ably earlier on.
I put my name to this amendment because earlier on my noble friend Lady Anelay tabled a similar amendment in which she suggested that it should not cost any money. I feel strongly about this and was going to amend her amendment, which no doubt would have caused some wrath. If there is one thing that has cost me more money in my life even than getting married and having children, it is conservation. It is the most expensive form of amusement that anybody can take part in and it always costs money. Let us not bluff our minds that it is not. That is why, to confess, I like making money on the farm because I have reached the stage where I like to improve it.
It is vital for the Committee to realise that, if any conservation body is going to work, it will need money and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, is looking at me and smiling because he knows from the National Trust that it eats money. That is one of the reasons that I put my name to this amendment; that is, in order to—I do not want to use the word—"spite" my noble friend Lady Anelay. She did, however, bring home to me that we may be going down the wrong path and I hope that the Committee does not do so.
Lord Rotherwick: I, too, support this very important amendment. It is something which we need very badly

CWH 19
in the countryside. It is vital that we embrace this type of amendment. I can only say that some of my farm buildings—and they include Grade II buildings—are now used as office blocks. That means that not only do we derive the majority of our income from those office blocks but it means also that we are able to take forward the renovation and conservation work to which we are dedicated.
It is interesting also to note that the team that does that work on those office blocks is four times larger than our farming staff; and the office blocks now have approximately 100 people employed in them. The number of people on our estate is now approaching the number which there would have been at the turn of the century. That is particularly important, because the estate is beginning to breathe and live again, as it used to. Perhaps the most important impact, however, stems from the fact that those 100 people are commuting locally. They are not commuting into Oxford and helping to create those long traffic jams. I have seen at first hand how important this type of amendment is and I can only hope that everybody in this Committee, including the Minister, will accept it.
Baroness Byford: I rise to support this amendment, moved so ably by the noble Lord, Lord Chorley. It is indeed a very important amendment, which I hope the Minister will be able to accept. As other Members of the Committee have said, farming has been going through a dreadful time. One important factor which has emerged from that has been the shrinkage of the numbers involved in the farming industry. I believe that this amendment would allow a better use of facilities; the ability to encourage small rural businesses of which we are greatly in need today; and for our young people to look to be able to go to work, in whatever capacity that may be.
It is sad, but is a fact, that we now have fewer farmers and there are increasing problems for tenant farmers and for part-time farmers. I do not live in an area of outstanding natural beauty but many of my farming friends have diversified in many different ways. Perhaps I may take up a comment made by my noble friend Lady Anelay. Our neighbouring farmer farms only about 250–300 acres—so it is a small farm—outside Leicester. It was a great joy to us when, last year, his farm won an award as a tourist attraction in Leicestershire. He had some 33,000 visitors to his farm, which he opens so that people may visit and get to know what goes on on the land.
Therefore, I feel that this is a very important amendment for us and for the future and particularly for young people. We want to be able to offer them the facility to be able to work within the rural environment, as was said previously. It means that they do not have to travel miles to the towns and cities. Therefore, we need this degree of flexibility. This amendment will be welcomed and supported and I am very pleased to support it.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I should like to deal with Amendments Nos. 6, 7 and 9. The Government are not prepared to accept them in their present form, although we would wish to look very carefully at the possibility of a socio-economic duty. We certainly accept the principle that we need to have regard to social and economic issues, as well as those concerned with natural beauty when planning for and managing AONBs.
The precise way in which this may be expressed in legislation needs further careful consideration. Local authorities already have economic, environmental and social powers and duties in respect of the areas included within AONBs. The Government's agenda, set out in a White Paper last July, said that local authorities should be weighing economic, social and environmental considerations when deciding what actions to take to improve local quality of life.
The Government are committed to providing a legislative framework which allows local authorities to further all these aims. The position regarding AONBs needs to be looked at in terms of our wider agenda. If the Committee will forgive me, I shall continue at a little greater length because it is an important area and it is important for me to express views on the record.
Amendment Nos. 6 and 7 would provide that in pursuance of the new duty to promote the conservation and management of AONBs which the Bill would create, local planning authorities will also have to seek to foster the economic and social wellbeing of local communities. Amendment No. 9 would impose a similar duty on a conservation board in carrying out its duty to promote conservation and management of an AONB and seek to foster social and economic wellbeing.
As for statutory conservation boards, if they proceed towards the statute book we will consider what duties are necessary. Under the 1995 Environment Act national park authorities have a socio-economic duty, but are prevented from spending significant sums in carrying this out. This is to ensure that their focus remains on their primary purposes, which in the case of national parks are conservation and education recreation. We might want to consider a similar legislative constraint for AONB conservation boards. Otherwise there are significant implications for overall funding levels and for the relationship with other bodies, not least the local authorities.
I apologise for speaking at length, but I thought it would be helpful.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Chorley: First of all I should like to thank all Members of the Committee for the wide measure of support for this amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Stanley, rightly said that conservation does not come cheaply. On the other hand, if we do not have conservation we will lose the nice things we have, and it has to be funded.

CWH 21
To turn to the noble Baroness's reply on behalf of the Government, I am not sure whether she was voting against the amendment—she probably was, being not content with it. I would be happy to take it away if we could have some help from the department.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: If I may put words into the noble Baroness's mouth, she would not accept this on behalf of the Government, but in fact she does not accept the Bill as such. I do not believe that the Minister is voting against these amendments, rather she does not wholeheartedly agree with the Bill.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: We are in danger of getting into difficulty. Perhaps I may go back to my first point. We are not prepared to accept these amendments in their present form, though we would wish to look very carefully at the possibility of socio-economic duty which is raised in Amendments Nos. 6, 7 and 9.
Lord Chorley: For my part I would be quite happy to take this away and, perhaps in conjunction with officials, to try and find a form of words which is a bit closer to something with which the Government could agree. My difficulty is that we do not necessarily know that there will be a Report stage of this Bill. I should like to press the amendment as it stands, but I am not sure if I have that right.
The Chairman of Committees: The question is that this amendment be agreed to. Does the Minister want to say "Not Content"?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: No, I abstain. My understanding was that there must be total agreement to amendments. I must seek the guidance of the Chairman. My understanding of the procedure in Grand Committee in the Moses Room is that either all noble Lords speak in support of an amendment or it is not put. That was ray understanding and I think I have been in error. Therefore I shall abstain.
The Chairman of Committees: The noble Baroness is correct: we cannot have any Divisions in Committee. Since it has not been possible to agree the amendment I must declare it to be withdrawn, but the matter may be returned to on Report if there is to be a Report stage on the Bill.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 7 to 11 not moved.]
Lord Rotherwick Lord Rotherwick moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 3, line 4, leave out from ("of) to end of line 6 and insert ("parish council members")
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 12 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 13. We all agree that these areas of outstanding natural beauty are national assets, but we must also recognise the impact that these management schemes will have on the local people and their livelihoods. The local people have been custodians of these areas for generations. They live and breathe this environment. They are the reason that these
CWH 22
areas are beautiful. They were, on the whole, the creators. To give them anything but a central role in the preservation of these areas is unreasonable.
Amendment No. 13 is on a slightly different tack and I am not sure that it should be coupled with No. 12. However, I shall speak to it at the same time. These bodies will wield enormous power in their influence. To represent the people most affected, we should allow the widest participation by the local communities. To limit the nomination period would lead to positions being filled by unusual suspects. Public service should seek to include the widest range and highest number of participants. I beg to move.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Amendment No. 15 is tabled with Amendment No. 11. I start by apologising to Members of the Committee if I repeat myself, which I am afraid is inevitable in this Bill because it goes round one or two main points. However, I should like to put on record rather more clearly what I have previously stated.
The amendments deal with who should be on the boards. The object of my amendment is as follows. The Secretary of State is being given a strong steer in terms of ensuring that those persons who are actually managing the landscape (the outstanding quality of which has led the area to be designated in the first place) are represented on the board—a point that I have already raised. In practice, that will invariably mean appointing farmers and landowners after the Secretary of State has consulted organisations which represent them. That may answer one of the questions that the noble Baroness raised on my previous amendment; perhaps that is the way to do it.
Marking the card of the Secretary of State in that way is necessary because his consultations with the Countryside Commission, English Nature and local authorities is likely to produce a list of candidates—dare I say it?—who are strongly committed to conservation but are not necessarily involved with encouraging the economy of these often fragile areas. I speak with feeling. A constructive partnership between those agencies that I have just mentioned and authorities with farmers and landowners is vital if the boards' environmental as well as other objectives are to be achieved.
Amendment No. 15 is really tied up with Amendment No. 11. These amendments do not impose a specific formula or proportion for land manager appointments. I fully understand that it is important to have flexibility, to tailor the boards to the circumstances of the various AONBs. We should remind ourselves that the Bill does not deal only with the AONB about which the noble Lord is rightly concerned. We wish to obviate the absurdity of a board which excludes the only people, such as I have mentioned, who are in a position directly to affect the maintenance and enhancement of the AONB.

CWH 23
Perhaps it is too easy for a farmer to ruin an AONB—sometimes intentionally, I am sorry to say, and sometimes unintentionally. It is vital that they are heavily involved in the representation on the boards.
Lord Chorley: I wish to speak primarily to Amendment No. 14 which stands in my name, but also to refer to Amendments Nos. 12 and 15. Amendment No. 12 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, is directly contrary to my amendment. Leaving that aside, for the membership of conservation boards to consist of local authority members and parish councillors is too narrow. I disagree with that.
The purpose of my amendment is to draw attention to the fact that our AONB landscapes—in the terms of the 1949 Act being "landscapes of the highest quality"—are of national importance: that there is a national dimension. In appointing members to a conservation board, the Secretary of State needs to strike a balance between national and local community interests.
How the balance should be struck may well—and I suspect usually would—vary from case to case according to local circumstances, and for several reasons. I doubt whether it would be wise to be prescriptive. I hope that my amendment strikes the right note on the basis that there should be a national voice on a conservation board.
I turn briefly to comment on the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, with which, subject to drafting, I should be entirely happy. He makes a valid point. If I understood him correctly, a farmer could wreck a whole landscape in a single season simply by unsuitable, albeit economic, farming and we should end up without an area of outstanding natural beauty. It is important to have farming interests and knowledge on board. I am happy with the amendment.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: There is one point about the nationally appointed members. Generally there should follow some nationally supplied finance. We shall come to that later in the Bill. Apart from trying to widen the expertise, one of the reasons why the Secretary of State would want to appoint people to the board is that the AONBs represent an asset nationally—they are beautiful landscapes. Also it is to be hoped that by that stage the Government will have secured the funding and it will be necessary to ensure that the representatives also have regard to how the funding is spent.
I have looked carefully at the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Stanley. While I find nothing wrong with it I hope that some of those who derive their livelihood from the occupation and management of the land might also be on local authorities and parish councils. Indeed in the AONBs and national parks of which I am aware which have successful consultative committees, frequently the people who own and manage the land are among those who have been very active members of the boards or committees. If local people are to be on the boards I hope that it would be mainly through that route.
CWH 24
Lastly, as I mentioned at Second Reading, the Secretary of State appointees would be people who do not live miles from AONBs. I know a number of national park appointees who, for reasons known to the Secretary of State, live two or three hours' drive away. Although I do not deny that they bring considerable expertise from their previous employment, nevertheless they are not really part of that community and can only visit it for specific meetings and occasions. If the Secretary of State were to trawl thoroughly, he would be likely to find people to appoint who lived more locally and had a day-to-day understanding of the local issues.
5 p.m.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: The noble Baroness raises an important point, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Chorley. Unfortunately there is only about one farmer left in Great Britain at the moment, and there will only be half at the rate we are going. Sadly, we now have less and less representation on parish councils and local authorities. My noble friend nods her head. They used perhaps to be packed with farmers and landowners. That is why I want the amendment. As I shamefully said—and the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, caught me out—we can easily ruin an AONB, or might do so by default. I can think of one or two things I have done that I wish I had not done.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: I very much sympathise with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Stanley. It is very important that the inclusion of persons who derive their livelihoods from the occupation and management of land within the area of outstanding natural beauty should be specifically referred to at this point in the Bill. As others have said, each board will have different characteristics. That is the purpose of having an order brought in by secondary legislation that fits the Board to the particular AONB. I strongly support Amendment No. 15.
I do not wish continually to refer to the example of the Sussex Downs Conservation Board, but it is a paradigm that exists. It was much discussed, I believe, when that board was set up eight years ago. There was a request at that time that a specific number of those from the farming community should be included in the board. It did not end up like that: it is made up of 24 members of local authorities, 12 nominated by the Countryside Commission. However, in my time on the board 12 of those three have always been farmers. It is very important to have them there but some local authority members may also be farmers or concerned with the occupation and management of land. It is an important point. I hope that it goes some way to remove the fears that have been expressed earlier by my noble friend Lord Stanley and others concerning the lack of representation of the farming interest in such conservation boards.
On Amendment No. 12, I agree with others. I do not think that my noble friend Lord Rotherwick means to confine the board only to local authority members and parish councillors. I suspect that something may have

CWH 25
gone wrong with the drafting there. I am sure that he would wish to see others on the board as well. It is not an amendment that I can support.
Amendment No. 13 states that,
"where public notification has been made of vacancies not less than eight weeks prior to election,"
Why not? That is a good idea and it makes quite certain that vacancies are widely known and that many people put their names forward. I should like to think that they would be working members rather like working Peers, bound to turn up so many times to board meetings.
The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, picks up the same point that board members should reflect,
"both national and local community interests",
which, again, seems to me to be an obvious requirement and I hope that the Committee can accept that amendment.
Baroness Byford: I rise briefly to support these amendments. All of the amendments tabled by Members of the Committee reflect their concern about membership of the boards, and that they should have a strong influence locally on people who are very much involved in those local communities and should also perhaps include one or two people on those boards who have a wider brief.
As regards parish council members, I believe I know from whence my noble friend Lord Rotherwick is coming. He is trying to make a clear point that parish level is the first elected level of government. It is important that thought should be given to including on those boards somebody from the very first level of elected government Comments made by other Members of the Committee reflect our hope that the boards would have a broad membership and that they would include people who have work experience, are involved locally and would also have at heart the interests of the board not only as a living, working place but as a place of beauty to which other people outside the area will come.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: The Government cannot accept Amendments Nos. 12 and 13, dealing with the conservation boards for the reasons referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, and the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer. We feel sure that the Secretary of State would wish to have a certain number of appointments which he may delegate as appointments to, for example, the Countryside Commission.
There may well be a case for parish council representatives as there are on the English but not Welsh national park authorities. We should welcome some clarification on the effect of Amendment No. 13. Is it the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, to set up a new system of parish elections for representatives on conservation boards and, if so, where is that provided for? This sort of proposal would need to be thought through carefully.
On Amendment No. 14, we accept the principle that Secretary of State appointees should reflect among them both national and local interests. We do not accept Amendment No. 15. We wish to look in some detail at
CWH 26
the make-up of membership for the sort of reasons to which the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, referred. I am sure the Secretary of State would wish to include landowners and managers among appointees but would want to consider whether a specific reference is needed.
Lord Rotherwick: The contributions by Members of the Committee have unearthed a great deal of useful material certainly in Amendment No. 12. I have great sympathy with what has been said and both the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, have brought up exceedingly good points.
The boards we are talking about should be properly defined as to their composition and balance. In my amendment I mentioned about parish council members and the more diverse the members are, the more chance that the information regarding what these conservation boards are talking about will filter down to all parts of the rural communities.
On Amendment No. 13, I shall accept the advice I have been given and I shall go away and give further thought to the matter. I therefore now beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 13 not moved.]
Lord Chorley Lord Chorley moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 3, line 6, at end insert ("so as to reflect both national and local community interests")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 15:
Page 3, line 7, at end insert—
("() In making his appointments to a conservation board, the Secretary of State shall have regard to the need to include persons who derive their livelihoods from the occupation and management of land within the area of outstanding natural beauty.")
The noble Lord said: I should like to make a few remarks, bearing in mind what the noble Baroness has just said. I think I am right in saying that the noble Baroness cannot agree to this amendment in its present form but also that she agreed with the principle of the matter. This will make it essential for me to return to the matter on Report to try to clarify it, because although I would not for a moment wish to be described as a working Peer—as was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Renton—both he and the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, agreed that I had raised a valid point. Somehow we must try to get this issue included to the satisfaction of the noble Baroness.
[Amendment No. 15 not moved.]
Lord Rotherwick Lord Rotherwick moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 3, line 12, at end insert—
("() The decisions of the conservation board shall be subject to appeal by affected landowners to the local authority and representative bodies.")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 16. It is quite simple. Surely it is only right that those affected by this clause should have the right of

CWH 27
appeal. To allow such powers to a conservation body without the right of appeal would be contrary to natural justice. I beg to move.
Lord Chorley: I am terribly ignorant about planning law and procedure. However, I should have thought that there is always right of appeal in these circumstances anyway. In other words, it is not necessary.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: It may help if I make the Government's position clear on this. The Government cannot accept this amendment. It would be unworkable. There would need to be clarification as to how this proposal could possibly work. On what legal basis would all the decisions of a conservation board be subject to appeal? Would it be to a local authority or to representative bodies? If conservation boards are set up, with their own powers and duties, separate from local authorities, it is not easy to see how we could, or would want to, make them generally subject to being overruled by local authorities. What representative bodies would be involved? What legal vires would exist to allow them to overrule decisions by a properly constituted conservation board? I regret that I am unable to support this amendment.
Lord Rotherwick: I thank the Minister for her comments. Perhaps at a later stage, we shall return with an amendment that may be more workable and will clarify the situation to which she referred. I beg to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Rotherwick Lord Rotherwick moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 3, leave out lines 13 to 15
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the amendment. The powers of acquisition and ownership are already present in the local authority. If the conservation boards are to operate properly, they will need to co-operate with the local authorities and co-ordinate their efforts. The power of acquisition and ownership is too much to give to an appointed body. This power should reside with an elected local authority and it should be used in the protection of AONBs, through the advice from the conservation board. I beg to move the amendment.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: I speak to Amendments Nos. 32 to 38, which have been grouped with Amendment No. 17.
The purpose of these amendments is to remove the powers of compulsion from the ability of the conservation board to acquire and dispose of land. This was a point that was made very strongly by noble Lords in the Second Reading debate, and I confess that I have considerable sympathy with it. I must point out, for the avoidance of doubt, that the conservation board would still have the right to acquire and dispose of land, but not to acquire it compulsorily. It is at that point that my amendments disagree with the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Rotherwick.
CWH 28
There are, of course, those who would ask why an AONB conservation board should have any reason to acquire land. There will be occasions—a typical example would be the Sussex Downs—when a piece of land becomes available that others wish to use, perhaps for a travellers' site or a waste disposal site. It is available; it is within the AONB. The local authority may be unwilling or reluctant to incur the trouble and expense of buying it because it will have passed on the duties of looking after the AONB to the conservation board. Thus it is an important point for the future.
I hope that, in the future, conservation boards will have the right to acquire and to dispose of land, and of course, the funds to do it. Many on this Committee may say that they will have the power, but will never have the funding; and that may well be true. I can think of an instance where there is a small piece of land available at the moment in an area by Cuckmere Haven. It is a small stretch. It is between National Trust land and a working farmer's land. It is an area through which a lot of people would like to pass on their way down to the beach, and it may be available for sale. It would be a very sensible piece of land for our conservation board to acquire by agreement.
There is no intention whatever that the conservation board could make widespread use of this power. I fully accept that private landowners and farmers should continue to exercise their historic stewardship, and I would expect them to do that. It is very unlikely that the conservation board will have much money with which to acquire land, but they should have the powers. I hope, therefore, that this Committee will agree to these amendments which would, while removing the compulsion altogether, still leave the board with the right to acquire and to dispose of land. I beg to move.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I had not intended to speak on this point, but the noble Lord mentioned one particularly painful difficulty; that is, a travellers' site. Having experienced the difficulty of a travellers' site in an AONB, I feel that it is important to realise that the board might be pushed down a road, if it was left with this power to acquire land, that would bring it into conflict with local authorities. I feel also that the board may begin to feel that buying land as a way of solving problems was easier than resolving those difficulties, which would take a long time and an awful lot of negotiating.
I feel that the spirit of the board embodies an entity that manages, negotiates and brings parties together in the interest of the AONB. I would be nervous that, first, it would be diverted from that duty in the place of boards that perhaps develop acquisitive tendencies. Secondly, there might also be a difficulty where a board felt that by acquiring land it would solve problems in a particular way—not necessarily by excluding travellers but, for example, by excluding affordable housing in an area where it did not want it, whereas it would be better negotiating where those houses might go rather than buying its way out of that difficulty. I support the amendment.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I speak first to Amendment No. 17. The Government cannot accept the amendment at this stage because it seems possible, without prejudice to the eventual decisions, that statutory conservation boards may need some power to acquire or dispose of land in particular circumstances, leaving aside, for the purposes of Amendment No. 17, the question of compulsory purchase.
The Government also cannot accept Amendments Nos. 32 to 38. We should wish to look very carefully at the question of whether or not conservation boards should be given powers of compulsory purchase. Amendments Nos, 32 to 38, taken together, remove compulsory purchase powers for AONB conservation boards from the Bill. The Government have not come to a final view as to whether AONB conservation boards, should they come into being, should be allowed compulsory purchase powers. I said on Second Reading that we would not expect such powers to be needed very often.
Lord Jopling: I am slightly puzzled because on page 3 of the Bill, Clause 3(5) says:
"A conservation board shall have the powers of ownership and acquisition of land set out in the Third Schedule to this Act."
However, there does not appear to be a Schedule 3. Before we go any further, it would be quite helpful to know what this is all about.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: Perhaps I can help my noble friend. It is the Third Schedule as quoted at the top of page 7. It is the Third Schedule to the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, which appears in the present Bill as Schedule 1. These are all references to the Third Schedule of the national parks Act in which we are omitting certain sections which would otherwise have given us compulsory powers.
Lord Jopling: That is helpful. I thank my noble friend. I become first depressed and then encouraged as the Committee stage goes on. I am deeply depressed to hear the comments of the Minister when she says, as I understood her to say, that she wants compulsory powers left. I thought she said she would not use them very often.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I expressed myself very carefully. The position is that the Government have yet to reach a conclusion. At this stage the Government take the view that compulsory purchase order powers may be desirable, and were that to be the Government's view when they reach a final conclusion in due time, it would be in the context of them being used very occasionally.
Lord Jopling: I have sat in this building now for 35 years, either reading out ministerial briefs like that or listening to them, and if I know anything about ministerial briefs, it is a straw in the wind that the Government would like to see a board of this sort having compulsory powers. That is why when I heard what she said—and I believe I heard it correctly the first time—it made me infinitely depressed. If we are to have such
CWH 30
boards, the last thing in the world they want are compulsory powers. I applaud my noble friend for seeking to remove the compulsory powers from the Bill.
I understand that there may be occasions when such a board might wish to acquire land, if only to have an office. Therefore I should not go to the wall over subsection (5), but I certainly should go to the wall over compulsory powers.
Baroness Byford: Perhaps I, too, may add a few comments on these amendments. I am personally disappointed but I can perhaps clarify the matter and I hope that the noble Baroness will follow my line of thinking. She is in a slightly difficult position today in that obviously the Government—soon, soon and very soon and maybe soon—will be bringing forward proposals.
These amendments perhaps touch on aspects of their forward thinking on which the noble Baroness is not allowed to disclose her hand. I hope my English is reasonably balanced on that, for the noble Baroness does not know what the final intention of the Government will be, and therefore is being careful in her views on compulsory purchase.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, for giving way. She understood my point. We are not saying that we would require or wish to have compulsory purchase powers. We are saying that at this stage we do not wish to rule it out. That must not be interpreted as ruling it in. We are ruling nothing in and nothing out in this context. We are not even ruling in or out the boards to which they would apply.
Baroness Byford: I thank the noble Baroness for coming back to me. I felt that was the position, but I have to say I sympathise with my noble friend Lord Jopling because I too become more and more disheartened, and even more frightened, by the fact that whatever power they have might be used occasionally. I have been in this Chamber not quite three years and other Members of the Committee have been here for much longer, but one thing I learned very quickly in listening and taking Bills through this Chamber is that, if it is not written in the Bill, one should be aware of it. It can sometimes bring complications.
I support my noble friend and am grateful to my noble friend Lord Renton who obviously listened carefully to the views of people at Second Reading in relation to the use of compulsory powers. I also support the other amendment which is being put forward and hope that I clarified the position for the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington. She is in a difficult position at the moment.
Lord Chorley: As we are having a useful discussion on compulsory purchase, which I hope is of use to the Minister and her officials, I must say that I had not thought about compulsory purchase until it cropped up at Second Reading. I said then, on the hoof, that I was not in favour of it. The more I think about it, the less inclined I feel that it is a good idea to have compulsory purchase powers in the Bill. I therefore support this

CWH 31
series of Amendments Nos. 32 to 38. It is simply a bridge too far. One needs to be careful about who has the right to compulsorily purchase.
With regard to Amendment No. 17 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, it would be a mistake to circumscribe a conservation board by not being able to acquire or dispose of land. One cannot envisage specific circumstances where it may be important to deal with an issue by buying land or disposing of it and therefore the board should be given those powers. But like the noble Lord, Lord Renton, I assume that they would be rarely used, not least because the board probably would not have the money to do much buying.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I hope when I leave this Chamber in November that two things will be written on my obituary: one is opposition to compulsory powers at any time and, I am afraid, promoting dog registration. Therefore I strongly support what my noble friend Lord Renton said about not intending to have compulsory purchase powers in this Bill, which was supported strongly by my noble friend Lord Jopling.
I was extremely worried by the remarks of the noble Baroness. She sounded just like the potential bride who says, "No", fully knowing that in the end she is going to give in. I felt all along that that may happen. I sincerely hope that it does not. I presume that the noble Baroness will object to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, as she has to the others. I should like to have some provision in the Bill that we would not have compulsory purchase. I feel strongly about this. If the issue comes up again, I shall press the matter.
Lord Rotherwick: I am grateful to my noble friend, Lord Renton, for having taken on board all we said at Second Reading about compulsory purchase. However. I have difficulty in finding sympathy with anything he said about acquisition and disposal of land. There are some basic problems with this attitude. We are talking about an unelected board. Earlier we talked about the provision being a template and something one could opt into. What happens if we want to opt out of this conservation board? Who then holds the title of the land? These are real problems. I am sure that the conservation board could advise the local authority to purchase the land and dispose of it on its behalf.
I also raise the question of funding. If the conservation boards have continuity of funding year in, year out, I should have thought that the level of that funding would not be able to take in these large purchase prices. What would happen if a large chunk of money came in?
I cannot see a way around this problem. I have to put on record and inform the Minister that time and time again we shall come back to this issue and do all that we can to stop the compulsory purchase acquisition or the ability to dispose of land by an unelected body. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Jopling: May we not have the opportunity to vote on Amendments Nos. 32 to 37 which have been tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Renton?
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Allenby of Megiddo): I inform the Committee that amendments are taken in order. Those will come later.
Lord Rotherwick Lord Rotherwick moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 3, line 19, after ("order") insert ("including representatives of the land managers affected")
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 18, I wish also to speak to Amendment No. 19. We cannot ignore that most of the land affected by this legislation is private property. The legislation already represents a degrading of the landowner's right. This should not be done without representation. If the management scheme is to succeed it must involve the stakeholders and their unique experience in that landscape. Some argue that this would be like making inmates into wardens, but despite such malicious propaganda, it is the vast majority of the landowners who are the guardians of the land. Their involvement would create a better atmosphere as well as incorporating significant local knowledge. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: The Government would not wish to accept the amendment until we have had an opportunity to look carefully at the desirability of having advisory councils and consider their membership in depth. The amendment would require that land managers' representatives would be among the membership of such an advisory council.
We have no doubt that by their very nature, representatives of many groups with an interest in the AONB—including importantly not those that the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, feared he saw as inmates and wardens, but as partners in the many diverse circumstances of AONBs—would not wish to be tied at this stage.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: I am somewhat surprised at the view the Minister has put forward with regard to advisory councils, and the suspicion, almost worry, about them. I should have thought that this was a development that would be widely welcomed by the Government as without dealing with the board's composition as such, it enlarges the area into which people could come on an advisory basis in order to give the benefit of their advice and their experience to a conservation board.
The Government have not yet made their mind up about this matter and therefore the Minister opposes the amendment. I submit that that is true of the whole Bill. The noble Baroness has said that all along and it seems somewhat otiose, therefore, to say it in detail about an advisory council. The Government make a point of believing in people power, consultation with and advice from as many bodies as possible. I went out of my way to include this advisory council without any suggestion, I may say, from the Countryside Commission that I should do so, simply in order to widen the brief, bearing in mind the comments that I expected to hear, so that

CWH 33
those who would be consulted would have a chance to air their views about the direction in which the conservation boards were going.
I do not agree with the amendment of my noble friend Lord Rotherwick. I find the Minister's response very odd because the Government do not have to reply in depth on every point in the Bill. We know they do not accept it as such; we know that someone will object in the House of Commons when it arrives there. As a result of her brief, rather as with the question of comrulsory purchase on which we shall have to vote, she is giving us the impression that she is more of a dragon than she wants to be. Some of the things she is saying she cannot accept are, I suspect, things which she would very much like to see as developments.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I would like the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, to know that not only is it my birthday but my Chinese horoscope sign is a metal dragon! So he hit home more accurately than I suspect he realised. I appreciate that I am giving the noble Lord a very difficult time in advising him that there are many areas in which the Government would like or prefer to see options left open. Therefore, I try with brevity, where I feel that brevity will suffice, to indicate those areas where we would not wish silence to be interpreted as support.
Lord Chorley: I wonder if it would help the noble Baroness if, instead of using the words,
"may also provide for the establishment of an advisory council"
it should read "to provide for the establishment of a focus group"?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, is shortly to be followed by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, who is about to talk to me about people's juries.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I have been tempted. I mentioned on Second Reading that I did not much see the point of the advisory council. I am sure that many people will advise the board and so they should, but I do not see that the establishment of yet another body has any advantage. Whatever we call it—"advisory council", "focus group"—the board will call for advice from those appropriate when appropriate.
Lord Rotherwick: Since birthdays have been mentioned twice now and all my amendments have not been accepted by the Minister, I wonder whether, if I were to wish her a happy birthday, she might be able to accept some of the amendments in the future?
I am grateful that she is indicating some of the Government's thinking on this. It probably goes back to Amendment No. 12 where, at some later stage, whether it be in this Bill or in government Bill, we shall take we will take some considerable time looking at what the balance of a conservation board would be and what national dimension it would have. These are important subjects and ones on which we will spend a considerable time later on, but perhaps not at this time. Therefore I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 19 not moved.]
Lord Rotherwick Lord Rotherwick moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 3, line 33, at end insert—
("() The area of outstanding natural beauty management plan shall be published in draft form for consultation purposes.
() Written submissions will be accepted for a period of six weeks beginning on the date of publication.
() Submissions will be taken into account by the local planning authority and the conservation board in producing the final management plan.")
The noble Lord said: This group of amendments is vital if consultation is to become a firm part of this legislation. It will ensure a local voice for the management plan, and that is important if we are to have an harmonious approach to land management. It is the diversity and the regional character of the areas that make them beautiful, and this sort of management is not one that benefits from best practice. The tendency to overcentralise and homogenise can be overcome by consultation. The time limit will allow the orderly production of a final plan. I beg to move.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: I should like to speak to Amendment No. 21, which has been grouped with Amendment No. 20, and sets out to serve very much the same purpose. My amendment is somewhat less prescriptive. It is more general in its effect, but I do not know that that makes it any better an amendment than that of my noble friend.
The principle of wider consultation is an extremely good one. A lot of people will be affected by the management plan for the AONB. It is clearly necessary that it should be published in draft form; that written submissions should be accepted for a reasonable period; and that the submissions should then be taken into account. If it is the wish of the Committee I shall very gladly withdraw my amendment in the hope that the amendment of my noble friend Lord Rotherwick wins the support of the Committee.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: It may assist the Committee if on this occasion I give the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, the answer he is seeking. The Government can accept this amendment in principle. It would be highly desirable for AONB management plans to be open for comment before adoption. Of course we would need to look at the precise timetable and framing in greater depth, but I can assure the noble Lord that his good wishes did not bring this about, otherwise we will be littered with "Happy Birthdays" for the rest of this Grand Committee.
The Government also feel that Amendment No. 21 contains a sensible suggestion which they can accept, extending as it does the list of organisations which a conservation board must consult in relation to new or amended plans, to include any other such bodies, organisations and members of the public as the board thought fit.
Lord Rotherwick: I am grateful, especially to my noble friend Lord Renton for withdrawing his amendment in favour of mine.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: Thanks to the spirit of generosity of the Minister, she is prepared to accept both our amendments. They cover slightly different ground.
Lord Rotherwick: In that case I need not say anything more.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry Lord Renton of Mount Harry moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 4, line 3, at end insert ("and
(c) such other bodies, organisations and members of the public with an interest in the area as they think fit.")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 22 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 22 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 3, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
5.45 p.m.
Lord Jopling: The discussion we have had so far with regard to the noble Baroness and her birthday reminds me of an occasion once in the other place when a great friend of mine had failed to catch the Speaker's eye. We asked him whether he had done anything for the Speaker for Christmas. We had great difficulty in persuading this hapless Member to put a brace of pheasants in the Bag and stick them behind the Speaker's chair. We nearly succeeded in doing this.
I have been pondering on the comments which my noble friend Lord Renton made when we discussed Clause 1. I come back to the remarks I made at that time because they are very appropriate to Clause 3 stand part. He told us, as I said, that these boards should be set up only if that were the wish of the local people. I think Hansard will show that he said that on two occasions. I did ask, when I spoke on Clause 1 stand part, where those remarks were enshrined in the Bill, and I said I had not been able to find them. I was referred to the part of Clause 3 at the bottom of page 2, where it refers to Section 88B. That is the relevant part of the Bill which refers to the process of setting up these boards.
I think that I was correct in saying there is nothing on the face of the Bill which reflects the very firm view of the noble Lord that these boards should be set up only if that were the will of the local people. Therefore, if he would agree to what I am about to suggest, I should feel infinitely happier about this whole Bill. I wonder if he and I might get together between now and the Report stage to see whether we could find some words to insert in the Bill at the very bottom of page 2 after subsection (2) which refers to whom the Secretary of State shall consult.
I am drafting aloud here, and I hope I shall not be stuck with it. But after it says whom he shall consult perhaps we should add words to the effect, "and shall only make the order if there is the broad consent of those he has consulted". It seems to me that if we could
CWH 36
transfer that very clear aim as regards this Bill on to the face of the Bill, it would make it a great deal more attractive to many of us.
When my noble friend responds to the debate on the question that Clause 3 stand part, I plead with him to agree that we should include words to make it quite clear that these boards would be set up only if there was broad local agreement. I am not suggesting for a moment that there should be 100 per cent agreement, but broad agreement. Then it would make this Bill much more digestible for very many of us.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I know that the contents of Clause 3 bear considerable resemblance to the advice on future management of the AONBs received by Ministers from the former Countryside Commission, and which the Government are still studying. I am not, therefore, in a position to take any definitive line today in respect of the Government's intentions.
Clause 3 would place a duty on local authorities in relation to the conservation and management of AONBs and provide for the creation of statutory AONB conservation boards in suitable places. We are looking carefully at these questions. It would also require the compilation of AONB management plans. We are in favour of those but we are still considering their possible statutory status and how they might fit with the statutory system of development plans.
Clause 3 also provides for conservation boards to be levying bodies. This question will need to be settled as one of the core questions about funding of conservation boards if they come into being. The Government have not reached a conclusion in their considerations. It may be helpful if I say that I listened with interest to the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, and will wait before commenting on the outcome of any discussions he may have between now and Report stage.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: Those are helpful comments by the Minister. Perhaps I may first say to my noble friend that we are more used to being in concord with each other than in discord. The suggestion that some such words should be added on the face of the Bill is well worth considering. Indeed, I should like to get together with him and any other expert advisers in the days ahead before Report stage, to see what can be suggested that is workable and that clearly makes his point that there should be a broad belief among the people involved that they want a conservation board. That is a perfectly fair proposition and I shall be delighted to work with him on it in the hope of finding some agreed words before the Report stage of the Bill.
I should like for a moment to speak about the financing of the conservation boards, because the noble Minister kindly touched upon that. There were no amendments tabled to it so it has not in fact been discussed. One of the most frequent points made to me is how conservation boards get to be financed. A parallel is drawn with national parks, which draw 75 per cent of their necessary funding from the Secretary of State, with the balance of 25 per cent being raised from the local authorities by way of a levy. To many local authorities,

CWH 37
and indeed to many local people, it is a very attractive thought that that is the way the long-term funding should be available.
This is an absolutely essential issue in my judgment. One of the problems for those of us who simply have joint committees with the local authorities, like the Chilterns or ourselves—a combination of local authorities and Countryside Agency funding—is just a matter of how long the funding is going to be there. In our case, I have to say that there is a conservation board and there is no promise of funding after April 2001. It was only my predecessor, the noble Lord, Lord Mason, who was able to negotiate a further three years' funding that takes us up to April 2001.
At the same time, with the greatest respect to the Minister, I went to the Countryside Agency launch yesterday and heard a great deal from the Government about how important AONBs are—with which I agree; about how important all the things we stand for are—with which I also agree; but no clear view yet as to how, in our case, the funding is going to appear. Obviously, we now enter a situation when it is difficult to keep good staff because they only see a clear future for 18 months ahead.
This is a very good reason for the Government to move forward with announcing their decision. There has been too much uncertainty for too long and, in that context, I should point out to the Committee that the wording I used in new Section 88D at the top of page 4—I make no bones about it—is simply lifted from the Environment Act 1995, which applies to national parks.
The effect of this would be to require. local authorities to contribute financially to the work of AONB conservation boards and to enable the Secretary of State to contribute, thus providing a secure financial partnership on which the conservation board—when that is required by the local people—can build. Of course, if we are a conservation board continuing in the South Downs and if we in due course can persuade the Government that 75 per cent should come from central government and only 25 per cent from local authorities, that would be magnificent. Maybe the percentages will be slightly different from that in the end but the key point, and I say this to the Minister, is that this is one of the key areas where we need a decision very quickly. It is for that reason that it is included in this clause of my Bill.
Lord Chorley: I was not going to intervene at this stage on Clause 3 stand part. However, I wish to underscore what the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, said in a general sense about the need for the Bill to become an Act of Parliament, and in the meantime the particular problem of the South Downs Conservation Board. I recall about three years ago when my noble friend Lord Nathan was still the chairman: its original five-year funding was coming to an end. My successor as chairman of the National Trust. Mr Charles Nunelly, and others from conservation bodies wrote a letter to The Times emphasising how important it was to get proper, long-term funding in this instance. Here we are, two or
CWH 38
three years on, and we still have not resolved the issue. I know that the Government have a great deal to consider for their Countryside Bill but I suggest that the matter is becoming rather urgent.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I wish to support those comments. On funding, if the CAP reform had produced something more substantial and different in terms of rural development, we might not view funding of AONBs as such an urgent issue. However, I believe that they should have a statutory basis for their funding, in particular those which have to struggle with a large number of councils, any one of which may have a difficulty during that year or the next which means that it would wish to reduce its contribution. For AONBs to have to rely on handouts from their local councils—often it will depend on the influence the local authority member who represents the AONB to its council—is not a good way of ensuring that things happen.
Because CAP reform and rural development money has not been forthcoming in the amounts that we had hoped, this funding is all the more important. To undertake anything in an AONB is far more expensive than elsewhere. As the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, said earlier, conservation costs money. I contend that conservation brings in money.
The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, is no longer in her place but she made a number of points about tourism, and one could regard the money as being a good investment.
If one wants to develop any form of building for light industry, or pump prime a project within a sensitive area, it is far more expensive because the materials that will need to be used are likely to be more expensive. I have seen a number of examples of good buildings which have brought employment to areas. However, they cannot be of other than a high standard in an AONB.
Finally, funding is important because of the way that such items as leader programmes are funded. If the board responsible for trying to get some of the social and economic programmes going has a little pump priming money it usually brings in further funding. In the case of boards, however, they are unable to make that sort of plan. They are therefore unable to draw up long-term bids which are also important to them.
For all of those reasons, I very strongly support this part of the Bill. In fact, I feel that it is the most crucial part of the Bill.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
6 p.m.
Clause 4 [Development plans and applications for planning permission]:
Lord Rotherwick Lord Rotherwick moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 4, line 27, leave out ("or adjacent to")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 23, and at the same time speak to Amendments Nos. 24, 27 and 30. I shall be brief on this as I am certain it will not be contentious.
What is the definition of "adjacent"? The lack of clarification leaves the Bill open to misinterpretation and exploitation by misguided people such as eco-warriors. If this phrase is not withdrawn, we may end up with unwarranted restrictions of necessary development in the countryside thereby limiting economic development and prosperity. The inclusion of "adjacent to" will adversely affect property prices due to the planning controls incumbent on AONBs. It may act as a disincentive to developers who could bring economic and social improvements to our countryside.
The Bill proposes that conservation boards should be constituted from members of local authorities lying within an AONB in addition to the appointed members. The amendment removes the possibility of local authority members dictating planning decisions to areas lying "outside" the authority which they represent, and the potential conflict of interest therein. Incidentally, this is a power which even the national parks do not have. I beg to move.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: As my name is also to these amendments, may I say I am convinced by my noble friend's speech. I wholeheartedly support the amendments.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: The Government could accept the amendments, removing as they do the application of various provisions of the Bill from areas adjacent to AONBs. For the record, it is important to say that this is likely to be the right approach, although we should wish to find a way for a conservation board to make its views known and have them taken into account in the case of the large scale development close to an AONB which was likely to have a significant impact upon it.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I understand that the noble Baroness is going to accept the amendments. Is that correct? I would add how important this is. I have had personal experience of being outside a national park and having people complain about a certain development—which I will not mention because everyone will have hysterics—on my farm which was 40 miles away from the area and could be seen from Snowdon. I suspect that most of Wales on a clear day can be seen from Snowdon. If we do not have this kind of amendment, people will complain that we cannot have a development 40 miles away from an AONB—in this case it was a national park, I agree—as cars can be seen from that area. It is not acceptable. I am pleased that the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, is sympathetic to this.
Lord Rotherwick: I beg to move Amendment No. 23.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Rotherwick Lord Rotherwick moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 4, line 35, leave out ("or adjacent to")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Rotherwick Lord Rotherwick moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 4, line 37. at end insert ("and the appropriate countryside bodies")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 25, and speak also to Amendment No. 26. Amendment No. 25 will ensure that appropriate expert advice is available to a land planning authority in co-ordinating development in their area in sympathy with the regional environment. The expertise will include knowledge of conservation issues and appreciation of the repercussions of development. It will ensure a degree of national consistency in planning decisions whilst enabling the planning authorities to have access to bodies which have experience in such matters.
Amendment No. 26 is overly draconian. Conservation boards are being established under the Bill as bodies to promote the conservation and management of the area, no more and no less. This clause would greatly expand the powers of the conservation board, enabling it to veto proposed development. It makes a mockery of the existing local planning authorities by enabling the conservation board to instigate public inquiries. In some cases this may go against the explicit recommendation of the planning authority thereby emasculating the very body set up to deal with such issues. Local authorities are elected to provide local governance and decision-making. This section entirely by-passes that concept. If the section were to remain in the Bill, who would fund such inquiries or public examinations? The associated costs would undoubtedly be borne by the taxpayer, diverting resources from worthwhile conservation projects.
Sufficient checks are already in place to allow due consideration from all perspectives, be they economic, social or conservation, of the effects of development thereby rendering this section obsolete. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: It may facilitate debate if I indicate the Government's position. We would want to resist Amendment No. 25 but would accept the principle of consulting relevant countryside bodies. We would not wish to accept this amendment now because we would wish to consider carefully how to provide for the consultation. We would support the principle of the Countryside Agency and English Nature in England and the Countryside Council for Wales being consulted about the drawing-up of development plans in respect of areas contained with AONBs. As for making them statutory consultees as such, there could be a problem because the Government indicated that they intend to end statutory consultees for local plans. There are other ways of ensuring that specific bodies are consulted; for example, by a suitable reference in the planning guidance.
The Government could accept Amendment No. 26 because the provision in lines 38 to 47 is unlikely to be necessary. There already has to be a public inquiry if objections are made to a local plan and not withdrawn, unless the objector decides to rely on written

CWH 41
representations. For the structure plan, an examination in public has to be held unless the Secretary of State directs otherwise. For that reason we could accept Amendment No. 26 and would resist Amendment No. 25.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: I am sorry to have to say to the noble Lord that I do not have any problems with Amendment No. 25, but I could not possibly accept Amendment No. 26. The whole question of the amount of planning powers or planning involvement of a conservation board of the future is a matter of delicate balance.
We have consistently taken the view, supported I believe by the Countryside Commission, that we do not want to be the sole planning authority. We feel that is totally inappropriate in a case like ours, which would be an area of nearly 100 miles stretching over more than 16 local authorities, and which would have 2,000 to 3,000 planning applications a year. We do not believe that to be appropriate, but it is necessary that we should be a statutory consultee, or whatever the Minister suggests in place of statutory consultees.
We want to make certain that when there is a development that affects an AONB we are consulted about it, and that if we do object there should be a proper consideration in public by the Secretary of State or by the local planning authority as appropriate, differently spelt out in this amendment, before a decision is made. Without that degree of involvement by the conservation board it will be found to have very few teeth indeed in local planning, even when that affects something important within the AONB.
This mechanism will ensure both that a conservation board is able to present its case in public as to why a particular policy in the development plan should be omitted or amended, and that other interested parties may have their say. It does not say that the conservation board will win at the end of the day, but that it will have the opportunity of putting its case in public. That will be a necessary feature of conservation boards.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I wonder whether the noble Lord could clear my mind on this? Is he saying that the conservation body will have a right to force the Secretary of State to call the planning application in?
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: In the next series of amendments in which I am supported by the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, we are not saying that.
Lord Chorley: I am rather confused. I thought we were discussing development plans, and in particular whether there was an objection process, not about planning applications at all. It seems to me that planning applications are dealt with in the next series of amendments. I am at one with the noble Lord, Lord Renton, in wanting at least for the moment to preserve
CWH 42
the new Section 52A(2) in order that the conservation board can have some power in influencing development plans.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: That is quite correct. What I was trying to say to the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, is that the call-in procedure will be discussed in the next series of amendments.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: As regards Amendment No. 26 and new Section 52A(2), I feel that both the structure plan and the local plan system at the moment provide ample opportunities for everybody, including the boards, to put their point of view. It is a very long process which includes a great deal of consultation. The local inspector will examine all the objections made. I entirely endorse the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, that there is already in place an elected body whose job it is to go through that process. I feel that for the public, to leave in Clause 2 will simply complicate the issue and make it less clear who is to be the final arbiter. For that reason I support Amendment No. 26.
Baroness Byford: Perhaps I may add a couple of comments. I wonder whether it might be easier at this stage to degroup Amendment Nos. 25 and 26. I hope that is a sensible suggestion, and then can I come back and comment on Amendment No. 26. Perhaps we should go back to Amendment No. 25 and clarify the situation.
Lord Rotherwick: In relation to Amendment No. 25, I understand in this case I do not have the support of the Minister. On the other hand I do have the support of my noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry. At this point it may be better for us to have discussions and come back with an amendment at a later date. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Rotherwick Lord Rotherwick moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 4, leave out lines 38 to 47
The noble Lord said: I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I wonder if I can clarify yet further the points I made. Amendment No. 26 seeks to leave out the provision in the Bill which would require an examination in public for a structure plan, or a local inquiry in the case of a local plan, in cases where a conservation board objects to proposals in the making, revision and so on of a plan. For local plans there already has to be a public inquiry if objections are made and not withdrawn, and unless the objector decides to rely on written representations. For structure plans an EIP must be held unless the Secretary of State directs otherwise. So the provisions in the Bill as drafted are unnecessary.
Baroness Byford: I thank the Minister. That was indeed my interpretation of her response. Again, I understood her to support my noble friend's suggestion. That leaves me in a slightly difficult position

CWH 43
with my noble friend on my left, who is perhaps not in agreement with that. But I hope we are all going down the same route at the moment, and the noble Baroness has kindly indicated that the Government would support this.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: I listened with care to what the Minister and my noble friend had to say. I cannot at this stage accept the amendment but I shall certainly go away and think about what both the Minister and my noble friend said and return to it at Report stage.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Rotherwick: I thank my noble friend for saying that, but it is obviously important to us. If he cannot agree to it at a later date, we would wish to push it further. I know that there is considerable support for that. However, at this time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Rotherwick Lord Rotherwick moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 5, line 4, leave out ("or adjacent to")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry Lord Renton of Mount Harry moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 5, line 20, at end insert—
("(3A) Where an application has been made for development and, in the opinion of the local planning authority or a conservation board established under section 88B of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, the development will materially affect an area of outstanding natural beauty or any part of it, or will materially conflict with any development plan which relates to the affected area of outstanding natural beauty, the local planning authority shall give notice of the application to the Secretary of State."")
The noble Lord said: I felt that I should move this amendment because it was my idea that the original clause should be in this Bill, not that of the noble Lord, Lord Chorley. I should therefore take responsibility.
I should take responsibility also for withdrawing it and suggesting this amendment instead. The original clause did, indeed, require that if in simple terms a conservation board objected to a planning application that was within their purlieu and the local authority wished to go ahead with it, the Secretary of State would have to call it in. We put it more politely but that was the effect of the amendment. There are probably quite a number of people who would like to see that happen, particularly if it was a case of a local authority giving itself permission to develop land within an AONB, which would mean in fact that the local authority would be judge and jury in its own case.
However, I accept the point that was made very strongly by the Minister in the Second Reading debate; that is, that it is impossible to require a Secretary of State to call in such an application. For that reason, we drafted this new Clause 3A, which appears as Amendment No. 28. This states that in the case I envisaged—where the development materially affects an area of outstanding natural beauty or any part of it or materially conflicts with any development plan which
CWH 44
relates to the affected area of outstanding natural beauty—the local planning authority shall give notice of the application to the Secretary of State.
This would, in simple terms, be a way of making certain that the local authority calls this application to the attention of the Secretary of State. Presumably the conservation board might wish to support that with a letter or a representation of its own and one would hope that the Secretary of State, when he received such a notification, would regard the matter as "particularly persuasive"—I believe that is the technical language. The exercise of this mechanism would, however, possibly be the subject of departmental guidance in future.
This amended edition is indisputably a compromise. It is a compromise between the original situation in the Bill and the fact that one cannot require the Secretary of State to call in applications. I hope, therefore, that the compromise as spelt out in my Amendment No. 28 will be acceptable to the Minister and to the Committee.
Lord Chorley: The noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, has spoken to this amendment very fully and I need say little more, other than to support him.
Lord Rotherwick: I wish to say briefly that Amendment No. 29 contains a similar argument to Amendment No. 26 and should perhaps correctly have been coupled with it. It is over-draconian. This power is really more appropriate to an elected body such as a local authority. I would also question how it would be funded.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I have reservations about this. I referred to the principle in debate on the first amendment. We are providing further controls and hurdles for anybody who wishes to develop an area of outstanding natural beauty. I am therefore concerned that those who want to keep the place alive with new development will have yet another hurdle. The amendment of my noble friend Lord Renton and the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, is virtually forcing the Secretary of State to call in an application.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Amendments Nos. 28 and 29 relate to the important question of call-in procedure. Amendment No. 29 would delete the provision in the Bill which, as drafted, would have the effect of deeming planning applications to have been called in by the Secretary of State. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, for his detailed description of this provision and for the reasons that he outlined in his support of this amendment and we would therefore support it too.
Amendment No. 28 would provide for the local planning authority or conservation board to give notice to the Secretary of State in the case of a development proposal which would materially affect an AONB or materially conflict with the relevant development plan. The Secretary of State would then be able to take a decision on whether to call in in the usual way.
Although we would wish to look further at the precise wording, this is the sort of provision the Government are likely to be able to find acceptable in the event of

CWH 45
conservation boards becoming a reality. As drafted, it may be defective and, therefore, we would wish consideration to be given to it between now and Report.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: I have a problem. I could support Amendment No. 29 if Amendment No. 28 were agreed by the Committee. I cannot support Amendment No. 29 if Amendment No. 28 is not being supported by the Minister because I want some reference to this issue in the Bill.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I sought to make clear that we support the principle behind Amendment No. 28, but that the wording is defective. Therefore, it may help the noble Lord if both amendments are withdrawn at this stage and there is discussion before Report stage.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 28 and look forward to discussion at Report.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Rotherwick Lord Rotherwick moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 5. leave out lines 22 to 38
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Rotherwick Lord Rotherwick moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 5, line 25, leave out ("or adjacent to")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Rotherwick Lord Rotherwick moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 5, line 40, leave out paragraph (c)
The noble Lord said: This amendment gives the conservation board the right to be heard in call-in cases. Currently, this extends only to the local authority and the applicant and this right is not extended to other organisations. The current call-in procedure is sufficient to address genuine concerns without putting applicants to unnecessary delays and costs that would be incurred at inquiry. Such decisions are best made by the local authority, applicant and Secretary of State. I beg to move.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: I am afraid that I cannot agree to that, it is necessary that the conservation board should be able to be heard on these issues and the wording in the Bill as it stands is correct.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: The Government do not accept the amendment since the principle needs closer scrutiny.
Lord Rotherwick: I should be grateful to have the opportunity to scrutinise this more closely and bring it back at a later stage when I shall see whether we cannot put up a good argument to persuade my noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry to agree to it. Sadly, therefore, I must beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Schedule to be inserted as the Third Schedule to the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949]:
Lord Renton of Mount Harry Lord Renton of Mount Harry moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 7, line 9, after ("120") insert ("(except subsection (3)")
The noble Lord said: I am not quite sure of the Minister's position in relation to the six amendments which withdraw the powers of compulsion. They are only withdrawing something that is in the Bill to which I do not imagine she objects. If she does, I will not move them. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My understanding was that this amendment had been debated. The noble Lord is asking whether Amendment No. 32 and the subsequent five can be accepted. The Government cannot accept them because we wish to look more closely. I am sorry.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 33 to 38 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Schedule 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Rotherwick: All of us here have a great affinity to the countryside and those who work and live in it, and we wish to sustain that. We want it not to remain a decaying museum but we wish to renovate and conserve it. To that extent I welcome the Bill introduced by my noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry, which is his response to that challenge.
However, we have two main concerns about the Bill. First, do we really need the Bill? That is the question that I find the most difficult. There is a good deal of sympathy from various people around me that it is unnecessary to go forward with the Bill. I shall come to that later.
The other main concern is: how are we to fund all these additional costs? My noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry has partially answered this, but why does he see it as so important to increase all the powers for areas of outstanding natural beauty? Are we not getting rather too close to the idea of areas of outstanding natural beauty becoming a national park? I know that there are some serious differences, one of which is that national parks offer greater opportunities for open air recreation. National parks are also stand-alone planning authorities in their own right. Apart from that, it seems as though we are trying to make an AONB similar, apart from those two important differences, to a national park. I question whether that is necessary. I question whether this is necessary. I question also whether this vehicle that is being built will be sufficiently flexible for all the AONBs to operate within. We are talking of AONBs from the Isles of Scilly right up to the Northumbrian coast, and from the Norfolk coast right up to the North Pennines. I know that my noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry has his doubts about this, because in a

CWH 47
recent letter he stated, "It is unlikely that such boards would be needed for any but the largest and most complex AONBs".
It is also a great concern of the local communities, because this would produce a double whammy for them. Not only would they be required to fund the additional costs of a conservation board, but also they would end up funding the requirements of that conservation board.
Sadly, my noble friend Lord Kimball had to carry out duties in the North and I was left to do this without his help. However I should like to quote something he said at Second Reading,
"the awful thing is that countryside officers in various guises now outnumber farmers, farm workers and foresters".—[Official Report, 21/5/99, col. 547.]
That brings this crucial point home. At this moment our farming industry and our local communities are in crisis. The world price for wheat is £65 a tonne. Though I am fortunate to be a very efficient farmer, like many others I can only produce wheat at this moment for £75 a tonne, and with subsidies that means that there are only a couple of pounds' profit per acre.
We are talking about spending considerable sums of money on the landscape. On Second Reading I was grateful, as will be all those living and working in the countryside, that the Minister stated that there will be,
"an additional £2.5 million for work in AONBs and other similar landscapes this year".—[Official Report, 21/5/99, col. 588.]
She goes on to say that that money will help in putting into place new management plans and programmes. But horror of horrors, she goes on to say,
"and in helping to attract additional expert staff".
Everybody must make up their minds whether this is the sort of Bill that should be imposed on the countryside. We are looking at the balance of the needs of the people against the needs of the landscape. If we have a profitable local rural economy, they have the ability and desire to do the conservation and renovation of the landscape. If one neglects that area and puts all the emphasis and constraints on the landscape, then we have the balance wrong.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: Perhaps I may say a few words in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick. We have all been here for a number of hours and I am grateful to all of those who have taken part in this debate.
I do not want to repeat all that my noble friend Lord Rotherwick said in relation to Clause 1 stand part, but his first question was: "Do we need this Bill?". My answer is clearly, "Yes". If I did not believe it, and if I felt that a lot of my noble friends did not believe it too, we would not be sitting here this afternoon.
CWH 48
My noble friend talked briefly about the difference between what we are proposing in this Bill—it is not prescriptive; it is a template which local people could follow if they wanted to—and national parks. There is of course a difference. National parks have set out to encourage recreation, but there is the much more substantial difference in that national parks are sole planning authorities. What we are proposing in this Bill is not that conservation boards should be sole planning authorities, but that they should have a role to play. That role involves working with local authorities rather than imposing a new jurisdiction upon them.
I do not believe we are talking about a new level of bureaucracy. That is certainly not the case in the conservation board of which I have been chairman. I bear in mind what the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, said, that in relation to the setting up of conservation boards, we should see whether we could find some words to go into the Bill that the Secretary of State would make the order if there is the broad consent of those who have been consulted. That is well worth working on. I hope it will go some way to allay the fears that have been expressed about more bureaucracy, more interference, and so forth.
It is certainly not what I want to see. It is not what the Countryside Agency wanted to see in making these proposals. I hope very much that at Report Stage we can move forward in finding a sensible but forward-looking compromise that would put conservation boards where AONBs want them and feel they need them, and make that possible while allaying some of the fears that have been expressed this afternoon.
I thank the noble Lord, the Deputy Chairman of Committees, and the clerks and others who have been in attendance this afternoon. I know that we have been in the unusual process of requiring an extra team of Hansard reporters which I gather adds considerably to the House of Lords' costs, but I am grateful to them.
I would also like to thank John Godfrey and Paul Amis from West Sussex County Council, Martin Beaton from my own Sussex Downs Conservation Board, and Ray Woolmore and Lynette Leeson from the Countryside Agency who have been here this afternoon, and have given me a great deal of technical help in getting this far.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Allenby of Megiddo): I thank the noble Lord, Lord Renton, for those remarks which are greatly appreciated.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.
The Committee adjourned at twenty-two minutes before seven o'clock.

  Legal Services Ombudsman: Annual Report
  Legal Services Ombudsman: Annual Report
  Crown Prosecution Service Review
  Crown Prosecution Service Review
  United Kingdom Citizens: Emigration
  United Kingdom Citizens: Emigration
  Average Taxable Income per Household
  Average Taxable Income per Household
  United Kingdom-European Union Trade Deficit
  United Kingdom-European Union Trade Deficit
  Russia: Humanitarian Assistance
  Russia: Humanitarian Assistance
  No. 2 Marsham Street
  No. 2 Marsham Street
  Quality Protects Programme
  Quality Protects Programme
  European Funding
  European Funding
  Science: Government Spending
  Science: Government Spending
  Power Line Technology
  Power Line Technology