Sitting of 2 March 1999

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

  Community Hospitals
  Mr. Shaun Woodward: What assessment he has made of the likely impact on (a) health service provision and (b) social services provision in Oxfordshire of the proposed closure of community hospitals in the county. [72373]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Hutton): I am sure that, before I answer the hon. Gentleman's question, the whole House will want to express its sympathy to the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) on her recent bereavement.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has had a number of meetings with right hon. and hon. Members from Oxfordshire, including the hon. Gentleman, local general practitioners and other interested groups to discuss Oxfordshire health authority's proposals. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, my right hon. Friend is currently considering those proposals in detail.
  Mr. Woodward: I thank the Minister for that reply. He will know that it has been more than a year since consideration of the future of community hospitals in my constituency began. There is huge uncertainty, which means that it is becoming impossible to recruit nurses to community hospitals, because they do not know whether they will have a job in six months' time. Does he also know that the Oxford Radcliffe said that currently 16 of its 26 patient assessment areas are blocked because it cannot get people out into community hospital beds—and that is with the three community hospitals still open? It has also said that losing 52 beds in my constituency will have a catastrophic effect on health, not only in west Oxfordshire, but in Oxfordshire as a whole.
  Does the Minister accept that cuts for social services this year, under which Oxfordshire will lose £10.5 million, will create an impossible situation for those who require health care and social services? An urgent decision by Ministers on keeping open Burford, Witney and Chipping Norton community hospitals is absolutely essential.
  Mr. Hutton: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is urgently considering the proposals. As I said, we intend to discuss them and the available options in detail with all the interested parties. However, we are clear that any changes in Oxfordshire must lead to a modern and dependable health service for local people, and our priority is to ensure that. We recognise the important role that community hospitals play in delivering locally based patient care, but it is the responsibility of individual health authorities to determine the most appropriate balance of health services for their population and to ensure that those services are provided in the most clinically effective and resource efficient manner.
  Dr. Evan Harris: Does the Minister accept that the proposal to close community hospitals in Oxfordshire, which also affects Abingdon community hospital, was made at a time when the Government were sticking to Conservative spending plans, before the comprehensive spending review settlement, and before the savage cuts to social services that have been forced on Oxfordshire county council by a combination of the settlement and the crazy capping system? Will he give an undertaking that some of the money in the comprehensive spending review will be available to give Oxfordshire people what they want—good quality local care, at a level that is affordable to the health service, in their local community hospitals?
  Mr. Hutton: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that there is a limit on what I can say today because my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is currently reviewing all the proposals. My right hon. Friend is doing that in an inclusive and open fashion, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman acknowledges and supports that.
  On the issue of resources for Oxfordshire county council and its social services budget, I do not recognise the figures quoted by the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward). In 1998–99, total social services expenditure for Oxfordshire was £76.8 million; next year, it will be £78.2 million.
  Mr. Alan Duncan: Does the Minister agree that the role of community hospitals is vital in reducing waiting lists in a legitimate way that benefits patients? The record of community hospitals in Oxfordshire and elsewhere is rather better than the hon. Gentleman's record of fiddling the figures. Why will he not admit that the total number of patients now waiting to get on the waiting list has increased by more than 220,000, and that, therefore, today's real waiting list figure is half a million more than he boasts?
  Mr. Hutton: None of that has anything to do with the question or the issue of hospitals in Oxfordshire. I have already tried to make clear the importance we attach to the role of community hospitals. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will have the opportunity to check Hansard tomorrow.

  NHS Direct
  Mr. Colin Burgon: What assessment he has made of the performance of NHS Direct. [72375]
  The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Frank Dobson): In March last year, we launched NHS Direct pilot schemes in Newcastle, Preston and Milton Keynes. An independent survey has shown that 97 per cent. of the callers surveyed were satisfied with the service they received from the three pilot schemes, which shows that NHS Direct is a great success. That is why we are extending that 24-hour, nurse-led helpline to cover more than 40 per cent. of the country by Easter. That coverage will include West Yorkshire NHS Direct, covering my hon. Friend's constituency. NHS Direct will be extended to cover 60 per cent. of the country by the beginning of December.
  Mr. Burgon: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. As he said, the NHS Direct initiative will be launched in West Yorkshire on 7 April and will cover some 2 million people. Does he share my hope that in my city of Leeds, the new initiative will help to reduce the number of admissions to accident and emergency units, which currently run at 12 per cent. above the national average?
  Further to a conversation I had a with a nurse when I was in hospital the other week, will my right hon. Friend assure me that the new scheme will be given the maximum possible publicity campaign, so that the people of West Yorkshire will be aware of the Government's excellent initiative?
  Mr. Dobson: The object of NHS Direct is to provide a better 24-hour service to people. In some cases, people will be referred instantly to an accident and emergency department; in other cases, they will receive advice, help or reassurance. The object is to provide anyone who rings the service with the assistance that they need. That is the crucial point. One of the few complaints revealed by the survey of the three pilot schemes was that they were not receiving enough publicity. Therefore, I shall do my best to ensure that as each new NHS Direct scheme comes into operation in different parts of the country, it gets the publicity that it clearly deserves.
  Mr. Alan Duncan: Why, when the Secretary of State delivered a statement about NHS Direct only a month ago, did he make no mention of his plans to consider replacing all contact with the family doctor and diverting people instead through a remote national call centre? That is what he told the newspapers on Sunday. He must have known of the proposal in Northumberland when he made his statement. Why did he not have the honesty to tell the House that he was looking to move NHS Direct into a whole new area?
  Mr. Dobson: The hon. Gentleman was present on 2 February when I announced the proposal to extend NHS Direct to 40 per cent. of the country by Easter and to 60 per cent. of the country by December. If he checks Hansard, he will note that I drew attention to the proposal advanced by local doctors from around the Newcastle centre in Northumberland to go ahead with the scheme, under which people would ring NHS Direct first rather than go straight to their doctors. That was part of the statement that the hon. Gentleman may recall he welcomed.
  Mr. Duncan: I have Hansard here. The Secretary of State implied that the proposal was for only out-of-hours
  862
  calls. I welcome a central number—that is what I called for. It may be only a trial, but the subject requires a proper debate. It now appears that the right hon. Gentleman is not talking about only out-of-hours calls. If patients cannot call their own doctors but must go through a national centre, it becomes "NHS Indirect". Will he confirm that the Government are against centralisation and that he favours maintaining close local contact between patients and their family doctors?
  Mr. Dobson: All that I can say—if it is not out of order, Madam Speaker—is that it seems rather empty-headed to have listened to a statement about a 24-hour helpline and concluded that its extension would not cover a 24-hour period. That is what it will do. I emphasise that I did not provoke or encourage the scheme in Northumberland: the proposal came from the Northumbria ambulance service, the local health information service and Northern Doctors Urgent Care—a GP co-operative which provides services in that area. Those bodies want to go ahead and pilot the scheme and, if it works, I have no doubt that other doctors and people elsewhere in the country will want to introduce similar schemes. We are conducting a pilot scheme to see whether the proposal will work, but it will not prevent people in Northumberland from ringing their own doctors.

  Fuel Poverty
  Mr. Alan Simpson: What suggestions he has received about the role of primary care groups in addressing the health consequences of fuel poverty. [72377]
  The Minister for Public Health (Ms Tessa Jowell): One of the three key tasks for primary care groups will be the improvement of the health of their local population, and we attach great importance to that role. Fuel poverty can contribute to increased risk of heart attack, stroke and respiratory conditions such as flu, pneumonia and bronchitis. An interdepartmental group reviewing all Government policy on fuel poverty identified primary care groups as a potential way of reaching households in need of help with that problem. Work is in hand to explore that possibility further.
  Mr. Simpson: Will the Minister ask the interdepartmental group to pay particular attention to work being done on warm homes programmes in at least two areas? First, in Cornwall, considerable work is being done to tackle child asthma and, secondly, in Birmingham, a collaboration with the local authority allowed home insulation to be offered on prescription. Will my right hon. Friend consider the lessons to be learned from such initiatives and seek to extend them where possible so that we can ask primary care groups to tackle the causes of ill health as well as its consequences and costs?
  Ms Jowell: I am delighted to take on board my hon. Friend's suggestions for good practice and to reaffirm the Government's commitment to tackle the root causes of ill health by working across Government and, in doing so, to tackle inequality in health, which blights our society.
  Mr. Archie Norman: Is the Secretary of State aware that the right hon. Member for

  863
  Darlington (Mr. Milburn), when he was a Health Minister and before he became Chief Secretary to the Treasury, reassured Conservative Members that there would shortly be an announcement on the next round of hospital private finance initiatives, including the consideration of a case in my constituency relating to West Kent and East Sussex—
  Madam Speaker: Order. I think that I must have called the hon. Gentleman on the wrong question. This question concerns the health consequences of fuel poverty. I call the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth).
  Mr. Eric Forth: What is fuel poverty compared with, for example, food poverty or clothing poverty?
  Ms Jowell: Fuel poverty is measured as the need to spend over 10 per cent. of one's weekly income on keeping warm.
  Mr. David Kidney: The question demonstrates one of the many demands on the boards of the new primary care groups at this stage. If the Stafford primary care group is anything to go by, the management structures are certainly as lean as the Government would like them to be. Will the Minister assure the House that the new boards will have adequate resources and training so that they have the expertise as well as the time, which is very important, to be able to deal with conflicting demands at this important time in their establishment?
  Ms Jowell: We are determined that the role of primary care groups will not be only to deliver primary care to local people, but to act as a major force in meeting the Government's targets for broader health improvement and reducing preventable deaths. We shall certainly work with primary care groups so that they are clear not only that they are in the business of ensuring that people receive treatment for ill health, but that they are a force for health improvement.
  Dr. Peter Brand: I am sure that the Minister recognises the importance of delivering the wider public health agenda and the role of primary care groups in that aim. Does she agree that local authority services are an integral part of the delivery of the wider public health agenda? Would not it be sensible to integrate, perhaps as pilot studies, a number of health and local authority services so that we can find out whether the proposals can go further? A coterminous area such as my own, an island, would welcome such an initiative.
  Ms Jowell: We certainly recognise the importance of close partnership between health and local authorities in tackling health inequality and improving health. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the many steps that the Government have taken to reduce the obstructive and artificial boundaries between health and local authorities. The Health Bill will set out a new framework, including a duty of partnership between health and local authorities, so that the people of a given area no longer have to grapple with the dreadful bureaucracy that results from a single need being met sometimes by services from the local authority, and sometimes by health authority
  864
  services. Health improvement is also about making sure that we achieve closer integration of the working of health and local authorities.

  Hospital Trusts
  Mr. David Ruffley: What representations he has received regarding levels of funding for NHS hospital trusts. [72378]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Hutton): The Department, through the NHS Executive and its regional offices, is in day-to-day contact with NHS trusts and health authorities in their role of managing the national health service. Representations are made during those contacts, including by Members of Parliament, through formal channels such as parliamentary questions.
  Mr. Ruffley: Is the Minister aware that many of my constituents who use the West Suffolk Hospitals NHS trust believe that the Government's funding policy discriminates against trusts in rural areas, such as their's, compared with urban areas? In that respect, may I draw the Minister's attention to today's report of an inquiry into the East Anglian Ambulance NHS trust, the performance of which is giving rise to great concern among many people in Suffolk? I am aware that the Secretary of State has taken a personal interest in the report. Given that meeting the goals in that document relies on increased funding, will the Minister give an undertaking to welcome a delegation of Suffolk Members of Parliament so that they may lobby for fairer health funding for Suffolk?
  Mr. Hutton: I shall say two things to the hon. Gentleman. First, we will not accept any lectures from him and his hon. Friends about national health service funding. His tirade completely omitted any reference either to the 5.5 per cent. cash increase in Suffolk health authority's funding, or to next year's real-terms increase of more than £11 million for Suffolk health authority. I am rather surprised that he managed to let those figures slip through his fingers.
  Secondly, the hon. Gentleman may not be aware of it, but we have already made an adjustment to the funding formula to allow additional resources to be made available to rural ambulance services.
  Mrs. Anne Campbell: Will my hon. Friend ensure that the very generous funding allocated to the NHS by this Government is spent wisely? Will he look at the report into the East Anglian Ambulance NHS trust, which points to deep-seated management problems, many of which I have been drawing attention to for many years? I hope that he agrees that we should concentrate on the way in which such resources are spent.
  Mr. Hutton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I very strongly agree with what she says. It might help the debate and the clarity of the issues if Conservative Members were prepared to address the reality rather than criticise the Government's record on funding. In 1996–97, the total of NHS trust and health authority deficits was nearly £460 million. By the last quarter of 1998–99, we had managed to reduce that to £80 million. That is the bottom line.
  Mr. Philip Hammond: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that most NHS acute

  865
  trusts will this year receive part of their funding in the form of a performance bonus, if they meet the Secretary of State's headline waiting list targets by 31 March? Will the Minister acknowledge that few, if any, hospital trusts can afford to lose that bonus? Does not that amount to a clear invitation to NHS trusts to do the Secretary of State's dirty work for him, letting out-patient waiting lists double in order to deliver on his political target for headline waiting lists?
  Mr. Hutton: No, I do not accept that criticism—any part of it, or any word of it. If the hon. Gentleman were able to look at the performance of the NHS over the past few months, especially over the difficult winter period, I am sure that he would join me in congratulating the staff on their excellent work. He may well want to consider the very interesting figures on the reduction in waiting lists.

  A and E Departments
  Mr. Phil Sawford: How many accident and emergency departments will receive funds for improvements this year; and if he will make a statement. [72379]
  The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Frank Dobson): Seventy-nine accident and emergency departments in all parts of the country will be upgraded in the coming year with money from the NHS modernisation fund. That is a third of all A and E departments in England. It will mean better and quicker services for patients, and better and safer working conditions for staff. That extra investment from the modernisation fund augments the upgrading that is already being funded as part of the general increase in capital for the NHS which this Government have introduced.
  Mr. Sawford: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer and welcome his massive investment of funds in our national health service. However, is he aware that many NHS trusts, including Kettering general hospital in my constituency, have already modernised their accident and emergency units and fear that, as a result, they may lose out on Government funding? Is it his intention that all future modernisation funding will be earmarked for specific purposes, or will there be some discretionary funding for local projects identified as meeting local needs?
  Mr. Dobson: The straight answer is that there will be a mixture. Some of the extra capital funds will be entirely at the discretion of the local trust; some of the money that comes from the ordinary allocation of funds will have some priorities given to it by me; and some of it, from the modernisation fund, will be specifically laid down from the centre.
  We believe that it was right and proper, for instance, to try to bring all accident and emergency departments up to the standard that prevails in Kettering, because we believe that a good standard should apply everywhere. When that has been done, additional funds will go elsewhere.
  However, I have said that the national health service management, with the extra capital that it is getting this year, must give priority to replacing unreliable equipment that goes on the blink and breaks down. That is very bad for patients. One of the most frustrating aspects of
  866
  working in the national health service is to have to work with the clapped-out old equipment on which the previous Government spent no money over the past 19 years.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: When will there be enough money for our accident and emergency and other hospital departments to ensure—and to employ the necessary staff—that we reduce the number of people who have seen their consultants and are waiting to get into hospital to below the level that the Government inherited; to reduce the number of those waiting to see their consultants—which is 200,000 more than when the Government came to office—below the number that they inherited; and to ensure that our A and E departments treat the recommended number of 100,000 a year, not 150,000 a year, which is the number of people expected to go through the doors of St. Thomas's hospital when Guy's hospital closes later this year, thanks to the right hon. Gentleman's decision?
  Mr. Dobson: Just in case the hon. Gentleman causes any more Liberal hairs to rise, Guy's hospital is not going to close. The A and E department will close because, in the opinion of the people whom we have consulted—who know more about accidents and emergencies than even the Liberal party—the alternative arrangements that we are making, as recommended by Sir Leslie Turnberg in his report, will be satisfactory. However, as the hon. Gentleman knows, and should have said if he is prepared to be straightforward about this matter, I have said that we shall keep a very close eye on that.
  We must recruit more staff, and we are doing so; we must improve equipment; we must make layouts safer; and we must install closed circuit television to stop the yobbos beating up nurses. Indeed, we are doing all those things, but the management must also improve in many places.
  We have insisted on getting admissions wards into every district general hospital. When we took over, almost half the district general hospitals in this country had no admissions ward to back up the accident and emergency department; now, only 20 do not have one.
  Mr. Dennis Turner: As my right hon. Friend knows, one beneficiary of the improvement programme is New Cross hospital in Wolverhampton. At the cost of making him blush, may I tell him that the improvements to and upgrading of our A and E department and the provision of an extra 22 beds are most welcome? Can he confirm that that is further evidence that Labour is keeping its promises? I say on behalf of Wolverhampton, thank you very much.
  Mr. Dobson: My hon. Friend, with his mastery of understatement, only repeats what many doctors and nurses told me in his presence last time I was in Wolverhampton.
  One thing that we are doing with the extra money for modernising A and E departments is to put an extra £600,000 into modernising that department at Whipps Cross hospital in east London, and we shall sort out its management as well. That hospital needs a better A and

  867
  E department, and it needs to be better run than it is at present if we are to avoid the scandalous things that happened there this winter.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: Is the Secretary of State aware that, when the Prime Minister was grinning on the steps of Basingstoke hospital while announcing the proposed investment in A and E facilities, one of my constituents, just 20 miles down the road at Yateley in Hampshire, was suffering from a lack of Government funding? That constituent had an operation in 1995 at a specialist London hospital outside his area, followed by three check-ups, but has now been denied a further appointment there. He has been told by the local health authority that, in common with many others, it is experiencing severe financial difficulties. It states:
  "We are desperately trying to ensure that we continue to provide the best quality care for all our residents but, regrettably, do not have the financial resources to allow for freedom of choice for individuals."
  It went on to say that, unless more taxpayers' money was made available, it would not be able to deliver the service.
  Is not the truth that the Secretary of State castigated the Conservatives when he was sitting on the Opposition Benches, but has failed to deliver patient care in government?
  Mr. Dobson: If the hon. Gentleman sends me the details of that case, I shall look into it. From bitter experience at the Dispatch Box since I have had this job, I do not give full credence to what Tory Members read out. However, what he says may be correct.
  When my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was mobbed by delighted hospital staff, he was at Basingstoke hospital to mark the effort to bring its A and E department at Basingstoke up to the sort of level that we need for the next century, including the introduction of an X-ray machine specifically for that department, which will be better for the patients and speed up the process altogether. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman might just have welcomed that, but of course he cannot really welcome it without a touch of hypocrisy because the shadow Chancellor says that we are spending too much on the health service.
  Audrey Wise: In welcoming the announcement, may I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the fact that although many A and E patients are children, many A and E departments make no special provision for them? Will my right hon. Friend check on the position of the 79 A and E departments and ensure that the modest changes that are necessary properly to receive and reassure children are put in place as part of the upgrading?
  Mr. Dobson: That is certainly the case; my hon. Friend makes a valuable point. It would be wholly reasonable for me to add that one of the changes in Basingstoke is to provide a specific area for children in the A and E department, just as the £882,000 that we are giving to the Central Manchester trust will create separate children's A and E areas in the central Manchester hospitals.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: The Secretary of State will be aware that many A and E departments are used as drop-in centres, preventing the staff from doing
  868
  their main work. Is there any further development in the creation of specialist trauma centres to deal with the most serious accidents, which was part of the earlier policy?
  Mr. Dobson: As the hon. Gentleman knows, there is almost a theological dispute among trauma experts about whether we should have trauma centres or A and E departments as we have at present, and some places are moving more towards trauma departments than others. I have some sympathy with people who use their local A and E departments as a drop-in centre if they are feeling off colour. That has certainly been a characteristic of the major inner-city teaching hospitals of all our great cities.
  Although that use poses burdens, I believe that the national health service should provide what local people clearly want of their hospitals. In quite a few areas, GPs are used to provide that service as part of the accident and emergency unit. If that suits the needs of local people—usually people from a deprived area around one of the old teaching hospitals—that is probably as good a use of NHS funds as any.

  Health Care (Ageism)
  Dr. Vincent Cable: What steps he is taking to ensure that age is not used as a criterion for allocating health care. [72380]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Hutton): The fundamental principle of the national health service is to provide services for everybody on the basis of clinical need. We are putting in place a number of measures that should improve fair access to services, including national service frameworks, the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, local clinical governance and a new performance assessment framework. We have made it clear that access to NHS services should be based on clinical need alone.
  We are taking a number of steps specifically to improve the health of older people. For example, this year for the first time all people over 75 years old have been targeted for influenza vaccination.
  Dr. Cable: I thank the Minister for his positive reply. Is he aware that, from the serious research that has been undertaken in the NHS on specialisms such as cardiac rehabilitation and kidney dialysis, there is hard evidence that many NHS trusts are discriminating on the basis of age? They are, in effect, rationing health care on the basis of age. Does the Minister agree, confirming his previous reply, that that is fundamentally wrong? Will he undertake to carry out a more far-reaching review of specialisms in the NHS to ensure that age discrimination does not occur?
  Mr. Hutton: I repeat what I said in my previous answer about the emphasis we place on clinical need: that is the determinant and should govern what treatment a person receives. I hope that the hon. Gentleman welcomes the initiatives that we are taking. I draw his attention in particular to the proposed new national service framework for older people, which we hope will help to drive up quality and standards of care for older people.
  Mr. Michael Fabricant: Although I welcome the Minister's comments, does he realise that

  869
  they will ring pretty hollow in the west midlands, especially in Lichfield and Burntwood? He will be aware, because I have written to him, of an elderly lady in my constituency who has been waiting for more than a year to have a metal plate removed from her shoulder. Given that the waiting lists in the west midlands are the longest in England and Wales, does he find it amazing, as I do, that none of his hon. Friends has risen to point that out? What can he do to ensure that waiting lists in Lichfield and Burntwood for this type of operation for the elderly, and for younger people, are not even longer than those in the west midlands generally because of a crazy rule that has been introduced since the Government were elected? People have to wait three times as long to go to the Good Hope hospital in Sutton Coldfield if they happen to live in Lichfield and Burntwood. If they live in Sutton Coldfield, they can get into that hospital in a third of the time, regardless of their clinical position.
  Mr. Hutton: I am afraid that that was one of those questions that started with a point, but I am not sure where it ended up. I do not think that the beginning and the end were connected. The hon. Gentleman may not be aware that waiting lists have come down by a further 14,000 in January. I hope that he welcomes that excellent news. I remind him that we are taking initiatives—I should be grateful to know whether he supports them—to try to ensure that we improve the range and quality of health services for older people. They make up a significant group of people who use the NHS, and we want to make sure for them, and for others, that the NHS is a first-class service.

  Nicotine Replacement Therapy
  Dr. Phyllis Starkey: What action he is taking to promote the spread of nicotine replacement therapy in health action zones. [72382]
  The Minister for Public Health (Ms Tessa Jowell): Up to £60 million will be available over the next three years, initially in health action zones, to develop smoking cessation services. Part of those funds will provide for the distribution of one week's nicotine replacement therapy free of charge to those smokers least able to afford it.
  Dr. Starkey: I welcome the Minister's response in relation to health action zones. May I remind her that the south-east has not a single health action zone, because the region is relatively affluent? However, there are pockets of deprivation, some of which are in my constituency—one of them has a smoking cessation programme. Will she consider extending the week's free nicotine replacement therapy to people on benefit in projects such as the one at Netherfield in my constituency?
  Ms Jowell: It is intended that, following assessment of the effectiveness of smoking cessation services in health action zones after the first year, there will be further cessation services and free nicotine replacement therapy in the subsequent two years. This is intended to be a national programme.
  It is important to link the scheme with its original purpose. We as a Government have committed ourselves to improving the health of the worst-off at a faster rate than the rate of improvement in the health of the
  870
  population as a whole. More poor people than those who are better off die prematurely of cancer and heart disease, and many of those early deaths are due to smoking. That is why our providing free nicotine replacement and tackling the problem of smoking with smoking cessation services is so important to our broader aim of tackling health inequality.
  Sir Peter Emery: May I declare a non-financial interest as chairman of the National Asthma Campaign?
  Has the Minister seen reports of research done at Oxford, showing that heart and lung disease are now major killers, and that the biggest cause of such deaths is smoking? Will she ensure that the money spent on nicotine replacement therapy is not misused or used ineffectively, in view of a major campaign by the cigarette companies, which are trying to suggest that tax on cigarettes should not be increased in the Budget? It ought to be increased, and I hope that the Minister will ensure that comes about.
  Ms Jowell: As the right hon. Gentleman will recognise, tax on cigarettes is a matter for the Chancellor. We may well hear more about it next week.
  As for the right hon. Gentleman's broader point, we are determined to ensure that each of the measures set out in "Smoking Kills", the tobacco White Paper, is implemented and assessed in relation to its effectiveness. We must also ensure that the money invested is invested in saving lives from smoking, and tackling the inequality in health that it causes.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Dennis Canavan: How many PFI projects have been approved in the national health service. [72383]
  The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Denham): The private finance initiative plays an important role in modernising the national health service and contributing to the biggest new hospital building programme in the history of the service.
  The final decision to proceed with a major capital development in the NHS is made on the basis of an approved full business case. To date, in the NHS in England, 10 major PFI hospital schemes have been given full business case approval, and construction work has now started. In addition, a further 15 major schemes are being developed, and could be given approval as PFI projects subject to satisfactory full business cases being produced and approved.
  Mr. Canavan: May we have an assurance that the national health service in England will not follow the bad example of the notorious PFI deal in Scotland, whereby three Edinburgh hospital buildings on associated land were handed over to a private consortium that stands to make up to £200 million profit by developing the land for housing, and will also receive £30 million a year of public money for 30 years to build a new hospital that will never become public property? The shady deal will be financed partly by cutting the number of beds, cutting the number

  871
  of nurses and cutting the number of doctors. Is that not conclusive proof that the PFI is a disaster for our national health service?
  Mr. Denham: No. My hon. Friend made a number of points; let me deal with the important ones.
  The PFI does not lead to a reduction in the number of beds. The number of beds required in the local health service is identified at the outset, whether a hospital is to be built with public sector funds or through the private finance initiative. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has announced and put in hand a national beds inquiry to ensure that the number of beds that is provided reflects local and national priorities properly.
  As for the financing of the deal, open market value is obtained for any surplus NHS land that is included in a PFI deal. A PFI deal will go ahead only if it is affordable for the NHS and represents value for money.
  Mr. Stephen Dorrell: Does the Minister agree that, ever since the foundation of the NHS, its effectiveness under Governments of both political parties, has been undermined by the fact that it has tried to deliver modern health care with inadequate capital investment? That is largely the result of the health service being trapped in a public sector capital model. Therefore, does he agree that the best option for the health service capital programme is a partnership between the public and private sectors to ensure that clinical staff who are employed by the NHS have the most up-to-date capital resources at their disposal?
  Mr. Denham: The capital programme that is being developed by the Government includes a mixture of PFI arrangements and traditional public sector capital investment. That is absolutely right. There is a big difference between the present Administration and the previous one. They made a complete mess of the private finance initiative—numerous schemes were developed, none of which has ever begun construction. It was the present Administration who sorted it out and got the priorities right. We will build on that in due course with clear guidance on contracts to be used and the approach to be taken. We are using PFI not as a bit of political rhetoric, but to deliver new hospitals and better conditions for NHS staff and patients.
  Jane Griffiths: Is my hon. Friend aware of the situation in my constituency, where Royal Berkshire hospital failed in its PFI initiative, but has now received Treasury funding to provide the new hospital consolidation that is greatly needed? Is he further aware of the scandalous situation with regard to Berkshire health authority? It threatened savage cuts to health services in my constituency, but they were found not to be necessary by a recent National Audit Office investigation and, following a campaign by my hon. Friends the Members for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) and for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), have been halted.
  Mr. Denham: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the close interest that she and her colleagues took in the proposals in Berkshire. I understand that proposals that were initially made last autumn have been substantially varied. She has drawn the House's attention to the
  872
  flexibility that underlies the Government's approach to capital investment, with the right vehicle for particular projects being chosen.
  Mr. Archie Norman: When is the long-awaited announcement on the next round of hospital PFIs likely to be made?
  Mr. Denham: Shortly.

  Dental Treatment
  Mrs. Ann Cryer: What proportion of dental treatment was carried out within the NHS in the last year for which figures are available. [72384]
  The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Denham): The number of courses of NHS dental treatments is rising. In the first 10 months of the financial year, courses of treatment for adults rose by 4.2 per cent. and courses of treatment for children, excluding basic treatments that are included in the capitation fee, rose by 2 per cent. compared with the same period in previous years. Unfortunately, we do not have the figures for the amount of private treatment, so I cannot answer the question in full.
  Mrs. Cryer: I thank my hon. Friend for his helpful reply—things seem to be improving. I am aware of the 18 years of neglect; it is an uphill struggle. However, would he care to comment on a letter that I have received from a constituent in Ilkley, who tells me that, after being the patient of a dentist for 30 years, he has just been told that he can no longer have NHS treatment from the dentist and that, in future, it will cost him £96 for inspection and a polish?
  I telephoned Airedale community health council to find out what evidence it had on what was going on. It tells me that its last survey, which was held in 1996, demonstrated that only 65 per cent. of the adult population could hope to obtain treatment on the NHS. The community health council also tells me that the situation does not seem to be improving, and that it is receiving more complaints. Consequently, in the next few months, it will probably conduct another survey.
  Mr. Denham: Individual dentists may—as in the situation described by my hon. Friend—choose no longer to offer national health service treatment. My understanding of the situation in Keighley—my geography is not good enough to know whether it would apply also to my hon. Friend's constituent in Ilkley—is that some dental practices are still accepting national health service patients. Bradford health authority would be able to advise on the matter. The Administration are investing in measures to ensure that national health service registration and treatment are available. The investing in dentistry initiative, in particular, should enable about 600,000 additional patients to receive national health service dental treatment.
  Mr. Ian Bruce: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will know that in my constituency, the previous Government received much, probably justified criticism because so many dentists decided to opt out of the NHS. Labour politicians, both locally and nationally,

  873
  said that they would solve the problem if they were elected. Will he tell my constituents why the situation, which was improving up until the general election, is starting again to decline—despite Labour's assurance that it would solve the problem?
  Mr. Denham: If there is a developing problem in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, it certainly would be open to the health authority to make bids under the investing in dentistry scheme and to start pilots in personal dental services. I do not know—although I shall certainly look into the matter—whether such bids were made or, if they were made, whether they were successful. Initiatives have been taken by the Government which will enable proposals to be made to deal with problems in areas of great difficulty. I shall certainly investigate the case of South Dorset to see whether that effort was made, and whether full advantage has been taken of the Government's new initiatives.

  Unit Modernisation
  Mr. Patrick Hall: What proposals he has for the modernisation of intensive care and high-dependency units in the current year. [72385]
  The Minister for Public Health (Ms Tessa Jowell): A modern health service needs modern intensive care and high-dependency care services. We have already, since the new year, invested almost £10 million to increase capacity. We are reviewing plans for next winter and the longer term, including the need for national standards.
  Mr. Hall: I thank my right hon. Friend for her answer. May I also thank the Secretary of State for recently visiting Bedford, where he thanked national health service staff for their hard work and dedication. That message went down very well and was appreciated in the area—[Interruption.] Conservative Members react to that statement, but they should realise that the British people do appreciate the commitment to the health service shown by the Secretary of State and the Government. One group of people whom the Secretary of State met at Bedford hospital were the team at the hospital's intensive care unit. Does the Minister also have a message for that intensive care unit team, as they consider necessary improvements in the unit's capacity and conditions?
  Ms Jowell: Bedfordshire health authority is considering the case for providing more intensive care beds. Later this year, we expect to receive a report from the Audit Commission, which will provide national guidance in NHS planning on both the quality of intensive care services and the number of intensive care beds. The previous Government ploughed on in chaos in dealing with intensive care provision, without the faintest idea of how many intensive care beds were available. We have put that right.
  Mr. John Wilkinson: Does the right hon. Lady agree that few high-dependency units fulfil a more critical function than burns units and heart-lung transplant units, as exemplified by Mount Vernon hospital and Harefield hospital in my constituency? Therefore, can the right hon. Lady put my constituents and those for many around about out of their
  874
  misery by announcing that both those units will receive the modernisation that they rightly deserve, and which would be much more cost-effective than moving the facilities elsewhere?
  Ms Jowell: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that there needs to be a proper assessment of the level of care that individual intensive care units are capable of providing. He will be aware that the proposals for the two specific hospitals he mentioned are currently being considered by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

  Nurse Recruitment Hotline
  Judy Mallaber: How many nurses have phoned the nurse recruitment hotline. [72386]
  The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Frank Dobson): At 11 am today, the number of inquiries to the national nursing recruitment campaign was 41,398. More than 3,300 of those were from qualified nurses wanting to return to nursing.
  Judy Mallaber: On 2 February, I tabled a question arising from a case in my constituency about the extent to which inflexible working hours deter qualified nurses from taking up NHS employment. Will my right hon. Friend publish the results of the survey referred to in the answer to that question? Has he seen the recent industrial tribunal case in which nurses successfully challenged new shift patterns which meant that they could no longer look after their children? Will my right hon. Friend encourage health trusts to provide flexibility so that qualified nurses can combine domestic and work responsibilities? Will he encourage NHS Direct to approach qualified nurses who had to retire on health grounds, perhaps because of back injuries, so that they can return to work on something that they will be able to do?
  Mr. Dobson: My hon. Friend has raised various points. Yes, we will publish the survey to which she referred. I am past the stage of encouraging trusts to offer family-friendly policies, and I have got round to telling some of them to do so because they are so slow. We want to ensure that we get rid of the rigid grading system that nurses in particular find so offensive. We want all staff to be offered family-friendly policies and shift rotas that suit the needs of their families. Also, we want to make working in the NHS safe. We are doing a lot within the health service to bring that about, and I am co-operating with the Lord Chancellor and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary towards that end. All that, combined with the pay increases, will, I hope, mean that we can recruit all the nurses we need, including some of the 140,000 qualified nurses no longer working in the health service.
  Mrs. Ann Winterton: I welcome the number of inquiries to the nurse recruitment hotline, but is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the recent

  875
  statement on nurses' pay has, no doubt, had a part to play in that? What will be important is the number of those inquiries that turn into nurses who are recruited for training or trained nurses who return to work. Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that nurses who have stayed with the health service are slightly miffed, to say the least, that their percentage pay increase does not reflect that commitment? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that part and parcel of the problem of nurse recruitment is one of nurse retention?
  Mr. Dobson: There has been a major problem of nurse retention. If we had been retaining nurses over the past 18 or 19 years, we would not have the problem of having to get nurses back again. The more long-standing nurses did not get as big a pay increase as those being recruited. However, the Royal College of Nursing said constantly that the pay of newly qualified nurses starting in the health service was a national disgrace. Clearly, the pay review body agreed and gave such nurses a 12 per cent. increase. Other people on that grade who have been working in the NHS for some time received 8 per cent. The rest of the nurses and midwives received a 4.7 per cent. increase which, by April, will be about double the rate of inflation. It is a long time since nurses received a pay increase as generous as that.

  Doctor Training
  Mr. Tony McWalter: What provision he is making to train increased numbers of doctors; and what progress is being made in inaugurating new medical schools. [72388]
  The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Denham): The Government announced on 22 July 1998 that intake to medical schools in the United Kingdom would be increased to about 6,000 places by 2005—an increase of about 20 per cent. In England, the increase is being co-ordinated by a joint implementation group, which has invited universities to submit proposals for the allocation of additional places by 12 March. Proposals will be considered by the group and decisions will be announced later in the year. Numbers in postgraduate training are also growing to meet future requirements for general practitioners and consultants.
  Mr. McWalter: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer and I welcome the Government's commitments. Is my hon. Friend aware that many district general hospitals need new doctors and trainee staff to function properly? If the new doctors being trained are consolidated in existing centres of excellence, many district general hospitals will not have access to new doctor trainees because of the Calman report's recommendations. I hope that my hon. Friend will ensure that hospitals throughout the country, and particularly in Hemel Hempstead, have the opportunity of having trainee doctors associated with medical schools so that they can take full advantage of their expertise.
  Mr. Denham: Doctors in specialist training and, to a lesser extent, medical students benefit from the experience of a range of provision, including large teaching centres, smaller acute trusts and community care trusts. How that experience is provided is for local decision.

Uganda
3.31 pm
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): With permission, I shall make a statement on the recent kidnappings in Uganda.
The events occurred in a remote part of Uganda and we do not yet have official corroboration of the most recent developments. We shall make further public statements as we receive confirmation, but the House will wish to hear what is known so far.
Yesterday morning 14 tourists, including six British nationals, were abducted from Bwindi Impenetrable national park in the Kisoro district of Uganda. In addition to the British nationals, those abducted included United States, New Zealand, Canadian, Australian and Swiss nationals. Several others who were present at the time of the attack, including one British citizen, managed to avoid capture. Those who did so returned to Kampala last night, where they were all debriefed and offered support by the British high commission.
As soon as we learned of the abductions, we were in immediate touch with the Ugandan authorities. Our high commissioner told the Ugandan Foreign Minister that we expected every effort to be made to achieve the rapid and safe return of those abducted. He made it clear that there should be no intervention that might put lives at risk. The Foreign Minister gave us that assurance and undertook to keep us fully informed. Two members of the high commission travelled to the area to liaise with the local authorities.
This morning we received reports that some of the hostages had been killed, but that others had been rescued. I regret to inform the House that our present information is that four of the six British nationals were among those who were killed. The whole House will wish to join me in expressing our deepest sympathies to their relatives and families.
We are seeking urgent clarification from the Ugandan authorities of the circumstances in which the deaths took place. It is not yet clear whether the Ugandan military intervened directly, but if that is confirmed we shall want an immediate explanation of how that happened despite the assurances that we were given yesterday.
From our interviews with those who escaped we believe that the abductors were a rebel group opposed to the present Government of Rwanda, and operating from over the border in the Democratic Republic of Congo. This is the first such incident in Uganda, although last August the same rebel group seized a number of tourists, including one British dual national, who had strayed over the border into the Democratic Republic.
Our travel advice for Uganda was last updated on 19 February. It warned:
"Rebels are periodically active in Uganda/Rwanda/Congo border areas around Kisoro district. Although the situation is currently peaceful, it can change quickly."
Yesterday, in the light of the kidnaps, we revised our travel advice to warn against all travel to those border areas.
The Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), has just returned from an extended trip to nine countries in the region, including
878
Uganda and the other five countries involved in the conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. In each of them he pressed the need for a negotiated settlement and underlined the willingness of the United Kingdom to do all that we can, both in the European Union and in the Security Council, to support such negotiations.
This latest tragedy demonstrates the distressing human cost of the continuing conflict and the urgent need for a settlement.
Mr. Michael Howard: I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for that statement. The whole House will be deeply shocked by yet another unprovoked attack on British tourists. Our thoughts and sympathies go to their families, the families of the other tourists who died and the families of those Ugandans who were trying to protect them and whose duty it was to try to release them. They live constantly in the shadow of the conflict engulfing the Great Lakes region.
When was our high commissioner to Uganda made aware of the kidnapping? We are all obviously pleased to hear of the release of the French and some of the Australian hostages. Can the Foreign Secretary shed any light on how the French authorities were able to negotiate their release? Can he confirm that, in addition to the attack to which he referred, last week seven people were killed travelling in a road convoy between Goma, in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Rutshuru, on the Ugandan border? If so, what consideration was given to updating the travel advice for the region in the light of that attack? When may we expect a statement from the Minister of State on the prospects for peace in the region?
Mr. Cook: My understanding is that the high commission in Kampala heard of the events yesterday, and debriefed yesterday those who had returned from the area. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is not quite right to suggest that the French authorities negotiated a release of their citizens. Our understanding is that the two were not among those who were abducted from the camp. We believe that one of them had an asthma attack at the time of the abduction, and that may have influenced who was selected for kidnapping. I stress that our information is not confirmed and that there is no doubt much yet to be learned about what happened both yesterday and this morning.
I cannot confirm the precise details of the event in the Congo to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman refers, but there are killings there daily, and our travel advice is explicit and clear: we warn firmly against any travel to the Congo. There had been no such event in Uganda, however. We gave a clear warning in our travel advice about the dangers of the Kisoro district, but we had not felt obliged to warn against all travel to it. We have now done so.
I join in the right hon. and learned Gentleman's condolences both to the families and to those others whose lives have been put at risk. I agree absolutely about the importance of tackling at source the root problem of the instability and insecurity in the Democratic Republic of Congo. My hon. Friend the Minister of State has already issued a press notice following his visit, and I am sure that he will look for an early opportunity to brief the House or the Foreign Affairs Committee.
Mr. Donald Anderson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the prime focus of our concern and

879
attention must be the victims of the tragedy? Events are still unclear, but will he confirm that those Hutu rebels operating from the Democratic Republic of Congo are indeed the remnants of a number who took part in the genocide in Rwanda in 1994? They are a ferocious group, so it may have been difficult to negotiate with them. Will my right hon. Friend further confirm that Uganda, after its troubled past, is a relatively stable and friendly Commonwealth country and deserves our fullest co-operation in its problems at the border?
Mr. Cook: I agree absolutely on that last point. My hon. Friend the Minister of State discussed the problems of the Great Lakes region when he met President Museveni only last week.
I cannot confirm whether those of the rebel group who were involved in the abduction yesterday were necessarily the same people who were involved in the genocide of 1994. In substance, however, my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) is right—many of those who took part in the genocide in 1994 fled to the Congo, and have been there ever since. For the past four years, they have been seeking to destabilise the Government of Rwanda by repeated raids across the border. They are a serious part of the insecurity of the region, and achieving their disarmament must be important for security in the region.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: May I associate myself and my right hon. and hon. Friends with the Foreign Secretary's expressions of sympathy? Although it may be too early to reach final conclusions in the absence of all the information, does he accept that as people more and more seek unusual holidays off the beaten track, the chance of incidents of this kind occurring in future will be much increased? In considering the nature of the travel advice that the Government now make available, would it be right to consider expressing that advice in the most blunt terms, even if that meant causing some offence to otherwise friendly countries? And in the aftermath of this tragedy, may we give some consideration to the role and responsibility of travel companies in these matters?
Mr. Cook: I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman's last point. It is important that travel companies do not treat Foreign Office advice as some kind of indemnity against their own responsibility to use their discretion and judgment and to provide frank and clear warnings to those who travel with them. Our duty is to the public, and it is one that we seek to discharge by making sure that advice is as widely available as possible.
One of the issues on which we seek agreement with the travel agencies is on making sure that they disseminate to all their clients up-to-date Foreign Office advice, which is widely available on the internet and websites. We seek to provide frank and candid advice. In the case of Uganda, we did so—I have read it to the House. At the same time, we must be careful that we do not so err on the side of caution that the validity of our advice is discounted by people who may think that we are exaggerating. We must strike a balance between being cautious and being realistic, and our advice on Uganda did that.
Mr. Kerry Pollard: It has been confirmed that one of my constituents, Mark, a 23-year-old, is one
880
of those who has been killed in this terrible tragedy. I have just spoken to his father, who is devastated by the news. However, he sends his thanks to the Foreign Office for its help throughout the night when the family was kept in touch with events as they developed. The family is looking forward to receiving the body back on Friday, when a proper funeral will take place so they can grieve properly.
Mr. Cook: The whole House will share the distress of my hon. Friend's constituents and will wish him to convey the condolences and sympathy of the House to them. We have tried to maintain contact with the families and relatives. It has been a matter of deep regret to us that we have been unable to obtain confirmation faster, but we have sought to share all we know—at the point where we can be confident of what we know—with relatives, and we will continue to do so.
Mr. William Cash: Will the Secretary of State accept the condolences of the all-party Uganda group following this terrible tragedy? Does he further accept that the all-party group is aware that the Government have taken such steps as possible in the circumstances—vague as they are—to try to find out as much as possible? Does he accept that the all-party group hopes that this matter is resolved as quickly as possible, and that the stability of the region can be achieved as quickly as possible in the interests of people on both sides of the border?
Mr. Cook: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's comments. There are two separate issues here. The first is the present tragedy, on which we are seeking to obtain as much information as possible as quickly as we can, which we will continue to share with relatives and the public. The other is the longer-term issue, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government remain committed to working with the Governments of Uganda and the other countries of the region to try to establish security which could, hopefully, tackle at source such tragedies.
Mr. Nigel Griffiths: I share my right hon. Friend's sense of outrage and deep sadness over the deaths in Uganda. Will he confirm that where there is an extreme threat to life, the Foreign Office will give firm advice which should be taken, and where there is not such an extreme threat but a risk, the advice will be proportionate to the risk?
Mr. Cook: I can give my hon. Friend exactly that assurance. I believe that the Foreign Office travel advice in this case was absolutely correct. We have updated it since, and we shall continue to do so. It is, of course, only advice. It is for British citizens to decide for themselves whether they accept that advice, but our strong view is that it would be wise for them, like us, to err on the side of caution.
Dr. Julian Lewis: In recent months there have been violent outcomes to kidnappings in Chechnya, Yemen and now in Uganda. Although I agree with the Foreign Secretary that it would have been infinitely preferable if today's case could have been resolved by negotiation, will he confirm that it is unwise to rush to condemn the Governments of these countries

881
when they think it necessary to try to stand up to terrorist kidnappings by taking firm action if there is a chance of rescuing the hostages? We often took similar firm action when faced with terrorism, although fortunately more successfully on most occasions.
Mr. Cook: I would agree with the hon. Gentleman that we should not rush to judgment on other Governments, and I am certainly not doing so in this case, because we do not have the facts of what happened this morning in the Kisoro district. The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the fact that the situation in the Great Lakes region is different from anything that we encountered.
We are anxious to share our own expertise and experience with Governments who are faced with a situation in which British citizens have been taken hostage. For that reason, as I announced to the House in January, we will be seeking the appointment of a part-time consultant with experience in police negotiations during hostage taking. I am pleased to tell the House that the advertisement for that post will be placed next week.

Peter Bleach
3.47 pm
Sir Teddy Taylor: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 24, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the conduct of the Home Secretary and of the Metropolitan police in the case of Mr. Peter Bleach, whose trial on a charge that involves a hanging penalty is nearing completion in Calcutta.
Although I do not wish to interfere in any way with the respected Indian courts, there is clear evidence that the Home Secretary, whose presence I greatly welcome, has misinterpreted some evidence that is crucial to the case, and that the Metropolitan police have acted improperly and illegally in producing evidence to the courts in India. The evidence is so specific and so clear that I believe the House has a duty to consider the issues, and to ensure that the courts in India are told the truth.
In a nutshell, Mr. Bleach and several others are accused of conspiring to drop ammunition and weapons in West Bengal in an endeavour to create armed conflict in India. Mr. Bleach has contended throughout that he advised the authorities of the approach made to him to participate in the arms drop and of every step that he took in the organisation of the venture. To that extent, the recording of the contacts between Mr. Bleach and the security and other authorities are crucial.
One vital piece of evidence given to the court by the Government, which I have, is a handwritten report of a meeting between Mr. Bleach and the North Yorkshire police in September 1995. However, the copy of the document that was given to the Indian court, which I also have, has significant parts removed from it at the beginning and the end.
Mr. Bleach believed that the document had been deliberately tampered with and altered, so I took up the issue with the Home Secretary in a letter of 20 April. On 14 May I received a reply from the right hon. Gentleman stating that, having reviewed the whole situation, he had come to the conclusion that it was nothing more than a clerical error by the police.
I was therefore horrified to hear last night that a police officer, Sergeant E1cock, giving evidence in Calcutta on 18 February, which I have in my possession, stated that he had altered the document on the instruction of MI5. Such an alteration requires a PII certificate, but none was sought. It is obvious that the Home Secretary and Sergeant E1cock cannot both be correct. We have a duty to Mr. Bleach to clarify the situation.
To protect himself during the preparations for the arms drop, Mr. Bleach prudently recorded every word said to him on the telephone by Government officials. However, his home and the home of a disabled lady in London were raided, in one case by 10 constables, and all the tapes except one have disappeared. Most worryingly, when the right to carry out such searches was being secured, sections of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1989 simply were not adhered to in one case at Bow street magistrates court. Sergeant E1cock not only admitted that, but stated that it was normal practice.
I have abundant evidence of the various endeavours made to prevent the courts in India from knowing of the close contact between Mr. Bleach and British authorities

883
in this business. It is vital for justice for a British citizen that the facts be clarified and transmitted to the courts in India. Without a debate, and without such clarification, Mr. Bleach will face an Indian court that may not be aware of the facts. That is why I am calling for an emergency debate.
Madam Speaker: I have listened carefully and intently to the hon. Gentleman. I must now give my decision without stating any reasons. I am afraid that I do not consider that the matter that the hon. Gentleman has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 24. I cannot therefore submit his application to the House.

Points of Order
3.51 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In view of reports of escalating amounts of ordnance being rained down on Iraq, have you had any request from either the Foreign Office or the Ministry of Defence to offer the House of Commons some explanation of the objectives of that bombing and bombing and bombing?
Madam Speaker: I have received no intimation from the Foreign Office or from the Ministry of Defence that any Minister seeks to make a statement on the matter today. Those Ministers on the Government Front Bench will have heard the point raised by the hon. Gentleman today and on various occasions during the past few weeks. No doubt they will note what he has said.
Mrs. Angela Browning: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. On 9 December, the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), replied to a private notice question in respect of the reported deaths of four hostages in Chechnya. One hostage, Rudi Petschi, was a constituent of mine. The Minister said that we had had no notice of any attempt to rescue the hostages, and would not have advised such an attempt.
Since then, I have put down a series of named-day written questions to the Foreign Office. On 21 January, the Minister confirmed that an Interfax report of 6 December, flagging up a rescue attempt, was received by the British embassy in Moscow and by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in London, but was not dealt with until the following Monday, 7 December.
On 25 February, the FCO confirmed that it had passed on the Interfax report to Granger Telecom by 1300 hours on Monday 7 December. That was two days before the Minister came to the Dispatch Box to claim that the FCO had had no notice of a rescue attempt.
Have you had any indication, Madam Speaker, of whether the Foreign Office has carried out an investigation into how that chain of events occurred? Is there likely to be a debate or a further statement from the FCO?
Madam Speaker: I have not heard that there is to be a statement on those matters, but the hon. Lady will appreciate that how Ministers answer questions is a matter for them, not for me.

BILL PRESENTED
  HARE COURSING
  Mrs. Claire Curtis-Thomas, supported by Mr. Colin Pickthall, Mr. Michael J. Foster, Maria Eagle, Mr. Joe Benton, Mr. Gwyn Prosser and Helen Jones, presented a Bill to make hare coursing illegal: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on 26 March 1999, and to be printed [Bill 53].

Use of Antibiotics in Farm Animals
3.53 pm
Mr. Bill Etherington: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require Ministers to lay before Parliament proposals for ending the use in farm animals of antibiotics as growth promoters and for restricting the routine use of antibiotics in such animals for prophylactic purposes.
It will be difficult in only 10 minutes to cover the complications and ramifications of this subject. Almost a year ago, I attended a meeting organised by the agricultural sub-committee of the Council of Europe, which lasted two days and which dealt solely with this matter. I was quite alarmed by some of the things I learned at that conference. It started an interest in the subject which I intend to continue until some progress is made.
The most alarming aspect, and one that eminent scientists are extremely concerned about, is the way in which the resistance to antibiotics of certain infections is becoming stronger and stronger. One scientist said that we are near the point where only the very strongest antibiotics that we have developed are capable of dealing with some of the virulent strains of infection now occurring around the world. His fear is that, if we lose that battle, the consequences will be horrendous.
One of the reasons for the increase in such superbugs—if I may use that term, even though it carries other connotations—is that, many years ago, antibiotics were given out too readily to human beings. I can remember when they were given out to children with colds and sore throats almost as a matter of course. I remember not being pleased when, 30 years ago, I went to the doctor because I was suffering an attack of boils. I asked for antibiotics, but he refused and explained why; I accepted the explanation, but it did not help the pain.
A few words of explanation about the Bill are needed, because there are two distinct threads in it. The main one is that the Bill would help to eliminate the danger of people having too much antibiotic substance within their system. Secondly, an animal welfare aspect is involved.
The animal welfare aspect can be divided into two strands. The first is that more than 15 per cent. of all antibiotics used on animals are used routinely, as a form of growth enhancer—a food additive. That is totally indefensible. In an unguarded moment, a scientist who was in favour of that use candidly admitted to me that the only reason those antibiotics are used is so that an animal can be fattened with less food. In simple terms, it is a commercial matter, motivated by profit.
The second strand is not quite as simple. I can best put it by saying that, when animals are kept in close proximity to one another in inhumane and poor conditions, infection and the spread of infection are rife and always likely to occur spontaneously. So antibiotics are used in much the same way as we would immunise a child against diphtheria. That was never the intention behind antibiotics: going right back to the time of penicillin, antibiotics were meant to deal with an existing infection.
On the animal welfare aspects of the Bill, there can be no argument to justify the so-called food enhancers. That use is merely a commercial operation; ending it would make little difference to the livestock industry in this
886
country, but it would reduce by 15 per cent. the amount of antibiotics used on animals. The prophylactic argument is more intense, because that use represents more than 35 per cent. of antibiotics that are given to animals, but it could be ended straight away.
Two categories of animal come to mind in that respect. The first is broiler chickens. It is almost a year since I presented a Bill on that subject and I shall not go over the same ground, save to point out that those chickens live in overcrowded conditions where infection is rife. Secondly, pigs are intensively reared, meaning that there are far too many pigs in any given area, often indoors and without proper bedding. All the time, those animals suffer from being given antibiotics as a matter of course, almost as though they were a course of treatment.
Consider that, in this country, 50 per cent. of antibiotics are used by humans and 50 per cent. in animals. We can reduce the 50 per cent. that is used in animals by 50 per cent., making animal use only 25 per cent. of the current total. That would be a significant improvement. The European Union has already banned four antibiotics used for these purposes. While that move is welcome, it does not go far enough because other antibiotics will simply be used instead. I do not wish to frighten people, but I stress that this is an extremely serious problem that may be rectified relatively simply.
I have received support from many groups, including Compassion in World Farming and the Soil Association. I have experienced no outright opposition, although the Pfizer pharmaceuticals company has expressed concern. It recognises that there must be changes in this area, but it does not necessarily want to follow the path that I advocate. I have received supportive phone calls and letters from various people that have greatly encouraged me in my efforts. I am also grateful to hon. Members who have sponsored the Bill.
There is only one black cloud on the horizon, Madam Speaker—and you are certainly no stranger to this problem. I was not very impressed to be told by a journalist that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food opposes my Bill. I expected those concerned to have the common decency at least to telephone me to tell me of their opposition. If I oppose any measure, I try to make my views known to those involved. It is not even about the principles of this place: it is about good manners and decency.
I commend my Bill to the House and hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench will support it. I see that my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, is in the Chamber. He is quite an expert on such matters, and he and I have often chatted about the vitamin B6 issue. His views are progressive and I know that he will treat this matter with the seriousness it deserves. We can do something about this problem, and there is no reason why we should not act now.
4.2 pm
Dr. Stephen Ladyman: I notified my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Etherington) of my intention to oppose the Bill today, so I hope that he does not include me in his criticisms. As the House is under time pressure, I shall try to put the alternative argument as quickly as possible.
I must state at the outset that the largest employer in my constituency is Pfizer, the pharmaceuticals company mentioned by my hon. Friend. It is best known for

887
manufacturing human medicines, but it is also the largest producer of animal health medicines in the world. I stress that I speak today only as a constituency Member of Parliament: I have no declarable interest in the company. It has not asked me to speak and it has not briefed me for this debate—although I shall draw on some material that the company has provided in recent months.
My hon. Friend makes a strong case, but one, I am afraid, that ignores much of the current and emerging evidence. I will argue that the case that antibiotic growth promoters are unsafe is far from conclusive and that their withdrawal would have serious environmental consequences and a significant economic impact.
It is claimed that antibiotic growth promoters are unsafe mainly because of the possible development of resistant strains of microbes that could infect human beings and prove resistant to human antibiotics. Antibiotic growth promoters have no mutagenic capacity: they cannot change the genetic make-up of microbes. Resistant microbes exist in the environment already, usually at a low frequency because they have a selective disadvantage compared with other organisms.
When an animal is treated with antibiotic growth promoters, the other non-resistant organisms are sometimes removed and, as a consequence, the resistant strain is allowed to flourish. However, the strain is resistant only to that type of antibiotic or family of antibiotics, not to all antibiotics; and can flourish only while the strain is in the animal that is being treated with antibiotics that are removing its competitors.
In other words, as long as there is proper control over which antibiotics are used in humans and which are used in animals, there is very little likelihood that human bacteria will develop resistance to human antibiotics as a result of using animal antibiotics to treat animals. In France, a chemical called virginiamycin has been used to treat animals for over 26 years and a related human compound has been used to treat humans for a similar period, and there is no evidence that resistance to the human bacteria has developed in humans.
The truth is that resistance to human bacteria arises from treating human beings with human antibiotics. It does not arise as a result of farmers treating farm animals. The case for a ban on safety grounds is therefore far from clear.
On environmental grounds, I was told by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, in answer to a written question, that a ban on antibiotic growth promoters in the UK, Germany and France alone would increase the output
888
of nitrates by 78,000 tonnes a year and phosphates by 15,000 tonnes a year. In Sweden, where there is a ban on these products, farmers have had to start adding zinc oxide to feed to deal with the diarrhoea that was previously dealt with by the antibiotics. As a consequence, the Swedes now have a zinc pollution problem and are considering banning zinc oxide, and have no idea about what they will use as a replacement.
Farmers in Sweden have also had to start using therapeutic antibiotics to treat their animals, when previously they would not have had to do so. If potency equivalents are measured, the use of antibiotics has increased as a result of the ban.
On the economic front, the ban would cost farmers in the European Union an additional 2.5 billion ecu a year. It would increase the cost to British consumers by £137 a year each.
For all those reasons, I do not believe that a ban can currently be justified. If we want to err on the side of caution and phase out the products, we should do so only as alternatives become available. Alternatives are being tested and will probably be available in the not-too-distant future. The way forward is not to ban the products but strictly to control the antibiotics used in humans and in animals, to begin more circumspect prescribing of antibiotics in humans, and to increase the research and surveillance carried out.
Unless the balance of evidence changes substantially, there is no justification for a ban that will hurt farmers, consumers and my constituents and add nothing to public safety.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 23 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business), and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Bill Etherington, Mr. John Austin, Jackie Ballard, Mr. Peter Bottomley, Mr. Vernon Coaker, Mr. Harry Cohen, Dr. Lynne Jones, Mr. Nigel Jones, Mr. Chris Mullin, Dr. Nick Palmer, Mr. Gwyn Prosser and Angela Smith.

USE OF ANTIBIOTICS IN FARM ANIMALS
Mr. Bill Etherington accordingly presented a Bill to require Ministers to lay before Parliament proposals for ending the use in farm animals of antibiotics as growth promoters and for restricting the routine use of antibiotics in such animals for prophylactic purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 16 April, and to be printed [Bill 54].
Opposition Day
[6TH ALLOTTED DAY]
Opposition Day

  Sierra Leone
  [Relevant documents: The Second Report from the Foreign Affairs Committee on Sierra Leone, Session 1998–99 (HC 116), and the Report of the Sierra Leone Arms Investigation, Session 1997–98 (HC 1016).]
  Madam Speaker: We now come to the main business. I remind the House that the terms of the motion and the amendment before us do not cover the events on which the Foreign Secretary made a statement to the House last Wednesday—the leak of the draft report. For that reason, and because the House's settled procedure for examining and reporting on such leaks is now under way, I am prepared to permit only passing reference to those matters. I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  4.10 pm
  Mr. Michael Howard: I beg to move,
  That this House endorses the criticisms made of Ministers in the Second Report of Session 1998–99 (HC 116) of the Foreign Affairs Committee on Sierra Leone and the Report of the Legg Inquiry; deplores the conduct of Ministers which led to such criticism; and calls on the Ministers concerned to accept responsibility for their conduct.
  It is almost two years since a military coup in Sierra Leone ousted the democratically elected Government of President Kabbah. We shared the Government's dismay at that event. Indeed, the previous Government had helped to finance the elections which led to President Kabbah's accession. We share too, as will the whole House, the dismay that the current situation in Sierra Leone evokes. Conflict in that country continues. More than 10,000 people are believed to have been killed in the wave of rebel attacks since December alone. Many more have been very seriously injured. Freetown has been left in ruins. What should be one of the richest countries in Africa is one of the poorest and most miserable. The situation has rightly been described as desperate.
  The ability of the British Government to influence events in that tragic country may be limited. It is right to pay tribute to those in the diplomatic service and the armed forces, who have done what they can—and are doing what they can—to try to relieve suffering and end the conflict. But, however limited their influence, the Government are accountable to this House for their policies and action. We are here to ensure and enforce that accountability. We cannot do so unless we are told the truth—the whole truth—about the Government's policies and action. When we discover that we have not been told the whole truth, it is our duty to bring to account those responsible for that failure.
  One of the ways in which we exercise such accountability is through Select Committees. I pay tribute to the Foreign Affairs Committee, under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), for its report on Sierra Leone. It is, of course, an all-party Committee; the majority of its members, however, come from the Labour party. Its report has rightly and widely
  890
  been described as one of the most scathing of a Department, ever. It is certainly devastating in its criticism of officials. It is also devastating, however, in its criticism of Ministers, and it is that aspect on which I intend to concentrate. In the light of your observations, Madam Speaker, I shall not deal at all with the revelations of last week. I shall focus on the specific criticism of Ministers in the Select Committee report and in the Legg report.
  If one listens to what Ministers have said, one could be forgiven for believing that there was no such criticism in either report. The Foreign Secretary said of the Legg report:
  "I would perfectly happily accept any criticisms of myself in the report, but there are none."—[Official Report, 27 July 1998; Vol. 317, c. 28.]
  Very, very shortly after the publication of the Select Committee report, the Prime Minister said on the Jimmy Young show:
  "The criticisms are made of civil servants and not Government Ministers."
  He also said that there was nothing new in the report—a claim described as "absolutely absurd" by the Chairman of the Select Committee. One reference in volume I of the Select Committee report seems to offer some succour to the Foreign Secretary. On page LXXXII, we find the following sentence:
  "As far as Ministers were concerned, there is not a scintilla of evidence to suggest that they deliberately misled Parliament."
  Unfortunately for Ministers, that sentence appears in a paragraph to which the Committee did not agree. It was excised from the report; not even the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) was prepared to vote for it. That attempt to exculpate Ministers comprehensively failed. In fact, both reports contain serious criticism of Ministers. I shall begin with the Select Committee's criticism of the Foreign Secretary's failure to co-operate with it.
  Mr. Mike Gapes: May I draw the right hon. and learned Gentleman's attention to paragraph 112 of volume I of the report—the postscript? Is he saying that the Committee did not agree to that paragraph before it was published? That paragraph, which contains the words that he is disputing, states:
  "We commend the resolute support which the British Government is giving to the restoration of democracy and to the alleviation of suffering."
  Is not that in the report?
  Mr. Howard: I do not know what that has to do with the points that I am making. If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me for a moment, he will understand the criticisms. At paragraph 7 of the report, the Committee records how its work was impeded by the Government's refusal to release to it
  "firstly telegrams concerning Sierra Leone, and secondly … information which fell within the ambit of the Legg inquiry."
  At paragraph 8, the Committee sets out what it describes as further "frustrations" that it encountered. It asked to hear three of the officials involved in the affair; it was allowed to see only two. It was not allowed to see relevant

  891
  intelligence reports. Its requests to take evidence in private from the head of the Secret Intelligence Service, or to be briefed by him in private, were also refused. At paragraph 101, the Committee says:
  "it would be quite wrong and an unacceptable precedent for a Government in the future to be able to argue that any select committee inquiry could be superseded, or perhaps blocked for a considerable period of time, by a whistled-up departmental inquiry."
  The Committee recommends
  "that the Government undertake in future to respect select committees' requirements for information, irrespective of any departmental inquiry on related matters which might have been established."
  At paragraph 107, the Committee says:
  "We greatly regret that we were not given access to intelligence material and that we were refused the opportunity to take evidence from the Director of the SIS."
  It notes:
  "We cannot now say that we have had access to all the sources of information which would have allowed us to come to unequivocal conclusions."
  The Committee condemns what it calls the Government's obduracy and, at paragraph 108, it contrasts
  "the reluctance of the Foreign Secretary"
  with the helpfulness of other Ministers, including the Defence Secretary. It recommends that the Government reflect, in
  "any future inquiry like that into Sandline,"
  as to the merit of what it calls
  "a more mature attitude towards controlled access for the Foreign Affairs Committee to appropriate intelligence material and to witnesses from the Secret Intelligence Service."
  The House will wish to take those observations and recommendations extremely seriously. In relation to the Foreign Secretary, they exemplify and underline the obstructive attitude that he took to the Select Committee's inquiry. They provide yet further evidence of the arrogance with which he and the Government treat Parliament. In my remaining remarks, I shall focus on the substantive failure on the part of Ministers to which both the Select Committee and the Legg inquiry drew attention. The Select Committee put it in this way:
  "We conclude that the government policy on individual arms embargoes must never again be stated in a way which could mislead Parliament, the public and even the FCO's own staff."
  The Legg inquiry concluded:
  "Government has a responsibility to give citizens, and its own officials, reasonable publicity and explanation of the laws it makes under delegated powers, especially laws creating serious criminal offences. That was not done in this case."
  Those are very serious charges. They are abundantly justified by the contents of the two reports. As I shall show, Ministers were directly involved.
  What happened, in essence, was as follows. Ministers decided, for good reasons, to impose an arms embargo on Sierra Leone after the junta had deposed President Kabbah. For understandable reasons, they made that embargo comprehensive in scope. It had the goal of drying up arms supplies to all the parties in Sierra Leone; that was the objective of Ministers. Yet the embargo was consistently and deliberately described as a partial embargo. It was that misdescription which was misleading—to Parliament, the public and even the
  892
  Foreign and Commonwealth Office's own staff—and, as we shall see, that misdescription was the responsibility of Ministers. That is the essence of the charge that we make.
  The ministerial decision to impose an embargo on Sierra Leone was implemented first by a resolution of the Security Council of the United Nations and subsequently by an Order in Council.
  That order made it a criminal offence, punishable by a maximum of seven years' imprisonment, to supply or deliver arms and military equipment to
  "any persons connected with Sierra Leone."
  As Legg and the Select Committee found, if, indeed, any such finding was necessary, it was the Government's duty to publicise and explain that law. Yet the Government wholly failed to discharge that duty. Every document that they issued which sought to explain it, every statement that they made about it, was, in the words of the Foreign Secretary himself, "plainly wrong".
  Those statements included Foreign Office daily bulletins, a telegram to posts in west Africa advising them of the embargo's ambit, an answer to the House from the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), even a reference to the embargo in the communiqué of the Commonwealth Heads of Government conference at Edinburgh, to which the Prime Minister put his name.
  The statements extended it to a letter, written by a senior Foreign Office official to the Foreign Minister of Sierra Leone—I quote verbatim from the Select Committee's report—
  "making it clear that the UN sanctions applied to the Junta but without disclosing that, in the British government's view, they also applied to the very government to whose Foreign Minister she was writing."
  All that would be bad enough if it had been accidental, but it was deliberate. That is what the Legg inquiry concluded. It stated:
  "the British framers of the October 1977 Resolution"—
  the Security Council resolution—
  " … did not doubt that the arms embargo imposed by the Resolution was comprehensive in its coverage."
  It continued:
  "However, British officials and Ministers"—
  I stress "and Ministers"—
  "continued to play this aspect down".
  Legg goes on to explain why. It was, the inquiry says, partly because of the sensitivities about the possible role of the Economic Community of West African States, which, unlike Her Majesty's Government, had explicitly contemplated the use of force, and about the role of Nigeria within ECOWAS and the ECOWAS military observer group.
  There, in a nutshell, we have it. A deliberate attempt was made to mis-state the scope and effect of the embargo, to play it down, in the words of the Legg report, because British officials and Ministers knew that those on the ground in Africa contemplated the use of force. What was the role of individual Ministers in all this? The Minister of State authorised United Nations Security Council resolutions. He saw and approved the Order in Council which created the criminal offences. He knew that its scope was comprehensive. That, after all, was his policy. Yet on 12 March 1998 he told the House that the sanctions were imposed "on the military junta".

  893
  That could have been an oversight. It could have been inadvertent. The Minister of State could have done what "Questions of Procedure for Ministers" require him to do, which is to
  "correct any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity."
  But he has not done that. The Minister of State and the Foreign Secretary persisted for months in their attempt to justify their mis-statement of the effect of the embargo as
  "not inconsistent with the fact that it was not only to the Junta to which the arms embargo applied."
  It was that explanation to which the Select Committee referred when it gave its damning findings in paragraph 19 of its report that
  "half-truths are a dangerous commodity in which to trade."
  What an extraordinary thing for a Select Committee to say about the language of a Foreign Secretary and his Department.
  Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Howard: Not at the moment. As we know, even the Foreign Secretary was unable to continue with that fiction indefinitely. In the end, on 16 December, the Foreign Secretary gave up. He finally recognised and admitted the truth. The language used in telegram 277, which sought to explain to posts in west Africa, the ambit of the Security Council resolution was, he said, "plainly wrong". He had at last realised that he could no longer carry on the farce of pretending that the language used by his Department was correct but incomplete. It was not: it was plainly wrong. The language used in that telegram describing the ban as a ban on the supply of arms to the junta was the same as the language used in the Foreign Office daily bulletins, in the Commonwealth Heads of Government communiqué and in the Minister of State's answer in the House. If the telegram was plainly wrong, then so were they.
  What does the Minister of State intend to do about his answer to the House on 12 March: the answer that the Foreign Secretary has told us was plainly wrong? We look forward to hearing what the Minister of State has to say about that when he winds up the debate. What of the Foreign Secretary? Did he not see the telegram that was plainly wrong, or the FCO daily bulletins? Was he unaware of the Minister's answer to the House on 12 March? Was he not consulted on the communiqué issued at the end of the Commonwealth Heads of Government conference? We know of his well-publicised aversion to finishing his paperwork. If he failed to see any of the documents itemised by the Select Committee, that, in itself, speaks volumes about the way in which he discharges his responsibilities. I call on him to answer each of the specific questions which I have put. The truth of the matter is that, in the words of the Legg report, Ministers deliberately "played down" the scope and effect of the embargo that they had imposed. They deliberately misrepresented the terms of the Order in Council, which created criminal offences that could have led to someone being sent to prison for seven years. They stated their policy in a way in which, in the words of the Select Committee's report, misled
  "Parliament, the public and even the FCO's own staff."
  894
  It is difficult to imagine a more serious charge. This is the Government who the Prime Minister said must be purer than pure. This is the Foreign Secretary who purported to introduce an ethical foreign policy. This is also the Foreign Secretary who said:
  "Tonight Parliament has the opportunity to insist that Ministers must accept responsibility for their conduct in office and to assert that the health of our democracy depends on the honesty of Government to Parliament."—[Official Report, 26 February 1996; Vol. 272, c. 617.]
  I invite him to live up to those words today.
  4.27 pm
  The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  'welcomes the decision of the Foreign Affairs Committee in its Second Report of Session 1998–99 (HC 116) on Sierra Leone to commend the resolute support which the British Government is giving to the restoration of democracy in Sierra Leone and endorses the conclusion of the Legg Inquiry that no Minister had given encouragement or approval to any breach of the arms embargo on Sierra Leone; notes that the inquiry on Sierra Leone of the Foreign Affairs Committee has found no evidence of Ministerial encouragement or approval; and congratulates Her Majesty's Government on accepting all the recommendations of the Report of the Legg Inquiry and on the steps it has since taken to modernise management in the FCO.'.
  I found myself agreeing with the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) for one minute at the beginning of his speech. That was the one minute in which he dealt with the plight of the people of Sierra Leone. I fully share his dismay at their plight. If the House will allow me, I intend to take more than one minute to respond to that plight. The right hon. and learned Gentleman says that he wants to talk about the conduct of Ministers. All right, let us talk about the conduct of Ministers on policy towards Sierra Leone.
  Last night, a special report at the top of the BBC news exposed the evil that the rebels in Sierra Leone represent. In their brief occupation of Freetown in January, the rebel forces vividly lived up to their reputation for brutality and butchery. They murdered politicians, humanitarian staff, religious workers, journalists and lawyers. They carried out repeated acts of arson, even when they knew that the consequence would be to burn alive elderly and disabled men and women.
  From the first day of the rebel forces' entry into Freetown, local hospitals admitted a growing stream of civilians with arms amputated, including children as young as six. A large number of children who were abducted by the rebel forces are still missing. In at least one case, their father was forced to watch his female children raped before they were taken away.
  What should concern the House most of all is how we can prevent such evil from gaining power by force of arms in Sierra Leone.
  Mr. Nigel Jones: The Foreign Secretary will know that the violence has spread outside the capital, Freetown. My constituency has a link with the town of Kambia, which is north-east of the capital. I am a patron of the Kambia hospital appeal, which seeks to support doctors and nurses providing health care in the area.

  895
  At the weekend, I received unconfirmed reports that the hospital had been hit by the rebels, looted and perhaps set on fire. Has the Foreign Secretary heard any further news about what is going on in the region, and can he assure us that our Government will provide whatever assistance is necessary to get the hospital up and running again?
  Mr. Cook: I can confirm that the hospital has been looted, and has been badly damaged by arson. I can also confirm that the Department for International Development will be ready to try to make good some of the damage. First, however, we must regain the territory in which the hospital is situated. We must work with ECOMOG to push the rebels further back in the country.
  The right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe said that our influence in the country was limited. That is true; nevertheless, the fact is that no nation on the globe outside the region has done more than we have to prevent the rebel forces from gaining power, or more to support the legitimate Government of Sierra Leone. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) pointed out, the Foreign Affairs Committee itself commends
  "the resolute support which the British Government is giving to the restoration of democracy and the alleviation of suffering"
  in Sierra Leone.
  First, we have provided a wealth of practical support for the ECOMOG forces who are doing the fighting. Since the start of this year alone, we have provided more than £1 million-worth of trucks and communication equipment. We have organised and paid for the airlift of the Ghanaian battalion to join the Nigerian forces in Sierra Leone. Even the maps used by the ECOMOG operation have been supplied by Britain. Partly as a result of that help, ECOMOG has been able successfully to clear the rebels from Freetown. The support that we gave helped to preserve the legitimate Government of Sierra Leone, and, more immediately, saved the lives of thousands who might otherwise have perished at the hands of the rebels.
  Secondly, Britain is far the largest national donor of development aid to Sierra Leone. Since the restoration of President Kabbah a year ago, Britain has committed more than £20 million, which has been vital in supplying food, promoting security and providing medical aid to help the victims of the rebels' brutality. It has also helped in the longer-term task of recreating the basic institutions of government in Sierra Leone.
  Thirdly, Britain has led international pressure on Liberia to end its support for the rebels. The real tragedy of Sierra Leone is that its people are among the poorest in the world, while their country is among the richest in diamonds. There are too many outside forces whose sole interest is in seizing and retaining control of the diamond fields.
  The situation on the ground in Sierra Leone remains very worrying. The rebels retain control of much of the countryside, and have successfully launched counter-offensives on some provincial towns. The struggle for control of Sierra Leone is not over, and there is no guarantee that the forces of democracy and stability will prevail. We have therefore been reviewing what further support Britain can provide, and I am pleased to say that the Government have decided to commit up to an additional £10 million from the reserve to promote stability in Sierra Leone.
  896
  That substantial investment will have three objectives. The first objective is to help the ECOMOG forces to roll back the rebels. We shall use those resources to meet the most pressing needs of ECOMOG to transport its troops, communicate with them and feed them. The second objective is to encourage the rebels to lay down their arms, and to offer them a future in a civilian life. We shall use part of our funds to underwrite initiatives in demilitarisation, and to integrate the rebels into the civilian economy. The third objective is to create a professional and democratically accountable army for the Government. We shall fund a British military training team to supervise a programme for a professional army and for its civilian management.
  We are asking our partners around the world to make similar contributions, and I am pleased to say that the Administrations of the United States, Canada and several of our European partners are already considering how they can follow our lead.
  Britain's support is well known and well appreciated in the region. Last month, President Abubakar of Nigeria rang my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to thank him for Britain's invaluable support for ECOMOG. Last night, I spoke to President Kabbah by telephone to inform him of our new programme of support. He also recorded his gratitude to the UK for its continued support and assistance.
  President Kabbah and the people of Sierra Leone would regard with disbelief the partisan speech of the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe. They know that the conduct of Ministers has provided them with more help than any other western country. In the past two months, throughout the crisis in Freetown and the many measures that we have taken in response to it, the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his team have shown no interest in the problems of the people of Sierra Leone; nor have they made a single proposal as to how to help their plight. They remain utterly obsessed with Sandline International.
  Let us at least agree on one point. Sandline International's activities from start to finish have been totally irrelevant to the military balance on the ground and even more irrelevant to the needs of the people of Sierra Leone. The main interest of Sandline International and its sister group of companies has been not democracy, but diamonds.
  The first finding of the Legg report was that Sandline International's supply of arms played "little or no part" in the restoration of President Kabbah. That is not surprising as the arms did not even arrive until the rebels had been cleared out of Freetown for the first time.
  Mr. Crispin Blunt: The Foreign Secretary is probably correct to say that the arms were not key, but what was absolutely essential was the military advice and co-ordination of the air cell that was provided by Sandline International to ECOMOG forces. Those forces had been repulsed in December. It was President Kabbah's assessment that he needed good military advice and advisers to enable ECOMOG to succeed, which is what it did when he got them.
  Mr. Cook: As I recall, the air cell to which the hon. Gentleman refers was one rather ancient eastern European helicopter, which, famously, required repair by a British

  897
  naval ship. It is that sort of enormous self-obsession with what Sandline International may have contributed that creates fury in Nigeria, where thousands of troops have died fighting to restore the legitimate Government of Sierra Leone.
  The Legg inquiry did find a number of misjudgments by officials and cultural failings in the Foreign Office. I accepted those findings. I accepted all the inquiry's recommendations. Since I presented the Legg report to Parliament seven months ago, I have acted on those recommendations.
  Mr. Oliver Heald: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
  Mr. Cook: I will, but then I must make progress.
  Mr. Heald: The right hon. Gentleman says that he has put things right by following the recommendations of the Legg report. How then can he possibly explain why he connived in the leaking of the Select Committee report? Surely that is something that he should—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. I do not think that the term "connive" is one that hon. Members should use. [Interruption.] Order. Please let me speak. In addition, I understand that Madam Speaker has made a ruling about the matter. The hon. Gentleman knows about it.
  Mr. Cook: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. For what it is worth, there were two leaks of the Select Committee report, one in The Independent and one in The Times. Neither came from the Foreign Office. The source of those leaks is elsewhere, but the hon. Member for North—East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) said that he was rising on the point that I was addressing. Let me then tell him what we have done to put right what the Legg inquiry identified.
  I have restored the central unit for the enforcement of sanctions, which the previous Government had abolished. I have taken steps to ensure that all intelligence reports are properly logged and distributed. I have issued new guidance that there should be no contact with private military firms without clearance or a written record.
  I have initiated a programme of modernisation in the management of the Foreign Office, which is increasing the number of specialists and professional managers in our administration. We are able to afford that programme of modernisation only because last year's spending review produced the best settlement for the Foreign Office for half a dozen years. [Interruption.] I honestly do not know what the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) finds funny about that. She belongs to a party that, in the previous Parliament, cut the Foreign Office budget by a sixth. The number of diplomatic staff dealing with Africa fell by a quarter during a decade in which her party was in office. It is no wonder that the Legg report concluded that one of the reasons that mistakes were made was that officials had an impossible overload.
  898
  In the spending increase, I have secured the Department's budget. I have doubled the number of staff in the West Africa section covering Sierra Leone—[Interruption.] It is true.
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: May I tell my right hon. Friend that one of the concerns I had as a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee was the appallingly long hours worked by middle and junior-ranking officials. Will he confirm that they are no longer working 70 or 80-hour-weeks?
  Mr. Cook: I cannot confirm to the House that there are not officials in that section, or in other sections in the Foreign Office, who may occasionally be required in emergencies to work 70 or 80 hours a week. I am confident, however, that the pressure on the section has been greatly eased by the doubling of its numbers.
  The sharp reduction—100 staff in the Africa command—in the past decade has to be placed in the context that, in the same decade, there were in Africa more conflicts and crises, which had to be handled by a dwindling number of staff. If Conservative Members wish to debate the conduct of Ministers, vital to the debate is the way in which we are repairing the damage done by their conduct of the Foreign Office.
  The Legg inquiry concluded that the officials involved were "loyal and conscientious". The inquiry recognised that the officials had had to
  "endure an anxious period of criticism and uncertainty",
  and expressed the hope that its report would
  "close the chapter as far as they are concerned."
  I have never made any secret of my view that it was wrong that the same officials were then put on trial, for a second time, by the Foreign Affairs Committee. Nevertheless, contrary to the comments of the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe, the Foreign Office fully co-operated with the Select Committee inquiry. With the sole exception of secret intelligence reports, the Select Committee was given access to every document that the Legg inquiry saw.
  The right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe said that we had obstructed the Select Committee's work—[Interruption.] Perhaps I should refer him to paragraph 99 of the report, in which the Committee welcomed the documents that I released. The report states:
  "It was a quantum leap in extending the capacity of committees to hold the Executive to account. As the Foreign Secretary himself said, the 'committee has had more access to official documents than any of its predecessors or indeed any of its parallels.' We welcome the Government's decision to allow the Select Committee access to most of the key official documents in the Sandline affair."
  That is the view of the Committee itself.
  As I said, I accept all of the recommendations of the Legg report. I shall respond later formally to the Select Committee's report, but I tell the House now that it is my intention to accept many of its recommendations.
  I agree with the Select Committee, for example, that any change to arms embargoes should be announced to Parliament and placed in the Library; it has already been done. I agree that all officials should be doubly careful in contacts with persons under criminal investigation, and I have instructed them to consult first with our legal advisers. I agree with the Select Committee on the need

  899
  for action against arms brokering, and the Government are carefully considering responses to proposals in our recent White Paper on the subject.
  I believe also that the Committee is right to be concerned about the particular sensitivities in dealing with military companies whose staff include former members of the armed forces or intelligence agencies. I also share its view that Colonel Spicer should have known more about the legal position on the supply of arms, and that he was less than frank with Foreign Office officials about his supply of arms. In its postscript, the Select Committee observes that the aim of lasting peace in Sierra Leone is "hardly likely" to be helped by the activities of mercenary forces. I could not agree more.
  I also welcome what the omissions from the Select Committee's report tell us about what the Select Committee found. The report does not raise the slightest doubt about the central findings of the Legg inquiry—that there was no connivance in the Foreign Office at a breach of the arms embargo, and no conspiracy by either officials or Ministers to undermine the publicly stated policy.
  The sole ministerial quote that was produced by the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe in his entire speech was that from the speech by the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd) in which he said to the House, correctly, that the embargo applied to the junta.
  That speech, made in March, was utterly irrelevant to a breach of the arms embargo by Sandline which had already happened. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has never explained how he imagines that a speech in March could have caused confusion to Sandline when it signed a contract the previous December or when it supplied the arms in the previous February. Not even Colonel Spicer has used the novel line of reasoning that in December 1997 he was confused by a speech that was to be made in March 1998. Yet, after two exhaustive reports, that is the best that the right hon. and learned Gentleman can do to find fault with the conduct of Ministers.
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman has spent the past year trying to unearth a political scandal over Sandline. He has not found it because it does not exist. This is not the arms to Iraq affair where Ministers in the previous Government relaxed the rules in order to arm Saddam Hussein, where the same Ministers deliberately resolved not to inform Parliament of the change in policy and where Ministers tried to cover up their own complicity by suppressing the evidence.
  In the case of Sierra Leone there was no change in policy, no secret approval of the supply of arms and no cover-up. There are lessons to be learned and that is why I set up the Legg inquiry to establish what went wrong and how we put it right. We have acted on its recommendations.
  Mr. Howard: I have been waiting patiently. The Foreign Secretary has been speaking for nearly 20 minutes but he has still to deal with the main charge that I made in my speech. Is he suggesting that it is
  900
  perfectly all right to mislead this House, as the Minister of State did on 12 March, as long as Colonel Spicer was not misled? Will he now deal with all the other documents—every single one of them—in which the policy of Her Majesty's Government was mis-stated in a way that, as the Select Committee report says, misled Parliament, the public and the officials at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office? Will he answer that question?
  Mr. Cook: There is no question of the House being misled. My hon. Friend the Minister of State said what is absolutely correct and true, which is that the embargo applied to the junta.
  Mr. Howard: That is precisely the formulation that the Foreign Secretary described as being plainly wrong when he dealt with telegram 277 before the Select Committee. The words are identical.
  Mr. Cook: The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows perfectly well that I was not saying that about the speech of my hon. Friend the Minister of State. [Interruption.] Colonel Spicer and anybody else seeking to supply weapons or arms to Sierra Leone would have known perfectly well, as the Select Committee said, that there was domestic legislation in place. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There is a lot of noise in the Chamber and it is coming particularly from the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow). The hon. Gentleman is trying my patience. I must hear what the Secretary of State is saying.
  Mr. Cook: The right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe complains that I have been speaking for 20 minutes, but I am addressing the House on issues on which he did not address the House—the problem of Sierra Leone. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman wishes to debate the conduct of Ministers on Sierra Leone, he must be prepared to hear about the conduct of Ministers on Sierra Leone.
  I go to the region next week. I will visit Nigeria where I will be one of the first Foreign Ministers to congratulate the newly elected president. My visit will be against a background of good will of the people of Nigeria for this Government because they know how strongly we condemned the repression of General Abacha and because they know that we worked harder than any other country to see their democracy restored.
  I will go to Ghana and the Ivory Coast with my colleague Hubert Vedrine, the French Foreign Minister, on the first ever joint visit. In the Ivory Coast we will convene a joint conference of British and French Heads of Mission. There is no other European country with as strong a representation as Britain and France. We will be exploring how we can co-operate and use that joint strength in tackling the problems in Africa of violent conflict and the poverty that breeds it.
  Mr. Howard: Avoiding the issue.
  Mr. Cook: I am addressing the problems of the region, which the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not. He said nothing about what more the Foreign Office could do about the problems of the region.

  901
  I intend to meet President Kabbah while I am in the region. I expect to discuss how we can best use the resources that I have announced today to strengthen his Government and promote stability in Sierra Leone. The visit will underline the Government's commitment to the region and our fresh approach to its problems. That is the conduct of Ministers on Sierra Leone that should concern the House. I am happy to be judged on it.
  By contrast, the right hon. and learned Gentleman's speech did not contain a single policy proposal towards Sierra Leone or the region. It is worth restating that, because it remains the flaw in the Conservatives' criticisms of Ministers' conduct. They wish to debate the conduct of Ministers, but not their conduct in relation to Sierra Leone. The debate is motivated not by their support for the people of Sierra Leone, but all too transparently by their desire to wring party advantage from the crisis in that country. That approach would be massively rejected by the people of Sierra Leone and it should be massively rejected by the House.
  4.51 pm
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: The most important conclusion of the Select Committee's report is the last one, which reminds us that the purpose of the Select Committee system is to ensure that
  "officials and Ministers are aware that the beam of the select committee searchlight may one day swing in their direction, and they may have to justify their action—or inaction—when subject to intense scrutiny".
  I cannot avoid making some reference to the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) before I deal with the Committee's conclusions. He is right to be concerned about half-truths. If he remembers the Scott inquiry report, he will know that a distinguished civil servant, who has but recently left the Foreign Office, said that half a truth could still be the truth. That comment attracted some of Sir Richard Scott's most damaging criticism. The Cabinet of which the right hon. and learned Gentleman was a member declined to accept the report.
  The centrepiece of the Scott inquiry report was the fact that the House had been deceived, because, while the statement of policy remained the same, the method of application of that policy had changed in a material way. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is correct to be indignant if the House has been misled, but he would also be right to remember that the Government of which he was a member did not have a distinguished record in such matters. It gives me no pleasure to say that some of the conduct of this Government has been eerily reminiscent of that of the previous Government. We were entitled to better, and we expected better.
  The Foreign Secretary sought to distance the Foreign Office from Sandline. That is a legitimate argument, but it does not sit with the extent to which Colonel Spicer was in contact with the Foreign Office at material moments of the narrative with which the Select Committee is concerned. After the Legg inquiry and the report of the Select Committee, which was couched in terms as strong as any of us can remember a Select Committee using, no one is responsible, no one is at fault and no one has been disciplined.
  902
  One issue above all lay at the heart of the mismanagement of the affair: the misunderstanding or misinterpretation of the United Nations resolution limiting arms exports. The Select Committee report reveals that, for months collectively, the Foreign Office did not appreciate the contents of that resolution; for months collectively, it did not understand the effect of that resolution when it was incorporated into domestic law. In my judgment, that lack of understanding was culpable and cannot be excused.
  The Select Committee report contains a catalogue of failures, outlined either expressly or by implication, including the failure of officials to brief Ministers, which is described as appalling; the failure of officials to advise Ministers of material developments, including even a raid by Customs and Excise on the Foreign Office; and the failure to advise of the possibility of the prosecution of a Foreign Office official on an indictable offence.
  How often does Customs and Excise knock on the door of the Foreign Office with a warrant in its hand, that it should not rate the immediate notification of Ministers? How often are Foreign Office officials at risk of prosecution for indictable offences, that the Foreign Secretary should not be instantly advised?
  There was a failure to respond to the article in the Toronto Globe and Mail of 1 August 1997, which said that Sandline was involved in plans to overthrow the junta; and a failure to respond to Colonel Tim Spicer's phone call of 5 January 1998, saying that he had signed an agreement to give $10 million of support to President Kabbah. How on earth could it be, as the Committee rightly asks, that no one thought that the support might involve the supply of arms? Was not that a reasonable inference from the size of the sum involved?
  There was a failure to understand the significance of, and to act on, the letter of 5 February 1998 from my noble Friend Lord Avebury drawing attention to the Toronto Globe and Mail article and a new article in US News and World Report, which contained accurate information about the supply of arms. That failure was described by the Foreign Secretary, in his evidence to the Committee, as
  "one of the gravest errors and misjudgments".
  There was a failure to brief Ministers properly and, as a result, the House was misled, but still no one is responsible or at fault and no one has been disciplined.
  The truth is that both Legg, in rather more sedate language, and the Select Committee report, in rather more blunt and direct language, reveal an embarrassing litany of incompetence that is all the more significant if we recall that Sierra Leone was the subject of direct prime ministerial interest, as the Prime Minister extended to the deposed President Kabbah an invitation to attend the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Edinburgh as his personal guest.
  Neither Sir Thomas Legg nor the Committee held Ministers personally to blame, but Ministers should feel some sense of discomfort about the fact that such things were going on in a Department for which they had responsibility. I want to read a passage that reflects the kind of responsibility that ought to be taken on such occasions.

  903
  In the Scott report debate, the Foreign Secretary, who was then shadow Foreign Secretary, said:
  "The Government are fond of lecturing the rest of the nation on its need to accept responsibility. Parents are held responsible for actions; teachers are held responsible for the performance of their pupils; local councillors are held legally and financially responsible; yet, when it comes to themselves, suddenly not a single Minister can be found to accept responsibility for what went wrong."—[Official Report, 26 February 1996; Vol. 272, c. 606.]
  That was approximately three years ago—it is as apposite today as it was then.
  I am bound by Madam Speaker's ruling that there can be no reference to the events with regard to the obtaining of the Select Committee draft report, except in passing. In passing, all I can say is that I would have expected Ministers to have some sense of discomfort about the sudden and unheralded appearance in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office of a draft of the report. I am bound to say that, judging by its previous performance, I am almost surprised that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office realised the significance of the document that had been sent to it.
  Last week, the Foreign Secretary responded to a question from me as to why the document simply had not been sent back by saying that no one would have believed him if he had sent it back and said that he had not read it. He may, with time, care to reflect on that self-assessment of his credibility.
  Mr. Keith Simpson: Following that line of logic, can the right hon. and learned Gentleman explain how it is that, with a permanent under-secretary of considerable experience, probity and efficiency—as witnessed by Ministers from the previous Government and other observers—the Foreign Office is such a toy-town organisation? I find that incredible, and it seems that the permanent under-secretary is acting as an air-raid shelter for Ministers.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind right hon. and hon. Members that we should not debate the leak. That is for another time.
  Mr. Campbell: That was a timely and helpful intervention, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but the Committee addresses that matter, and has views on it. The Committee considered the evidence in detail and reached a conclusion. I was not present throughout the consideration by the Committee and, therefore, I am not willing to substitute my judgment for that of the Committee.
  It is time to blow away the fog of obscurity surrounding arms exports. It is time to have a Select Committee of the House to monitor arms export policy and, if necessary, to scrutinise individual transactions. It is time to provide for an international means of dealing with arms brokering in defiance of UN resolutions. It is time to provide that a transaction involving a transfer from anywhere in the world to anywhere else in the world would be illegal if it would be illegal for those arms to be transferred from the UK.
  We ought to be willing to consider extra-territorial jurisdiction in this matter, because it makes a nonsense of UN resolutions—and the way in which they are imported into our domestic law—if, as in the present case, arms
  904
  transferred from Bulgaria to Sierra Leone at the instigation of a broker based in the UK would not, apparently, constitute a breach of criminal law.
  Mr. John Bercow: The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that the reports had not directly criticised Ministers. Does he agree with the verdict of the Select Committee report that
  "many of problems which occurred would not have occurred … If ministers had made their policy on dealings with mercenaries clearer to officials".
  Does he agree that, in that sense, Ministers are culpable?
  Mr. Campbell: That is the conclusion of the Committee, and I see no reason to substitute my judgment for its judgment. I go further—one would have expected Ministers to be on their inquiry. I go back to the fact that Sierra Leone was not some country of which we knew little. It was a country in which No. 10 Downing street was taking an express interest, at the instigation, quite rightly, of the Prime Minister—all the more reason for Ministers to be on their inquiry.
  All of that produced for the people of Sierra Leone nothing but the lasting horrors of a civil war of utmost brutality, which is still being visited upon the population of that benighted country. That is why I have urged the Government before today to ensure that they continue to provide logistical assistance to President Kabbah, following the statement that the Secretary of State made in the House on 19 January.
  The Government should work with the Commonwealth and the United Nations to ensure that Nigeria does not become so disillusioned with its role in Sierra Leone that it pulls its personnel out of the ECOMOG forces. The recent election in Nigeria must surely throw that matter into sharp focus. The Government should bring all possible pressure to bear on the Government in Liberia to cause them to cease to interfere in the internal affairs of Sierra Leone. We should be making plans now for the rebuilding of Freetown's damaged infrastructure, and providing support for development programmes in the region and emergency relief.
  Coincidentally, the Foreign Secretary came today with £10 million in his pocket. I am delighted that he brought that money. It is only a little more than the $10 million that Sandline was to gain for providing support to President Kabbah. Of course £10 million is better than nothing, but what effect will it have on the devastation from which we now know Sierra Leone is suffering?
  That is a proper commitment, but we will want to see that it is fully implemented. Only if the Government fully implement the commitments announced and reinforced today by the Foreign Secretary will they have a chance to salvage something from a period in their history that has done no credit to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and even less to the Government themselves.
  5.6 pm
  Mr. Donald Anderson: I have three initial reflections. First, the backcloth is the agony and suffering of the people of Sierra Leone. That should be our main concern. Against that agony and suffering, the ambit of the Foreign Affairs Committee report is relatively insignificant. The people of Sierra Leone and the friends of that Commonwealth country would be

  905
  appalled if the debate turned into just another party game. That is why I welcome the £10 million which my right hon. Friend said in his statement today would be committed to Sierra Leone.
  Secondly, the prospect of the debate becoming a party game is part of the problem that we face in a Select Committee in a highly partisan and personalised political structure. Select Committees act as Committees of the legislature monitoring the Executive. There is clearly great pressure on Committee members not to score own goals and to support their own side, particularly on a matter such as this. Since May last year, the debate in the Chamber has become highly partisan, and it seemed that those on the Opposition Front Bench were trying to dress it up as if it were a replay of the arms to Iraq scandal.
  However, as the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) said, that was light years away. The Government at that time deliberately misled the House on a change of policy and were even prepared to countenance the imprisonment of business men to cover up their own failings.
  Mr. Blunt: That is not true.
  Mr. Anderson: It is true. I invite the hon. Gentleman to examine the history of the Scott report and the conduct of the Conservative Government at that time.
  The highest the charge can be put in this case is that the Government allowed, or connived at, the action of a British company to supply a quantity of arms to an elected and internationally recognised head of state of a friendly Commonwealth country who had been ousted in a coup by a motley group of rebels.
  The House hardly needs to be reminded of the arms to Iraq scandal and of the role played by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary at that time. I suspect that the Opposition thought that they had struck gold with Sierra Leone, and that they would be able to find the Foreign Secretary's fingerprints on some form of conspiracy. Those who had not been conspicuous in their concern for Sierra Leone, either before or after the sad events and the suffering there, seized on an apparent opportunity to embarrass the Secretary of State as he sought to help to stabilise that benighted country.
  My final preliminary point relates to the leak. The Select Committee on Foreign Affairs this morning agreed its first special report on the premature disclosure of the report on Sierra Leone. I congratulate the Committee's staff on ensuring that the special report is available in the Vote Office so that hon. Members may peruse it.
  There is sadness that there was a leak. I trust that the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges will consider the substantial mitigation offered after the event by my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross). The leak is a warning to every hon. Member of the seriousness of those matters, particularly when it comes to the leaking of a draft report on which a Government who were so inclined might seek to pressurise members of a Select Committee to moderate their views.
  I commend the work of the Foreign Affairs Committee's staff on the original report. They worked long and hard in difficult circumstances. Hon. Members
  906
  will know that two thirds or more of the report deals with the substance of the arms to Sierra Leone affair. The last part of the report deals more generally with relations between the Executive and the legislature, which, in my judgment, are of general importance to Select Committees.
  I shall outline the background of the events relating to the supply of arms. The terms of reference of the Foreign Affairs Committee were: first, to examine whether
  "actions by Government personnel in relation to Sierra Leone after"
  the ousting of President Kabbah on
  "25 May 1997 were consistent with implementation of the Government's policy that"
  President Kabbah should be restored only
  "by peaceful means; and, whether deficiencies have been revealed in the arrangements in the FCO for passing information to Ministers and implementing their instructions."
  Was there a conspiracy? There is not, in the phrase initially used in the report, a scintilla of evidence to suggest that the Foreign Secretary knew that there was a potential breach of the arms embargo. Try as anyone might to find the fingerprints of the Foreign Secretary, or any knowledge on his part, there is no evidence to that end.
  Nor can any reasonable person conclude that the Foreign Secretary should have had such knowledge or made inquiries. Is it seriously suggested that the Foreign Secretary should scurry around the corridors of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, looking in at the doors of relevant sections to say, "Is there anything untoward in Sierra Leone that I should know about?" That is not a counsel of perfection, but an absurd proposition. However much one tries to pin blame on the Foreign Secretary, it is clear that he did not know about what was happening in Sierra Leone, and there was no reasonable way for him to have found out about it by his own means.
  Mr. Keith Simpson: The hon. Gentleman may intend to develop his argument on those lines, but will he say who is to blame? As I said when I intervened on the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell), the permanent under secretary at the Foreign Office is a highly efficient and competent senior official. It is to be expected that the Foreign Secretary would have asked questions about the matter, and that his officials would report to him on it. There appears to be an enormous credibility gap at the centre of the hon. Gentleman's exposition.
  Mr. Anderson: The hon. Gentleman asks who is to blame. Does he seriously suggest that the Foreign Secretary should go around asking people whether anything is wrong in Sierra Leone? It cannot seriously be suggested that my right hon. Friend knew what was going on. As for blaming anyone, as the Legg report and our Committee pointed out, serious deficiencies in the conduct of officials were revealed during the course of our inquiries. I invite people to read the Committee's report and to let it speak for itself in terms of the actions—or, rather, the inactions—of several key players in the machine.
  I believe that I speak for all members of the Select Committee in expressing our enormous admiration for the quality and efficiency of Foreign Office personnel in our dealings with Foreign Office officials in this country and

  907
  when we travel abroad. However, in this episode, we conclude that the officials concerned failed badly, and that is where the blame lies.
  Mr. Simpson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way again. I do not suggest that the Foreign Secretary—to use the hon. Gentleman's emotive words—should scuttle around seeking information. However, the Foreign Secretary has senior officials, who report to him, and special advisers. Speaking as a special adviser to a previous Administration, I can say that one would immediately recognise that, if something like that was going on, one had to act as the eyes and ears of the Foreign Secretary. Indeed, I understand that, in this case, it was the special adviser—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman seems to be making a speech.
  Mr. Anderson: The fact is that those officials did not inform the Foreign Secretary. The hon. Gentleman takes a rather classical view of ministerial responsibility. The last time that the view was taken that Ministers should be responsible for everything that happens in their Department was the Crichel Down affair in 1954 and the doctrine was obsolete even then. Given the complexity of modern government, no Minister can seriously be expected to be responsible for everything that happens in his Department. If the hon. Gentleman still holds that strict classical view of ministerial responsibility, I suggest that he has a quiet word with the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), who has previous form on that matter from his time at the Home Office.
  Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: The $64,000 question is why the Foreign Secretary thinks that our criticism of officials is disproportionate and unfair. Unfortunately, my right hon. Friend is not in the Chamber; he should be here to listen to the speech of the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
  Mr. Anderson: I am not a psychiatrist, merely a politician. I can only suggest that the Foreign Secretary was showing an excess of misguided loyalty. Initially, he said that the Committee was unfair to civil servants. However, I invite hon. Members to read the report and let its words on the conduct of the officials speak for themselves.
  Dr. Godman: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Anderson: Let me first go through the Foreign Secretary's three criticisms. Secondly, he said that the Legg committee set out what went wrong and that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office had put it right. That is partially correct, but the Select Committee's recommendations went substantially beyond those of the Legg report. Indeed, the Foreign Secretary very properly said today that the Foreign Office was responding positively to a number of our recommendations—recommendations that were not part of the Legg report.
  Finally, the Foreign Secretary said:
  "Seven months later the Select Committee has not come up with a single significant fact that was not already in the Legg Report."
  908
  I would respond as follows. First, Sir Thomas Legg is an establishment figure—a fact reflected in his report—and he clearly pulled his punches unnecessarily in many instances. Secondly, the Legg report was conducted in private, while the Foreign Affairs Committee held meetings in the full glare of the press, television cameras and the public. We are accountable to the public and the people can draw their own conclusions.
  Paragraph 72 of the report refers to a clear instance when the Committee uncovered more than the Legg report in relation to minutes of a meeting of 3 December 1997. The Legg report proceeded on the basis of a certain assumption that was revealed only in January this year to be incorrect. I am pleased that the Foreign Secretary has said that he will respond positively to a number of our recommendations.
  I shall now deal with the final part of the report about Executive-legislative relations, which is of general interest to the House.
  Dr. Godman: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. My intervention is prompted by the comments of the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) about the permanent under-secretary who, in my opinion, is a very fine civil servant. I remind my hon. Friend that the permanent under-secretary was astonishingly and refreshingly candid whenever he appeared before the Committee, and readily admitted that he and his officials had made mistakes. Is that not so?
  Mr. Anderson: Indeed. The Committee can have only the highest admiration for the permanent under-secretary in all his relations with it. The main charge against the permanent under-secretary is that, at the end of March 1998, he became aware of a raid on the Foreign Office and four weeks elapsed before he informed the Foreign Secretary about a highly sensitive matter. That information reached the Foreign Secretary only as a result of a letter from solicitors acting on behalf of Sandline. The four weeks of inaction and the failure to inform a Minister form the gravamen of the charge against the permanent under-secretary.
  Ms Diane Abbott: I am sure that my hon. Friend would not want the House to run away with the idea that he is trying to talk down our report, which was widely acclaimed in the media upon publication. Sadly, all the detailed criticisms of the internal workings of the Foreign Office fall squarely at the door of Sir John Kerr. Is that not correct?
  Mr. Anderson: Far from talking down the work of the Committee, I believe that it has played a major role on behalf of Parliament and enhanced the credibility of Committees as a whole. If we had rolled over and done nothing, we would have remained very limp and lame for the rest of the Parliament. The Executive—if it were so inclined—could have easily ignored Select Committees.
  In our system, Select Committees are a relatively new and weak creation. We have Executive-led Government, and that is particularly true in foreign affairs, where there is the Crown prerogative. If the Government are committed to the distribution of power—I am confident that they are—they should distribute power between

  909
  Parliament and the Executive with the same zeal that they have shown in distributing it within the United Kingdom to the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly. Select Committees are the main instrument available to Parliament for keeping the Executive in check.
  The Foreign Secretary can claim with justification that he has appeared before the Foreign Affairs Committee more frequently than any of his predecessors. He is also justified in claiming that he has allowed greater access to official documents than did any of his predecessors, including Conservative Ministers. However, those concessions were given reluctantly, tardily and only following protracted argument. We believe that the Foreign Secretary should have been far more willing to be open with the Committee and to provide us with the tools that we needed to do our job. That is particularly true of intelligence. We believe that Committees should have controlled access to the intelligence community and must be trusted by the Executive. Why should Sir Thomas Legg have greater access than hon. Members? We point that out forcefully.
  The last part of our report deals with access to information and what is relevant to the work of other Committees. That was discussed last Thursday in the Liaison Committee, which brings together the Chairmen of all Select Committees. Since the leak has been made, I can say only that there is widespread dissatisfaction among the Chairmen not only with this Government but with all Governments and their co-operation with Select Committees. A dossier will be compiled by the Chairman of the Liaison Committee, and I hope that it will be not only debated in the House but taken seriously by the Government.
  I hope that the Government will take seriously all our recommendations and that the House will recognise that we have done an effective job on behalf of Parliament. We concluded our report by using the searchlight analogy mentioned by the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife, who speaks for the Liberal Democrats.
  Had there been a simple Opposition motion asking the House to agree with the conclusions of the Foreign Affairs Committee, it would have been extremely difficult for us to oppose that motion. Of course the Opposition have tried to be too clever and could not resist the temptation to go too far. The motion has three legs. The first
  "endorses the criticisms made of Ministers"
  in the report. No conclusions in the report directly criticise Ministers, and many seek to strengthen Ministers in their relations with officials. The high point, as the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife pointed out, is paragraph 19, but that recommendation is to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office as a whole.
  The motion's second leg
  "deplores the conduct of Ministers which led to such criticism".
  I have already covered that point in my remarks on the doctrine of ministerial responsibility. Finally, the motion
  "calls on the Ministers concerned to accept responsibility for their conduct."
  That fails because, in general, Ministers' conduct in substantive matters was not criticised.
  On the relations between the Executive and the legislature, the criticism is mild. In paragraph 99, we welcome the increased access to documents. In paragraph
  910
  101, we urge the Government to accede to the Select Committee's request for information, irrespective of the existence of a departmental inquiry. In paragraph 109, we deal with intelligence. The Government gave more information and access than any of their predecessors, but that was not enough. It is possible, particularly because of the failure to grant access to intelligence material, that the focus of the report is not what it should have been. The Government should have been more open and co-operative.
  Thus, the motion misses the point of the report: in this instance, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office machine, which is normally efficient and highly admired by the public and, indeed, by the Committee, failed to perform and to give Ministers the quality of advice that they needed. The Opposition's attempt to distil the report into criticism of individual Ministers is therefore surely a partisan distortion. I shall oppose the motion.
  5.29 pm
  Sir Peter Emery: I am sorry that the debate is not called "The conduct of Ministers and their relationships with a Select Committee", because those are the most imperative matters to come out of the report.
  I shall make, I hope, only one remark that will be viewed as incredibly political. I honestly believe that Ministers have to ask questions and that those with responsibility for dealing with Sierra Leone in Parliament had enough external evidence to make more inquiries of their officials in the equatorial African department in the Foreign Office, which is concerned with Sierra Leone. If they had done so, much of the fiasco would not have arisen. I shall deal with the relationship between the Select Committee and this House, and the Government, which the report has highlighted.
  I have been concerned with Select Committees since their inception under the then Leader of the House, Lord St. John-Stevas, and have twice chaired the Procedure Committee when it has monitored the work of Select Committees—first in the 1980s, and then in the 1990s. It is important to me that the work of Select Committees should be able to proceed properly and fully. I believe that this is the first time that the Executive, by their action, have frustrated or attempted to frustrate the examination of one of their Departments. If I am to make that claim, I must substantiate it—and I shall.
  I accept immediately the right of Ministers to ask certain appointees to examine an internal problem in their Department. That cannot be denied, but it should not be a means of frustrating or delaying the work of a House of Commons Select Committee. In this case, we were told time and again during the Committee's proceedings that details on matters, witnesses and papers could not be made available until the Legg inquiry had reported. That massively delayed the Committee, and extended the time that it took to produce its report. The Foreign Secretary criticised that delay but he was responsible for it.
  Ministers and Departments should readily and willingly release papers that are necessary for an inquiry, when requested by a Select Committee. The Foreign Secretary claimed that never had more papers been made available to a Foreign Office inquiry. That may be so, but let it be understood that those papers had to be dragged out of the

  911
  Department. A request was made, and refused; a further request was also refused. Finally, following another request, the Committee was offered the option of just three of its members being allowed to go to the Foreign Office to inspect certain of the papers. The Committee grudgingly accepted that, although, following the publication of the Legg Report, all such papers had to be made available.
  When the permanent secretary was first cross-examined before the Committee on 14 May 1998, he agreed to the existence of one set of papers and promised that he would do something about the matter. We did not receive the papers until five months later. That is hardly the sort of co-operation with the Committee that the Department has suggested has occurred.
  Departments should not set out actively to mislead; surely that is imperative. There were several illustrations in the giving of evidence of activities which, in the kindest terms, can only be described as deliberate obfuscation. Perhaps the prime example of that was only recently, when my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs
  "who was the first person in his Department to have sight of a copy of the Foreign Affairs Committee report on Sierra Leone; and at what time and on what day it was seen."
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office replied:
  "Copies of the report were collected from the Foreign Affairs Committee office … on 9 February by the Head of Parliamentary Relations Department and the Parliamentary Clerk."—[Official Report, 16 February 1999; Vol. 325, c. 751.]
  That is factually correct, but is misleading to the nth degree. The Minister must have known that the Foreign Secretary had had sight of the report at another time. Ministers and the Government must not give a Select Committee such misleading information.
  Instead of misleading, the Government should ensure that the Minister volunteers all necessary information to a Select Committee engaged in an inquiry. I believed that that point had been established—I had something to do with it—when the Conservative Government were criticised by the Trade and Industry Committee, of which I was a member. Towards the end of our inquiry on Concorde we stumbled on several papers—accounts—that had not been presented to the Committee, and which considerably affected our inquiry. The outcome brought an assurance by the Leader of the House that it was the Government's job to help, not frustrate, the working of Select Committees, and that they should be willing to provide any documents that they knew about concerning a Committee's inquiry. I believe that that must be established absolutely in any consideration given by the House or any of its Committees, because that must be the proper way for the Executive to be held to account.
  Lastly, I return to the subject of the Foreign Secretary's refusal to meet the request of the head of the Secret Intelligence Service to be seen by the Committee. The Foreign Secretary's constant refusal of any of the Committee's requests is in direct contrast to the behaviour of the Secretary of State for Defence, who was willing for the Committee to see the Chief of Defence Intelligence, Vice-Admiral Alan West. We did so very satisfactorily. The Foreign Office's refusal of our requests seems even stranger in light of the fact that it said that there was very
  912
  little that "C", the head of the Secret Intelligence Service, could say. If that was the case, why prevent his appearance? Surely that made it more likely that people would ask, "Why, oh why?" and suggest that there must be something to hide.
  Today's Foreign Affairs Committee report is before the House. I hope that, in dealing with these matters, the Standards and Privileges Committee, which will have to take up the matter, will be certain to ask the right question. If documents were in the hands of a political adviser to a Government, surely no one would believe that that official would not try to ensure that Ministers, when they were preparing to make their statements, really understood what had been in the Committee's report, although that report had not been published until a few minutes before the statements were made. If the Committee's recommendations were given to the Secretary of State's political assistant, it is beyond credibility that that had no influence on the fact that Ministers, after the report was published, set out to rubbish the report merely so as to subvert the Committee's recommendations. That must not be allowed to happen again.
  I make this speech in defence of the House because if we cannot, as Select Committees of the House, hold the Executive fully to account, we are failing in our duty, and I believe that Governments, whatever their complexion, must try to ensure that we can achieve that. I believe that the Government are open to severe criticism on that basis.
  5.39 pm
  Mr. Ted Rowlands: I shall not follow the right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery) in much of what he said because, in some respects, there is common ground between us on a Select Committee's role and functions and, in particular, on the powerful reaffirmation of that role which is contained in our report.
  In that context, I particularly underline those conclusions and paragraphs which state that we had every right to hold an inquiry of the kind that we did. If, every time a Select Committee considered undertaking such an inquiry, it was within the gift of the Executive to set up an alternative inquiry, the Select Committee would be neutered and that would be wrong. I am sure that we have common ground in that regard, and I hope that we would gain the support of the majority of hon. Members—at least, those on the Back Benches.
  However, the Opposition motion, which seeks to lay special emphasis upon ministerial responsibility, is unjustified and unjustifiable, given the totality of the Legg report and of the Select Committee's report, and the mountain of evidence that was collected. For such an emphasis to be laid by the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) in his speech and in the Opposition motion is, in a curious way, an addition to the catalogue of misleading elements that have dogged the affair.
  That is because that emphasis distracts from the most extraordinary feature that emerges from all the evidence and inquiries, which is that Ministers were kept in the dark about sensitive political issues that were going on and being discussed, initially within the bowels of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, but which gradually rose to the top, to the level of permanent secretary.

  913
  I, like everybody else, have found that one of the most mystifying and mysterious aspects of the whole affair was that, despite all the Select Committee's efforts to discover quite what had happened and why, the central feature of all the evidence that emerged, which jumps out at one, which screams at one, was that Ministers were kept completely in the dark about quite fundamental aspects. That is why I do not agree with the emphasis of the Opposition motion. However, it is a question that we must try to answer, or at least address.
  I need not illustrate that too much because the Select Committee's report is a detailed catalogue, as in some respects is the Legg report—I agree with the muted criticisms of that report by my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson)—although it does not bring out the matter to the same extent.
  The high commissioner, as a result of the most wonderful and commendable contact with President Kabbah, obtained "priceless" information about an arms contract, but did not initially effectively convey the nature of that information to officials in the Foreign Office.
  However, Foreign Office officials dealing with the matter in London, in addition eventually to receiving from Mr. Penfold the minute of 2 February saying that this was a contract dealing with the purchase of arms had, by this time, also received, through their connections and contacts with Sandline, details of Operation Python—a detailed blow-by-blow account of how the contract was to be delivered and executed.
  Sir John Stanley: To be clear on that point, the Foreign Office officials received that critical document from the British high commissioner who had previously received it from Sandline; and the British high commissioner, Mr. Penfold, passed it to the Foreign Office the day after he received it from Sandline.
  Mr. Rowlands: Yes, that is a factual statement. It is commendable that Foreign Office officials obtained that information with such speed.
  The officials, however, did absolutely nothing. They did not inform their senior officials, and they certainly did not inform the Foreign Secretary's private office, let alone the Minister of State responsible. I hope that the Minister of State will confirm that he did not know that the document on Operation Python was available in the Department. It was an extraordinary state of affairs.
  As the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) said, and as we know from the television programme, the Customs office knocked on the FCO's doors and raided the files, but the permanent under-secretary did not feel it sufficiently important to write even the simplest of minutes to tell the Foreign Secretary that he should be aware of what had occurred. This conjunction is incredible, and requires explanation.
  Mr. Mackinlay: My hon. Friend puts his finger on the bulk of our criticism. The Foreign Secretary did not tell us, but perhaps the Minister of State will, why the Government consider the Committee's criticism to be disproportionate and unfair. Why do they take that view, given the points made by my hon. Friend?
  Mr. Rowlands: My hon. Friend asks the question, and we await an answer from the Minister.
  914
  Given the circumstances that I have described, I do not believe that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was fair in claiming that by holding our inquiry we were putting officials in double jeopardy, and that officials could not speak for themselves. Anyone reading the burden of our evidence in the lengthy transcripts will see that many members of the Committee—it was certainly the burden of my questions—were almost pleading and begging officials to explain what had happened. We did not want to reach those conclusions: it was the last thing we wanted. We tried as hard as we could to discover why this failure to pass information through officials to Ministers had occurred.
  I am not a natural critic of the FCO: one of the greatest privileges in my parliamentary and political life was to serve in that Department. I have enormous respect for the FCO, and I understand and appreciate the excitement of serving in such a post. I have tried, therefore, to search for an explanation. Initially, I thought that it might be a structural problem. There have been considerable changes in the way in which the FCO is organised and administered. There has been a growth of command structures: the autonomous, self-financing portions of the FCO. I have once or twice wondered aloud whether the decision-making process had been affected by that autonomy, and whether the chain of communication had been broken, because I had thought that information was passed on quickly. I found no evidence for that explanation, and no support for it when I asked about it. I am as mystified and as dumbfounded about what happened as are other members of the Committee and many others, including Sir Thomas Legg.
  The most important thing is that this failure of communication should never happen again. We cannot write a code or a manual on ministerial-civil service relations. All the textbooks in the world cannot describe the curious chemistry of the working relationship between a Secretary of State, a Minister of State, the private office and officials. It cannot be laid down in tablets of stone. I criticise the Opposition motion, because if there is one message that should go out from the House tonight it is that we must not allow such a total breach of communication between officials and Ministers as occurred in this case to happen again.
  Mr. Malcolm Savidge: Do not paragraphs 10.56 and 10.57 of the report imply that criticism should be levelled less at individuals in the Department—who are described as loyal and conscientious—than at the institution that had been inherited from the last Government?
  Mr. Rowlands: I think that we all understand the incredible pressures experienced by a small, understaffed Department dealing with west Africa. We must remember that the arrival of all this vital information coincided with the beginning of the Nigerian assault—the assault by ECOMOG—on Sierra Leone. There are mitigating circumstances, which are mentioned in the Legg report; but they cannot explain, or erase, the breach of communication that our report demonstrates so vividly—and, in my view, not inaccurately, unfairly or unjustly.
  Let me mention two other aspects of the matter. One is the whole issue of the use of force. I believe that the Government experienced a genuine dilemma in that regard. If they were to restore President Kabbah by some

  915
  form of military means, they had two options. They could accept support from a Nigerian regime that was a pariah in the international community, including the Commonwealth; or—and this option was undoubtedly bound up with the Sandline contract—they could arm the Kamajors in Sierra Leone.
  Understandably, that second option was queasily opposed by those in the Foreign Office—rightly, in my view. I believe, and document after document states, that it would have been wrong to arm, or rearm, the Kamajors, because that would have inflamed and accentuated the civil war. That is made clear by a number of statements, and by documents from the Cabinet Office. The Sandline contract, however, was designed to do precisely that: arm the Kamajors. Whether or not there was a breach of the UN embargo, the Sandline contract certainly constituted a breach of Government policy in every meaningful sense, and that is one of the saddest aspects of the affair.
  In his evidence to the Committee, Mr. Spicer of Sandline pleaded ignorance of the UN arms embargo. That is curious. On 2 March, in a letter to President Kabbah describing the difficulty that he had experienced in delivering the contract, Mr. Spicer invoked the embargo as the obstacle. That was before any Customs raid had taken place. I view some of the pleas of total ignorance with a degree of incredulity.
  Like everyone else, however, I feel that the issues must be seen in the broader context of the terrible tragedy of Sierra Leone itself. Diamonds and mercenaries have not proved to be Sierra Leone's best friends, in any sense. If there is another lesson that we can learn, it is that we should act on the whole question of arms brokerage and mercenary activity. It worries me that the idea that mercenaries could or should be used legitimately in certain circumstances is being mooted in fashionable quarters. Experts have said as much on television. It is being suggested that we should return to an earlier age of privatised warfare. If the privatisation of war is to be the bequest of the late 20th century to the 21st, that will constitute an horrific illustration of how little we have learned from our history.
  I hope that, when the arguments are over, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, and the Government, will find time to promote, wherever possible, a broader international consensus on how mercenary activity should be dealt with. The position is extraordinary. How in the name of heaven did Ukrainian mercenaries manage to reach Sierra Leone? We know, or suspect, how they were paid—they were paid in diamonds, in one way or another—but how did they get there? What was the chain, and what international connivance allowed it to happen? In the answer to those questions lies one of the important lessons that can be learned from the whole affair.
  I hope that my right hon. Friend will not mind my making a final observation about the mild irony of the conjunction of certain circumstances. One of his early acts in government was to commission the FCO historian to write a definitive account of an earlier Foreign Office mystery, the mystery of the Zinoviev letter; and one of the most interesting aspects of that paper, which makes fascinating reading, is the title chosen by that chief historian in the FCO to describe the 1924 mystery—"A Most Extraordinary and Mysterious Business". It is not a bad epitaph for Sierra Leone.
  5.56 pm
  Sir John Stanley: I am pleased to be able to follow the pertinent and experienced speech of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), with much of which I agreed. I shall devote most of my own speech to what I regard as the most neglected aspect of the affair: the Government's overall policy on Sierra Leone.
  I want to make two observations relating to the Select Committee report. One concerns officials, the other Ministers. When the Foreign Secretary made his statement about the Legg report on 27 July last year, he said at the outset that he was making it on the first available sitting day following his receipt of the report. He is to be commended on his promptness in coming to the House.
  I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman had time to read the report from cover to cover, but I would not be surprised—I do not say this in any spirit of criticism—if he had been unable to read in full the Legg key documents, 1 to 123. The Committee, of course, had the benefit of access to those documents. I think it most unlikely that, if the Foreign Secretary had had time to read them in full, he would have chosen to single out in his statement one official in the Foreign Office, the British high commissioner Mr. Peter Penfold, and to name him in the House for public reprimand—a naming that was carried extensively in that evening's television bulletins.
  A valuable aspect of the Select Committee's report is the fact that the Committee managed to rebalance, at official level, the issue of where responsibility lay. It is patent that, where there were failures, they were not exclusively the responsibility of Mr. Peter Penfold; there were serious official failures elsewhere in the Department, going right up to the permanent under-secretary. It is important to note that a greater degree of justice has been done to Mr. Penfold in that respect.
  Mr. Eric Illsley: I think that the right hon. Gentleman and I will disagree on this point. What was Mr. Penfold doing when he was holding meetings with mercenaries throughout the Christmas holiday, when he was back in the United Kingdom? That is the $64,000 question: why was he negotiating, or dealing, with mercenaries?
  Sir John Stanley: The answer to that question will be clear when I turn to my second point—the responsibility of Ministers—but Mr. Peter Penfold was by no means alone among Foreign Office officials in having contacts with Sandline International.
  It is abundantly clear, indeed indisputable, that what impaled the Foreign Office on the Sandline International affair was the decision, which was conscious and deliberate, to misdescribe the arms embargo policy. I am in no doubt that all the diplomatic service officials who have been before us are men and women of integrity, and that, if all the officials concerned had been clear that the arms embargo applied to all the parties to the Sierra Leone crisis, including the Government of President Kabbah in exile in Guinea, the Foreign Office would not have become involved in Sandline International's activities. It was the misdescription of the policy that lay at the heart of the Foreign Office's difficulties.
  The misdescription started at an early stage and continued from the autumn of 1997 through the rest of that year to the time when President Kabbah was restored.

  917
  It is not adequate to say that officials were responsible for the misdescription of the policy. Ministers are responsible for policy and its presentation. It was not simply an external matter. The misdescription was carried through into the internal communications of the Foreign Office.
  Three Ministers were associated with the misdescription: the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary, and the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd). As chair of the Commonwealth Heads of Government conference in October, the Prime Minister must take responsibility to a degree for the fact that the communiqué of 27 October misdescribed the arms embargo policy. Indeed, if that communiqué had correctly described the policy—if President Kabbah had known what the real policy of the British Government was—I am certain that President Kabbah, who had attended the conference by invitation, even though he was no longer in government in Freetown, and had been delighted to be at that conference, would have been furious. As Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Gentleman must, without question, have been associated with and played a role in approving the communiqué at the end of the conference.
  I found extraordinary the way in which the Foreign Secretary sought to dismiss the Minister of State's description of the arms embargo on 12 March last year. Far from being irrelevant, 12 March was a critical date in relation to making it clear to whom the arms embargo applied because, two days previously, on 10 March, President Kabbah had been restored to Freetown. The arms embargo applied to the very Government who were now in post in Freetown. Therefore, if there had been a time in Parliament when it was necessary to make it clear that the arms embargo applied to President Kabbah, it was precisely that moment on 12 March.
  I find it singularly unattractive and somewhat distasteful that throughout, Ministers have sought, on the Floor of the House and in evidence before the Foreign Affairs Committee, to lay the blame for the misdescription of the policy at the door of officials. It is unacceptable that, on such a central issue, Ministers have not accepted their responsibility for the misdescription.
  Mr. Gapes: The right hon. Gentleman has long experience of being a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee. Indeed, he and I served on the Committee for five years in the previous Parliament. It is in that context that I want to ask him to confirm that the conclusions of the Foreign Affairs Committee report on Sierra Leone do not criticise Ministers, whereas he, my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) and I were on the Committee in 1994, when, with a Conservative majority, it produced a report on the Pergau dam that explicitly condemned Ministers, including the former Secretary of State for Defence, for their behaviour with regard to the House and for the way in which they had dealt with that matter. Will he confirm that the latest Select Committee report does not specifically condemn Ministers?
  Sir John Stanley: I am delighted to agree with the hon. Gentleman that, in the previous Parliament—and I do not wish to be called out of order—the Conservative Members on the Foreign Affairs Committee, who were in
  918
  a substantial majority, unshakeably did their duty to criticise the then Executive. As for Ministers and the latest report, he will see from the proceedings section that a number of amendments were tabled. They were voted down in some circumstances, but, even with the report as published, it is far from true to say that it is free of criticism of Ministers. The Select Committee makes it clear that half-truths are unacceptable and that half-truths are one of the central issues.
  Mr. Insley: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Sir John Stanley: I know that other hon. Members want to speak in the debate and I am anxious to help them, but I will give way once more.
  Mr. Insley: The right hon. Gentleman referred to misdescription, as has the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), who refused to give way earlier on the same point. Following parliamentary questions that were tabled by me and by one of my colleagues, it became apparent that, from 1979 to the present, Orders in Council confirming United Nations embargoes in relation to various countries had described policy and been circulated in exactly the same manner as they have been by the present Government. Therefore, in terms of misdescription, the Government appear to be doing nothing different from previous Governments.
  Sir John Stanley: Based on a written answer that the Select Committee received, I agree with the hon. Gentleman. The practice had always been to circulate United Nations Security Council resolutions in toto, rather than the Orders in Council themselves. That policy has been stated by Ministers. It has, apparently, been a long-standing practice. However, I am not aware of a previous occasion when Ministers have described, as they need to do in a single sentence or two, the ambit of the criminal law on an arms embargo conspicuously inaccurately.
  I move to my central point: the issue of Sierra Leone policy, which has been seriously neglected. The Foreign Secretary spoke as if the British Government's policy was the most committed of any country towards the restoration of the democratic regime of President Kabbah. The right hon. Gentleman, perhaps not for the first time, was highly selective in his description. It applied to the period from March 1998 onwards, after President Kabbah was restored to power.
  The following question is central to the debate: what was the British Government's policy between May 1997, when President Kabbah was ousted, and March 1998, when he was restored to power? That is the critical period for the purposes of the report.
  The policy was established within a matter of weeks of the ousting of President Kabbah. As far as I am aware, the policy was stated for the very first time in the written answer that the Minister of State gave me on 11 July 1997, at column 625. It was the first time on which it was explained that the Government's policy was based on a peaceful solution to the crisis. That policy, having been stated, became set in stone. It was, of course, reflected in the terms of the United Nations Security Council resolution, and continued to be repeated right up to the point at which President Kabbah was restored to power.

  919
  The question that I have to ask is how realistic was that policy? Military juntas—particularly an extremely nasty military junta like the one in Sierra Leone—do not have a very good track record of going peacefully out of power, and that junta was absolutely no exception. After going through all the Legg documentation, I have seen not one piece of evidence that the British Government's policy of peaceful solution had any impact on the junta's policy. I do not believe that the policy ever had any chance of success. It was doomed to failure from the outset, and fail it did. President Kabbah was restored not because of British Government policy but in spite of British Government policy.
  Some officials, of course, became increasingly concerned about whether the policy could be sustained. However, it was what Ministers decided to do. It was their policy; it was a cul-de-sac, leading nowhere.
  If I make those criticisms, hon. Members are perfectly entitled to come back at me and ask, "What should the policy have been?" I do not agree with the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney that there were only two options—either continue the policy of peaceful solution, or arm the Kamajors. The third option, which I believe is the one that should have been followed, was not to send in British troops—as I believe that there was absolutely no case for putting at risk in that particular theatre the lives of British service men and service women—but to give logistical and intelligence support to ECOMOG. It is the very policy that is now being followed.
  As the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney made it clear, there was a significant point of difficulty in that policy. As we know, the difficulty was that ECOMOG was Nigerian-forces led. Moreover, we are talking now about the Nigeria of Abacha.
  We have a Government who are committed to an ethical foreign policy. I say that with absolutely no disparagement. Ethical considerations are a very important dimension to all foreign policy, and formed part of the previous Government's foreign policy. Two ethical issues were in conflict in the matter. The Government had the option either of continuing with a policy that led nowhere, or of "swallowing the pill" in giving logistical and military support to ECOMOG and achieving their prime ethical objective: restoration of the democratically elected Government of President Kabbah. I believe that the latter option is the one that should have been followed.
  Sadly beyond doubt is the fact that, in Sierra Leone, between May 1997 and March 1998, we saw—certainly not for the first time this century—something that has happened previously under both Conservative and Labour Governments: foreign policy being driven by wishful thinking, rather than by recognition of the harsh realities. Once again, it resulted in failure.
  6.14 pm
  Ms Diane Abbott: I should like to touch on what the Select Committee's report reveals about issues in the relationship between Government and Select Committees. Although the debate has so far been more about implementation of policy rather than its substance—for which we might be criticised—policy implementation is key both to government and to the reality of government. A three-hour debate spent in examining those issues is therefore warranted.
  920
  Obscured by all the sound and fury surrounding the Select Committee's report is the fact that it was a Labour report, which every Labour member of the Committee, and our Liberal Democrat colleague on it, signed. Despite all the talk about partisanship and party political interests, the fact is that it was a Labour report—making it all the more remarkable that there was such fear of it, such a need to have sight of it before the embargo was lifted, and such a need to rubbish it precipitately. It really is extraordinary that a Labour report should excite so much antagonism from a Labour Government.
  There never was a golden era in the relationship between Select Committees and Government. For eight years, I served on the Treasury Committee, under the distinguished chairmanship of a series of Tory Chairmen. Let us be quite clear that the previous Government could be just as ruthless and manipulative in their relationship with Select Committees as the Government have been in the past 18 months.
  There never was a golden era in the relationship. None the less, when a Government have the majority that my Government have, and when—with the greatest respect to my colleagues—an Opposition are as weak as the current one, the role of Select Committees, as part of the system of checks and balances and of scrutiny, deserves, and perhaps currently is, receiving, far greater emphasis than before.
  When a Government have a large majority and a command and control attitude to governance, Select Committees should play a key role in acting as a check and a balance, and in enabling Government policy to be subject to proper scrutiny and examination.
  One criticism of the Foreign Affairs Committee was that it produced its report with the benefit of hindsight. I tell Ministers that producing reports in that manner is the exact role of Select Committees. They should consider past events and draw conclusions—which is what the Foreign Affairs Committee quite correctly did in its report.
  In the Treasury Committee, we had our fair share of gut-wrenchingly sycophantic Government questioners of Ministers. We had our fair share of reports containing rather bland recommendations, because party political conflicts could not be resolved. We had our fair share also of Chairmen who turned up on the "Today" programme to act as apologists for the Government. However, in that Committee, certainly in the eight years that I served on it, we were always clear about the fact that we were a Committee of the House. We were not an arm of Government.
  I should add that, although some things happened in that Select Committee that should not have happened, I served under several Tory Chairmen who were scrupulous in not using their chairmanship to act as apologists for the Government. As a Committee—which included some interesting characters—we were always clear that we were our own Committee, that we were a Committee of the House and that we chose our own agenda. Although some of the recommendations in our reports were fudged, they were always—throughout the Parliaments in which we served—substantial reports in which we made clear arguments.
  At the beginning of this Parliament, I was removed from the Treasury Committee. Why? I do not know. Perhaps it was felt that, as I had served on it for eight

  921
  years, I might just be capable of making a speech on Treasury matters without a brief from Millbank. Of course, that would never do.
  Mr. Mackinlay: It will be the Catering Committee for you next.
  Ms Abbott: Perhaps, if I am here after the next general election. However, as long as I am an hon. Member, I intend to fulfil my role as an independent Back Bencher.
  I was removed from the Treasury Committee and appointed to the Foreign Affairs Committee, under the very distinguished chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson). However, as soon as I was appointed to the Foreign Affairs Committee—despite the manifold experience, expertise and brilliance of my colleagues—I sensed in the air something that was very different from the atmosphere in which the Treasury Committee had operated. It was the notion that, in some sense, the Foreign Affairs Committee was a branch of the Foreign Office. During my first few weeks on the Select Committee I was charmed and delighted that the entire Committee was called to lunch with the Foreign Secretary. In my eight years on the Treasury Committee we had never been called to lunch with a Treasury Minister. We all trooped into lunch and the Foreign Secretary gave us the benefit of his views on what we should be doing. It turned out that he thought that we should be travelling to far-flung corners of the globe and staying there and building good personal relationships with obscure Wisconsin Congressmen.
  I was interested to hear the Foreign Secretary's views on what the Select Committee should be doing, but I was not entirely clear what business it was of his. I am afraid that it was my voice that piped up at that lunch, as it has at many subsequent Committee meetings, to say to the Foreign Secretary, "We are a Committee of the House and it is not clear to me why you are giving us the benefit of your thoughts on what we should be doing."
  That is not a criticism of any colleagues or even of any Ministers, but I just caught in the air a sense that the Committee was some sort of branch of the Foreign Office and that we were good for entertaining 10th ranking dignitaries from obscure central European states and that was about it. Having served for eight years on a different sort of Select Committee, I came to the Foreign Affairs Committee with the clear notion that, above all, we had to struggle for our independence and to be taken seriously.
  It is not enough for colleagues to wail about the Sierra Leone affair and about the fact that the Tories are making political capital out of it. What on earth are we to expect Tories to do? It is their job. Ministers must understand why they are back on the Floor of the House two years after the event having to answer for their activities.
  Some unkind members on the committee—not me or my colleagues—refer to some of the Ministers' aides-de-camp as Haldeman and Erlichman. I will not do that today. If one asks Ministers—even if one were to ask Haldeman and Erlichman—they will say that this issue has run on because the Tories are making political capital. Hello, what are the Opposition supposed to do? If they are asked again, they might say that someone is a troublemaker or that someone is bitter because he or she
  922
  is not a Minister. The one thing that Ministers and their aides-de-camp will not address is the very real issue about the relationship between the Executive and the legislature that has been raised in the long-running battle between the Select Committee and the Government.
  For as long as they content themselves with ad hominem attacks, things will not change. I was telephoned by a journalist yesterday who told me that people at the Foreign Office have an arsenal of personal information that they want to release about me as part of a fight-back against the Foreign Affairs Committee. I must tell the House—it is no big secret—that, since having my son seven years ago, I have led a private life of stupefying dullness, but I wish them luck in their attempt. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) may laugh.
  The problem that Ministers have with the Select Committee does not concern individuals, and it is not about bad luck or about the Opposition wilfully doing what they are supposed to do, which is to oppose. It is their own unwillingness to recognise that Select Committees have a right, an obligation and a duty to act independently. They have a duty to determine their own agenda. On Sierra Leone, the Select Committee had a duty to produce the report that it did. It was wrong and provocative of Ministers to imply that we did not need to produce the report, that we discovered nothing new and that the report was in some sense worthless. That is not the way to build a constructive relationship with the Select Committee.
  Much has been said about the content of the report, which is important, but my argument to the House and to Labour colleagues is that if Ministers learn nothing by having to turn up and answer for themselves so long after the event, they must learn something about the right way to conduct relationships with the legislature. Select Committees are not an arm of Government. I shall touch on some of the pressure points of the relationship between Select Committees and the Government on which it is worth my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench reflecting.
  Under this Government—it is not a new phenomenon, but it is intensified—we have seen an attempt to make the Whips Office writ run inside Select Committee meetings. We have had undue interference—it is passed now but I want to put it on the record—about who should be the Chair of Select Committees. I served on the Treasury Committee for eight years. During every Parliament we got winks and nods about who the usual channels had agreed should be the Chair. Twice running, my Select Committee ignored those winks and nods and we made our own choice. The Whips knew that they could advise, hint and suggest, but they could not make us appoint a Chair whom we did not want. I know of a Select Committee—it was not mine—where the Labour Whips went as far as holding a meeting inside the Committee Room prior to the Committee's first meeting. They had a vote on who should be Chairman and bound Labour Members to it in order to ram through the Chair of their choice.
  Another issue—I have mentioned it but I will raise it again—is the notion that the Government can determine what Select Committees can or should investigate. It is for Select Committees to decide what to investigate. It is not proper for Ministers to maintain pressure on Select Committees saying, "We do not think that you should be

  923
  investigating this. Anybody who votes for investigating this is an enemy of the regime". That is not proper and it is not an aid to good government.
  Sir John Stanley: I am listening carefully to the hon. Lady. Does she agree that, on this occasion, the Chairmen designate of Select Committees were announced by her party before the Select Committees had even met?
  Ms Abbott: I am always very careful about what I say on the Floor of the House. I was not present at the meeting of the parliamentary Labour party where that was done. Labour colleagues who were present might want to comment.
  I have talked about a concerted effort to make the Whips writ run in the Select Committee. That is wholly improper and undermines the basis on which Select Committees operate. I have talked about an attempt to determine what Select Committees can inquire into. Finally, the Foreign Affairs Committee suffered ad nauseam from people, presumably loyal to their Government, seeking to advance the Government's cause not by engaging in the arguments that the Select Committee is making, but by rubbishing the work of the Select Committee and the individuals who serve on it. Where has it got people? It has meant that two years later individuals are having to account for themselves on the Floor of the House.
  It was a privilege to serve on the Treasury Committee and it is a privilege to serve on the Foreign Affairs Committee. I have had the honour of serving under a number of distinguished Chairs, including the current Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee. The Government see Select Committees as an irritant, an obstacle and a problem that must somehow be brought under the command and control structure. I believe that Select Committees can enhance the work of the Government. I believe that they can help to make government more transparent and more accountable and be a factor in producing better government. After all, is not better government what we are all about?
  6.29 pm
  Mr. Crispin Blunt: The hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley) have made clear the effective role of Select Committees under the previous Government.
  Before I begin my remarks I want to follow a hare that was set running by the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson). He made a disgraceful allegation that has wide currency in the Scott affair and the arms to Iraq affair. He said that Ministers under the previous Government were prepared to see innocent business men go to prison. That is absolutely and totally untrue. When the defence in a criminal trial have discovery of documents, if those documents are classified, it is the duty of Ministers to sign public interest immunity certificates, in the knowledge that the judge in the case will see the documents and reach a conclusion as to whether they are pertinent to the defence. If they are, they will be given to the defence. I hope that the hon. Gentleman, who is a fair man, does not believe that Ministers for whom I worked—I have direct knowledge of the issue—would have contemplated putting themselves in such a position.
  924
  Last Wednesday, when the Foreign Secretary made his latest statement on Sierra Leone, I did not catch Madam Speaker's eye. The right hon. Gentleman challenged Ministers from the previous Government to say that they had not seen early copies of Select Committee reports.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. Madam Speaker has made a ruling that I have reiterated: we should not talk about the leak. It has been mentioned in passing, but we should not talk about it. We should just talk about the motion and the amendment before us.
  Mr. Blunt: I wanted to refer to it in passing, simply to say that under the—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should take my advice and deal with the motion. The House knows what to do.
  Mr. Blunt: Under the tenure of the previous Foreign Secretary, a Rolls-Royce Department performed as a Rolls-Royce. It did not stagger from one own goal to the next. The permanent under-secretary was generally happy in the discharge of his duties. There were no rumours of Sir John Coles saying that he would not go before a Committee of the House again to cover up for his ministerial masters after yet another mauling from the Foreign Affairs Committee.
  Mr. Insley: There have already been two or three references during the debate to the Scott report and the Pergau dam inquiry. How can the hon. Gentleman say that under the previous Government the Foreign Office did not have problems and crises?
  Mr. Blunt: Let us make the comparison. The Foreign Secretary has been in office for as long as his predecessor was. Under his predecessor, the Foreign Office dealt with issues such as the Hong Kong handover, the intergovernmental conference and the Bosnia Dayton accord, to name but three. It did not stagger from one crisis to the next. There were not controversies week after week over foreign affairs.
  Why has the conduct of foreign policy changed? Why has the Rolls-Royce of a Department been reduced to an old banger, in the words of the Chairman of the Select Committee? The answer is ministerial leadership. That goes to the heart of the objective of new Labour—to be all things to all men. As soon as he came to office, the Foreign Secretary launched his ethical dimension to foreign policy. The contradictions were immediately and cruelly exposed on exports to Indonesia and on Kashmir. There was no suggestion under the previous Foreign Secretary of a state visit becoming a foreign policy disaster.
  Even in opposition, when the right hon. Gentleman addressed a meeting of largely Indian British citizens in Southall he told them that Kashmir was part of India. He was received with cheers. When the point was put to him afterwards, he denied it. Unfortunately—
  Mr. Gapes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have been looking at the Select Committee report, but I

  925
  cannot see any reference to Kashmir. Is it in order to have a debate on Kashmir when we are supposed to be debating Sierra Leone?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): It is the responsibility of the hon. Member who is speaking to debate the motion that is before the House.
  Mr. Blunt: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am debating the conduct of foreign policy that has led to this shambles over Sierra Leone and goodness knows how many others. Policy towards Kashmir is a classic example of the Government's desire to be all things to all men. That is why they are incapable of giving leadership and why a Rolls-Royce of a Department has ended up as an old banger. Kashmir is a good example. The Foreign Secretary had to backtrack from what he said to an Indian audience in Southall. The Pakistani high commissioner then had to go to the Labour party conference in Blackpool to write Labour's policy statement.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman returned to the subject of Sierra Leone.
  Mr. Blunt: In returning to the subject of Sierra Leone, perhaps I could touch on other areas, such as the Gulf and Kosovo, on which the Government do not have means and ends aligned in a way that will result in the execution of British foreign policy. Sierra Leone is a classic example of the Government willing the ends but not the means. The Government's policy was the peaceful restoration of the Kabbah Government. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling elegantly explained why that policy could not succeed. Peter Penfold knew that. Tim Spicer knew that. President Kabbah knew that. The United Nations legal secretariat knew that when it interpreted Security Council resolution 1132.
  The first failure of ministerial leadership was the fact that resolution 1132 sought to be all things to all men and could be interpreted differently by United Nations legal advisers in New York and legal advisers for the Foreign Office. The problem was drafted into an international text because the Government attempted to be all things to all men.
  The practitioners knew the harsh truth that only military force would remove an unpleasant military junta from rule in Sierra Leone. The Minister denied that reality. His repeatedly expressed visceral distaste for private military companies spoke volumes about his inability to face the facts about what was required to restore the situation in Sierra Leone.
  The irony is that Sandline was central to President Kabbah's restoration to power in early 1998. The December attack by ECOMOG failed. Only when ECOMOG had the benefit of the decent military advice and staff planning supplied by Sandline under contract from President Kabbah was its subsequent attack on Freetown a success.
  There was confusion throughout the Government about the objectives. The Under-Secretary of State for International Development is on the Front Bench at the moment. His Department gave £250,000 for communications equipment to President Kabbah during
  926
  his exile. That equipment was used to broadcast invitations to the Kamajors in Sierra Leone to rise up in military revolt, in contradiction of the stated British policy of peaceful restoration of the Government. The confusion sown by ministerial leadership had the absurd result of a company that had briefed Ministers in London and the high commissioner on the ground being investigated by other officials of the Crown.
  Mr. Mackinlay: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Blunt: I do not have time.
  The cavilling, confused language in Security Council resolution 1132, typical of policy pursued by the Government, started them on the road to trouble. The hand-wringing, stuttering uncertainty in dealing with that difficult, bloody situation that has been characteristic of the Minister's handling has led to the problems. The delivery of the humanitarian, democratic and British interest was obstructed by the Government's agonies over the means that they needed to adopt to secure the ends.
  The Government endorsed the end, but they were not prepared to face up to the means. No wonder Peter Penfold and Sandline were confused about the Government's position. They were the heroes of the shambles—people who were prepared to act to achieve the agreed and desirable objective. The Prime Minister endorsed Peter Penfold when he first became aware of the affair.
  Peter Penfold and Sandline pursued their goals through a sea of cavilling Ministers and officials, few of whom acted with courage and decisiveness, or accepted responsibility. The primary objective of Ministers and many officials has been to cover their backs. That characterised the Foreign Secretary's handling of the reports. The horrifying harshness of what was happening in Sierra Leone was accompanied by Ministers trying to face in all directions at once.
  Since 1 May 1997, the Foreign Office has had disastrous personal leadership from Ministers. That is why the Rolls-Royce has been reduced to the status of an old banger. The Foreign Secretary and the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), should consider their positions.
  6.40 pm
  Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: I in no way underestimate the cycle of violence in Sierra Leone. Some hon. Members have sought to diminish our interest in the plight of the people in that country. We say that the situation is desperate, and any effort to relieve the suffering of the people of Sierra Leone will be supported by Conservative Members.
  The contributions to this debate have been well-informed and have shown care and diligence. We have heard distinguished contributions from my right hon. Friends the Members for East Devon (Sir P. Emery) and for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley) and from my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt). My right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling made a superb speech and went into the details of the Government's contortions and the flaws in their policy towards Sierra Leone.
  Even more telling, though, were the contributions from Government Members. The hon. Members for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) and for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney

  927
  (Mr. Rowlands)—distinguished members of the Select Committee—seemed very willing to wound the beast but not to deliver the coup de grace; but the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) proved once again her superb independence. If she will permit me, I will pay her a compliment: she is charming but lethal.
  I am sorry that we did not have more time to accommodate all the hon. Members who wanted to contribute. We have spent three hours debating one of the most scathing reports ever published by a Select Committee on the workings of a Department.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. George Foulkes): The hon. Lady has not been here very long.
  Mrs. Gillan: I have been here long enough to know a Government who are a shambles when I see one, and in the past two years my eyes have certainly been opened by the Labour Government.
  The Select Committee report was compiled in what could almost be described as a hostile environment. It says:
  "Our inquiry has given a unique insight into the working, or lack of working in this case, of the FCO machine."
  The report goes on to say:
  "It has exposed even further a story which the FCO would have preferred not to have had besmirch its reputation."
  The Foreign Secretary did not want the report to see the light of day but, thanks to the Committee's determination, it has been published and the whole House can draw its conclusions on the sorry affair from both the Select Committee report and the Legg report.
  The reputation of the Foreign Office has indeed been besmirched, and the Foreign Secretary and the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd) have betrayed the trust placed in them, that they would at the very least conduct the foreign affairs of this country in a competent fashion, finish the paperwork and deal in whole truths, not half-truths: a trust that we can, sadly, no longer place safely in them.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) spelled out the main indictments. Like him, I will not dwell on the serious questions of integrity raised by the revelation that the Foreign Secretary, by foul means rather than fair, received four weeks' advance warning of the content of the Select Committee report—that will be investigated by others, as Madam Speaker said—but I will reiterate the specific criticisms that Ministers have sought to brush off and evade in another fine example of the "Not me, guv" society, as practised to perfection by the Government.
  At first, the Government tried to frustrate the work of the Committee, as the hon. Member for Swansea, East and my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon said. The report says:
  "The Committee's interest in Sierra Leone continued, but was impeded"—
  yes, impeded—
  "by the refusal of the Government to release to the Committee, firstly telegrams concerning Sierra Leone and secondly … the information which fell within the ambit of the Legg inquiry."
  928
  When the Committee's persistence prevailed, Ministers yet again sought to impede its progress.
  The report states:
  "We have again encountered some frustrations. Our original request to hear three of the officials involved in the affair was met by a proposal that we should take evidence from only one of them."
  In the end, a compromise of taking evidence from two officials was agreed on.
  The Committee's request to see relevant intelligence reports and take evidence—in private—from the head of the Secret Intelligence Service was refused. Is that open government, or an ethical position? No. The report says:
  "This sounds very much like a Minister determined to defend his own position."
  As my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon said, the contrast with the attitudes of other Departments is striking. The Chief of Defence Intelligence was allowed to appear before the Committee, and the director general of the Security Service was allowed to brief the Home Affairs Committee. Even the hon. Member for Swansea, East condemned the lack of access afforded to his Committee. I leave the House to draw its own inevitable conclusions about the Foreign Secretary's actions and whether they were designed to help or to obstruct the inquiry.
  Ministers would prefer to interpret the reports as laying the blame at the door of officials. The Foreign Secretary said:
  "I would perfectly happily accept any criticisms of myself … but there are none."—[Official Report, 27 July 1998; Vol. 317, c. 28.]
  That really will not wash. Even the Legg report concludes that
  "the officials concerned were working hard and conscientiously, and should not be judged too harshly."
  Officials made mistakes, no doubt, but so did Ministers. The Select Committee report concludes that the Government's policy on the arms embargo was stated in a way that could mislead Parliament, the public and even the Foreign Office's own staff into thinking that the arms embargo applied only to one side of the warring factions: the junta.
  The Legg report lays the blame squarely at the Government's door, saying that it is the Government's responsibility to give citizens, and even their own officials, a reasonable explanation of the laws that they make under delegated powers, especially when those laws create a serious criminal offence: in this case, an offence punishable by up to seven years' imprisonment.
  The Legg report says that no such explanation was given. Instead, the impression was given in communications that the embargo applied only to the junta. As Legg concludes, British officials and Ministers
  "continued to play this aspect down."
  Ministers patently failed to give a clear and full explanation, preferring to deal in half-truths, not whole truths.
  If we need further confirmation of that, we need look only as far as the Foreign Secretary, who said, of the telegram that advised key diplomatic staff of the extent of the arms embargo, that it was
  "quite plainly wrong that this telegram did not make it clearer what was the full scope of the resolution."

  929
  I hope that the Minister will deal with the point raised by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe and tell us what his response is to the Foreign Secretary telling us that his answer of 12 March was "quite plainly wrong".
  The Committee report reinforces ministerial culpability when it refers to the Foreign Office's dealings with Sandline. By way of a final indictment of ministerial behaviour, it says that
  "many of the problems which occurred would not have done so … If Ministers had made their policy on dealing with mercenaries clearer to officials."
  What picture do we paint of Foreign Office Ministers and their competence? It is a very sorry picture of bungling and buck passing. We have a Foreign Secretary who does not finish the paperwork; a Foreign Secretary who deals in the dangerous commodity of half-truths, and is quite content to do so; a Foreign Secretary who should hang his head in shame, but who could not even come to the Dispatch Box today to utter one word of apology for the mess over which he has presided. As his own permanent under-secretary put it:
  "The revelation of this mess, which is not a pretty sight, has not been a very enjoyable experience."
  He is a master of understatement.
  The Foreign Secretary and his Ministers are, and should be, accountable to this House for their policies and their Department's actions. The Foreign Secretary has shown today that he is too arrogant to accept that responsibility, and that "sorry" is a word sadly lacking from his vocabulary. That should be a matter of grave concern in all quarters of this House.
  What a shambles—our once-proud foreign service has been brought to its knees after less than two years by a group of incompetent and arrogant Ministers. We are supposed to have an ethical foreign policy, yet by the handling of the Select Committee report and its endeavours to inquire into the facts surrounding the Sierra Leone affair, and through the lack of respect for the responsibilities of this House, the Foreign Secretary has shown that he does not know the meaning of the word ethical.
  The Foreign Secretary is a man with a mindset; a man who believes that nothing is his fault; who says that if there is fault, it is not his; a man who obstructs investigation and resists all criticism so that he fails completely to see the chaos that he leaves around him. Tonight we are, first, asking Ministers to take responsibility for their actions—and I hope that the Minister will use the word "sorry" in his speech tonight—and, secondly, demonstrating our support for the Select Committee and its report. I ask all right-minded hon. Members to do the same, and to demonstrate their belief in the Select Committee system and it scrutinising role by voting with us tonight. We believe that the Select Committee was right, and its report catalogues an extended episode of incompetence by the Government. By this report, the Government stand rightly condemned.
  6.52 pm
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tony Lloyd): Into my constituency advice bureau a couple of weeks ago came a woman—a British
  930
  resident, who is from Sierra Leone. She told me a story about her husband, who had custody of their two children and was living in Sierra Leone. It was reported that he had been found on the streets of Freetown with his stomach shot out. He was alive and taken to hospital, but subsequently died. Obviously, her concern was a human one, and my concern for her, as my constituent, was a human one.
  Another constituent received news recently of his two daughters in Sierra Leone. One, aged 15, and her aunt—who was looking after her—were the victims of a mass rape by members of the junta. She was then physically abused. The other sister is now missing in that country, and there is no trace of her. I can tell the House many stories of similar atrocities.
  The Opposition claimed to talk about Sierra Leone today. However, the shadow Foreign Secretary—in a speech of nearly 20 minutes—spent a little over one minute on the issue of Sierra Leone. That is simply not doing justice to this House, or to any concept of British foreign policy.
  The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) said that the Opposition would support the Government on those occasions when our policy was designed to relieve human suffering. However, in the years between the coup taking place in Sierra Leone and President Kabbah moving back to Sierra Leone, no questions were tabled by the official Opposition—except for one, tabled by the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley). I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on speaking for the whole Conservative party for all that time.
  As no party politics were involved, the shadow Foreign Secretary had no policy at all. That is the reality. I invite the right hon. and learned Gentleman to come to the Dispatch Box any time during my speech—but with this proviso. Will he make clear why his party tabled one question relating to policy specific to Sierra Leone, and many questions on matters of purely party political interest? Will he also say whether he endorses the views of the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt)—who, at least, spoke a little about Sierra Leone?
  Sadly, the hon. Member for Reigate talked entirely about supporting the role of mercenaries. Does the policy of the Conservative party, now it is in opposition, depend on the espousal of the use of mercenaries—people who have destroyed Sierra Leone and parts of west Africa; ripped the diamonds out of that area; killed those whom they are paid to kill; and worked on either side?
  Mr. Keith Simpson: Disgraceful!
  Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman is quite right—it is disgraceful. It is disgraceful that the hon. Member for Reigate could make such a speech in this House.
  During their period of control of Sierra Leone the rebels received no condemnation from the Opposition. Now, when they have been fighting a bitter campaign—abusing and maiming citizens—no criticism has been made in public by the Opposition. Does that not matter to the shadow Foreign Secretary? Does it not matter to the Opposition? During this debate, Conservative Members have, in total, spoken for well over an hour. Comments relating to Sierra Leone have totalled a little over seven minutes. That is what they are reduced to.

  931
  I normally admire the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell), but he dwelt very little on the substantive issues of Sierra Leone. I shall remember that in future when he wants to take a high moral tone.
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: I am not concerned with taking a high moral tone. I repeat what I said in my speech; I have already written to the Foreign Secretary, making exactly the point about the need to deal with Sierra Leone, both now and in the future.
  Mr. Tony Lloyd: I look forward to that letter and to support from, at least, the Liberal Democrats, for our policy.
  The right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling said that our policy could not succeed. When President Kabbah returned to Freetown last year, he spoke about three countries in particular which had given exemplary support to his regime, kept him going through the dark days and allowed him to return to his own country and lead a democratic Government. Britain was one of those countries—and, I must say, Nigeria was another.
  When General Abacha was the military dictator in Nigeria—doing things that we could not or would not want to work alongside—there was no question of our supporting Nigerian military intervention in Sierra Leone. That ought to have been unthinkable. I make no apology for that. I make no apology for the fact that our objectives were the restoration of democracy in Sierra Leone and to secure the return of the democratically elected President to Sierra Leone.
  I make no apology for the fact that we did not seek to do that with the intervention of Sandline. Sandline, as numerous people have said, is an irrelevance to the issue. Sandline—quite literally—was a sideline; a political convenience for the shadow Foreign Secretary, but a total irrelevance.
  Mr. Howard: The Minister of State has told us what he is not apologising for. Will he now apologise for the answer that he gave the House on 12 March using precisely the same language as that which was described by the Foreign Secretary as quite "plainly wrong"?
  Mr. Lloyd: The shadow Foreign Secretary is hardly the person to speak about half-truths, even in his last comments. Let me make two things clear. First, I answered no questions; I made a speech. I did so when President Kabbah's Government were already reinstated in Freetown. I spoke about the role that Britain had played. I spoke, rightly, about the way in which we helped to restrict arms to the rebels. For that, I make no apology.
  Secondly, let me tell the shadow Foreign Secretary something that he did not mention, although the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling seemed to know this. Not long afterwards, we were instrumental in having the Security Council resolution changed to allow the supply to the legal and democratic Government. I make no apology for that.
  Mr. Howard: Before the Security Council resolution was changed, the embargo applied to everyone connected with Sierra Leone, including President Kabbah's regime.
  932
  On 12 March the Minister told the House that the embargo was aimed at the junta—precisely the language that the Foreign Secretary said was quite "plainly wrong".
  Will the Minister of State address that point and apologise to the House for the quite plainly wrong answer that he gave on 12 March?
  Mr. Lloyd: That has obviously been a year's work for the shadow Foreign Secretary. I know that he is a talented lawyer, but he is not a very talented shadow Foreign Secretary. Let me help him a little. He got no support from his hon. Friends in the debate, except for one other Conservative speaker.
  The real question is whether the Government at any stage misled in a way that was germane. I quote the conclusion of the Foreign Affairs Committee, which stated:
  "It is the view of the Committee that Mr. Spicer should have known the law about arms sales to Sierra Leone."
  The Select Committee is quite clear about that. The central charge of the shadow Foreign Secretary's case is not sustained by the report that he is praying in aid in the motion against the Government. That is how little credibility he has.
  Mr. Howard: I shall try again, for the third or fourth time. It is a perfectly simple, straightforward question. The Minister of State told the House on 12 March that the embargo was aimed at the junta. The Foreign Secretary said that that language was quite "plainly wrong". He said that of language that was identical to that used by the Minister of State. Will the Minister now deal with the matter and apologise for the fact that the answer that he gave the House on 12 March was quite plainly wrong?
  Mr. Lloyd: Let me remind the shadow Foreign Secretary that I asked him to undertake to make certain comments of his own if he rose to speak at the Dispatch Box, which he signally failed to do. Nevertheless, I shall answer the question.
  That statement was not wrong. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has already made it clear once today that his comment was made in an entirely different context. That is the point. The shadow Foreign Secretary knows that he is dealing in half-truths. He is dealing in lawyers' words. He knows that he has no credibility outside the House when he speaks about Sierra Leone.
  Mr. Mackinlay rose—
  Mr. Lloyd: I shall say a little about what the British Government have been trying to achieve over recent months. [HON. MEMBERS: "Give way."] Let me tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman what we have been trying to achieve in the context of Sierra Leone.
  The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife said that the extra £10 million was comparable to the sum that Sandline was prepared to provide. I remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman that Sandline had no moneys of its own—it would have been paid through the mineral wealth of Sierra Leone. That was no act of grace by a military organisation, but a commercial transaction to steal that country's diamonds. We had no intention of dealing with mercenaries or with the expropriation of the mineral wealth of a poor country such as Sierra Leone.

  933
  The £10 million for Sierra Leone announced by the Foreign Secretary today is on top of the £24 million that has already been committed, and the £20 million that has been given for emergency aid, health care, education and to rebuild the shattered infrastructure of that country. It is on top of the £2 million given before Christmas and a further £2 million given since that time to ECOMOG for logistical support to make sure that Ghanaian troops are there fighting with Nigerian troops, and to make sure that they have the intelligence and communications to prosecute the war properly. We have partners in ECOMOG in whom we have trust.
  That is why we have made that commitment. That is why, if President Kabbah were to comment on the Governments from whom he has received support, Britain would rank high on the list. Britain has been pulling its weight and wants Sierra Leone to be secure. Britain is committed to the restoration of democracy. The Government have been responsible for that.
  Mr. Mackinlay rose—
  Mr. Lloyd: This has been an interesting debate. [HON. MEMBERS: "Give way."] It has revealed to us a shadow Foreign Secretary who has plenty of personal animus, but no policy whatever, and who cannot take the trouble to debate the real issues associated with Sierra Leone, beyond the party political debate.
  The Government will not apologise. We believe in democracy in Africa and seek to build that process. Along with our partners, we seek to ensure that the values of human rights—an ethical dimension to foreign policy—is at the core. The House will consider carefully the speeches that we have heard from the Opposition, and the Opposition motion, and will reject it.
  Mr. Mackinlay rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. Gentleman wish to raise a point of order? I understand that he does not. The Question is, That the original words stand part of the Question.
  Sir Peter Emery: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you inform me what time limit there is on the debate? If an hon. Member rises, it seems to me that he has the right to speak. There is no time limit, and he ought to be recognised.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is customary in the House, when we have had a full debate and hon. Members on both Front Benches have wound up, to put the Question to the House. That is what I intend to do.
  Sir Peter Emery: I understand only too well, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that certain procedures in the House are agreed by both sides. However, on an Opposition Day, it is for the Opposition to choose when the Division is to be called. If an hon. Member wants to speak, I believe that under Standing Orders he has the right so to do. He should be given that right, which is the right of any Back Bencher.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mr. Mackinlay, are you insistent that you wish to speak?
  Mr. Mackinlay: In view of the adversarial nature of the debate, I wanted to ask the Minister, and perhaps he
  934
  might respond, about recommendation 29 of the report, which urges the British Government to take initiatives at the United Nations, in the European Union and in Parliament to outlaw mercenaries operating from this country. I listened carefully to the Foreign Secretary and I do not think he said that that recommendation had been adopted. It would have been welcome if the Minister had said that the United Kingdom would take initiatives on the strength of that recommendation.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 171, Noes 336.

  Division No. 83]

  [7.10 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Allan, Richard

  Flight, Howard

  Amess, David

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Fraser, Christopher

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Gale, Roger

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Garnier, Edward

  Baker, Norman

  Gill, Christopher

  Ballard, Jackie

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Beggs, Roy

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Gray, James

  Bercow, John

  Green, Damian

  Blunt, Crispin

  Grieve, Dominic

  Body, Sir Richard

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Boswell, Tim

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Hammond, Philip

  Brady, Graham

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Brake, Tom

  Harvey, Nick

  Brazier, Julian

  Hawkins, Nick

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Heald, Oliver

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Burnett, John

  Horam, John

  Burstow, Paul

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Butterfill, John

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Cash, William

  Hunter, Andrew

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Chidgey, David

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Chope, Christopher

  Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Clappison, James

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Key, Robert

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Collins, Tim

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Colvin, Michael

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Lansley, Andrew

  Cotter, Brian

  Leigh, Edward

  Cran, James

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Lidington, David

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Duncan, Alan

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

  Evans, Nigel

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Madel, Sir David

  Faber, David

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Fabricant, Michael

  Malins, Humfrey

  Fallon, Michael

  Maples, John

  935

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Syms, Robert

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Moore, Michael

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Norman, Archie

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Oaten, Mark

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Ottaway, Richard

  Thompson, William

  Page, Richard

  Townend, John

  Paice, James

  Tredinnick, David

  Paterson, Owen

  Trend, Michael

  Pickles, Eric

  Tyler, Paul

  Prior, David

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Randall, John

  Viggers, Peter

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Walter, Robert

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Wardle, Charles

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Webb, Steve

  Ross, William (E Lond'y)

  Welsh, Andrew

  Ruffley, David

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Whittingdale, John

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Wilkinson, John

  Sanders, Adrian

  Willetts, David

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Willis, Phil

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

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

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Woodward, Shaun

  Soames, Nicholas

  Yeo, Tim

  Spring, Richard

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Steen, Anthony

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Streeter, Gary

  Mr. Stephen Day and

  Swayne, Desmond

  Mrs. Caroline Spelman.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Cann, Jamie

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Caplin, Ivor

  Ainger, Nick

  Casale, Roger

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Caton, Martin

  Allen, Graham

  Cawsey, Ian

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Chaytor, David

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Clapham, Michael

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Ashton, Joe

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Austin, John

  Coaker, Vernon

  Barnes, Harry

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Barron, Kevin

  Cohen, Harry

  Battle, John

  Coleman, Iain

  Bayley, Hugh

  Colman, Tony

  Beard, Nigel

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Cooper, Yvette

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Corbett, Robin

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Benton, Joe

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Cousins, Jim

  Berry, Roger

  Cranston, Ross

  Best, Harold

  Crausby, David

  Betts, Clive

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Blackman, Liz

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Cummings, John

  Blizzard, Bob

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Boateng, Paul

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

  Borrow, David

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Curtis—Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Browne, Desmond

  Dalyell, Tam

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Burden, Richard

  Darvill, Keith

  Burgon, Colin

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Davidson, Ian

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)

  Campbell—Savours, Dale

  Dawson, Hilton

  936

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Denham, John

  Dewar, Rt Hon Donald

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Dismore, Andrew

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Dobbin, Jim

  Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Doran, Frank

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Dowd, Jim

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Drew, David

  Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Edwards, Huw

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Efford, Clive

  Kidney, David

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Ennis, Jeff

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Etherington, Bill

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Fisher, Mark

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Lawrence, Ms Jackie

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  Laxton, Bob

  Flint, Caroline

  Lepper, David

  Flynn, Paul

  Leslie, Christopher

  Follett, Barbara

  Levitt, Tom

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Linton, Martin

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Livingstone, Ken

  Foulkes, George

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Fyfe, Maria

  Lock, David

  Galloway, George

  Love, Andrew

  Gapes, Mike

  McAllion, John

  Gardiner, Barry

  McAvoy, Thomas

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  McCabe, Steve

  Gerrard, Neil

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  McDonnell, John

  Godsiff, Roger

  McFall, John

  Goggins, Paul

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  McIsaac, Shona

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  McNulty, Tony

  Grocott, Bruce

  MacShane, Denis

  Grogan, John

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Gunnell, John

  McWalter, Tony

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Hanson, David

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Marek, Dr John

  Healey, John

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Heppell, John

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Hesford, Stephen

  Marshall—Andrews, Robert

  Hill, Keith

  Martlew, Eric

  Hinchliffe, David

  Maxton, John

  Hoey, Kate

  Meale, Alan

  Home Robertson, John

  Merron, Gillian

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Hope, Phil

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

  Miller, Andrew

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Morley, Elliot

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Hurst, Alan

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Hutton, John

  Mountford, Kali

  Illsley, Eric

  Mudie, George

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Mullin, Chris

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Jamieson, David

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Jenkins, Brian

  Norris, Dan

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  937

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Spellar, John

  Olner, Bill

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  O'Neill, Martin

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Stevenson, George

  Pearson, Ian

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Pendry, Tom

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Pickthall, Colin

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Pike, Peter L

  Stott, Roger

  Plaskitt, James

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Pollard, Kerry

  Stringer, Graham

  Pope, Greg

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Pound, Stephen

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Temple—Morris, Peter

  Purchase, Ken

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Timms, Stephen

  Radice, Giles

  Tipping, Paddy

  Rapson, Syd

  Touhig, Don

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Trickett, Jon

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Truswell, Paul

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Rogers, Allan

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Rooker, Jeff

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Rooney, Terry

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Ruane, Chris

  Wareing, Robert N

  Ruddock, Joan

  Watts, David

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  White, Brian

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Salter, Martin

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Sawford, Phil

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Wills, Michael

  Sheerman, Barry

  Wilson, Brian

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Winnick, David

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Wise, Audrey

  Singh, Marsha

  Wood, Mike

  Skinner, Dennis

  Woolas, Phil

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Wray, James

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Mr. Mike Hall and

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Mr. David Clelland.

  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 welcomes the decision of the Foreign Affairs Committee in its Second Report of Session 1998–99 (HC 116) on Sierra Leone to commend the resolute support which the British Government is giving to the restoration of democracy in Sierra Leone and endorses the conclusion of the Legg Inquiry that no Minister had given encouragement or approval to any breach of the arms embargo on Sierra Leone; notes that the inquiry on Sierra Leone of the Foreign Affairs Committee has found no evidence of Ministerial encouragement or approval; and congratulates Her Majesty's Government on accepting all the recommendations of the Report of the Legg Inquiry and on the steps it has since taken to modernise management in the FCO.

  Burdens on Schools
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): I have to inform the House that Madam Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  7.23 pm
  Mr. David Willetts: I beg to move,
  That this House deplores the bureaucratic burdens placed on schools by the Government which are seriously undermining schools' ability to run their own affairs; condemns the pursuit of uniformity at the expense of diversity; considers the Government's proposals for performance-related pay for teachers to be cumbersome and unworkable; believes the complicated process of bidding for centralised initiatives is fragmenting budgetary responsibility and has caused unacceptable delays in setting indicative budgets; and further believes that the Government's ceaseless flow of directives to schools and LEAs has become a significant obstacle to raising educational standards.
  I begin by acknowledging the letter that I received yesterday from the Secretary of State, in which he explained that he would be unable to attend the debate because he is abroad on Government business. I accept that explanation and appreciate his having written to explain his absence.
  We have tabled the motion because of the extraordinary shift in the mood of teachers, parents and pupils in the two years since the Labour Government were elected. When they were elected nearly two years ago, the Government undoubtedly had in their favour a fund of good will.
  Mr. David Jamieson (Lord Commissioner to the Treasury): We still have it.
  Mr. Willetts: I hear the education Whip.
  There were many people in education who believed that things could indeed only get better, but, in slightly less than two years, there has been a shift, from good will, to giving the Government the benefit of the doubt, to what can only be described as frustration and anger. According to the latest research—an independent survey for the National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers—only 17 per cent. of teachers now support the Government's education policies, 58 per cent. are very dissatisfied, and 94 per cent. believe that teaching is becoming a less attractive profession to enter because of the Government's policies.
  The problem is not only one for teachers—it is not as if some heroic battle is being fought in which, at the cost of teachers' good will, the Government are at least raising standards in schools. For the first time this year, we can see standards starting to fall: the pass rate in maths in primary schools fell from 62 per cent. reaching the average expected standard to 59 per cent.; and, in English, the increase from 62 to 64 per cent. is the smallest since tests began four years ago. There is widespread scepticism in the world of education about whether the Secretary of State will be able to achieve his targets for literacy and numeracy in 2002.
  Mr. Nick Hawkins: Does my hon. Friend think that the fact—which he so graphically demonstrated—that the teaching profession has lost faith in the Government might have something to do with the presence of so few Government Members here tonight,

  939
  which demonstrates that the Government do not really care about education, education, education, as they said before the election they did? Look how empty the Government Benches are.
  Mr. Willetts: My hon. Friend is quite right. It is not education, education, education; the problem is regulation, regulation, regulation. That is why schools already doubt that they will be able to achieve the Government's targets for literacy and numeracy. Perhaps the Minister for School Standards will show solidarity with her boss tonight by making it clear that she, too, will resign if the Government do not achieve their targets for literacy and numeracy by 2002.
  Mr. James Paice: Has my hon. Friend had a chance to read today's Order Paper? Not only does the motion rightly condemn the Government for over-regulation, but, to demonstrate the validity of that, there are five delegated legislation regulations, all to do with education, to be dealt with by the House at 10 o'clock tonight, without debate. If that does not demonstrate the validity of his case, I do not know what does.
  Mr. Willetts: The burden of regulation and legislation which the Government are imposing on schools is quite simply unacceptable.
  Mr. Michael Fabricant: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order, in the middle of a debate, for a Government Whip to be going from row to row, handing out speeches to Government Members? Is that Government—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The movements of Government Whips are not a matter for the occupant of the Chair.
  Mr. Willetts: Last year, the Government sent 322 documents and directives to schools and local education authorities. The reason why they are unable to raise standards in our schools was put to me very simply by one head teacher who said, "I believe that David Blunkett is sincere when he talks about raising standards," but added, "The only way that I can raise standards in my school is by ignoring all the letters and instructions that I get sent by him and the Department for Education and Employment." Teachers and head teachers throughout the land are saying that that is the problem that they have to overcome.
  The Government's interventions and initiatives, supposedly to raise education standards, are not part of the solution, but part of the problem. Look at what is happening in four crucial education areas. First, there was the class size pledge: no doubt, focus groups told the Labour party that small classes were popular, and said, "Why not make a pledge to reduce class sizes?" Once elected, the Labour Government set about implementing that pledge in the only way they know—by passing a law making it illegal to carry out an act of education in a class of more than 30 five, six or seven-year-olds.
  940
  That is the Government's approach to education issues—they do not think about the real world of education. They did not think of the increase in mixed-age classes that has resulted from the way in which the class size pledge has been implemented; nor of the successful schools that happily educate classes of more than 30 and deliver high standards. I hope that the Minister for School Standards will confirm that there are schools that achieve 100 per cent. success in literacy and numeracy while teaching five, six and seven-year-olds in classes of more than 30, and that those schools are willing to carry on doing that as long as they believe that they can deliver high-quality education.
  Mrs. Angela Browning: My hon. Friend is correct to say that the Government did not think about issues such as vertical streaming and the effect on those in key stage 2 when they put the measure before the House in the School Standards and Framework Bill. I assure my hon. Friend that Opposition Members warned the Government time and time again in Committee—but they did not listen.
  Mr. Willetts: My hon. Friend is quite right, and has been eloquent in exploring that point in Committee and subsequently. I think that the penny is beginning to drop. I refer to an account of the Prime Minister's first visit to one of the education roadshows following the launch of the Green Paper on teachers' pay. The article, which appeared in the journal of the NAS/UWT reports the Prime Minister as follows:
  "He said that it may be better to introduce a class assistant to a large class rather than reduce class size to below 30 with a single teacher".
  That is a crucial point that we have put to Ministers time and time again. When there is per capita funding, if schools are forced to turn away children who would increase class sizes beyond 30, they must also turn away the accompanying funding. Schools are having to make teaching and classroom assistants redundant because of the Government's class size pledge. The Prime Minister has acknowledged that.
  Mrs. Louise Ellman: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that the previous Government's record was sufficient when 40 per cent. of 11-year-olds did not attain adequate standards in English and maths? Does he believe that that was a good performance by the Conservatives, who now oppose this Government's efforts to put matters right?
  Mr. Willetts: If that is a question from the Government Whip, I think that he could have done a little better. We support raising standards in schools. The problem is that the Government are getting in the way of that objective by imposing bureaucratic burdens on schools. Look at the way in which the Government implemented the literacy strategy. I shall quote from a letter from the chairman of the governing body of a school describing that school's experience in delivering the literacy strategy. He said:
  "The recent OFSTED inspection in January confirmed the high attainments in English, Maths and Science but showed concern that our rigid adherence to the literacy hour at Key Stage 1 may have contributed to the reduced level of challenge in English experienced by the more able pupils."

  941
  He continued—
  Mr. Christopher Leslie rose—
  Mr. Willetts: I am quoting the comments of the chairman of a school's governing body and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will listen. He said:
  "We are … placed in the difficult position of having to question the extent to which our schemes of work should comply with the demands of the regulations when our previous approach generated clear benefits for our children, whatever their ability."
  Mr. Leslie: Does the hon. Gentleman wish to scrap the literacy hour?
  Mr. Willetts: I shall tell the hon. Gentleman exactly what our policy is. Instead of applying another indiscriminate initiative to all schools—however well they are doing—the Government should instead target the literacy strategy on schools that clearly have a problem. We do not believe in imposing an indiscriminate compulsory literacy hour that takes no account of how a school is performing in that area. If schools are delivering high literacy standards, it is not the role of the House or of politicians to go nosing into the classroom saying that those schools must stop teaching reading in a way that works simply because they have passed a regulation stating that it should be done differently. That is no way to raise standards in the classroom.
  Let us look not just at the class size pledge or the literacy strategy, but at performance-related pay. The Government pride themselves on their public relations skills, but the debate on performance-related pay, initiated in the past few weeks, has been a shambles. The Government have been trying a hard cop, soft cop act—the trouble is that the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister cannot seem to decide who is the hard cop and who is the soft cop. The Secretary of State described teachers as "snivelling cynics" while the Prime Minister praised their "awe-inspiring dedication". This is yet another intrusive, bureaucratic and heavy-handed method of trying to increase pay for teachers in the classroom.
  Helen Jones: In light of the hon. Gentleman's remarks, would he care to comment on a recent opinion poll conducted for the NAS/UWT which revealed that 57 per cent. of teachers are in favour of linking pay to appraisal? Is the hon. Gentleman saying that teachers working in our schools are wrong?
  Mr. Willetts: The hon. Lady knows very well—or she ought to know—that not one single representative body for teachers supports the Government's proposals for introducing performance-related pay. It does not matter what it says in the crib note from the Government Whip, the fact is that no teacher in the land will support a proposal that will cost £250 million in administration and in appointing external assessors before a single pound reaches the pay packet of a single teacher. That is the cost of the bureaucracy involved in the Government's proposals.
  Mr. Julian Brazier: Did my hon. Friend note that the point raised by the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones) was completely
  942
  irrelevant? It was very general and did not refer to the performance-related pay proposal. Under any system, pay is ultimately related to performance in some way.
  Mr. Willetts: My hon. Friend is absolutely right: the fact is that neither the NAS/UWT nor anyone else supports the proposal. We oppose it because it is cumbersome, bureaucratic and wasteful.
  Mr. Derek Twigg: If the system is so wasteful and wrong, why did the previous Government introduce performance-related pay into the civil service, including the Department for Education and Employment?
  Mr. Willetts: We are talking about the largest single performance-related pay scheme to be introduced anywhere in the world. Its scope and its intricacy go way beyond any arrangements that we introduced into the civil service or elsewhere. The fact is that it simply will not work. As the Government are so proud of the 16,000 responses that they have received to their consultation document—there are doubtless many more to come—will the Minister concede that it will clearly be impossible to introduce the first stage of performance-related pay this autumn? The Government should at least delay implementation in order to consider the legitimate criticisms levelled by teachers who say that the measure will be an extraordinary waste of time for teachers and head teachers.
  It has been estimated that, in a large secondary school with perhaps more than 100 teachers, a head teacher could spend half a day a week simply doing the external appraisals that will be required by the Government's cumbersome and complicated scheme. What about finance? [Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Government Front Benchers must not keep interrupting the debate with remarks from a sedentary position.
  Mr. Willetts: I have referred to the class size pledge, the literacy strategy and to performance-related pay. I must mention also the way in which the Government are changing the financing of schools and education in this country. The story is the same: it is about heavy-handed bureaucracy and centralised control from Whitehall.
  We know what the Government are like: it is very convenient to pop up on the "Today" programme and announce another initiative and another little pot of money that is supposed to finance it. The Prime Minister and the Secretary of State are always announcing another little gimmick that they hope will get them 48 hours of good publicity. However, schools up and down the country must then waste time and effort submitting bids for penny packets of money when the administrative costs involved in preparing the bids often exceed the amount that schools may receive at the end of the day.
  The Minister set up a task force on bureaucracy, and one of its first recommendations was that bidding could be used as a selective basis for encouraging initiative in education. However, it cannot be used time after time as a means of supposedly delivering national policy objectives because it will end up undermining the ability of head teachers to manage their budgets. We must trust head teachers to decide whether it would be best to spend

  943
  money on more books for the school library, on increasing the maths teacher's pay in order to retain him or on refurbishing school buildings. There is no point in saying that, if schools want to achieve those desirable aims, they must apply to the Secretary of State for a personal cheque from the Department for Education and Employment before they can do anything. That is no way to run a school.
  Mr. James Plaskitt: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Willetts: No, I want to make progress.
  If the Minister is honest, she will accept that head teachers refer again and again to the problems in their schools caused by the Government's policies.
  Mrs. Anne Campbell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Willetts: No, I shall make progress.
  That is why the Government keep announcing that they are trying to cut bureaucracy. The process began on 21 May 1997, within three weeks of the Government arriving in office, when they announced: "Blunkett cuts red tape." Just like every other initiative from the Government, that was relaunched and repeated, so that, by the end of July 1997, red tape was to get a "caning", according to the Minister of State.
  By 16 January 1998, the Government were announcing:
  "Morris cuts through the red tape".
  We might have hoped that the hon. Lady was making progress by then, but, instead, the Government realised that they needed someone else to blame and announced a month later:
  "Government orders investigation into £142 million taken from schools for local authority red tape".
  Much of the time, local authorities are simply having to comply with the instructions and demands sent by the Government.
  Mrs. Campbell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Willetts: No, I want to make progress.
  All that I am doing is quoting press notices from the Minister's Department, which has claimed again and again that it is taking action to reduce bureaucracy.
  On 13 April 1998, the announcement was:
  "Government takes action to cut bureaucracy".
  One might have thought that at least that was the end of story, but on 1 June, the Department announced:
  "Blunkett pledges action to tackle needless red tape".
  It became a pledge for the future. Only last week, the Minister announced that the Government were
  "keeping performance red tape to a minimum".
  However, seven press notices and six relaunches later, we are still nowhere near tackling the problem.
  944
  The reason is to be found in the terms of reference for the working party on bureaucracy set up by the Government. The first paragraph of the working party's report makes it clear what was the problem. It says:
  "This report reflects the agreed conclusions that the Group reached within the constraints it was advised that its remit imposed. Inevitably, some individual members would wish to go beyond that and change the statutory framework in ways which reduce teachers' workloads."
  That is the crucial point—the working party was not even allowed to consider the real source of the problem, which is the primary and secondary legislation that the Government have passed. They set up a working party on bureaucracy, but did not allow it to consider the real problem. That would be like a Home Office leak inquiry that could not interview Home Office Ministers. There is no point setting up an inquiry on bureaucracy and then refusing to allow it to consider legislation.
  Mrs. Campbell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Willetts: I have a soft spot for the hon. Lady, so I shall give way.
  Mrs. Campbell: Will the hon. Gentleman join me in condemning Tory-controlled Cambridgeshire county council, which, for the second year running, has not passported the increase in the standard spending assessment made by the Government? That upsets teachers in my constituency.
  Mr. Paice: Cambridgeshire already spends over the SSA.
  Mr. Willetts: I have been reliably reformed by my hon. Friend that the council is already spending above the SSA level, and that is relevant.
  We do not need to use the Government's method to raise standards in schools. There are better alternatives—Conservative ways of raising standards. As an absolute minimum, every time the Government introduce regulations, instructions and directives to the House and impose them on schools and local education authorities, they should publish their estimate of how much teacher time and financial resources would be necessary simply to comply with them. We could then have a rational debate about the extent to which the costs that were being imposed would be matched by the benefits that were being claimed.
  Miss Melanie Johnson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Willetts: No, I am reaching my conclusion.
  I am trying to explain to Labour Members that they and their party are responsible for a catastrophic collapse of confidence in schools and teachers caused by the very initiatives that they boast about in the House. Conservative Members believe in setting schools free, and giving them a break from the tiresome, tedious flow of instructions and directives from the Labour party is the single best way of raising standards in our schools.
  7.45 pm
  The Minister for School Standards (Ms Estelle Morris): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "commends the Government for the introduction of vital measures to improve standards, particularly in literacy and numeracy; applauds the extra flexibility it has introduced in the national curriculum for primary pupils and support for work-related learning for 14–16 year olds; welcomes the Government's support for greater diversity through specialist schools and education action zones; believes that the extra £19 billion for schools will underpin the drive for higher standards and welcomes plans to reward good teachers well; congratulates Ministers for introducing much greater clarity to mailings for schools with a view to keeping paperwork to a minimum; recognises the huge benefits which the National Grid for Learning and voluntary schemes of work bring in reducing unnecessary paperwork; and notes that the Opposition has no proposals to raise standards in schools."
  The Opposition tend to use Opposition day debates as a way of announcing a U-turn on policy, which I do not mind. What is interesting tonight is that we have heard the second U-turn on class sizes in the past 18 months. The right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell), who led for the Opposition in the Standing Committee considering the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, seemed to have been converted to the view that class sizes matter. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), who backed the right hon. Gentleman up in Committee, has said tonight that class sizes do not matter and we should not be addressing the issue.
  Mrs. Browning: The Minister and I served on that Committee and she knows only too well that the Conservatives made it clear what effect the regulation limiting infant classes to 30 pupils would have, particularly in rural schools, where there would be vertical streaming and pupils at key stage 2 would be in larger classes. We were disputing not the principle but the Government's regulatory method and their adamancy that there would be no flexibility. The hon. Lady knows that that was the Opposition's position, not the one that she has just stated.
  Ms Morris: That is exactly my point. The hon. Lady cannot have it both ways. One cannot say that class sizes matter and then deny the means of achieving smaller classes, but that is exactly what she and her colleagues sought to do throughout the Bill's passage through Committee.
  I do not mind the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) using Supply days to say that he has reversed the Opposition's policy, but I object to him trying to rewrite history, as he has done today. When he was speaking, I had to remind myself that, on education, the previous Government were the most centralising Government since the war. The Tory Government introduced an education Bill each year for 18 years, but their average on education quangos was even better—they managed to set up nine in eight years. In his speech and his press release today, the hon. Gentleman complained about 322 edicts and directives issued by the Government within a year. I shall return to that point later. With 322 directives, we are far behind the number that he managed to achieve when he was in government.
  The Education Reform Act 1988 produced not 322, not 500, not 700, not 800, but 1,066 statutory instruments, 670 of which were introduced in the two years following
  946
  the legislation's passage through the House. Have the Conservatives forgotten—I have not because I was in school at the time—the mountain of paperwork caused by the introduction of the national curriculum? That was caused not by a concerted effort to raise standards, but by the fact that they kept getting it wrong and having to change their mind. They did not run trials; they did not consult; they did not provide resources to back up the policy, and their errors in introducing the national curriculum cost £744 million. There is no comparison between that figure and the amount that we have spent on introducing the literacy curriculum.
  Let us be clear—the Opposition are entitled to change their mind, but they are not entitled to kid us or anyone else that their past actions can be wiped clean from the slate. The passion and enthusiasm displayed by the hon. Member for Havant today was that of the convert.
  Mr. Fabricant: The Minister comes from the west midlands, so she will understand my point. She talks about history; can she not understand the sense of betrayal felt by people in Staffordshire, where Labour candidates promised during the general election that a Labour Government would initiate wholesale reform of funding, including that for Staffordshire, which, as the hon. Lady knows, is at the very bottom of shire county funding? The Minister has now told us in answer to written questions that there will be a review in three years' time, after the next election, and even then Labour may not meet its promises. How dare she talk to the House about history—she has broken the rules of history.
  Ms Morris: There is another hon. Gentleman who wants to wipe the slate clean. Let me remind him that Staffordshire was at the bottom of the table for money under his Government. What action did they take?
  Mr. Fabricant: Will the Minister give way?
  Ms Morris: No, not again; it was bad enough the first time. What action did the hon. Gentleman's Government take to change or review Staffordshire's SSA? Staffordshire can now welcome a 6.5 per cent. increase in SSA. For the first time in years, it will be able to celebrate an increase in SSA and grant compared with that received under the hon. Gentleman's Government. I will take no lectures from him, given that, for 18 years, the Conservative Government failed to address the problems of SSAs. In comparison with that, three years, in which to do it well and get it right, is but a short time to wait.
  Mr. Jonathan Shaw: What has my hon. Friend to say to Medway parents, teachers and schoolchildren, given that Liberal Democrats and Tories voted down the Labour budget, cutting £250,000 that was earmarked to go straight to primary schools, despite £28 million reserves? Does that not show that only the Labour party is interested in investing in education, and that the Tories and Liberal Democrats are interested only in cutting budgets?
  Ms Morris: My hon. Friend is right. I have met many head teachers in his constituency. They will have learned

  947
  the lesson from that decision that only Labour can be trusted to put more money into education. That is so throughout the country.
  Mrs. Theresa May: Will the Minister give way?
  Ms Morris: Yes, but then I shall not give way for a considerable time.
  Mrs. May: On precisely the assertion that only Labour can be trusted to put money into education, what would the Minister say to Labour councillors in Leicestershire, who, with Liberal councillors, voted against a Conservative proposal that money from the Government for increased education spending should be passported to education, and instead voted for a lower amount to be spent on education? What does she say to the Labour leader of Hertfordshire council, who has received a letter from the Secretary of State expressing his regret that Labour Hertfordshire will not passport money to the education budget?
  Ms Morris: I would say exactly what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said: passport the money. We have secured money from the Treasury, and it should be passported to education. The record of Labour local authorities stands in stark contrast to that of Conservative authorities.
  Mr. Don Foster: Will the Minister give way on that point?
  Ms Morris: I cannot resist giving way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Foster: As everybody is asking how the Minister would respond to particular things, may I ask how she would respond to the simple fact that Liberal Democrat-run authorities provide more money per capita than Labour-run authorities?
  Mr. Jamieson: Not in Devon.
  Ms Morris: It is not that I distrust the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), but I would look at the figures. As my hon. Friend the Whip says, it is not so in Devon. If the hon. Gentleman wants a longer debate on the point, I would be happy to return to it in an Adjournment debate.
  The Conservative motion says that we are placing burdens on schools that represent
  "a significant obstacle to raising educational standards."
  We know from the speech of the hon. Member for Havant his exact definition of a burden. He thinks that the literacy hour is a burden. He told us that he thinks that it is over-prescriptive and too rigid. His hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) thinks, strangely enough, that 60 minutes is too long for the literacy hour. When the numeracy hour comes along next year, she will probably be able to correct that comment.
  If we had taken notice of Conservative Members' comments about the literacy hour, everything that this Government have done on literacy in the past 18 months would not have happened. There would have been no literacy hour, no retraining of primary school teachers in
  948
  best practice and no new emphasis on phonics and teaching grammar. There would have been no pressure on schools to teach best practice, no research into different strategies and no spreading of what we know works. It goes without saying that, had matters been left to the Tories, there would also have been no £44 million—which has bought 10 million extra books for our schools—and probably no national year of reading.
  The Tories would have carried on doing exactly what they did in power. As a result, in five years' time, four out of 10 11-year-old children still would not be able to read, write or use numbers effectively. It is no good the hon. Member for Havant quoting last year's national curriculum test results, because they were the last such tests before the introduction of the literacy hour. They are therefore a sad indictment of his Government. We will reach our targets, and a generation of children will rejoice as a result.
  I agree with the comments of the hon. Member for Havant not in his speech but in The Sun earlier this month, when he said:
  "Children who are not taught to read or do basic arithmetic are being betrayed".
  By his admission, four out of 10 children were betrayed by his Government, which is exactly why we have introduced the literacy hour.
  Mr. Willetts: Will the Minister commit herself to the Secretary of State's pledge to resign if the Government do not reach their literacy and numeracy targets by 2002?
  Ms Morris: Of course I will; I have already done so. Indeed, I generously commit the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), too. We speak with one voice. The hon. Gentleman's question is a reflection of what life was like under teams of Conservative Ministers, when a Secretary of State would promise to resign but the rest of the team would not go too. I will tell the hon. Gentleman another thing: there will be a team celebration when we achieve those targets—because achieve those targets we certainly will.
  It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman's understanding of the literacy hour is shallower than that of any teacher and of most parents whom I have met. As Mr. Woodhead said when he presented his annual report earlier in the month, the literacy hour is a
  "serious attempt to draw together, from inspection and research evidence, approaches which are known to work. There is always, moreover, room for professional manoeuvre: the idea that teachers must minute by minute adhere to each prescribed step in the programme is a myth promulgated by those who reject any attempt to provide practical assistance to teachers as an onslaught on professional autonomy."
  We have learned in this debate that the hon. Gentleman is on the side of the myth promulgators. This Government are on the side of those who want to provide practical assistance to teachers doing a difficult task. We have provided in the literacy hour—this is what the hon. Gentleman has missed—training in best practice and materials to do the job. We have asked teachers to exercise their professional judgment within a framework of best practice which we know works. That is what the literacy hour is; that is what teachers are doing; and that is what the numeracy hour will be, too.
  The hon. Member for Havant did not once mention whether the literacy hour works. It is no good his scowling. He would sooner count the bits of paper that

  949
  are sent to schools to support the literacy hour than he would consider evidence of whether it works. He is entitled to count bits of paper and ignore evidence. I admit that we could have avoided sending 40 bits of paper to schools by not introducing the literacy hour. But a generation of children would have been betrayed—to use the hon. Gentleman's words—had we not done so.
  The same can be said for a range of other initiatives on those bits of paper that the hon. Member for Havant has been busy counting and weighing. Let us take home-school agreements, which get parents involved in schools. Is he against or for such agreements? What about target setting? By not introducing that, we could have avoided sending nine letters to schools. Is he against or for it? What of homework policy? I think we could have avoided sending two or three more letters by not encouraging schools to set homework, but that would have meant that half the children still were not set homework, and we know that homework makes a difference to standards.
  We could have saved bits of paper by not launching the national year of reading or education action zones, and we could have saved two letters by not letting schools know that they were getting £1,000 to spend on books. Unlike the letters, missives and directives sent to schools when the Conservatives were in office, our paperwork did not say, "We have changed our mind, or got it wrong last time, so here is another letter"; instead, it was part of a coherent package and a standards agenda.
  Mr. Owen Paterson: On the subject of target setting, today I received a letter from Grahame Arnold, head teacher of the Adams school in Wem—one of the most successful Shropshire schools—and chairman of the Shropshire secondary heads. He said:
  "The government's new target-setting agenda for schools, teachers and governors often produces huge amounts of information for the government that is irrelevant to individual pupil performance."
  Ms Morris: I will just have to disagree with the hon. Gentleman and the head whom he quotes. I would sooner cite the Ofsted evidence and the research evidence, which show that clear target setting in schools raises standards. It seems to be an absolute matter of fact that teachers set targets and support their children's learning in order to achieve those targets. Target setting is a good thing.
  Mr. Paterson: So Mr. Arnold is wrong, is he?
  Ms Morris: I disagree with him; I do not know how many times the hon. Gentleman wants me to say that. Target setting is important to the agenda of raising standards.
  The Opposition motion mentions diversity. It is becoming increasingly clear—it emerged again from the speech of the hon. Member for Havant—what the Tories now mean by diversity. The Daily Telegraph tells us that the Leader of the Opposition is poised to ditch the national curriculum that the Conservatives introduced 10 years ago. I read in the New Statesman that the regular Willetts lunches at the Centre for Policy Studies speculate about trusting groups such as teachers to get on with their job as they think best. Most interesting, however, was the
  950
  Daily Mail report that told us that the hon. Member for Havant wanted schools to be run by workers' co-operatives.
  That sounds to me like turning the clock back. I do not mind that, but let us be clear that that is now the Opposition's idea of diversity—a return to "teach what you want, how you want." That would be diversity at the expense of standards, and we want no part of it.
  There is a growing difference between the Opposition's definition of diversity and ours. The form of diversity that we have introduced supports standards and does not detract from them. We have expanded the specialist schools programme by 50 per cent. We have given those schools money to develop links with local schools—each will be different and reflect the flavour of the partnership within schools.
  We have freed up key stages 1 and 2 so that teachers can concentrate on the basics but still teach a broad range of subjects. We have offered flexibility at key stage 4. We have allowed schools to forge links with further education colleges. We have introduced advanced skills teachers so that schools can develop ways of using the skills of their best teachers. We have introduced and financed education action zones, giving them the freedom on the curriculum and on teachers' contracts that was denied by the previous Government.
  We have introduced a new lighter-touch inspection framework for our most successful schools. We have delegated up to £1 billion so that schools now have the freedom to spend money in the way that they want. The key difference here is that delegation under the Tories always meant freedom as to which cuts to make, whereas delegation under the Government means freedom to decide how to spend a growing amount of money in the education budget, year after year.
  I do agree with the only serious point in the speech of the hon. Member for Havant—that there is a constant need to ensure that our dealings with schools are as efficient as possible. That is why we have introduced stringent new measures to keep the paper in check. Since September 1998, a typical primary school has received just eight mailings, containing a total of 42 items. Only 13 required action from heads; the rest were for information. We have introduced a new system of clearly identifying, on every mailing, whether it is for action or for information.
  Let me give the House an example of a typical mailing—our most recent, which was sent to schools on 11 February. It contained, for primary schools, two items about teaching literacy to those students in greatest need of help. It contained the pay review body's recommended teachers pay scales and a list of new DfEE information available on request. A typical secondary school would not have received the information about the literacy items, but would have received information to be distributed to its students about financial support in higher education. Five hundred secondary schools would also have received a consultation paper about the practical implications of data protection in schools. Under the Conservative Government, that consultation paper would have been sent to all 24,000 schools. We have introduced a system of sending the consultation papers to a cross-section of schools, so that they are not a burden on schools.
  Which one of those documents should we not have sent? Should we not have sent the pay scales? Should we not have sent the information about how to help children

  951
  who are behind with literacy? Should we not have sent secondary schools information to pass to students about financial help with higher education? We are told by the hon. Member for Havant that we have issued 322 edicts and directives in a year. Numeracy lessons cannot come quickly enough: let me tell him that 179 of those were sent for consultation or action, and not to schools but to local education authorities. They included distance learning material, guidance in tackling truancy, information to help schools raise standards and guidance on early-years development.
  Which should we not send? Do you not want to tackle truancy? Do you not want to raise standards in the early years? Do you not want to let the local authorities—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady must use the correct parliamentary form of address.
  Ms Morris: Please accept my apologies, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Havant must decide which of those initiatives he is not prepared to pursue.
  Mr. Graham Brady: Will the Minister give way?
  Ms Morris: No, I will not.
  What was noticeable about the Opposition motion and the speech of the hon. Member for Havant was that, throughout, there was no mention of parents, no mention of high standards, no expectation of what our young people might achieve, no understanding of the partnership between Government and schools that is essential to raising standards and not a flicker of an understanding that part of the role of Government is to show leadership.
  If turning the tide of under-achievement for schools means that we send them 30 extra letters a year, so be it. The Conservatives have carped tonight, but I reckon that a generation of children will be on our side, not theirs. I take seriously the issue of paperwork. But do not weigh it or count it. Read it and evaluate it, and take decisions on the basis not of how many words it contains but of whether it contributes to the agenda of raising standards.
  The material that we send to schools is part of a coherent package to raise standards. An attack on that is an attack on standards, and the hon. Member for Havant should be ashamed.
  8.8 pm
  Mr. Don Foster: I am delighted once again to have the opportunity to follow the Minister. Whether the House agreed or disagreed with what she said, the whole House will acknowledge the passion and conviction with which she spoke. It was interesting to hear the absolute sincerity with which she committed herself and the whole of the Front-Bench team to resign, should they fail to meet their targets. That was in sharp contrast to Lord Patten, who, as Secretary of State, when he was John Patten, promised that if he failed to meet his targets in relation to grant-maintained schools, he would eat his hat garnished—which, as far as I am aware, he has so far failed to do.
  Because the Minister spoke with such passion, it is important for me to explain to her clearly why the Liberal Democrats will support the Opposition motion tonight. However, in doing so I would enter two caveats.
  952
  First, I echo the Minister's words by pointing out that there is a degree of irony in the Opposition's tabling the motion when they were undoubtedly responsible for placing a significant number of burdens and unnecessary bureaucracy on our schools. For example, we need look only at the unbelievably cumbersome and bureaucratic system of nursery vouchers, which I was delighted that the new Government rapidly abolished. There are many other examples, such as the early version of the national curriculum and the burdens created by the Conservative Government's proposals for grant-maintained schools. However, if my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) catches your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I hope that he will pick up some of those, which are clearly illustrated by the Liberal Democrats' amendment.
  My second caveat is that I do not accept that the Government should have sat on their hands and done nothing. Under the previous Administration, many people in our schools complained of innovation fatigue, and they desperately wanted to be left alone by the new Administration. But given the state in which the previous Administration left our education service, that was not an option. Therefore a number of changes were necessary, some of which I support, and I accept that they placed burdens on our schools.
  The issue for tonight's debate is not about burdens being placed on schools—burdens will always be placed on schools—it is rather, quite properly, about whether the burdens imposed by the Government are necessary: some are not.
  The hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) made a powerful case, so I shall not repeat all his points. But the Minister was right when she said that, in making a judgment on the issue, we should consider the evidence. I want to consider the evidence coming from those who work in our schools—governors, teachers and head teachers.
  I cannot help but reflect on a recent quote in The Times Educational Supplement from a primary head teacher. He said:
  "A secondary head phoned me a couple of weeks ago. He told me how tired he was of no longer feeling in control of his own establishment. So much was being done to him from the outside, be it by the local authority or the DfEE, that he no longer had the enthusiasm to make it work."
  In the past 24 hours, my officers have been in touch with the two major bodies that represent governors and managers in our schools—the National Governors Council and the National Association of Governors and Managers. On hearing about today's debate, the National Governors Council said:
  "We are very concerned about the burdens imposed on schools by the deluge of government directives and new initiatives. Target-setting in particular is causing serious difficulties. Many of our local associations up and down the country are saying 'We don't know how we can cope with this.'"
  The National Association of Governors and Managers made similar points.
  Dr. George Turner: The hon. Gentleman made it clear that he believed that we should be considering the evidence, but at the moment he is examining hearsay. If he is to do what he said he would do, surely he must tell us which of the Government

  953
  initiatives he believes should not have been taken into the classroom. Will he quickly move on to that before he so firmly nails his colours to the Tory mast?
  Mr. Foster: If the hon. Gentleman is prepared to bide his time a wee while, I promise that I shall address that very point. However, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that it is important to listen to the views of those who work in our schools if we are to determine whether unnecessary burdens have been placed on our schools. The evidence that I have quoted from a head teacher and from the two bodies representing governors and managers is backed up by the evidence that we have from teachers themselves.
  The hon. Gentleman is well aware that tens of thousands of teachers are leaving the profession early, demoralised and dispirited, and sadly fewer and fewer people are coming forward to join it. One reason for that which is cited by many of those leaving is the increased burdens being placed on them. It is frightening that more and more teachers are telling me that they are tired of being told by the Government how they should teach and even organise their classrooms.
  It is almost as if the Government do not understand the pressures that our teachers already face. Just after Christmas, I received a copy of a circular letter—the sort of thing which many of us receive at Christmas—from a teacher who was the only one remaining of a group of 10 who had joined the profession in 1967. She said:
  "I'm absolutely sick of school—it's really hard work and I never know what I'm supposed to be doing! Next term we have an Ofsted inspection which is about the most awful thing that can happen to a school. We are all up to our eyes in paperwork … We spend as much time working out of school as we do in school and there's plenty to do at the weekends as well. Housework hardly gets a look-in. I wish we could win the Lottery … Luckily I stay healthy and Joe does a lot of things like cooking when he's not working. I don't know how we'd manage otherwise. Isn't it awful to be looking forward to retiring—wishing your life away?".
  Helen Jones: Ah!
  Mr. Foster: I hope that the hon. Lady will consider the number of teachers who are leaving the profession early because they, too, feel exactly what this teacher is expressing about the profession. If the hon. Lady is not prepared to acknowledge that those teachers are feeling demoralised and disillusioned, in part because of the burdens that are being placed on them, the crisis in our classrooms, begun under the previous Administration, will continue under her Government.
  Liz Blackman: Has the hon. Gentleman spoken to teachers in his constituency who are delivering the literacy hour about the progress that children are already making? I have throughout my constituency, and the news is positive.
  Mr. Foster: Of course, the hon. Lady is right. Any hon. Member taking part in an education debate should have
  954
  spent time talking to many teachers, and I certainly have. Many teachers to whom I have spoken believe that many good ideas are contained within the literacy hour.
  Mr. Plaskitt: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Foster: No, I am in the middle of replying to the hon. Member for Erewash (Liz Blackman). I may give way to the hon. Gentleman in a minute.
  No doubt those teachers will also say that there are good ideas in the numeracy hour. But many feel that the literacy hour imposes on them, as will the numeracy hour, a particular way of operating which takes away their opportunity to be professionals: to gather evidence of good practice, rightly provided by the Government, and package it for the benefit of their pupils so as to do what the Government want, which is to raise standards.
  Mr. Plaskitt rose—
  Mr. Foster: I should like to make a little progress if the hon. Gentleman does not mind.
  The Minister was keen to deal with the Green Paper on teachers' pay. The House will be interested to know what she said in a press release issued by the Department on 25 February, just a few days ago:
  "Some of the criticism we have heard is that appraisal, as proposed, will be far too bureaucratic. Nothing could be further from the truth. We are proposing a cycle which need not be unwieldy or place an additional burden on school life."
  She suggests that the proposals in the Green Paper will not place an additional burden on school life. I do not know where the Minister is living, because she is certainly not living in the real world.
  It does not matter whether the proposal is right or wrong, because independent people have done an analysis of the amount of work involved and have found that it will take the head teacher of an 850-strong comprehensive with 45 staff more than 100 hours to carry out the necessary appraisal—assuming 32 per cent. of teachers want to be appraised for the next stage, and excluding the time that governors will have to spend on it. That undoubtedly places an additional burden on schools.
  The hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner) asked me what proposals I would not put into practice. I shall give him a couple of examples. The current bidding system—Labour's long odds education lottery—is a good example of the centralisation of education provision. It has placed enormous burdens on schools, which have to provide all the data that the local education authorities need to make their bids.
  I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is aware that, since the Government came to power, a grand total of over 16,000 bids for funds have been made by local education authorities on behalf of schools up and down the land. Of those 16,000 bids, 10,000 have failed. Think of the enormous amount of bureaucracy, effort and red tape people in our schools and LEAs have had to face to make bids that have not even been successful.
  In some parts of the country, the situation is even worse. In Oxfordshire, a grand total of 1,115 bids have been made, and 1,002 of them have failed. The inordinate amount of time spent by officers and people in our schools on that procedure is horrendous. I would get rid of large chunks of the bidding system.

  955
  If the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk wants a good example of the penny packets to which the hon. Member for Havant referred, I suggest that he examines the Government's proposal for a children's Parliament. It got wonderful headlines, and everyone thought that the Government were doing wonderful things—until they looked at the figures. Each participating school will receive £10. The paperwork required for the bid costs more than that, let alone the support for schools.
  Dr. George Turner: The hon. Gentleman seems to be losing sight of the big picture. I spent years on an education committee watching the backlog of building work grow. The schools in my patch have welcomed the opportunity to make their case to have their school buildings renovated, improved and added to. They want to be able to bid, because they do not want bureaucrats in Whitehall telling them where their priorities should lie. With what would the hon. Gentleman replace the bidding system? Would he let civil servants decide which schools get the money?
  Mr. Foster: If the hon. Gentleman served on a local education authority, surely he should accept that a more appropriate method is for the local education authority to be able to allocate the funds. He does not seem willing to distinguish between some of the good proposals that the Government have introduced and those that impose additional burdens.
  Liberal Democrats have praised and welcomed some of the Government's proposals. I have sometimes acknowledged that they are worth while even though they would, in certain circumstances, increase the burden on schools. However, I have also produced evidence from teachers, governors and head teachers to show that some proposals create unnecessary bureaucracy in our schools and are damaging the Government's ability to raise standards.
  In their desire to capture the education headlines almost on a daily basis, the Labour Government have failed to recognise that they are deprofessionalising teaching and demoralising governors. Without those teachers and governors, the legitimate standards agenda will not be achieved.
  A senior Government education policy adviser, quoted in the latest edition of the Education Journal, gave the game away. He was asked why there could not be a let-up in the flow of initiatives. He replied:
  "The public will think we have run out of steam."
  The problem is that without a let-up from the unnecessary burdens, schools will run out of steam long before the Government do.
  8.25 pm
  Mr. Gordon Marsden: There are times when I hear Conservative Members speaking in the House and think that I am in some sort of post-modern "Alice in Wonderland" world where things are getting curiouser and curiouser. I am sad that the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) seems to have associated himself with that position.
  As my hon. Friend the Minister made perfectly clear, what we have heard from the Conservative party bears no relation to its record in government. I am afraid that I am going to take Conservative Members back to that record
  956
  in government, particularly on centralisation. There were two education Acts: one in 1988 and the other in 1993. The Education Reform Act 1988 had 238 sections, and the Education Act 1993 had 308 sections; 1,000 amendments and 55 new clauses were tabled; and more than 400 new powers were given to Ministers as a consequence of the 1993 Act.
  The Conservative party's education policy was in constant turmoil over that period. There were four Secretaries of State for Education between 1989 and 1992. It is well known that the Conservatives brought us mad cow disease in the 1980s, but they also managed to bring mad Maoism—the doctrine of permanent revolution. There was such mad Maoism that, according to the magazine with which I was involved at the time, history teachers were tearing their hair out. HMI inspectors were driven to distraction by the amount of regulation produced by the Conservative Government and by the chopping and changing. Things moved on every time Mrs. Thatcher fished in her handbag for a new draft of the national curriculum, or every time she listened to some barmy, right-wing educationist. Constant changes were made. The only positive result was the introduction of the Baker days, when the poor, hard-pressed teachers were given time to catch up on the paperwork. That was the record of the Conservative party during that period.
  The hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) referred to setting schools free, which is a fairly waffly thing to say. Were the Conservatives setting schools free when the much-vaunted funding agency for grant-maintained schools was directed from Whitehall by John Patten? We had centralisation and Maoism, and I would not have been surprised if they had have sent teachers into the fields to learn how to tithe and to collect the corn.
  In that period, we also had the nationalisation of education policy. Bureaucracy was piled upon bureaucracy. To give him credit, the hon. Member for Bath referred to the nursery voucher paperchase. The assisted places scheme helped only 60,000 children out of 7 million. There were even some good ideas, such as local management of schools and governors, but the difficulties were compounded by the lack and training and time provided.
  The consequences were there for all to see. The Audit Commission found that, in real terms, there had been a cut of £44 per primary school pupil and of £110 per secondary school pupil between 1994 and 1997. Back-room bureaucrats had a field day under the Tories, while front-line services suffered. The legacy of that bureaucracy was this: 500,000 primary school children in classes of 30 or more, a chronic crisis in recruitment and teaching and unacceptable standards in literacy and numeracy. No wonder Steve Norris, the former Conservative Member of Parliament for Epping Forest, said:
  "Our failure to improve the level of public education is one of the areas Conservatives have got to be most concerned about and frankly ashamed of".
  Mr. David Taylor: Will my hon. Friend add to his sad list of statistics the fact that 158 members of Her Majesty's Opposition are not present for the debate? That suggests that at least 96 per cent. of Opposition Members are showing, on their own

  957
  Supply day, the degree of interest in education that was shown by their Government during the years that my hon. Friend is describing so graphically.
  Mr. Marsden: I agree, but that is amply made up for by the chutzpah and brass neck that we are hearing from the Opposition Front Bench.
  Mr. Christopher Fraser: Given the hon. Gentleman's obvious mastery of the subject, will he concede that, proportionally, the parliamentary Labour party has fewer members present than the Conservatives?
  Mr. Marsden: If the hon. Gentleman examines the record of Labour Members' attendance of education debates here and, for that matter, in Standing Committees, he will find that our record is far superior to that of members of his party. [HON. MEMBERS: "And this is an Opposition day."] Indeed it is.
  Given the background, it is not surprising that the then Conservative education Ministers approached the School Standards and Framework Bill, enacted in 1998, with a certain amount of confusion and schizophrenia. Those of us who served on the Standing Committee witnessed, time after time, confusion over whether they should or should not accept the Bill's basic principles, and we are witnessing the same confusion this evening. What do the Conservatives oppose, and what alternatives do they suggest? Why are they in such difficulty?
  It is a shame that the hon. Member for Havant is no longer present. In deference to his interest in philosophy, I was going to say that, essentially, the Conservatives' problem is one of philosophy. They have so mired and encrusted themselves over 18 years in their jaundiced view of the public-service ethos that they are incapable of distinguishing between enabling and empowering—what the present Government are doing for education—and the Stalinist direction of which their own Lady Thatcher was so enamoured.
  The Conservatives really have only two models. One is mad market chaos—grant-maintained schools versus the rest; city technology colleges versus the rest; assisted places versus the rest. The other, which we saw in spades when they were in government, is centralisation, stamping out dissent and local education authority initiatives. The Opposition seem to sign up to a Hobbesian view of education—except that, in their case, rather than being nasty, brutish and short, it is nasty, smug and hideously complex. They are incapable of understanding, or unwilling to understand, the models of co-operation and collaboration offered by the present Government through initiatives such as education action zones and beacon schools.
  We shall not intervene where it is not necessary. Where schools are working well and raising standards, there will be a light touch. My hon. Friend the Minister has said as much on previous occasions in respect of Ofsted. If there are problems, however, we will act: we will intervene, as the Government intervened over Hackney. That intervention can only be compared with the futile way in which the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard), the former Secretary of State, dealt with Calderdale and Nottinghamshire.
  958
  We are setting targets for the raising of standards. We are encouraging local education authorities with educational development plans; we are encouraging people to learn from best practice. The results are transparent: a 5 per cent. increase in spending per annum, an extra £200 million for homework centres, 1,200 numeracy and literacy schools this summer, the inclusion of nutritional standards for school meals for the first time in 18 years, and education action zones to tackle under-achievement. I hope that before long there will be one in my constituency.
  Those are the burdens that we are laying on schools, teachers, parents and pupils. I can only say that I am delighted that my schools in Blackpool have been burdened by the Government. From September, thousands of pupils will be kept out of classes of more than 30. They have been burdened with a successful capital bid of more than £5 million for 1999–2000 to build additional classrooms and employ extra teachers, to reduce overcrowding in secondary schools. They have been burdened with capital investment to repair and to renew buildings and equipment, with receiving £185,000 for the national literacy strategy, and with more than 1,000 new nursery places for three-year-olds from September 1999, in addition to free places for all four-year-olds. Incidentally, those places are crucial in a town such as Blackpool, where so many parents are in part-time and multiple employment. Those are the "burdens" that the Government are putting on people. They are necessary following the burdens that were put on them by the previous Government.
  For the first time in 18 years, the Government are offering parents, teachers and governors a strategic and sensible vision of education for the future. It is challenging and ambitious, but a burden it is not. The Conservative party left us with the torpor of cynicism and an educational graveyard. Despite all its attempts to efface history, it seems to have made no effort to emerge and to learn from that.
  8.36 pm
  Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: For someone with a reputation for studying history, the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden) shows remarkably little grasp of it when it comes to education. He seems to have forgotten that it was Conservative Members who dominated the debate on last year's School Standards and Framework Bill and who spoke day after day, while Labour Members sat like so many nodding donkeys doing exactly as their Whip required. The two Liberal Democrat Members who are present—the hon. Members for Bath (Mr. Foster) and for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis)—were the honourable exception: as always, they made their unique contribution to the proceedings. The debate follows directly from that Bill and the chapter after chapter of regulations, forms and rules with which the Government try to bind every aspect of education.
  The Minister for School Standards put her figure on it, but she did not answer the challenge that she set herself. The question is not whether the Government have placed new burdens on the education system—that is beyond doubt; they have imposed massive burdens on our schools—but where the benefits are.
  That is the question that Labour Members cannot answer. They attack the previous Government for their centralising policies, which we must interpret as an attack,

  959
  fundamentally, on the national curriculum. We all know that there were problems with implementing that curriculum—there are problems with implementing any bold new strategy—but entrenching into the education system the principle of a national curriculum was one of the previous Government's greatest achievements in their 18 years in office.
  When the Minister attacks Government quangos, ultimately, she is attacking Ofsted. Whatever may be said about the implementation of Ofsted's work, I think that its introduction and the change in culture that it has achieved is another great educational achievement of the previous Conservative Government. It underpinned the rise in education standards and improvement in GCSE and A-level results year after year under the previous Government, so the Labour party is all over the place when it tries to attack the principles that underpin the education revolution that the Conservatives achieved in their 18 years in power.
  The Government latch on to soundbites and initiatives—anything that sells well in the papers the next day—at the cost of any genuine progress in education attainment.
  Mr. Vernon Coaker: The hon. Gentleman talked about the philosophical direction of the previous Government and, as an example of that, about the achievement at the top end of the academic spectrum and improved GCSE results. Will he talk about what that Government's philosophical commitment was to those at the other end of the spectrum?
  Mr. St. Aubyn: The previous Government greatly expanded the budget for special educational needs. Even the current Government, after entering office, were obliged to praise the previous Government's efforts in providing for the 3 per cent. who perform worst in school.
  Since the current Government came to power, my constituency of Guildford, and the county of Surrey, has experienced one attack after another on our education standards. Our local education authority has one of the United Kingdom's best results in literary standards in primary schools. Nevertheless, our assisted places scheme—the subject was dealt with by the hon. Member for Blackpool, South—has been attacked. In abolishing the scheme, the Government essentially came into my town of Guildford and closed one of our best secondary schools. Overnight, almost 400 places of outstanding worth for local children were abolished.
  It is true that, year after year, there has been an increase in Surrey's standard spending assessment, but the increases have come with a real cut in the cash that is supposed to pay for increased education spending in Surrey. That is the reality of our problem.
  The Government's amendment to the Opposition motion claims that
  "the Opposition has no proposals to raise standards".
  When we proposed a genuine new partnership in Surrey between the independent and state sectors, initially, the Minister for School Standards praised it as a great advance and the type of scheme that she would like to be implemented across the country. Subsequently, however, her boss saw the small print. At the last minute, he whipped out an extra provision in the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 to deny us the power to
  960
  implement that bold Conservative initiative, at least until the introduction of regulations telling us how the Government thought we should implement it. That is exactly what the debate is all about.
  A year after the Secretary of State's damning act pre-empting an initiative that would have built bridges between the independent and state sectors, no regulations for such initiatives have been proposed. Why have no such proposals been made? Why will such proposals, even consultative ones, not be made for another month or two? Why are the Government delaying making such proposals? Is the only reason for delay the fact that such proposals would be based on a bold Conservative initiative that would build bridges between the private and the state sectors? Conservative Members fervently believe that building such bridges is one of the ways in which we will raise education standards in the United Kingdom.
  Conservative-controlled Surrey has, however, proposed one other initiative. So far, the Minister for School Standards has endorsed it, and the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has not seen fit to shout it down. Month after month, however, there has been only a wall of silence from the Department for Education and Employment when we have sought its guidance and advice on how we should proceed with the initiative.
  Under the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, the Secretary of State takes so much power from LEAs. Although Surrey's initiative had to be approved by him, he remained absolutely silent when we asked him to do so. That is characteristic of the burdens placed on counties such as Surrey. Other than the odd statement of political play—such as the one at last year's Labour party conference, when the Secretary of State said that, if he did not like what we were doing, he would step into Guildford and take over running our schools, and other such nonsense; I had to explain to him that that would be against the law, even under the 1998 Act—we have received no guidance on the initiative.
  Conservative Members, who want diversity in education, have a real problem. We believe that a broad range of educational talent is available, and that diversity will harness that talent. Diversity cannot be characterised by the uniformity and dead hand of the Secretary of State. An inquiry by the Select Committee on Education and Employment into highly able children described, for example, how the literacy hour is turning off the most able children because it is far too boring for them. It is destroying their education standards, which are just as important as the education standards of other children in the class.
  Mr. Desmond Swayne: There is also the issue of imposing on schools something which might not suit their requirements. I can tell my hon. Friend about the experience of my son who came home from school explaining that the vicar would no longer be visiting the school because the literacy hour had left no time. That is a matter for schools and parents to decide, not Ministers.
  Mr. St. Aubyn: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. With all these initiatives the Government are creating an artificial world for education in this country. Teachers, heads and schools are being given artificial targets that do not answer the real individual needs of the children for

  961
  whom they are responsible. For example—we warned the Government that this would happen—in the first year of this Government and the new initiative for smaller classes in the first three years of primary school, the number of children in classes of over 40 in primary schools in Britain has doubled. Before the Government took office, the figure was on a downward trend. If the Government create an artificial target which says that half the school must have smaller classes, the inevitable consequence of trying to find the teachers necessary for that, other class sizes have to go up.
  Dr. George Turner: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. St. Aubyn: I will give way in a moment.
  Another example is the spring revision classes for year 6. It is an £18 million scheme, and teachers up and down the country have been complaining that it is a great waste of time. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) will forgive me if I use an example from his constituency. In connection with the extra classes for year 6, the head of Belvidere primary school near Shrewsbury said:
  "Although I would not wish to miss out on any extra funding, I am seriously concerned that this is far more to do with massaging key stage 2 SATs scores at a national level, than raising standards in levels of achievement."
  I could not put it better myself, but I will give the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner) an opportunity to do so.
  Dr. Turner: When £56 million is provided for extra teachers, I am trying to understand the logic of it being inevitable that a reduction in class sizes implies a doubling elsewhere. It sounds like Conservative logic to me—having to cut class sizes without any extra money to do so. The Government have committed themselves to providing the necessary funding to reduce class sizes for five, six and seven-year-olds. Why is a doubling in class sizes elsewhere inevitable?
  Mr. St. Aubyn: I know that a former Education Minister could not even master the seven times table, but it is obvious that, if there is a limited number of teachers—we know that there is a problem of teacher supply about which the Government were warned at the outset of their term of office—there will be a problem. Those teachers have to come from somewhere. The strains in the system are showing by the fact that the number of classes with more than 40 pupils has doubled. That is the scandal of the Government's record in their first year in office.
  King's Manor school in my constituency is the first school in the country to have been contracted out to the private sector. It was a great achievement for Conservative-run Surrey education authority. It has won the support of the Minister for School Standards and the chief inspector. Let me say why it is such a significant move.
  We have seen schools in difficulty turned around before by good or even great head teachers. What is so difficult, even in those cases, is to institutionalise the change in the
  962
  school. Schools fail because of a whole range of pressures and it needs more than one charismatic individual to solve the problem in the long term. By bringing in a new agency to provide new dynamism and purpose to the school in Guildford, I believe that we may have discovered a structure by which we can improve many of the failing schools up and down the country. In the second round of inspections, Ofsted has found too many schools that have not improved since their previous inspection. If we can get round the bureaucratic burdens that we keep getting from the Government, Conservative ideas will solve the problems.
  8.50 pm
  Jacqui Smith: I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate, although I am disappointed by the Tory motion, which displays a narrow, negative and carping approach to education policy. We heard no positive proposals for action on standards from the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts). The Conservatives are more interested in weighing pieces of paper than in making positive proposals for improving what happens in classrooms and creating opportunities for our children. We have heard no recognition of the fact that 18 years of Conservative Government left our education system underfunded, with teachers demoralised and children having been failed.
  The Opposition still believe that the only way to improve standards is by imposing a crude, laissez-faire market model of competition on the education system, so ably described by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden) as mad market chaos. In the Tory world, parents are consumers, schools are production units and children, presumably, are products. Have the Conservatives not yet learned that setting school against school does not raise standards?
  We have also heard that the Conservatives did not even pursue the logic of that policy, as they distorted their view with the imposition of a dogmatic, overcrowded and inflexible national curriculum in 1988, despite the pleas of teachers and academics, whom they now claim to care so much about. The Conservative years were characterised by a combination of the irresponsible imposition of market forces on schools, and the centralising dogma of their national curriculum.
  Miss Julie Kirkbride: Could the hon. Lady be more interesting?
  Mr. Jamieson: Shut up.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot have an extraneous conversation between the Whip on Government Front Bench and an Opposition Back Bencher while an hon. Member has the Floor.
  Jacqui Smith: Where was the incentive in the Conservative years for schools to share best practice? Why should schools have worked together to promote higher standards in the culture that was promulgated by the Conservatives? We could hope that the Conservatives had learned the lesson of those years, but unfortunately they have not. We have the evidence of that. Our Whip was not handing round Labour party propaganda, but was giving us the benefit of the Conservative party brief on

  963
  education—a single and rather flimsy sheet of paper which, under the heading "Points to make", says that Conservatives believe in raising standards through choice. That is the only proposal for raising standards. What does it mean? How will it work? There is no answer.
  Mr. Fraser rose—
  Jacqui Smith: Perhaps we shall hear some ideas.
  Mr. Fraser: Unlike Labour Members, we are free thinkers and we do not need aids to put our ideas together.
  Jacqui Smith: That brief is not an aid, it is the Conservative party position on education.
  I am being unfair. Three more policies are outlined in the Conservative document: first, they do not like our class size policy; secondly, they do not like the literacy hour; and thirdly, they like grammar schools. That is hardly a comprehensive approach to raising standards and putting right the damage that their Government did.
  As an ex-teacher and a current member of the National Union of Teachers, I am concerned about the bureaucratic burdens placed on teachers. I welcome the recent NUT survey on those bureaucratic burdens. If, however, the Conservatives wanted to enlist support for their case from the NUT, they would be disappointed because, unlike them, the NUT and teachers can see a clear distinction in the uses to which Government paperwork and activities are put.
  The NUT press release says:
  "Teachers draw a clear distinction between activities which promote high-quality teaching and learning and bureaucratic tasks which undermine it."
  Teachers were asked to list the bureaucratic tasks that they felt were unhelpful. The list includes copying out lists, copy typing, collecting money, unnecessary preparation for Ofsted, bulk photocopying, analysing attendance registers and a variety of other tasks. Only one of the tasks listed did not develop under the previous Government. The bureaucratic burdens on teachers were imposed by the Conservative Government.
  The one task on the list that I think should not be there—although I did not have any experience of it—is the auditing of standard fund spending. I have to disagree with my erstwhile colleagues in the NUT, because I wish that, in my 11 years of teaching under a Conservative Government, I had had the opportunity to audit extra spending, as opposed to spending my time wondering where money for improving standards was to come from.
  I welcome the fact that the Government have addressed the real concerns through the bureaucracy working party, which issued guidance in May 1998 that was welcomed by teaching unions. As my hon. Friend the Minister said, the Government have followed the working party's advice and changed the way in which mailings are sent out. If teachers are still doing too many bureaucratic tasks, that is a matter of how schools are being managed and how resources are being used locally.
  Mr. Fraser: Does the hon. Lady agree that it is better to spend money closer to the pupil, taking away a lot of the bureaucracy in local education authorities? Does she agree that there should be choice and the opportunity for all parents to participate in how their children
  964
  are educated, or does she think, conversely, that everyone should have the same and that we should do down the system rather than bringing it up?
  Jacqui Smith: There are several questions involved there, and I will certainly touch on those issues later on. Money is indeed important, which is why I condemned the underfunding under the previous Government, and why I think the present Government are right to have considered, in the fair funding proposals, how to get money down to schools and ensure that it is spent there.
  One of the problems identified by the NUT was too many lunchtime meetings. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his team are powerful and important but they cannot be held responsible if school management results in too many lunchtime meetings. Perhaps that highlights the need for training for headship, to make heads better able to manage both staff and resources—we know that the Government are delivering that—and the importance of the Green Paper.
  The Green Paper is not only about pay, although it is worth noting that it will give many teachers a larger pay rise than I ever had in my teaching career and offer them the potential to earn more and stay in the classroom, raising standards for children. Bearing in mind the criticisms offered by the Conservative opportunists—I meant Opposition, but perhaps I was right the first time—it is worth asking whether Conservative Front Benchers are opposed to increased pay for teachers and, if not, how they would institute such increases.
  Mr. Paterson: The hon. Lady has at last got round to discussing Government policy—the subject of the debate. Could she answer some questions that have been posed on the Green Paper by a senior head teacher in my constituency? He said that the amount of paperwork would be greatly increased if the proposed appraisal scheme went through. He asked who would do the appraisal, and how time would be spent by key managers in the school. He added that there was a huge assumption that that scheme would happen without the adequate provision of extra resources. Could she kindly answer those questions?
  Jacqui Smith: I am pleased that the Government are undertaking exactly the sort of technical consultation that is necessary to address those issues. Is the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) arguing that we should not find the resources to increase teachers' pay? Is he arguing against his own party's manifesto, which said that the Conservatives believed that appraisal should be tightened on teachers and should focus solely on pupils' performance and results? That is what the Conservatives were arguing before the election.
  The Green Paper is important because it will enable teachers to take a radical look at how they work. Are they working in a way that will raise standards? How will they work with the 20,000 new classroom assistants to be funded by the Government? How will they raise standards in the classroom? How will they improve their sense of professionalism? I welcome the opportunity given by the Green Paper to enable teachers to address those questions. This is a real, funded opportunity to review the role of teachers, and to refocus their efforts on what matters most—learning and teaching in the classroom.

  965
  I wish to refer to the literacy hour. I notice from the NUT survey that teachers—unlike the Conservative party—do not see the literacy hour as a burden. As a constituency Member of Parliament and a mother, I have had experience of the literacy hour on my visits to many schools in my constituency. I must tell the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne)—who has now left the Chamber—that my son's school managed not only to include that literacy hour, but to arrange to see the local vicar and to go to the local church. That is good news.
  Schools, teachers and parents welcome the emphasis on raising standards, the sharing of best practice, the funding made available by the Government and the training of co-ordinators and staff.
  Mr. Fraser: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Jacqui Smith: No, I will not, because I want other Opposition Members to have a chance to speak.
  Will the Conservatives come clean? Do they intend to scrap the literacy hour? Will they follow the advice of the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) and impose a further Tory education cut—introducing, perhaps, the literacy half-hour?
  In conclusion, the Opposition have carped and criticised. They have failed to support the Government's action to raise standards, or our plans to increase the sense of professionalism and pay among teachers. They have failed to support the extra £19 billion of spending for education. I must tell Conservative Members that the biggest burden that I had placed on me in my 11 years as a teacher was my inability to find the resources to do the job properly. Those Members have failed to support our schools. In government, they failed our schools and our children. In opposition, they are still doing so.
  9.4 pm
  Miss Julie Kirkbride: I am particularly grateful to be called at this juncture because I represent the neighbouring seat to that of the hon. Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith), and, therefore, we share an interest in a number of school issues. Much of her speech was irrelevant, in that she discussed the past—from a partisan viewpoint—and the previous Government's excellent performance in education. She had precious little to say about the present Government's performance in education. However, her remark that her biggest burden as a teacher was financing was germane. Although the arrangement has changed on the Government Front Bench, the hon. Lady had an opportunity to speak to the Under-Secretary of State the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke) about the financing of Worcestershire schools and the problems faced by teachers and head teachers in Worcestershire schools with regard to the financing of our schools.
  At the end of last year the Government conducted a review of the standard spending assessment and central Government financing of schools and local government.
  966
  The hon. Lady kindly arranged a meeting with the Under-Secretary—Labour Members have access to Ministers—so that we could listen—
  Mr. Tony McNulty: Get on with it.
  Miss Kirkbride: It may not be important to the hon. Gentleman, but to us in Worcestershire, it is extremely important. I am glad to see the Under-Secretary back in his place.
  Mr. Plaskitt: Get on with it.
  Miss Kirkbride: We had a meeting with the Minister about the funding of Worcestershire schools. It is extraordinary that during her speech the hon. Lady did not mention that despite the sympathetic hearing that the Labour leader of Worcestershire council received from the Minister, and despite the fact that the meeting was attended by teachers from various constituencies, we did not get a single extra penny out of the Government when the SSA was changed. Worcestershire schools should get greater priority.
  Mr. Jamieson: Eighteen years.
  Miss Kirkbride: I accept that under the Conservative Government, Tory Members tried to change the education grant. The difference is that when the hon. Gentleman's Government came to power, they pretended that everything would be different. They duly set up the review, and it changed nothing about the financial position of Worcestershire schools. They are still underfunded. They are in the lowest 10 per cent. for funding throughout the nation.
  I am astonished that the hon. Member for Redditch did not mention that when she had the ear of the Minister and the opportunity to plead for all our schools, whether in Redditch or in Bromsgrove. If I may say so, she should be ashamed of herself.
  The problem of financing is the greatest issue that schools in Worcestershire face, and the Government have done nothing about it. They are producing other burdens on our schools that are causing great concern. I recently visited Meadow Green primary school, where there is great concern about the effect of the changes to the local management of schools brought about in the Education (Schools) Act 1997. The school had not been told about the kind of repairs for which it will be responsible, the level of the budget that will be devolved from the local authority—a Labour-controlled local authority—for repairs and maintenance, and how much the capital spending programme will be as a proportion of the budget.
  There is great concern at many of my schools. I was called to an emergency meeting of the governors because they are so worried. They want to do their best for their school and for the community. The Government have instituted changes that are still unclear. The changes take effect in April, but the schools do not know how they will be affected by the new arrangements.
  I should tell the Ministers—there are now two on the Front Bench—that schools in Worcestershire are deeply unimpressed by the so-called new deal for schools. Schools in Worcestershire have not seen any of

  967
  that money. [Interruption.] If the Minister will write to me, I shall be keen to hear what schools in Bromsgrove have got from the new deal. [Interruption.] Labour Members may scream and shout as much as they like.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. No they may not. It would be helpful to the House if the hon. Lady could be heard against a rather quieter background.
  Miss Kirkbride: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  The simple fact is that schools in Bromsgrove believe that the Government's new deal applies only to other schools. Money goes to seriously dilapidated schools that have been run for so long by Labour-controlled local authorities that they are in such a state of disrepair as to be eligible for the money.
  Mr. Gordon Marsden: I have listened carefully to the hon. Lady. Have the schools in Bromsgrove entered the Bermuda triangle of Government funding only in the last 18 months, or were they also there during the previous 18 years?
  Miss Kirkbride: The hon. Gentleman has not listened to what I have said. I am talking about the new deal, and he may wish to know that it is part of the Labour Government's policy. Money is announced, re-announced and then announced again. They tell us that they are spending megabucks on our schools, but none of my schools is even aware of the existence of that money because they are not receiving what they want. That happened under the hon. Gentleman's Government, not during the previous 18 years.
  I shall conclude on class sizes to allow other hon. Members time to speak. My hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) made a fascinating and telling point about what has happened to the pledge on class sizes. The number of classes in which there are more than 40 children has doubled. The impression I receive from my schools is that the pressure points are merely being moved around. Schools are legally obliged to make progress on five, six and seven-year-olds, and much progress is therefore being made. Meanwhile, older children are in larger classes so that the schools can fund the smaller ones, a situation that testifies to the point made by my hon. Friend.
  On the whole, it is better to have lower class sizes so that more individual attention can be given to children. However, there is a question of balance. There may, as the Conservatives have said, be occasions on which a classroom support teacher may be more effective than alternative methods.
  Despite the underfunding provided to Bromsgrove by the new Labour Government, we are lucky to have excellent schools that produce excellent results. The hon. Member for Redditch may shake her head at that: her Labour-controlled county council has tried to close two of my excellent schools. Thank goodness we stopped that.
  Jacqui Smith: I am pleased to hear the hon. Lady congratulate her schools. Will she take this opportunity to withdraw her comments in my local newspaper criticising teachers and children in Redditch schools,
  968
  and condemning their low standards? Her remarks were upsetting to my constituents, and several people have contacted me about what she said.
  Miss Kirkbride: The hon. Lady misquotes what I said. The incident to which she refers was the programme for closures in Redditch schools. Sadly, some of my schools are drawn into the Redditch orbit, and the Labour-controlled county council decided to seek to close Beoley first school and Tardebigge Church aided school, excellent rural schools to which her Government are meant to be committed. Other schools in Redditch were not earmarked for closure although their results were not as good as those in my schools.
  Jacqui Smith: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Miss Kirkbride: I have answered the hon. Lady, so she might as well sit down. She has had her moment in which to make her point, and she completely misquoted what I said. It is a matter of record in the local newspaper, and I stand by what I have said today as it is the same as what I said to the local newspaper.
  I have excellent schools in my constituency, and some of the very good ones are in Hagley. However happy one may be in principle about the reduction in class sizes and the 30-pupil limit, I have a prediction to make, for the benefit of Labour Members and the Ministers: I now see a steady flow of extremely irate parents who would kill to get their children into some of my first schools, but whose children are now being deprived of the chance to go to those first schools because of the arbitrary limits set by the Labour Government; and I fear that that trickle will become a great flow. Despite the Government's good intentions—perhaps I am being generous—setting a limit of 30 pupils in certain classes is not necessarily the right way forward. Many of my constituents will strongly oppose that limit when it becomes a strict rule in a few years time.
  9.15 pm
  Mr. Vernon Coaker: Much of my teaching career took place during the years of Conservative Government. Those years brought constant upheaval, massive new burdens and policies such as the expansion of the assisted places scheme and grant-maintained schools, many of which were given benefits not available to other schools to encourage them to opt out. Those years also witnessed declining pupil behaviour, despite huge increases in expulsions, and poor standards. After 18 years of Conservative Government, half of all our 11-year-olds failed to reach the levels expected for their age in maths and English; and one in 12 pupils failed to achieve one GCSE at the end of their school career.
  A burden greater than all of those has already been mentioned by some of my hon. Friends—unbridled competition, which, rather than supporting individual school improvement, was the driving force behind the Conservative Government's programme. The Tory belief was that the education system could be treated as a market: if raw statistics were published and free parental choice allowed, good schools would expand and poor schools close. In reality, schools had the burden of back-door selection and two-tier comprehensive education.
  That led to teachers who were struggling with pupils with special needs being undervalued, and feeling undervalued. It led to schools that were trying to cope

  969
  with pupils who had difficult emotional and behavioural problems being labelled as bad schools. The way in which the Conservative Government pursued their policies created the biggest burdens that could be imposed on any school: the feeling that, unless pupils achieved high academic excellence, the school had failed, and so had the teachers.
  Initiative after initiative came into schools, but they were all driven by a philosophical thrust that fundamentally misunderstood the dynamics of school improvement and the real meaning of raising standards for all pupils, and not only those at a particular level. Against that background, the Labour Government are trying to raise standards for all children, increase achievement in all schools and remotivate the teaching profession, while rebuilding the fabric of the schools within which children are taught.
  Our policies are motivated by a belief in the comprehensive principle. It is time to restate our commitment to the comprehensive principle: it might need modernising and changing, but that principle offers more children the opportunity to make the best of their ability than any of the alternative systems on offer. Through support and encouragement as well as stricture and demand, we shall move forward and improve our schools. That will require new initiatives and make new demands on schools, but we shall act sensibly and constructively to raise the achievements of all the pupils in our schools.
  The numeracy and literacy projects have been well supported, with a wide range of materials and training available. The national curriculum for primary schools has been made more flexible, thus reducing the burden on schools and enabling them to implement the national numeracy and literacy strategies. The Tories complain about the burden that the numeracy and literacy strategies place on schools. From my experience, there is no bigger burden on schools than having large numbers of pupils who cannot read or write.
  Mr. Fraser rose—
  Mr. Coaker: I am sorry, but there is not enough time. Other hon. Members wish to make their own contributions.
  If children cannot master basic skills at an early age, the consequences follow them through their school years and fundamentally affect their life chances. Does the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) really oppose strategies that address such problems?
  I also commend the initiative with respect to 14 and 16-year-olds, which has not been mentioned in great detail tonight. Pupils of that age are often the most difficult in schools. Greater flexibility in that part of the curriculum to provide more work-based and work-related learning for pupils, in co-operation and liaison with local further education colleges, should lead to a reduction in truancy. Not only will those pupils benefit from that education entitlement, but other pupils whose education is often adversely affected by the disaffection of the first group will be taught in a better environment.
  I turn to other aspects of the proposals before us today, particularly attitudes to the teaching profession. I know many teachers in Nottingham and Nottinghamshire,
  970
  many of whom are my former colleagues and friends. Everyone accepts that the majority of teachers work extremely hard and do their best in often difficult circumstances. However, that is no reason for not making changes for the better.
  When I was teaching, we would always ask, "Why are teachers promoted only when they take on some sort of management function?" Why can teachers not stay in the classroom, be promoted and receive better pay just because they are good teachers? That is one of the great tragedies of the current pay structure: if teachers who are good in the classroom want to advance, they must be promoted out of the classroom. Consultation is under way at the moment in an effort to address that pay structure problem.
  Another issue is particularly demoralising to teachers: we must ensure that teachers are allowed to teach in the classroom. I believe that some of the problems in our schools have nothing to do with pay or any of the other issues that we often discuss. I think that teachers are often frustrated because they cannot teach. People enter the teaching profession because they wish to pass on an excitement about history, a joy of music or an appreciation of the beauty of poetry or art. However, the problems that young people bring into the classroom often prevent teachers from teaching. My right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench are pursuing constructive initiatives in an attempt to improve behaviour in schools. That is a fundamental move.
  If we could tackle that problem, we would remotivate teachers, because they want to teach. Many of the schools in which I have taught—I do not mean to be disrespectful to them, and I am sure that many hon. Members will understand this point—have operated as social hospitals. Schools are often the only places where there is any stability in communities. We must recognise the work of schools and recognise and value the work of teachers. If that happens, some of the other problems will disappear.
  It is my fundamental belief that the issue is not one of pay, but of teachers wanting to be able to teach and feeling that they are valued for doing so. If we achieve that, we will raise standards and be able to change the structures in schools. I therefore welcome many of the initiatives—which the hon. Member for Havant would call burdens—to try to establish the behaviour plans and home-school contracts that are so essential in raising standards in schools and remotivating our teaching force.
  I shall be brief so that other hon. Members will, hopefully, have an opportunity to speak. The Government's initiatives are not burdens. They will tackle education in an attempt to raise standards for all pupils. The previous Conservative Government's education policy failed because their philosophical thrust was to try to benefit those at the top and abandon the rest. Some schools and their teachers were regarded as good, and the rest were abandoned. The Government have to deal with that legacy and work within its limits.
  There is cynicism about the motives behind the Government's reforms, but they are to raise standards in schools for all pupils; to restore and improve teacher morale; to value all our pupils, whatever their circumstances, and to improve the achievement of every pupil in every school in the land, irrespective of where they live, their parents and other associated factors. If we get that right, we will have proved ourselves to be a truly

  971
  radical Government—as I believe we shall be—who are determined to make tough choices and face a rough ride in the short term to achieve the long-term goal of re-establishing the principles that I have mentioned and developing an education system that offers opportunity to all pupils, not just a few.
  9.27 pm
  Mr. Howard Flight: Conservative Members have not raised a party political or general political matter. We are repeating what the people in schools in our constituencies are saying to us. I have been visiting schools in West Sussex for the past three years and, in the past six months, I have been overwhelmed by complaints from heads and teachers, many of whom are not our political supporters, about the excessive burden of paperwork. Labour Members seem to be particularly touchy about us discussing practical rather than doctrinaire problems.
  There is a growing gap between propaganda and reality. In my part of the world, schools are having to sack teachers because the overall effect of the massive cut in standard spending assessment money means that there is no extra money for schools. The gap between expectancy and reality is enormous.
  I want particularly to deal with class sizes because schools in my constituency typically serve communities, and their intake numbers vary by between 40 and 60 pupils each year. Schools have managed by having two classes of about 30 or one class of 40 with an assistant. Heads have expressed bitter criticism about the fact that they are now faced with having too much mixed-age teaching or simply refusing to take pupils in years in which they have a large intake. Other schools are often eight or 10 miles away and it is a nightmare for parents to transport their children to a different school, so schools feel obliged to serve their communities. For schools of that size, a mandatory class size of 30 does not work; it creates more problems than it solves.
  The Government should listen to what heads and teachers are saying. It is no good saying, "We are jolly well going to throw all these consultative documents and instructions at you, and they will make you better teachers in better schools, come what may." I suggest, gently, that that is not happening. Teachers need to be motivated; pay is not the problem. They need to be able to get on with running their schools well, and not be overburdened with excessive rigidity and paperwork.
  9.30 pm
  Mrs. Theresa May: I am pleased to be winding up this important and interesting debate, in which several of my hon. Friends have made excellent speeches. One of the most noticeable features of the speeches by Labour Members was the reluctance to defend the Government's record. They wanted to talk about the past, not the present, under their Government.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) has pointed out, we see a gap between the Government's propaganda and what is happening in schools. Sadly, there is a lack of understanding among Government Front Benchers—and Government Back Benchers—of what is happening as a result of their policy. As my hon. Friend has said, the points that we are raising are the same ones that teachers and head teachers raise
  972
  when we visit schools. They are upset, concerned and worried about the burdens that are being put on them and the level of bureaucracy with which they are having to cope under this Government. They are especially concerned because, frankly, they had not expected that from this Government. In future, they will not believe the promises and pledges that Labour makes on the doorstep.
  We have exchanged statistics in this debate. Indeed, I might very well quote a few in a minute. The debate is important not just because it is about bureaucracy and paperwork, but because it is about what happens in the education of children in the classroom; about educational standards, and how we raise them; and about how the Government's multiplicity of so-called initiatives is tying down teachers and schools, reducing diversity and choice and taking teachers away from the job of improving standards.
  "Whenever I meet teachers I hear cries to cut the bureaucracy to let us do our jobs."
  "We want to make sure that teachers spend their time teaching and not in unnecessary bureaucracy."
  "Teachers should be free to teach not slaves to paperwork."
  "Raising standards and reducing unnecessary paperwork in schools to allow teachers to teach are issues that go hand in hand."
  "Teachers should be able to concentrate on pupils' work, not paperwork."
  One might think that those quotations were from speeches of my hon. Friends in this debate, or perhaps even of disgruntled governors or disaffected teachers. Surprising though it may seem, given the nature and tone of the speech of the Minister for School Standards, who seemed reluctant to accept that there was any problem about bureaucracy in schools, every one of those quotations was from a Minister, as an initiative to cut bureaucracy and red tape in our schools was launched and relaunched.
  What initiative did the Government take to cut red tape? They set up a working party, conducted a review, came up with a report, and followed it with a Department for Education and Employment circular. Following the working party's report a year ago, what did the Government say? They said that they would make every effort to ensure that the report's recommendations bore fruit. What action were they going to take? They were going to set up another division in the DfEE. This must be the only Government whose response to cutting bureaucracy is to employ more bureaucrats.
  What has happened since the report was issued in January 1998? Three months and 59 guidance notes, directives, surveys and other documents later, the Government announced another relaunch. Two months and 48 guidance notes, directives, surveys and other documents later, the Government announced another relaunch. One month and 21 guidance notes, directives, surveys and other documents later, the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), stood up at a local education authority conference in Torquay and pledged his personal crusade to cut bureaucracy. What happened in the following six months? One hundred and ninety-four guidance notes, directives, surveys and other documents.
  It would be farcical if it were not so important, because this is not just about the numbers of Government documents; it is about the fact that, the more time is taken

  973
  by teachers to deal with the paperwork, the less time they have to educate children and to improve standards in the classroom.
  I take the point made by the hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker)—teachers want to teach. That is why we raised this issue tonight. Teachers do not want to be stuck looking at paperwork, dealing with forms and reports and reading endless directives and guidelines from the Government.
  The Minister for School Standards said that everything was all right because, in September 1998, the Government had decided that they would approach things differently on bureaucracy. She said that, since last September, it was all perfectly all right and there were no problems. I see the Minister shake her head, but she told us that, since last September, the bureaucracy had actually reduced. Perhaps she needs to read the survey commissioned last month by the NAT/UWT and conducted by the Electoral Reform Society, which showed that the situation had not changed in 60 per cent. of schools, and had got worse in a quarter of schools.
  It is little wonder that, today, the general secretary of the NAS/UWT issued a press release headed, "Bureaucracy Bugs Teachers. Workload Worries Remain". It says:
  "The Government is addicted to one initiative after another. The need to provide booster classes and after-hours support for children to meet ambitious Government targets recently added to the excessive workload being placed upon teachers. Individual, school, LEA and National Targets are raining down in their thousands upon teachers. Mismanagement of the Literacy Hour has not helped and the forthcoming numeracy strategy is awaited with trepidation by many primary teachers.
  The Government will have to get a grip on this problem, otherwise its bureaucratic proposals for appraisal and management performance, outlined in the recently published Green Paper, will cause the education system to sink under its own weight."
  Miss Melanie Johnson: First, I should like to challenge your idea that ambition is something—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Not my ideas; the hon. Lady's.
  Miss Johnson: I stand corrected, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should like to challenge the hon. Lady's ideas about our ambitions for the education service. Does she not share those ambitions, and does she not believe that ambition for the future of our schools and the education of our children has a right and proper place? Does her memory not extend back to where mine does—I am sure that it does, Mr. Deputy Speaker—and remember things like the pantechnicons that arrived delivering national curriculum documents, full of unnecessary prescription, to schools throughout the country, at a time when legislation rained down upon the education service year after year? Does her memory not go back—
  Mr.Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady has gone far beyond what she would normally be allowed.
  Mrs. May: After that intervention, Lady has no ambitions in the House. The answer is that we believe in raising educational standards. We are
  974
  debating the subject tonight because what the Government are doing is not raising standards in education, but mitigating against improving standards in education.
  I suggest that the hon. Lady listens to the teachers' views. I quote some comments that were made during the survey commissioned by the NAS/UWT, conducted last month, in which teachers were asked,
  "What are the problems associated with workload which still need to be addressed at your workplace?"
  Some answers were:
  "There are too many bits of paperwork. What we are supposed to be doing is educating children."
  "I would think that the main thing is a lot of extra paperwork. Multiple copies of planning sheets and assessments are time consuming, as is the admin for literacy hour."
  "Initiatives to try and raise achievement are causing an increase in workload, for example targeting."
  "There are not enough hours in the day to get through everything. You can't teach and do paperwork at the same time—one has to suffer and it's usually the teaching."
  Mr. Hawkins: Does my hon. Friend recognise that, on school visit after school visit, I have been told by head teachers and chairmen of governors in my constituency that the one thing that they pray for is that the Government will stop burying them in paper? My hon. Friend has met head teachers in my constituency. Does she agree that that is one thing that heads and other teachers are telling the Government?
  Mrs. May: I thank my hon. Friend for that excellent intervention. He is right. He shows how much closer Conservative Members are to understanding what teachers and head teachers say about the work load introduced by the Government than are Ministers and Labour Members. As he said, it is precisely because teachers and head teachers complain about the work load that we have chosen to debate the matter today.
  Helen Jones: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. May: No, the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Miss Johnson) made rather a long intervention.
  It is not just teachers and head teachers who are complaining about the work load and paperwork. Labour Members of Parliament are also doing so. In an Adjournment debate on 11 January, the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor), who was in his place earlier today, referring to schools that he had visited in his constituency, said:
  "The chairs of governors of the schools … often said that they were drowning in a sea of paper … The continuing inflow of documents for the attention of chairs and members of governing bodies is reaching alarming proportions".—[Official Report, 11 January 1999; Vol. 323, c. 76–77.]
  Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should discuss that with the hon. Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith) who, in an extraordinary contribution to the debate, said that it was all the fault of teachers and nothing whatever to do with the Government.
  I want to touch on four particular burdens impacting on schools. One is the bidding process, the problems of which were ably described by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster). The Government's obsession with targets, as shown in one of the comments that I have just quoted,

  975
  is another problem impacting on schools. I welcome the Minister's statement that her entire Front-Bench team will resign if the literacy and numeracy targets are not reached by 2010. [Interruption.]She obviously has not told all her hon. Friends of that intention. The Minister with responsibility for higher education might be a little worried because standards are falling and the targets are even further from being reached than they were when the Secretary of State first said that he would offer his resignation.
  A lot has been said about the literacy hour, which is placing real burdens on teachers. The hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden) claimed that the Government would not intervene where schools were achieving and raising standards, but the point about the literacy hour is that the Government are intervening regardless of the standards that are being achieved by schools. The hon. Gentleman said that the Government were enabling and empowering, but, in the literacy hour, they are directing.
  A primary school teacher in the north of England said:
  "I feel like an NQT in minute one of my career, not a seasoned professional who has ridden every merry-go-round that has been introduced and got off them again. All the things that have worked for me, the experience built up over those 25 years in the primary classroom have been replaced by a strategy that is too bulky to deliver, too onerous to plan and that has a 'knock-on' effect for the use of teaching areas, hall, quiet rooms etc … We know the stress that we feel and how we dread the job we once enjoyed, but no-one asks us or listens to us. We also know that when it fails it will be our fault. We dare not contemplate the Numeracy Hour. As our area secretary said, 'This is the stuff nervous breakdowns are made of.—
  That is the teachers' reaction to the Government's imposition of the prescriptive literacy hour.
  For the future, we have performance-related pay, with its cumbersome, unwieldy and bureaucratic proposals. The NAHT has calculated that, in the first year, the administration of the system will cost £250 million before a single pound has reached the pocket of a single teacher. It will create a two-tier teaching profession. It was sold on the basis that teachers would be rewarded for good performance but, as the Minister for School Standards made clear in Essex at the launch of the Green Paper, she did not think it right to pay people extra "for just teaching". This is not about giving teachers money for good performance; it is about requiring them to take on extra responsibilities and new contracts.
  The NAS/UWT says that performance-related pay is woefully unmanageable and monstrously bureaucratic. Linda McMillan, a deputy head from Blackpool, said:
  "They stood there asking us how we could make something unworkable work."
  The Government are inundating schools, teachers and governors with directives, diktats, guidance notes, information notes and paper after paper. The Government should rethink the timing of their teachers' pay proposals. They need to reconsider what they are doing, and ensure that they introduce compliance cost assessments for every directive, piece of paper and regulation that goes out from the Department for Education and Employment.
  The Government went to the electorate promising that things can only get better. They did not say that they will get better if we are lucky. They did not say that they will get better after a few years. They did not say, "We'll try to make them better, but they might get worse." They promised that they could only get better. Teachers snowed
  976
  under with bureaucracy do not think that things are better. Teachers whose professionalism is taken away by Government diktat do not think they are better. Parents who see standards falling do not think they are better. The Government should stop lecturing teachers and should stop trying to grab the headlines. It is time they gave schools a break. Let teachers teach: our children deserve it.
  9.46 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Charles Clarke): It is extraordinary that the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) made that speech without any mention of parents, employers, governors or children. It is clear to me that she is now the teacher unions' friend, as I remarked to her at a National Union of Teachers conference on education action zones. I am not quite sure how well that goes down with her hon. Friends on the Back Benches. The vigour of her speech led me to think, yet again, that she is more than the shadow Secretary of State's third brain. Her one brain adds up to more than his two put together.
  I was struck by the speech of the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster). When pressed, he sought to explain and justify his alliance with the Tories on this significant occasion by reference to two specific points with which he had difficulty: the bidding process, to which the hon. Member for Maidenhead also referred, and the children's Parliament. He could bring nothing else to bear. I am disappointed that he has not associated himself with our drive to raise standards, because I had hoped that the Liberal Democrats would do so.
  I was delighted to receive—contrary to what the hon. Member for Maidenhead said—my hon. Friends' strong support for the Government's programme. It ranged from the philosophical run through Mao, Stalin and Hobbes by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden) to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith), who gave specific and powerful attention to the flimsy Tory document and list, and the excellent intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker), which brought us back to standards and achievement and the comprehensive principle.
  I was less convinced by the remarks of the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) and his appeal for permanent revolution, and by the discourse of the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride) on the funding system in Worcestershire, although I was flattered that my meeting with her caused her such excitement.
  Jacqui Smith: In the light of the confusion thrown into the debate by the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride), would it be helpful if I told my hon. Friend that in the financial year 1998–99 Worcestershire received £1.637 million under the new deal, including money for schemes in Bromsgrove, £3.796 million in a standards fund, and £600,000 towards the national grid for learning, on top of the £2,000 for each school for extra books?
  Mr. Clarke: Now we know who the truly well-informed Member for the county of Worcestershire is.
  Miss Kirkbride: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Clarke: No, I shall not give way.

  977
  I shall begin the substance of my speech by reference to the common ground between Members on the two Front Benches. It is common ground that we need to reduce the bureaucratic burden in schools.
  Miss Kirkbride: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Clarke: No, I shall not give way, because I will not allow the debate on bureaucratic burdens in schools to be hijacked. If the hon. Lady wants to have her discourse, she is welcome to have it.
  It is common ground that it is necessary to reduce the quantity of paper going to schools.
  Mr. James Gray: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Am I right in thinking that, if the Minister mentions another hon. Member—in this instance, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride)—he should give way to her, so that she can reply to what he has said?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think the hon. Gentleman has been in the House long enough to understand that that is not a point of order. It is entirely a matter of convention. It is for the Minister to determine whether to give way.
  Mr. Clarke: It is very striking—
  Miss Kirkbride: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Clarke: No, I will not. It is very striking—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but the House must come to order. It is entirely up to the Minister whether he gives way. We cannot have a chorus of disapproval and counter-disapproval across the Chamber; we want to hear the end of the debate in an orderly manner.
  Mr. Clarke: I shall say what I was trying to say. It is striking that Opposition Back Benchers should wish to debate funding in Worcestershire, rather than their motion. It is in connection with that motion that I wish to respond to Opposition Members' assertions.
  Miss Kirkbride rose—
  Mr. Clarke: I have made it clear that I do not intend to give way to the hon. Lady.
  I want to focus on the issues that the Opposition have raised—issues to which the Government wish to respond. I have begun by saying that it is common ground that we need to seek to reduce the amount of paper in schools. That is why we set up a working group, produced guidance and established demonstration projects to reduce it further. That is why we have initiated tighter action to reduce the number of documents that are sent out, and have produced guidance on changes in the law.
  Mr. Phil Willis: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Clarke: Yes, I will. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the Opposition have made their point.
  Mr. Willis: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way.
  978
  I would have liked to raise this issue during the debate. It relates specifically to what the Minister just said about reducing the amount of paper. One of the proposals that the Government have trumpeted is the proposal to put all schools on the internet: indeed, that was a manifesto promise. At present, only one in five primary schools is on the internet. When will the Government ensure that their election promise—which has now been delivered to BT and the cable companies in terms of their franchises—is delivered to our schools, so that they can reduce the amount of bureaucracy?
  Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman has been pursuing that in the House, and he has been right to do so. We have set the pledge for 2002, but we hope to fulfil it earlier. We have established a website with all the data, and schools can obtain data directly from the internet. We have launched a series of initiatives to reduce the amount of paper, and we shall proceed with that action.
  What I really want to deal with, however, is the charge of opportunism that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch. These are the issues, and this is what our communications are about. First, there is inspection of the Ofsted system; secondly, there is the national curriculum; thirdly, there are the performance tables and data collection; fourthly, there is in-service teacher training; fifthly, there is reform of the teaching profession and teacher training; sixthly, there are local management of schools and their funding; and seventhly, there are special educational needs. On all those issues, the Conservative Government produced legislation, and imposed burdens on schools. In every case, we are reducing those burdens and making progress.
  Mr. John Bercow: If the Minister's Government are as busy reducing burdens as he claims, can he explain why the general secretary of the National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers, Mr. Nigel de Gruchy, has described the Government's proposals for reform of the teaching profession as entirely inappropriate, woefully unmanageable and monstrously bureaucratic?
  Mr. Clarke: Again, I am struck by the increasingly intimate relationship between the ultra-right among the Opposition and the teaching trade unions. Consultation is taking place, and we shall of course listen to every view that is expressed.
  On Ofsted inspections, we are lightening the burden where the Tories increased it. On the national curriculum, the Tories went through the Dearing fiasco, while we are reducing the burden. We do not know what the Tories will do, although we heard from the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) that they would scrap the literacy hour. We gather from the Leader of the Opposition that they will scrap the national curriculum altogether. On performance tables, we are reducing the burden.
  Mr. Paterson: Earlier, the Minister for School Standards showed infernal arrogance and breathtaking contempt for one of Shropshire's most distinguished

  979
  teachers, Grahame Arnold, head teacher at Adams school in Wem. Will the Minister dissociate himself from her comments? Does he agree with Mr. Arnold that
  "local Education Authorities are now employing more staff to deal with the demands of Government legislation which means less teachers in the class room to teach children"?
  Mr. Clarke: The reverse is true. I agreed with what my hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards said. She summed up the position clearly. That is the position as it stands.
  I continue down the list. On in-service training, it was the Tory Government who brought in Baker days in 1987, although I note that the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) now wants to get rid of them. We are reducing the burden.
  On the teaching profession overall, it was the Conservative Government who set up the Teacher Training Agency in 1994 and who developed the national curriculum for initial teacher training. It was the Conservative Government who brought performance-related pay into the public sector. It is we who seek to raise the esteem of the profession, to reduce the burden and to raise standards.
  On fair funding, it is we who are putting more resources into schools. On special education, the Conservative Government legislated in 1993 and produced a code of practice. It is we who are targeting the real issues.
  The issues are straightforward. The so-called burdens that the Opposition claim—[Interruption.] It is interesting that those Conservative Members on the Front Bench do not want to listen. That is a characteristic of the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay), the Northern Ireland spokesman. It shows what disqualifies him from his shadow role—he has no listening quality whatever.
  We are reducing the burdens. We will continue to reduce them. The reason why we will continue—
  Mr. St. Aubyn rose—
  Mr. Clarke: I will not give way.
  Mr. St. Aubyn rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the Minister. The hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) must seek loudly to make an intervention. If he is refused, he must sit down.
  Mr. Clarke rose—
  Mr. St. Aubyn: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Clarke: No, I will not give way. I will finish what I have to say.
  Miss Kirkbride: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Clarke: No.
  Our drive was, is and will continue to be to raise standards for children in our schools. We will do what we have to do to achieve that. We will carry through our policy of lightening the burden to allow teachers to teach and to work more effectively.
  980
  By the opportunist step of tabling the motion, the Conservative party has turned its back on the target of raising school standards. It is focused on the wrong target. It has truly become the party of reaction and no change.
  The times call for change. Our children are growing up in a world of rapid social and economic change. Schools have to equip children to master that change. Schools and teachers are there to help children. We are there to help schools and teachers to do that.
  I am sorry that the Tories are sticking their head in the sand and turning their back on the process. The true burden on schools over 18 years was the Conservative Government. The electorate removed that burden in May 1997. The burden of the Tory Government having been removed, the present Government are determined on a course of reducing burdens still further and raising standards for all still further. I believe and hope that the Liberal Democrats will reconsider their opportunistic stance and decide that they will commit themselves to what we are doing. I hope and believe—
  Mr. Patrick McLoughlin 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 172, Noes 334.

  Division No. 84]

  [9.59 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Collins, Tim

  Allan, Richard

  Colvin, Michael

  Amess, David

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Cran, James

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Dafis, Cynog

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Ballard, Jackie

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Beggs, Roy

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Duncan, Alan

  Bercow, John

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Blunt, Crispin

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Body, Sir Richard

  Evans, Nigel

  Boswell, Tim

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Faber, David

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Fabricant, Michael

  Brady, Graham

  Fallon, Michael

  Brazier, Julian

  Feam, Ronnie

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Flight, Howard

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Burnett, John

  Fraser, Christopher

  Burstow, Paul

  Gale, Roger

  Butterfill, John

  Garnier, Edward

  Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

  Gibb, Nick

  Cash, William

  Gill, Christopher

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair

  Chidgey, David

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Chope, Christopher

  Gray, James

  Clappison, James

  Green, Damian

  Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

  Grieve, Dominic

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  981

  Hammond, Philip

  Randall, John

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Harvey, Nick

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Heald, Oliver

  Ross, William (E Lond'y)

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Ruffley, David

  Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Horam, John

  Sanders, Adrian

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

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

  Hunter, Andrew

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Soames, Nicholas

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Spring, Richard

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Steen, Anthony

  Key, Robert

  Streeter, Gary

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Swayne, Desmond

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Syms, Robert

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Lansley, Andrew

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Leigh, Edward

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Lidington, David

  Thompson, William

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Townend, John

  Livsey, Richard

  Tredinnick, David

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Trend, Michael

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Tyler, Paul

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Tyrie, Andrew

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Viggers, Peter

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Wallace, James

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Walter, Robert

  Madel, Sir David

  Wardle, Charles

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Waterson, Nigel

  Malins, Humfrey

  Webb, Steve

  Maples, John

  Welsh, Andrew

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Whittingdale, John

  Moore, Michael

  Wilkinson, John

  Moss, Malcolm

  Willetts, David

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Willis, Phil

  Norman, Archie

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Oaten, Mark

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Öpik, Lembit

  Woodward, Shaun

  Ottaway, Richard

  Yeo, Tim

  Page, Richard

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Paice, James

  Paterson, Owen

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Pickles, Eric

  Mrs. Caroline Spelman and

  Prior, David

  Mr. Stephen Day.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Benton, Joe

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Ainger, Nick

  Berry, Roger

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Best, Harold

  Allen, Graham

  Betts, Clive

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Blackman, Liz

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Blizzard, Bob

  Ashton, Joe

  Boateng, Paul

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Borrow, David

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Austin, John

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Barnes, Harry

  Browne, Desmond

  Barron, Kevin

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Battle, John

  Burden, Richard

  Bayley, Hugh

  Burgon, Colin

  Beard, Nigel

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Caborn, Richard

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Campbell—Savours, Dale

  982

  Cann, Jamie

  Goggins, Paul

  Caplin, Ivor

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Casale, Roger

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Caton, Martin

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Cawsey, Ian

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Chaytor, David

  Grocott, Bruce

  Clapham, Michael

  Grogan, John

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Gunnell, John

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Hain, Peter

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Clelland, David

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Coaker, Vernon

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Cohen, Harry

  Healey, John

  Coleman, Iain

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Colman, Tony

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Heppell, John

  Cooper, Yvette

  Hesford, Stephen

  Corbett, Robin

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hill, Keith

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Hinchliffe, David

  Cousins, Jim

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Cranston, Ross

  Hoey, Kate

  Crausby, David

  Home Robertson, John

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Hope, Phil

  Cummings, John

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Curtis—Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Dalyell, Tam

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Darvill, Keith

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Hurst, Alan

  Davidson, Ian

  Hutton, John

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Illsley, Eric

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Jenkins, Brian

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Denham, John

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Dewar, Rt Hon Donald

  Dismore, Andrew

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Doran, Frank

  Dowd, Jim

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Drew, David

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Edwards, Huw

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Efford, Clive

  Kidney, David

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Ennis, Jeff

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Etherington, Bill

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Fisher, Mark

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Lawrence, Ms Jackie

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  Laxton, Bob

  Flint, Caroline

  Lepper, David

  Flynn, Paul

  Leslie, Christopher

  Follett, Barbara

  Levitt, Tom

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Linton, Martin

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Livingstone, Ken

  Foulkes, George

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Fyfe, Maria

  Lock, David

  Galloway, George

  Love, Andrew

  Gapes, Mike

  McAllion, John

  Gardiner, Barry

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Gerrard, Neil

  McCabe, Steve

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Godsiff, Roger

  McDonnell, John

  983

  McFall, John

  Rooney, Terry

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Rowlands, Ted

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Ruane, Chris

  McNamara, Kevin

  Ruddock, Joan

  McNulty, Tony

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  MacShane, Denis

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Salter, Martin

  McWalter, Tony

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Sawford, Phil

  Mallaber, Judy

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Marek, Dr John

  Sheerman, Barry

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Singh, Marsha

  Marshall—Andrews, Robert

  Skinner, Dennis

  Martlew, Eric

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Maxton, John

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Meale, Alan

  Merron, Gillian

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Miller, Andrew

  Spellar, John

  Moffatt, Laura

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Morley, Elliot

  Stevenson, George

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Mountford, Kali

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Mudie, George

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Mullin, Chris

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Stott, Roger

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Norris, Dan

  Stringer, Graham

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Olner, Bill

  O'Neill, Martin

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Temple—Morris, Peter

  Pearson, Ian

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Pendry, Tom

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Timms, Stephen

  Pickthall, Colin

  Tipping, Paddy

  Pike, Peter L

  Touhig, Don

  Plaskitt, James

  Trickett, Jon

  Pond, Chris

  Truswell, Paul

  Pope, Greg

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Pound, Stephen

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Wareing, Robert N

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Watts, David

  Purchase, Ken

  White, Brian

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Radice, Giles

  Rapson, Syd

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Wills, Michael

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Wilson, Brian

  Rooker, Jeff

  Winnick, David

  984

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Wise, Audrey

  Wood, Mike

  Woolas, Phil

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Wray, James

  Mr. David Hanson and

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Mr. David Jamieson.

  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 commends the Government for the introduction of vital measures to improve standards, particularly in literacy and numeracy; applauds the extra flexibility it has introduced in the national curriculum for primary pupils and support for work-related learning for 14–16 year olds; welcomes the Government's support for greater diversity through specialist schools and education action zones; believes that the extra £19 billion for schools will underpin the drive for higher standards and welcomes plans to reward good teachers well; congratulates Ministers for introducing much greater clarity to mailings for schools with a view to keeping paperwork to a minimum; recognises the huge benefits which the National Grid for Learning and voluntary schemes of work bring in reducing unnecessary paperwork; and notes that the Opposition has no proposals to raise standards in schools.

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

  NORTHERN IRELAND
  That the draft Trade Union Subscription Deductions (Northern Ireland) Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 22nd February, be approved.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]
  Question agreed to.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.
  Ordered,

  EDUCATION
  That the Education (Aptitude for Particular Subjects) Regulations 1999 be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.
  That the Education (Determination of Admission Arrangements) Regulations 1999 be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.
  That the Education (Objections to Admission Arrangements) Regulations 1999 be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.
  That the Education (Relevant Areas for Consultation on Admission Arrangements) Regulations 1999 be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.
  That the Education (School Information) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 1999 be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.—[Mr. Jamieson.]

  Deaf People (Access to Justice)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jamieson.]
  10.13 pm
  Mr. Tom Levitt: I remind the House that I am a trustee of the Royal National Institute for Deaf People—an unremunerated post—although tonight I speak in a personal capacity. It is unusual to have debates on issues relating to deaf people two nights running in the House, but I am sure that 8.5 million people in this country with hearing impairments welcome those debates.
  In sign language the signs for politics and justice are very similar. That is not surprising, because if politics is about anything it is about securing a fair and just society. That means, among other things, a society in which all have equal access to justice. Our legal system reflects society in many ways. In one respect it reflects society well: in society and in the legal system there is a lack of understanding of the communication needs of people with hearing impairments. That leads to inconvenience, frustration and, ultimately, injustice.
  How many people use hearing aids? The answer is about 2 million, with a further 2 million who would benefit from one. How many magistrates use hearing aids? I do not know, but their age profile would suggest that the proportion using hearing aids is higher than that of the general population. How many magistrates courts have induction loops designed to enhance the use of hearing aids? No central figures are kept, but I suspect that the answer is very few. I understand that no courtrooms in Derbyshire have loop systems to help people with hearing aids. It is not compulsory to fit induction loops in courts, although magistrates, defendants, witnesses, court staff, lawyers and the public would all benefit, and justice would be heard to be done.
  How many courts include induction loops in their assessment of the accessibility of courtrooms? Those questions illustrate the lack of facilities for people with hearing impairments and a lack of checks on the accessibility of legal buildings, and they expose the Court Service's lack of awareness of the needs of more than 8 million people: one in seven of the people in Britain today.
  In September 1998, the Court Service told the RNID that at least one courtroom in every new court building would henceforth be fitted with a loop system but that there was no facility for fitting them anywhere else retrospectively. That is simply not good enough. Are new courtrooms, let alone old ones, designed and lit to facilitate lip reading? Are court staff trained in deaf awareness? My guess is no, but those are reasonable, low-cost adjustments that I would expect the service to make in future.
  "Reasonable adjustment" is the phrase used in the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, and purveyors of goods and services, which includes the Court Service, are obliged to implement it from later this year. Not only the Court Service is at fault. The police and the Prison Service, with some honourable exceptions, are equally guilty and, as far as I know, so is the probation service.
  986
  One in every 1,000 people in this country is profoundly deaf, with no useful hearing at all. Judge Stephen Tumim, the former chief inspector of prisons and the father of a deaf child, has said:
  "Magistrates nowadays tend to send more Deaf people to prison on the basis that probation officers cannot deal with them adequately and I think the prisons make entirely inadequate arrangements."
  Let us consider how the tendency to send more deaf people to prison than chance would dictate might come about. Two men have an argument outside a pub, late at night. Neither is terribly drunk. One—let us call him A—is profoundly deaf and uses sign language. The other is hearing. They have an altercation and the police arrive. One of the men is coherent and relatively restrained. One is gesticulating and making incoherent noises. Which of the men is the bigger threat to law and order? Which is the more guilty? Which is more likely to be handcuffed?
  In this example, in an instant judgment, the police officer decides that A, with his grunting and his waving arms, is most in need of restraint, and he slaps the handcuffs on; but handcuffs gag a deaf person, whose first or only language is sign language. A becomes more angry and frustrated and further consequences inevitably follow. This story is imaginary, but not exceptional, in a country where deaf people are refused entry to pubs, forced to leave clubs and evicted from holiday camps. Instances of all three have been reported in the past couple of years.
  Because they communicate in sign, and sometimes make loud and unusual noises which are judged by some people to be offensive to other guests, deaf people have been treated extremely unfairly. Under those circumstances, is it surprising if deaf people's frustration can occasionally boil over into anger and perhaps even violence?
  Mr. A is taken along to the police station, unable to express himself as his hands are fixed behind him. Fortunately, the desk sergeant immediately recognises that A is deaf and the police constable who brought him in laughs in embarrassment and makes light of his mistake. The deaf man thinks that the policeman is laughing at him, which does not help his confidence in the system. Mr. A does not understand what is happening because, being deaf from birth—and like most people who are deaf from birth—his lip-reading skills are minimal. Mr. A is searched, and two telephone numbers are found in his pocket. Recognising the need for communication support, the desk sergeant tries to call the numbers to try to find a friend for the deaf person.
  The first call produces an odd electronic noise when the phone is answered, which the sergeant does not
  recognise. He thinks that there is something wrong with the line. In fact, it is a text telephone. Some police stations have text telephones, or minicoms—many do not. In this case, the policeman does not recognise it. The second number gets an answer. It is A's 17-year-old sister, who is hearing. She is very distressed to hear what is going on, and she comes to the police station immediately.
  The sergeant rings the contact number in his book for a freelance sign language interpreter but, by now, it is midnight on a Saturday, and the interpreter—who is not expecting the call—is either out or not answering the phone in the middle of the night. Do all police stations know when and how to contact a sign language interpreter? It is unlikely. There are fewer than 150 people with recognised sign language interpreting skills in Britain, and 50,000 people for whom it is their first or only functional language. They need that support.

  987
  The sister arrives at the police station. Fortunately, she can sign. Ten minutes later, she is interpreting for her brother, as best she can. However, she is not a qualified interpreter—very far from it. She is young, and unfamiliar with police terminology. She makes a lot of mistakes in her interpretation which, unwittingly, compromise her brother's position.
  At the end of the interview, the police constable switches off the audio tape recording. He has a record of the interview which can be referred to later by both sides, as the law says he must—or has he? No, he has not. He has no record of what the accused person said in the interview; only a record of a second-rate interpretation, and no guarantee that the arrested person had even understood the questions being asked.
  Why does our legal system not insist on having a professionally qualified interpreter used at this stage? Why is there no obligation to record on video interviews involving sign language, so that the accused's words are at least on record? Are the few sign language interpreters who do exist given proper training for working in legal situations? Is the Lord Chancellor on course to fulfil his pledge in 1998 that, as from 2001, all types of interpreters in court and police interviews should be qualified and registered?
  If A was a foreigner, there would be less of a problem—the interpreter's words could always be checked against the audio recording of the original. The Home Office's view—reiterated a couple of weeks ago in another place—is that video-recording sign language interpreting of defendants and witnesses is not essential, and a matter for local discretion. That is quite inconsistent with the Lord Chancellor's ambition.
  When Lord Williams of Mostyn said that sign language was just "an expression of English", he was showing a complete misunderstanding of the linguistic and cultural needs of deaf people. He dismissed the concerns expressed by noble Lords far too lightly. His statement was like saying that John Constable's "Hay Wain" and Charles Dickens's "Oliver Twist" were both written in the same language.
  The absence of video evidence was discussed in an excellent publication called "Police and Deaf People: A Lack of Communication?", written last year by a police officer and published under the police research awards scheme. I commend it to my hon. Friend the Minister. The paper revealed that no fewer than 71 per cent. of police officers thought that it should be obligatory to record on video interviews involving sign language. Last December, that was also the conclusion of a conference of deaf and hearing professionals in London on "Equality Before the Law: Deaf People's Access to Justice", organised by the University of Durham.
  Let us go back to the courts. We have seen that people who use lip-reading or hearing aids do not have their major communication needs met in court, but what about sign language users like A? In 1995, a trial collapsed because the interpreting arrangements fell down.
  Do deaf people get British sign language support in court when they need it? Yes, they do. Since April last year, the Lord Chancellor has paid for interpreters for sign language where they are required for deaf defendants in court. In the first nine months of that scheme, the Lord Chancellor has paid for sign language interpreters in no fewer than 71 cases—not an insignificant number.
  988
  Are those sign language interpreters treated according to their professional code, with guarantees of preparation time, breaks during the day, and the possibility of working in teams where necessary? That is a genuine question. I do not know the answer; I expect that it is mixed. Are deaf defendants and their interpreters videotaped in court so that mistakes can be checked back to source? No.
  What if A had not been a defendant, but a member of the jury. Let us consider an example. We shall call him James. James used to be a highly successful business man. He is now the chief executive of a major charity with an annual turnover of several million pounds. He is a senior member of a Government task force and has spoken at conferences at 10 Downing street and elsewhere.
  James is barred from jury service. He is not fictitious. Why is he barred? Although he lip-reads well from close by, he needs the services of a note-taker or a Palantype keyboard operator. He has been profoundly deaf from birth but, unlike 50,000 others like him, he does not use sign language. He is barred from jury service because in the 1960s, I think, a judge refused to allow a 13th person in the jury room to give communication support to a deaf juror.
  To their great credit, the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) and the Secretary of State for Wales, my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), then an Opposition spokesman on home affairs, attempted to add a short clause to the 1994 Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill. It read:
  "The Secretary of State shall … set out the procedure by which all persons who are summoned to appear or take part in court proceedings, or taken into police custody, and for whom there is a requirement for either a qualified Sign Language interpreter, other forms of communication support or a technical assistive device may thus be provided with such assistance."
  Needless to say, the amendment was not included in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.
  Speaking at the Inner Temple on 13 February to a disability law conference, my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor acknowledged that deficiency in the system, and committed the Government to bringing the legal system into accordance with the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. I should be grateful if my hon. Friend, when replying to the debate, would confirm that when the Lord Chancellor acknowledged the widespread concern that interpreters and carers were indeed being unreasonably excluded from the jury room, he included lip speakers, note takers and Palantype keyboard operators as well.
  In that speech, the Lord Chancellor also said:
  "No degree of disability … should restrict any citizen to second class justice."
  Finally, I shall deal with prison. There are more deaf people in prison than chance would dictate. I suspect that Judge Tumim was right in his observation. I am equally sure that there is no natural link between deafness and criminality. However, there is a link between the blindness of the system to the needs of deaf people and the years that some deaf people spend behind bars.
  We isolate people in prison as a punishment. Deafness in prison is like solitary confinement. Some deaf prisoners do not understand how they got there or fully why, because no one ever explained to them in their own language. Nevertheless, I take the opportunity to praise

  989
  the work that is being done with deaf prisoners at Brixton prison. Deaf awareness is becoming a reality in the prison service as that pilot project seeks to expand, yet the prison officers involved would be the first to admit that they are only scratching the surface.
  I believe that the Lord Chancellor's speech of two weeks ago could be the start of a new era in deaf people's access to justice. It is a start, although it is from a very low base. I am aware that the issues that I have raised do not fall easily into the responsibility of a single Government Department: the Home Office and the Lord Chancellor both have roles to play. In the name of joined-up government, I ask my hon. Friend to give a comprehensive and positive response to the points that I have raised, and to help to secure access to justice for all deaf people.
  10.29 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. George Howarth): It is good that the House has debated issues of concern to deaf people on two consecutive evenings. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Levitt) on securing the Adjournment debate and on speaking on an issue on which he feels very strongly and to which he has previously drawn the attention of hon. Members and my ministerial colleagues. He has again demonstrated his great knowledge of the subject.
  My hon. Friend is uniquely well qualified to raise these issues, being a trustee of the Royal National Institute for Deaf People and having himself learned to use British sign language. For many years, he has concerned himself with access issues for people with sensory impairment. The issues are wide ranging, but none is more important than access to justice.
  I assure my hon. Friend that we are anxious to do all that we can to see that deaf people are treated fairly by the criminal justice system, whether they are involved in it as suspects, victims or witnesses. My hon. Friend raised many issues. If I am unable to respond to all of them, I shall undertake to liaise with ministerial colleagues in the Home Office and the Lord Chancellor's Department to ensure that they are covered in some other way.
  My hon. Friend drew attention to the communication needs of deaf people. British sign language is used by many of those people, although, as my hon. Friend showed, it is by no means used by them all. As it has a spatial element, it is not an easy language to interpret, and interpreting legal concepts using British sign language is all the more challenging, as my hon. Friend showed in his examples.
  The point has been well made that police interviews with deaf suspects who are British sign language users should be recorded on videotape. That suggestion was made in a report, "Police and Deaf People: A Lack of Communication?", which was written by an officer in the Lancashire constabulary and published in September 1997 under the Home Office police research award scheme.
  The reason for the suggestion is that the present requirement to make a contemporaneous written note of an interview so that a deaf suspect can take it away is not equivalent to providing a complete record of the
  990
  interview. It is argued, with some reason, that communication using British sign language can be fully and accurately recorded only on videotape.
  As with all reports published under PRAS, the report was sent to chief officers of police with a statement that the views in the report are those of the author and not necessarily those of the Home Office. All PRAS reports leave discretion for individual chief officers to decide whether to implement their recommendations. My hon. Friend made it clear—I know that he is not entirely happy about this point—that it is open to chief officers to implement the report's recommendation to record interviews with deaf suspects on videotape, provided that the necessary equipment is available and provided that the deaf suspect consents.
  It may seem surprising that any deaf suspect would object to an interview being recorded on video. However, some suspects prefer their appearance and body language not to be included in the recording of an interview. As it is not a statutory requirement for the interview to be video recorded—unlike the position with audiotape recording—suspects can object, and it is necessary for the police to have their consent if they are to proceed.
  As I have explained, to make it a requirement for the police to video record interviews with deaf suspects would require a change in legislation, which would have considerable cost implications for the police. Video-recording equipment, with additional cameras to capture all those present, would have to be installed in all police stations where interviews with suspects take place in case a deaf suspect using British sign language might need to be interviewed. The equipment would have to be on hand because time limits apply to police detention.
  Precise figures on the number of deaf suspects whom the police need to interview are not readily available, but they are believed to be a very small proportion of the total number of suspects. The responsibility for provision of equipment is a matter for individual chief officers, who have to determine their spending priorities. As my hon. Friend is aware, the Home Office is trying to raise awareness of the issues surrounding communication between the police and deaf people, and to encourage the making of suitable local arrangements. It may not be possible to install video-recording equipment in every police station, but, for example, it would be sensible to ensure that the equipment is available in an area where a community of deaf people lives.
  Mr. Levitt: At one time, it was not compulsory to audiotape interviews. At that time, were people given the option to choose to be recorded? It seems to me that deaf people should at least have the opportunity to have a video recording made of an interview; one camera would be sufficient for the purpose, as one microphone is sufficient for an audiotape.
  Mr. Howarth: That is a point that I was trying to make, albeit in a slightly different way. My hon. Friend must appreciate that not every person would want a video recording to be made, but we shall further consider the point.
  As I have mentioned, the research report on the police and deaf people has been sent to the chief officers of all the police forces in the United Kingdom, as has another research report on disability awareness produced by a

  991
  police officer from Strathclyde police. All police forces have been invited to attend seminars on the findings of those two research papers. The seminars are aimed at senior police management and are designed to raise awareness of the issues covered in the reports. The authors of both reports will act as facilitators at the seminars, which are to be held in five centres—Perth, York, Rugby, Bristol, and London—between 22 and 31 March this year.
  I should also mention the Home Office report "Speaking up for Justice" on vulnerable or intimidated witnesses, which included a number of recommendations that may improve the treatment of deaf witnesses, especially those who are particularly vulnerable because of some other factor or disability. The implementation of the report's recommendations will include the development of information for vulnerable or intimidated witnesses, and address issues such as accreditation for those who act as communicators or intermediaries for vulnerable witnesses.
  The House will be pleased to learn that the interpreting needs of deaf people who are involved with the criminal justice system are also being considered by a sub-group of the trial issues group, which is an inter-agency group—
  992
  joined-up government—working to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the criminal justice system as a whole. That group set up an interpreters working group to facilitate implementation of the national agreement and to promote its principles. The group works closely with representatives of interpreters associations and, in particular, with the Council for the Advancement of Communication with Deaf People, to ensure that the needs of the deaf or hard of hearing in the criminal justice system, whether as defendants, victims or witnesses, are properly addressed.
  I hope that my hon. Friend accepts that the Government are conscious of the needs of deaf people within the criminal justice system. It is partly thanks to his efforts that we have been made aware of the problems. The Government are taking what we believe to be pragmatic but effective steps to ensure that deaf people are treated fairly within the criminal justice system, and today's debate is one more step along that road.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-one minutes to Eleven o'clock.

CABINET OFFICE

  Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994
  Mr. Derek Twigg
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what plans he has for reform of Part 1 of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994. [74713]

  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  The Government have reviewed the operation of the deregulation order-making power in Part 1 of the Act. We believe the safeguards in the process are proven, but that the legislative limitations on the application of this power restrict our ability to deal effectively with measures which are no longer needed, or which impose a greater burden than necessary.

  When Parliamentary time allows, the Government intend to extend the scope of the deregulation order-making process, whilst maintaining the statutory protection against its misuse. I am launching today an extensive public consultation on proposals for reform of this power. I have sent copies of the consultation document to all MPs and have placed copies in the Libraries of the House.

  New Deal (Trainees)
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many New Deal for Young People Trainees were employed in(a) Her Majesty's Treasury, (b) the Home Office, (c) the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, (d) the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, (e) the Cabinet Office, (f) the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, (g) the Department of Health, (h) the Department for Foreign and International Development, (i) the Lord Chancellor's Department, (j) the Department of Social Security, (k) the Department of Trade and Industry, (1) the Scottish Office, (m) the Welsh Office and (n) the Northern Ireland Office, on 31 January. [74216]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  I refer the hon. Member to the written answer given by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Mudie), to my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) on 19 November 1998,Official Report, column 755. Updated figures will be available towards the end of April and will, for the first time, distinguish between the numbers of those employed under the programme for 18–24 year olds and the programme for 25 year olds and above.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, pursuant to his answer of 21 January 1999,Official Report, columns 576–77, if he will list the expenditure not included in his answer incurred (a) by task forces and review bodies, (b) by focus groups, (c) on
  610
  market research and (d)for publications and publicity; and if he will list the bodies which incurred the expenditure. [71021]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  [holding answer 15 February 19991 My answer of 21 January 1999,Official Report, columns 576–77, was inclusive of expenditure on (a) task forces and review bodies and (b) by focus groups which included expenditure on market research and publicity. It is not possible to provide a further breakdown of expenditure without incurring disproportionate costs. The total own expenditure on publications by my Department itself since May 1997 is £3,724,259. This is broken down as follows:

  £

  Core Cabinet Office

  2,656,929

  Civil Service College

  711,140

  Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency

  86,675

  Government Car and Despatch Agency

  8,090

  Property Advisers to the Civil Estate

  41,000

  The Buying Agency

  92,740

  Central Office of Information

  127,685

  Grand Total

  3,724,259

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  New Deal (Young People)
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what percentage of those who have entered the New Deal for Young People have spent more than four months on the Gateway. [74203]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its Chief Executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Leigh Lewis to Mr. Damian Green, dated 2 March 1999:
  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has asked me to reply to your question about the percentage of young people who have spent more than four months on the New Deal Gateway. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  By the end of December 1998, 214,300 young people had entered the New Deal including those leaving before attending a Gateway interview. Of the total 20% were recorded as having spent more than 4 months in the Gateway. This includes people who returned to the Gateway after breaks including short periods of work or illness.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many New Deal for Young People trainees were employed at his Department on 31 January; and what percentage this is of total employment in his Department.[74204]

  Mr. Mudie
  As at 31 January 1999, the Department for Education and Employment had 5 New Deal for Young People employees in post, representing 0.12 per cent. of the Department. Though the current position is that we now have 11 people employed on New Deal.

  New Deal (West Sussex)
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many jobless people under the age of 25 years have so far been enrolled in the New Deal scheme in (i) the East Worthing and Shoreham constituency, (ii) the Worthing travel-to-work area and (iii) West Sussex; and how many of them are in (i) subsidised jobs and (ii) unsubsidised jobs. [74205]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its Chief Executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Leigh Lewis to Mr. Tim Loughton, dated 2 March 1999:
  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has asked me to reply to your question about the numbers of young people participating in New Deal for 18–24 year olds in the East Worthing and Shoreham constituency; the Worthing travel to work area and West Sussex and the number who have secured subsidised and unsubsidised jobs. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  I regret that separate figures are not available for constituencies or travel-to-work areas. Government Statistical Service figures are produced for Employment Service Unit of Delivery areas. Both Worthing and Shoreham fall within the West Sussex and Costal Plain Unit of Delivery.
  The latest Government Statistical Service figures to the end of December 1998, and including Employment Service management information to the end of January 1999, show that 366 young people have started on New Deal for 18–24 year olds in the West Sussex Coastal Plain Unit of Delivery. Of these, 68 have secured unsubsidised employment and 51 have started subsidised employment through the New Deal Employment option. In addition there will be other young people who have left the New Deal and stopped receiving Jobseeker's Allowance, without notifying the Employment Service of their reasons for leaving, who will have secured unsubsidised jobs.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Employment Discrimination
  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what action the Government propose to take following the completion of its review of ILO conventions 111 on discrimination in employment and 138 on minimum age. [74712]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  I am pleased to announce that we will ratify ILO Convention 111 on discrimination in employment. I hope to make an announcement on ILO Convention 138, on minimum age in the near future.

  Teachers
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of non-monetary special incentives to attract teachers back into the profession. [73201]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 1 March 1999] We are aware of the large pool of qualified teachers who are currently not active in the profession, and we are keen to maximise the number who are attracted back into teaching. Around 12,000 people do re-enter teaching in England and Wales every year. Over time, the proposals for better rewards, support and training in our Green
  612
  Paper, "Teachers—Meeting the challenge of change", will be key in boosting our ability to draw back former teachers.

  In the shorter term, the Teacher Training Agency funds a number of courses specifically designed to update the skills of returners and ease their way back into teaching. Last year, 618 returners made use of TTA-funded courses, and we have just increased the amount of funding available for these courses. The new network of local recruitment advisers I announced last October are working to promote these courses and find other creative ways of targeting returners. We also changed the pensions abatement provision last year to introduce greater flexibility for retired teachers considering a return to work. It is too early to assess the impact of these initiatives, but we will be evaluating their effect later this year.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to his answer of 3 February 1999,Official Report, column 664, how many and what percentage of teachers in secondary schools in England do not have a first degree. [73639]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Full and part-time teachers in maintained secondary schools in England at March 19971 without a first degree2 are as follows:

  Number of teachers

  Full-time: 45,800

  Part-time: 10,400.

  Percentage of all teachers

  Full-time: 26

  Part-time: 39.

  1Data for 1997 are provisional.

  2Some teachers who did not have a first degree at the time they received qualified teacher status, or in the case of teachers no trained in England or Wales when they entered the teaching profession, will have obtained a degree later, but are counted as without a first degree in the answer.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what official visits he, his Ministers or officials have paid to Zimbabwe since May 1997; whom they met; and what was discussed. [73461]

  Mr. Mudie
  No Ministers from this Department have visited Zimbabwe since May 1997. There has been one visit by an official to meet the National Commission on Education to discuss UK education policies.

  Air Miles
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many air miles have been earned by him and each of his ministers; and how he proposes to use them. [73341]

  Mr. Mudie
  The Government's policy on the use and disposal of air miles was set out by my right hon. Friend, the Prime Minister on 12 January 1999,Official Report, column 141.

  Detailed information on any air miles earned by Ministers as a result of official travel is not recorded centrally.

  Brit Awards
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list those Ministers in his Department who were present at the recent Brit Awards in an official capacity, indicating the organisation acting as their sponsor or host. [73491]

  Mr. Mudie
  No Ministers from this Department were present at the recent Brit awards.

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to his answer of 10 February 1999,Official Report, columns 271–73, if he will list by local education authority for the present and previous rounds of bidding for capital grants for class size reductions (a) the total value of bids and (b) the total value of capital expenditure grants made; and what is the total budget allocated by the Government for (i) capital and (ii) revenue expenditure on class size reductions. [72559]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The total budget allocated for (i) capital and (ii) revenue expenditure on class size reductions is as follows:

  £million

  Financial year

  Capital budget

  Revenue budget

  1998–99

  45

  22

  1999–2000

  80

  80

  2000–01

  60

  160

  2001–02

  20

  160

  Details of the present round of bidding were given in my answer of 10 February 1999, Official Report, columns 271–73. No grants have yet been made. The values of the applications for capital funding for 1998–99 are set out in the following table. Capital grants to reduce class sizes in 1998–99 were announced on 3 July 1998 and are included in tables that have been placed in the Library.

  Applications for capital funding to reduce infant class sizes: 1998–99

  Local education authority

  Grant applied for

  Barking & Dagenham

  153,350

  Barnet

  322,200

  Barnsley

  —

  Bath & North East Somerset

  718,932

  Bedfordshire

  833,683

  Bexley

  974,000

  Birmingham

  —

  Blackburn

  483,472

  Blackpool

  449,500

  Bolton

  522,125

  Bournemouth

  1,100,000

  Bracknell

  502,430

  Bradford

  561,150

  Brent

  —

  Brighton & Hove

  488,000

  Bristol

  360,207

  Bromley

  1,340,790

  Buckinghamshire

  389,875

  Bury

  1,231,351

  Calderdale

  533,606

  Cambridgeshire

  656,860

  Camden

  —

  Cheshire

  1,289,775

  City of London

  —

  614

  Applications for capital funding to reduce infant class sizes: 1998–99

  Local education authority

  Grant applied for

  Cornwall

  728,440

  Coventry

  40,000

  Croydon

  369,140

  Cumbria

  113,188

  Darlington

  214,580

  Derby

  1,121,373

  Derbyshire

  2,441,563

  Devon

  1,035,439

  Doncaster

  221,400

  Dorset

  353,562

  Dudley

  1,054,000

  Durham

  219,638

  Ealing

  140,000

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  179,868

  East Sussex

  825,000

  Enfield

  640,000

  Essex

  856,211

  Gateshead

  234,567

  Gloucestershire

  275,412

  Greenwich

  100,000

  Hackney

  —

  Halton

  413,000

  Hammersmith & Fulham

  —

  Hampshire

  1,174,605

  Haringey

  —

  Harrow

  —

  Hartlepool

  68,600

  Havering

  76,840

  Herefordshire

  65,438

  Hertfordshire

  1,220,505

  Hillingdon

  1,065,223

  Hounslow

  256,000

  Isle of Wight

  474,000

  Isles of Scilly

  —

  Islington

  —

  Kensington & Chelsea

  —

  Kent

  3,087,794

  Kingston upon Hull

  —

  Kingston upon Thames

  11,352,000

  Kirklees

  1,252,193

  Knowsley

  178,000

  Lambeth

  888,415

  Lancashire

  1,808,982

  Leeds

  857,100

  Leicester City

  215,398

  Leicestershire

  920,441

  Lewisham

  —

  Lincolnshire

  495,372

  Liverpool

  497,675

  Luton

  127,500

  Manchester

  1,118,494

  Medway

  842,910

  Merton

  —

  Middlesbrough

  246,738

  Milton Keynes

  302,936

  Newbury

  —

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  431,419

  Newham

  518,500

  Norfolk

  613,000

  North East Lincolnshire

  535,813

  North Lincolnshire

  537,196

  North Somerset

  516,542

  North Tyneside

  590,277

  North Yorkshire

  539,000

  Northamptonshire

  326,291

  Northumberland

  364,200

  Nottingham City

  748,760

  Nottinghamshire

  922,055

  Oldham

  1,530,538

  Oxfordshire

  1,338,741

  Peterborough

  —

  Plymouth

  —

  615

  Applications for capital funding to reduce infant class sizes: 1998–99

  Local education authority

  Grant applied for

  Poole

  1,122,558

  Portsmouth

  671,900

  Reading

  105,075

  Redbridge

  645,000

  Redcar & Cleveland

  252,757

  Richmond Upon Thames

  880,000

  Rochdale

  427,275

  Rotherham

  818,500

  Rutland

  —

  Salford

  206,311

  Sandwell

  2,675,720

  Sefton

  747,447

  Sheffield

  —

  Shropshire

  768,200

  Slough

  250,000

  Solihull

  1,803,794

  Somerset

  396,276

  South Gloucestershire

  1,297,834

  South Tyneside

  —

  Southampton

  —

  Southend on Sea

  204,700

  Southwark

  68,825

  St. Helens

  1,003,875

  Staffordshire

  510,000

  Stockport

  627,310

  Stockton on Tees

  403,565

  Stoke on Trent

  353,813

  Suffolk

  —

  Sunderland

  138,970

  Surrey

  686,825

  Sutton

  573,641

  Swindon

  707,745

  Tameside

  —

  Telford and Wrekin

  404,446

  Thurrock

  80,000

  Torbay

  281,714

  Tower Hamlets

  —

  Trafford

  548,560

  Wakefield

  907,295

  Walsall

  532,321

  Waltham Forest

  —

  Wandworth

  187,600

  Warrington

  364,322

  Warwickshire

  423,300

  West Sussex

  1,197,500

  Westminster

  —

  Wigan

  1,026,191

  Wiltshire

  695,565

  Windsor & Maidenhead

  121,611

  Wirral

  288,231

  Wokingham

  1,217,269

  Wolverhampton

  384,302

  Worcestershire

  1,034,500

  York, City of

  304,272

  Grant Maintained Schools

  1,279,661

  National Totals

  92,219,751

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Disability Discrimination Act 1995
  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the impact on his Department's policies 616
  of the goods and services provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 to be implemented in October 1999. [71274]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  We are acting to ensure that the Department's policies meet the needs of disabled people and that we comply with our legal requirements. The Department already takes positive steps to make it easier for disabled people to make use of its services. We shall continue to do so, not only by complying fully with new duties in the Disability Discrimination Act but by aiming to exceed them where appropriate.

  The Department issued internal guidance recently on mainstreaming which ensures that all new and existing policies and programmes are assessed for any adverse impact not only on disabled people, but on any minority or disadvantaged group. That includes the need to ensure that our policies and their outcomes comply with the law. Where necessary we shall act to remove or reduce the impact on these groups. This complements the guidance "Policy Appraisal for Equal Treatment" which the Cabinet Office issued to all Government Departments in November 1998, and which was signed jointly by the Minister for Women, the Secretary of State for Education and Employment and the Home Secretary.

  The Departmental Board monitors the Department's performance and will publish information on the progress being made in this area, as will other Government Departments.

  Departmental Reviews
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what reviews, task forces and advisory groups have been established by his Department since 1 May 1997; what costs they have incurred to date; and what reports they have published. [71506]

  Mr. Prescott
  I have today placed in the Library of the House a list of the reviews, task forces and advisory groups that have been established by my Department since 1 May 1997 and the reports which they have published. Information on costs incurred to date cannot be provided except at disproportionate cost.

  Non-Departmental Public Bodies have not been included, since information on these is provided in the publication "Public Bodies 1998" which is available in the Libraries of the House.

  London Underground
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many journeys(a) he and (b) Ministers in his Department made on the London Underground in the last six months. [71913]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Although records are not kept of the methods of transport used on official visits, Ministers have used London Underground on a number of occasions over the last six months, as well as buses, taxis and walking.

  In addition to using London Underground for their official duties, Ministers in my Department use it regularly in their private lives.

  Cycle Lanes (London)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions he has had with London borough councils on the development of cycle lanes within their boroughs; and if he will make a statement. [72774]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  In the Transport Policies and Programme settlement for 1999–2000, announced on 17 December last year, authorities were advised on the priorities for developing the London Cycle Network. In the coming year they should continue to take a more strategic approach, with the overall aim of encouraging more people to cycle in London.

  All the London Boroughs have been involved with the development of the LCN, with the Royal London Borough of Kingston upon Thames acting as the overall co-ordinating authority. Through TPP funding good progress has been made on the LCN, with over 1000km of cycle routes already available for use.

  The intention is to produce an initial network by April 2000—to be launched alongside the London part of the Thames Cycle Route—that will be of a standard to facilitate cycling in London and provide a satisfactory base for taking forward and completing the LCN in future years.

  Advice on the prioritisation of cycling provisions was also included in the guidance recently issued to Local Authorities in London, on the preparation of their Interim Transport Plans, for the 2000–01 bidding round.

  I have consistently raised the issue of cycle provisions during visits to various London Boroughs over the last 18 months, and my officials will continue to attend regular meetings of the London Cycle Network steering group, and of the Borough Cycling Officers' Group. Progress reports, including information monitoring the usage on newly completed cycle routes, will be discussed with the boroughs.

  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will instruct local authorities in London to create trial cycle lanes along main thoroughfares. [73473]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  My right hon. Friend does not have the power to issue such an instruction. The London Boroughs are responsible for deciding whether cycle lanes or other measures should be provided on their local roads.

  My Department publishes Traffic Advisory Leaflets on the results of research projects carried out into traffic management issues—including facilities to encourage cycling. In addition, there already exists a design manual, produced by the LCN lead authority, to encourage good practice in the establishment of cycle lanes and other cycling measures.

  Passenger Transport Executives
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans the Government have to create additional passenger transport executives. [73172]

  Dr. Reid
  The power to establish PTEs was removed under s57 of The Transport Act 1985. The need for more PTA/Es was considered in the lead-up to the White Paper.618
  PTA/Es were established because of the heavy reliance on public transport in the metropolitan conurbations outside London. They have co-operated closely with the metropolitan district councils (the highway authorities) to produce joint local transport strategies under the package approach.

  Shires and Unitary Authorities have the same public transport powers as PTA/Es (except for the special duty which PTEs have for local rail services which reflects the high number of local rail services in the metropolitan areas). Shires and Unitaries are, therefore, ideally placed to produce integrated local transport plans for their areas.

  The creation of additional Passenger Transport Executives would require primary legislation. The Government have no plans for any such legislation.

  Nuclear Material (Transport)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations his Department has received in the past six months from(a) Communities Against Nuclear Transport and (b) other community groups concerning the safety of the rail transport of spent nuclear fuel and nuclear wastes. [72964]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  This Department has received one letter from Communities Against Nuclear Transport (Brent Terrace Residents Association) and eight letters from other community groups on these subjects.

  Commission for Integrated Transport
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many times the selection panel for the Commission for Integrated Transport has met. [73505]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The selection panels for the Commission for Integrated Transport have met three times in total so far.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will place in the Library the criteria for appointments to the Commission for Integrated Transport. [73621]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I have today arranged for a copy of the criteria for appointments to the Commission to be placed in the House Library.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many names were considered by the selection panel for the Commission for Integrated Transport. [73509]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Department received 262 applications for the posts of Chair and Vice Chair to the Commission for Integrated Transport and 290 expressions of interest in membership. The selection panels considered all these names during the sift process.

  Ivory Ban (CITES)
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the British Government's policy in respect of the CITES negotiations on the ivory ban. [73305]
  619
  Mr. Meacher
  The 1997 CITES Conference decided by a two thirds majority to transfer the elephants of Botswana, Namibia and Zimbabwe from Appendix I to Appendix II of the Convention. The Conference also agreed a one-off experimental export of stockpiled ivory to Japan to raise revenue for conservation and community development projects in the African countries concerned, provided that the CITES Standing Committee, which the UK now chairs, was content that strict conditions had been met.

  At its 41st meeting last month, the Standing Committee examined a report prepared by the CITES Secretariat on verification missions made to each of the four countries concerned. The report concluded that the conditions had been met by all the countries except Botswana. After careful consideration of the report, the Standing Committee endorsed the CITES Secretariat's conclusions and agreed that Namibia and Zimbabwe should be authorised to sell and ship 13.8 and 20 tonnes of ivory respectively to Japan on or after 18 March 1999. The proceeds from the sales must be directed towards conservation and community development projects. Botswana cannot participate until full compliance has been verified by the CITES Secretariat.

  The resumption of commercial trade is limited to this one-off trial shipment. There is no possibility of further shipments being made without the express permission of a future Conference of CITES Parties. The shipments themselves will be closely monitored by the CITES Secretariat who will ensure compliance with marking and registering requirements.

  As part of the agreement, the CITES Secretariat had already established a reporting and monitoring procedure to assess illegal hunting and trade in elephants and elephant products. At the February meeting, the Standing Committee endorsed new measures, which the Government fully supported, to build on this by providing two new elephant monitoring systems. The United Kingdom has already offered to provide the first year's funding for the Elephant Trade Information System (ETIS) which will monitor legal and illegal trading in ivory. At the meeting, the European Union, United States and Japan pledged substantial funding towards the second part of the system, MIKE, (Monitoring of Illegal Killing of Elephants), which will involve tracking, analysis and assessment of illegal killing and trends in poaching on a representative sample of sites across Africa and south Asia.

  In addition, the Standing Committee agreed a mechanism to reinstate the elephant populations currently listed on Appendix II, to Appendix I of CITES if there is evidence of increased poaching or failure by any of the Parties concerned to comply with the conditions set by the 1997 Conference.

  The Government believe that the proper implementation of the new pan-African and Asian elephant trade and poaching monitoring systems, together with the early warning system agreed at the meeting, should protect the elephant against the risk of any escalation in poaching caused by the very limited ivory trade agreed by CITES Parties. As Chair of the CITES Standing Committee, we will, along with the CITES Secretariat and others, continue to monitor the situation in Africa closely.
  620
  The decisions taken at the last CITES Conference also addressed the problem of rising ivory stockpiles elsewhere in Africa. The risk posed by these stocks, which are difficult and expensive to protect, is frequently overlooked. For the first time, CITES has put in place a system for registering and auditing stocks and encouraging donors to buy them up for non-commercial purposes with the proceeds being re-invested in conservation trust funds established for that purpose. In practice, this is likely to mean destruction of much of these ivory stockpiles.

  I recently announced that the Government are willing to offer up to £60,000 to fund new elephant conservation work in return for disposal of part of these ivory stockpiles. We hope that other donors—including conservation organisations—will also come forward to take stockpiled ivory out of the system and at the same time raise revenue for elephant conservation.

  Single Currency
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the subject areas within his Department's responsibilities which will be covered by the information campaign on Britain's membership of a single currency. [73662]

  Mr. Prescott
  Any plans by the Government to issue information during a referendum campaign on whether or not the UK should join the single currency would be made in the light of the Government's response to the recommendations when my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary publishes a White Paper and draft bill before the Summer Recess.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to issue information from his Department to help the public make an informed decision when they vote on the single currency. [73592]

  Mr. Prescott
  The Treasury will continue its dialogue with key external bodies to determine what information the public and business would need at each stage of the changeover process. Any information campaign would cover key concerns that the public and business may have. Chapter Eight of the Treasury's Outline National Changeover Plan provides further information. Copies of the plan are available in the House Library.

  British Waterways Board
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has for the future of the British Waterways Board. [73683]

  Mr. Meacher
  My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister announced on 18 February the Government's decision on the future status and direction for British Waterways. The full package of measures is set out in the booklet "Unlocking the Potential …A New Future for British Waterways", copies of which have been placed in the Library of the House. The key elements of the package are:British Waterways will remain in the public sector as a public corporation, charged with the stewardship of an important national asset;

  621
  Improved funding. An extra £8 million per annum, to enable British Waterways to eliminate the serious maintenance backlog over a timescale of seven years and subject to the achievement of challenging performance targets;
  Phasing out debt and increased flexibility in cash flow management. British Waterways will be relieved of the burden of refinancing old loans as they mature and will benefit from new financial flexibility at the end of each financial year.
  Three proposed partnerships with the private sector (property, water transfer and maintenance), which are currently being worked up with the Treasury Private Finance Taskforce;
  Partnerships with the public sector. British Waterways will build on and broaden its partnerships with local authorities and other public sector organisations, including the new Regional Development Agencies;
  A membership scheme: to get British Waterways closer to all people who use its waterways. There are a number of options for a membership scheme and these will be the subject of a consultation exercise by British Waterways. The consultation will include the suggestion that a seat on the British Waterways Board might eventually be offered to the membership;
  A Framework Document setting new objectives for British Waterways, clarifying its relationship with the Department, and confirming British Waterways' contribution to sustainable development and to Government policies on transport (including freight), regeneration, heritage, conservation and leisure; and
  Improved openness and accountability. British Waterways will build on last year's publication of a forward plan at a public meeting by publishing more detailed information about its activities and plans.

  I have also placed in the Library copies of the Framework Document and a paper setting out the facts and analysis relevant to the Government's announcement.

  The package demonstrates the Government's commitment to a successful future for British Waterways. The additional investment, together with the public and private partnerships, offer exciting opportunities for British Waterways to unlock the potential, modernise its network and provide a system of historic waterways worthy of the new millennium.

  Public Rights of Way
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimates he has made of the number of public rights of way that are(a) blocked and (b) otherwise difficult to negotiate because of crops or encroaching vegetation. [73569]

  Mr. Meacher
  A national rights of way condition survey carried out in 1994 by the Countryside Commission found that on average 26 per cent. of rights of way were blocked or difficult to use, 2 per cent. were blocked and 4 per cent. were difficult to use because of crops or other cultivated surface, and 3 per cent. were blocked and 4 per cent. difficult to use because of overgrown or overhanging natural vegetation.

  Flight Crew Licensing
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what action he will take to ensure that all EU countries implement the Joint Aviation Authorities' Requirements on Flight Crew Licensing by 1 July 1999, with particular reference to pilots in the age group 60 to 65 years. [73487]
  622
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  This Government take very seriously the implementation of the Joint Aviation Requirements on Flight Crew Licensing (JAR-FCL,) in order to harmonise the standards for licensing pilots in the 29 member states of the Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA). The requirements will enable pilots to operate aircraft up to the age of 65 years either as Pilot-in-Command or Co-Pilot, provided that only one pilot in the crew is 60 or over.

  It will be for individual states to decide how to implement JAR-FCL with respect to their airspace, but we have urged JAA states to apply it consistently.

  We understand that the European Commission aims to bring forward, this year, proposals to incorporate the JAR-FCL provisions into EU legislation.

  Regional Development Agencies
  Dr. George Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to ensure equity in distribution of Government funding to the English regional development agencies. [73612]

  Mr. Meale
  Over 90 per cent. of the funding for Regional Development Agencies in 1999–2000 will be in respect of the regeneration programmes which they will inherit from the Government Offices for the Regions, English Partnerships and the Rural Development Commission. The distribution of those resources is determined largely by statistical indicators of need.

  For later years, resources will be allocated to RDAs in response to the corporate plans which they submit to the Secretary of State. Allocations will take account of the needs of the regions, the soundness of the RDAs' plans for tackling those needs and their performance in implementing their programmes.

  Red Squirrels
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what measures the UK Red Squirrel Group has taken to protect red squirrels in Cumbria. [73690]

  Mr. Meacher
  Red Squirrel conservation in Cumbria is undertaken by the Red Squirrel Conservation Partnership, NPI Red Alert Northwest. The UK Red Squirrel Group actively supports the work of NPI Red Alert Northwest in Cumbria through the provision of technical advice to local staff, support in the production of the Regional Action Plan, assisting in organising the NPI Red Alert Northwest forum, and the provision of a practitioners newsletter. The Secretariat of the UK Red Squirrel Group has been based with Cumbria Wildlife Trust.

  Footpaths and Bridleways
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many miles of(a) footpaths and (b) bridleways in England and Wales are not fully open or easily negotiable according to Countryside Commission criteria. [73967]

  Mr. Meacher
  In a national rights of way condition survey carried out in England in 1994 by the Countryside Commission, walkers found that 25 per cent. of footpaths
  623
  and 18 per cent. of bridleways were poor or unusable at some point on their length. Horse riders and cyclists found that 25 per cent. of bridleways were difficult to use. 25 per cent. of footpaths equates to about 20,500 miles, and 25 per cent. of bridleways represents about 4,600 miles.

  Wales has a total of 24,850 miles of rights of way. Between 1992 and 1998, 7,215 miles were surveyed and it was found that 23 per cent. of footpaths were blocked or difficult to use. This equates to 5,716 miles of the total. No comparable figures are available for bridleways due to the statistically small proportion surveyed.

  Fuel Poverty
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how non-fuel-poor households are defined in figure D of his Department's Background Paper on Fuel Poverty and Current Government Programmes; and if he will make a statement.
  [73774]

  Mr. Meale
  The paper uses the standard definition applied by academics and organisations active in the sector, of non-fuel, poor households being those needing to spend 10 per cent. or less of household income to achieve a satisfactory indoor heating regime (21°C in the living room and 18°C in the other occupied rooms).

  Flight Restrictions (Heathrow)
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many representations he has received in the last year on night flight restrictions at Heathrow; and if he will make a statement. [74029]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  My Department has received a large number of representations expressing a range of different views on the subject of aircraft noise in general over the last year. It would involve disproportionate cost to calculate how many referred specifically to night flight restrictions at Heathrow Airport. On February 12, we concluded the second stage of a two stage consultation on Night Restrictions at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted. Responses to the first stage are available for inspection by appointment at the DETR Information Centre, 76 Marsham Street, London SW1, telephone 0171 676 2002. The responses to the second stage are currently being logged and analysed. The Government will reach a decision after careful consideration of the responses.

  Genetically Modified Organisms
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many complaints have been received concerning possible breaches of licence in respect of the growing of
  GMOs. [73219]

  Mr. Meacher
  Further to my answers to the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) on 17 December 1998,Official Report, column 630, and 4 February 1999, Official Report, column 720, no complaints have been received about possible breaches of consent to grow GMOs, but some have been detected by Health and Safety Executive Inspectors.
  624
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what controls other than the prosecution of offenders are available to the licensing authorities in respect of GMO research. [73220]

  Mr. Meacher
  The controls available are contained in Part VI of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and associated regulations. In summary no person may release any GMO without the express permission of the Secretary of State. The consent holder must comply with the conditions and limitations set by the consent, which may be revoked or varied at any time. There are also powers to serve a prohibition notice to terminate or prevent any activity.

  Environment Agency
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many people employed by the Environment Agency have(a) worked in and (b) had direct experience of the nuclear industry. [73213]

  Mr. Meale
  Of the Agency's key staff and those involved with Radioactive Substances regulation,(a) forty six; and (b) fourteen.

  Disabled Access
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions have been held between his Department and officials from bus and coach operating companies regarding(a) disabled access to buses and (b) facilities available at bus stops; and what guidelines have subsequently been issued. [74059]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  We have had extensive discussions with bus and coach operators on our proposals for accessibility regulations under the provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 to ensure that in future new vehicles will be fully accessible to disabled people, including wheelchair users. We will be publishing draft regulations for public consultation around Easter. We shall be seeking the further views of the bus and coach industry on these draft regulations.

  In collaboration with the Passenger Transport Executives, guidelines were published by the Department several years ago on the design of accessible public transport infrastructure, including bus stops. We have recently commissioned consultants to review that material and to draw up comprehensive guidance for transport operators and local authorities to help them to introduce good practice in making infrastructure accessible both to optimise the transport provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act and to prepare for the full introduction of Part III of the Act which covers access to goods, services and facilities.

  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions have been held between his Department and officials from Railtrack and the rail operating companies regarding disabled access to trains and railway station facilities; and what guidelines have subsequently been issued. [74051]
  625
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  We had extensive and regular discussions with both Railtrack and the rail operating companies in developing the Rail Vehicle Accessibility Regulations 1998 which were introduced on 1 November 1998. Those regulations, which apply to new rolling stock coming into service from 1 January this year, will ensure new trains and trams are accessible to disabled people, including those who need to travel in a wheelchair. We remain in regular contact with the rail operating companies, working with them to ensure their new design of vehicles meet the regulations.

  We also work closely with Railtrack on a wide range of issues affecting the needs of disabled rail travellers. Access to stations and other transport infrastructure will be covered by Part III of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 which covers access to goods, facilities and services. My Department (in collaboration with representative bodies of local authorities and the professional institutions) is producing advice for service providers in the transport sector on best practice in meeting the needs of disabled people. That guidance will be available later this year.

  Disabled Parking
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what guidance is issued by his Department to local authorities regarding the issuance of orange disabled parking permits. [74049]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Guidance was issued in the Local Authority Circular 3/91, 'The Orange Badge Scheme of Parking Concessions for Disabled and Blind People'.

  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many disabled orange parking permits are currently in circulation in(a) the UK, (b) the Adur district, (c) Worthing Borough and (d) West Sussex. [74050]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  As at 31 March 1998, the total number of oranges badges on issue in the UK was 2,047,041. The figure for West Sussex was 33,426. We do not compile separate figures for the Adur district or Worthing Borough.

  Home Insulation
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what schemes he has made available to encourage greater use of insulation materials in existing homes. [74068]

  Mr. Meale
  The Department's Home Energy Efficiency Scheme (HEES) encourages the installation of insulation materials in the homes of those on benefits and the elderly. HEES now accounts for nearly half of the cavity wall insulation market in the UK. The Energy Saving Trust has five schemes, funded by my Department, which promote the installation of insulation in existing homes. Three of these promote cavity wall insulation, fund schemes run by local authorities under the HECAction programme and promote energy services, which often include the provision of insulation. The remaining two, the Energy Efficiency Advice Centres and Energy Efficiency marketing project, provide advice and information to householders on energy efficiency, including the installation of insulation.

  Taxi Vouchers
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions he has had with local authorities regarding the provision of taxi vouchers for the elderly and disabled; what financial assistance the Government gives to local authorities to enable them to provide such a service; what plans he has to review the system; and if he will make a statement. [73820]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Local authorities outside London are enabled by the Transport Act 1985 to provide concessionary travel schemes for resident pensioners and disabled people, which may include travel by taxi. The details of these schemes are a matter for individual local authorities and no central record is kept of the provision made. Financial assistance is provided through the overall support given to local authority expenditure in general. I have no plans to change these arrangements.

  Inspection Charges (Accident Hazards)
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions for what reason the proposed inspection charges under the Town and Country Planning (Control of Major Accident Hazards) Regulations 1999 are higher in England and Wales than in Scotland. [73810]

  Mr. Meale
  The proposed charges of the Environment Agency, which is to carry out environmental inspection under the proposed Control of Major Accident Hazards Regulations (COMAH) in England and Wales are higher than those of the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, which carries out the same functions in Scotland. This is because the relevant input costs, such are accommodation, differ. The charges have been calculated in accordance with HM Treasury's Fees and Charges Guide.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what representations he has received alleging inadequacies in consultations with small businesses in the fuel supply and distribution industry over the possible impact of the proposed charging regimes for the Town and Country Planning (Control of Major Accident Hazards) Regulations 1999; and if he will make a statement; [73819]

  (2) what representations he has received alleging inadequacies in (a) identifying and (b) estimating compliance costs for the fuel supply and distribution industry in the preparation of the proposed charging regime for the Town and Country Planning (Control of Major Accident Hazards) Regulations 1999. [73818]

  Mr. Meale
  One letter has been received making such representations. Copies of this same letter have also been forwarded by six Members of Parliament. The Health and Safety Commission initiated an eight-week consultation on 24 November 1998 on proposals to charge for activities conducted under the proposed Control of Major Accident Hazards Regulations (COMAH). The consultation document included details of the charging proposals, chargeable activities, the methodology used for calculating charges, the likely impact of charging on industry and illustrative examples of charges for a range of COMAH establishments.
  627
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what analysis of compliance costs was undertaken in respect of(a) the fuel supply and distribution industry and (b) the liquified petroleum gas industry in the preparation of the proposed charging regime for the Town and Country Planning (Control of Major Accident Hazards) Regulations 1999; [73817]

  (2) what (a) representations he has received on and (b) assessment he has made of competitive disadvantages for sections of the fuel supply and distribution industry arising from the proposed charging provisions under the Town and Country Planning (Control of Major Accident Hazards) Regulations 1999; and if he will make a statement. [73809]

  Mr. Meale
  Two letters have been received making such representations. Copies of one of these have also been forwarded by six Members of Parliament. The current projection is that the overall charges to industry, for the performance of the functions placed on the Competent Authority under the proposed Control of Major Accident Hazards Regulations (COMAH), will amount to approximately £6 million in 1999–2000, and £6.6 million in 2000–01 and 2001–02. It is not possible at this stage to separate out the costs of charging likely to be borne by the fuel supply and distribution and liquefied petroleum gas industries from those of other industries. The COMAH charging consultative document provided illustrative examples of the likely charges for different, typical types of establishment to enable operators to estimate their costs.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received criticising(a) the suitability of the proposed flat rate inspection charge and (b) the adequacy of efforts to ensure that these charges relate directly to actual work undertaken under the Town and Country Planning (Control of Major Accident Hazards) Regulations 1999. [73811]

  Mr. Meale
  Four letters have been received making such representations, of which two raised only first issue. Copies of one of these letters, which raised both issues, have also been forwarded by six Members of Parliament.

  Parish Councils
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to review the threshold above which parish councils are subject to the Audit Accounting Regulations; and if he will make a statement. [73638]

  Ms Armstrong
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave him on 20 January 1999,Official Report, column 466.

  Countryside Agency
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when(a) the Chairman and (b) members of the Countryside Agency will be appointed. [74337]

  Mr. Meacher
  Shortly.

  Airport Companies
  Mr. Stringer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions which local authority airport companies he regards as qualified to be freed from borrowing control. [74618]

  Dr. Reid
  Following the issue of a consultation document and an invitation to qualified airport companies to apply to be freed from borrowing control, Manchester Airport plc, Newcastle International Airport Ltd., Leeds Bradford International Airport Ltd. and Norwich Airport Ltd. have applied. My right hon. Friend has considered their applications. He is satisfied that all four companies are financially sound and that they should be removed from borrowing control. He will therefore shortly lay before Parliament an Order making the necessary amendment to the Public Airport Companies (Capital Finance) Order 1996. Subject to Parliamentary approval the amending Order will take effect on 1 April.

  Sustainable Distribution
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he proposes to publish his strategy for sustainable distribution. [74620]

  Dr. Reid
  I have today published our strategy for sustainable distribution, establishing a partnership between Government and industry to develop a world class distribution system for the next millennium, meeting industry's and consumers' needs while improving our environment and quality of life. Copies have been placed in the Library of the House and are available in the Vote Office.

WALES

  Disability Discrimination Act 1995
  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the impact on his Department's policies of the goods and services provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 to be implemented in October 1999. [71267]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  We are acting to ensure that the Department's policies meet the needs of disabled people and that we comply with our legal requirements. The Department already takes positive steps to make it easier for disabled people to make use of its services. We shall continue to do so, not only by complying fully with the new duties in the Disability Discrimination Act but by aiming to exceed these requirements where we can.

  In December 1998, the Department briefed all its senior management on "mainstreaming" which ensures that all new and existing policies and programmes are assessed for any adverse impact not only on disabled people, but on any minority or disadvantaged group. That includes the need to ensure that our policies and their outcomes comply with the law. Where necessary, we shall act to remove or reduce the adverse impact on these groups. The guidance, "Policy Appraisal for Equal Treatment", which the Cabinet Office has issued to all Government Departments, was circulated at the same time.
  629
  In addition, the Government of Wales Act 1998 gives the National Assembly of Wales a duty to have regard to equality of opportunity for all people in the conduct of its business and in the exercise of its functions. The Assembly will have to report annually on what arrangements it has made to promote equality of opportunity in exercising its functions and how successful they have been. We have received advice from the National Assembly Advisory Group and the Standing Orders Commission on how these duties should be given effect and the Department is in contact with relevant statutory and voluntary bodies in Wales regarding the development of these arrangements.

  Housing Renovation
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has made of the outstanding housing renovation grants in Wales on the basis of existing commitments made by local authorities at 31 March 1998, or the latest date at which the information is available. [71353]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  The value of outstanding renovation grants at the end of September 1998 is estimated to be £98 millions: this relates to grants under both the 1989 Local Government and Housing Act and the 1996 Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act.

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

  Caergwrle Bypass
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the prospects for a Caergwrle bypass. [74187]

  Mr. Hain
  The scheme is the joint responsibility of Flintshire and Wrexham councils and I had a meeting to discuss the way forward with my hon. Friend and a delegation last week.

  Following the transfer of functions, any bid for Transport Grant support will be a matter for the National Assembly.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  National Lottery
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what percentage of heritage projects for which National Lottery funding was applied for were rejected in(a) 1996–97, (b) 1997–98 and (c) 1998–99 to date. [72176]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The table shows applications rejected by the Heritage Lottery Fund (including those deemed ineligible) as a percentage of applications on which a decision was made (i.e. applications which were accepted or rejected) during the period. The figures do not take into account applications on which no decision has yet been taken.

  The figures relate to the year in which the decision was made, which in some cases is different from the year in which the relevant applications were received.
  630

  Year

  % of heritage applications rejected

  1996–97

  32

  1997–98

  35

  1998–99 (to 16 February 1999)

  54

  Libraries
  Mr. Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment his Department has made of the service provided by public libraries. [72104]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  [holding answer 1 March 1999] I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave on 1 March 1999, Official Report, column 532, to my hon. Friends the Members for Ilford, North (Ms Perham) and for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien).

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Crime Statistics
  Mr. Linton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many crimes were(a) reported and (b) solved in England and Wales involving false documentation (i) in relation to motor vehicles and (ii) not related to motor vehicles for the years (1) 1995, (2) 1996, (3) 1997 and (4) 1998.[73084]

  Mr. Boateng
  Recorded crimes which involve false documentation are included in fraud and forgery offences, but are not separately identifiable. Figures for all recorded fraud and forgery offences for 1995, 1996 and 1997 are as follows (1998 figures are not yet available):

  Fraud and forgery, England and Wales

  Year

  Number of Offences

  offences detected

  1995

  133,016

  65,935

  1996

  136,225

  67,080

  1997

  134,398

  64,555

  Crimes involving false documentation in relation to motor vehicles are not included in the totals, as they were not notifiable to the Home Office before April 1998. However, the numbers of these crimes are being collected from 1 April 1998, and will be included in the statistical bulletin on notifiable offences which will be issued in October 1999.

  EU Nationals
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many decisions to deport EU nationals were made on the grounds of(a) public policy, (b) public security and (c) public health during the period 1 February 1998 to date. [72868]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Between 1 February and 30 November 1998, some 135 European Union nationals were issued with a notice of intention to deport or recommended for deportation by a court. The precise reasons for initiating deportation action in these cases can only be obtained through the examination of individual case records and is therefore only available at disproportionate cost.

  Prostitute Contact Cards
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the steps his Department is taking to outlaw prostitute contact cards in London telephone boxes. [73640]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Home Office will shortly be issuing a consultation paper on new measures to tackle the problem of prostitutes cards in telephone boxes which will look at options for changing the law to enable those who put cards in telephone boxes to be dealt with more effectively.

  Ethnic Minority Police
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how he intends police forces to meet the target for ethnic minority police in areas with a very small percentage of ethnic minorities. [73679]

  Mr. Boateng
  Individual targets will be set for each force for the recruitment, retention and progression of ethnic minority officers. These targets will inevitably have regard to the minority ethnic population of the community served by the individual police force.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many ethnic minority police officers Cumbria Constabulary will need to recruit to meet a 7 per cent. ethnic minority target. [73680]

  Mr. Boateng
  No targets have yet been set. For the police service broadly to reflect the minority ethnic population of England and Wales, there would need to be an overall ethnic minority representation of at least 6 per cent. Each force will be asked to set targets for recruitment, retention and progression for ethnic minority officers. Force targets will have regard to ethnic composition of the community served.

  The minority ethnic population in Cumbria is approximately 0.4 per cent. of the total population of the area. Inevitably, this will mean that targets for this area will be below the national average.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how dispersed asylum seekers are to be taken into account in determining whether the target for ethnic minority police has been met. [73677]

  Mr. Boateng
  The police service needs to reflect the communities it serves, which means that, taking England and Wales as a whole, the aim should be for minority ethnic representation of at least six per cent. Not all minority ethnic residents in an area will be eligible to join the police, but it is unlikely that the number of asylum seekers measured against the total population will have a significant impact on targets.

  "Bride of Chucky Doll"
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received on the film "Bride of Chucky Doll". [73318]

  Mr. Boateng
  I have received one letter from a Member of this House on behalf of a constituent and will be responding shortly.

  Automated Fingerprint Recognition System
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on progress with the Automated Fingerprint Recognition System. [73501]

  Mr. Boateng
  I am advised by the Police Information Technology Organisation that the National Automated Fingerprint Identification System (NAFIS) Programme, following some restructuring of the implementation plan, is on track to complete roll-out to all 43 police forces in England and Wales by April 2001. The transition phase has already commenced, with 11 forces operating Bureau Foundation Services and new bureau installations being welcomed into NAFIS at an average rate of one per month.

  Asylum Seekers (Sexuality)
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers, and from which countries, are seeking asylum on account of their sexuality. [73552]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I regret that information on the number of persons claiming asylum on grounds of persecution due to their sexuality is not available.

  Racial Incidents (Policing)
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reasons his Department's studies of(a) young offenders from different ethnic groups and (b) the policing of racial incidents was commissioned; what are the terms of reference of the study; how is it being conducted; what reports he has received on the findings of the study to date; and when in Spring 1999 the final report will be published. [73351]

  Mr. Boateng
  Both studies were originally approved in February 1995, when the right hon. Gentleman was Minister of State. The details are as follows:

  Young Offenders from Different Ethnic Groups

  A number of research studies have provided evidence of ethnic differences at each stage of the criminal justice process. This study has interviewed matched samples of young offenders of different ethnic origins to shed light on the various reasons for this. The findings are being written up and the report is likely to be published within the next four months.

  Police recording of racial incidents

  This study forms part of a wider study of police ethnic monitoring. The first part was published in December 1997 as "Ethnic Monitoring in Police Forces: a Beginning" (FitzGerald and Sibbitt, HORS 173). The second part is now in draft and examines:
  (a) which incidents the police record as "racial incidents";
  (b) which incidents are not recorded, despite meeting the definition of a "racial incident";
  (c) the reasons for any mis-recording or under-recording; and
  (d) the scope for improvement.

  Publication is also expected within four months or so.

  Neither of the reports has yet been put to me.

  PC Dunne
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will hold an independent judicial inquiry into the decision not to bring to trial the men arrested for the murder of PC Dunne in Clapham. [73684]

  Mr. Boateng
  I have no plans to establish an independent judicial inquiry into the decision not to bring to trial the three men arrested in connection with the murders of PC Patrick Dunne and Mr. William Danso in Clapham on 20 October 1993. Following the arrest and charging of the three men, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) sought the opinion of Treasury Counsel, who advised that there was insufficient evidence to proceed with the charges of murder and conspiracy to murder. During the course of the investigation where further evidence was discovered, this opinion was re-examined by Counsel, but it was concluded that there was still insufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of convictions, a conclusion accepted by the CPS and the Metropolitan Police Service.

  I understand from the Metropolitan police that whilst this investigation remains an active inquiry, no new evidence has since come to light which would cause either the CPS or Counsel to reconsider their opinion. The three men originally charged were subsequently sentenced to lengthy periods of imprisonment for various serious offences of violence, blackmail and possession of firearms with intent to endanger life.

  Community Service
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will assess the advantages and

  Number of defendants prosecuted at magistrates' courts and sentenced at all courts for offences under the Protection from Harassment Act 19971by result, England and Wales, 1997 and January to June 19982

  Section 2

  Section 4

  Offence of harassment

  Putting people in fear of violence

  1997

  21998 January to June

  1997

  21998 January to June

  Total proceeded against

  507

  1,180

  243

  712

  Total sentenced3

  248

  1,013

  76

  239

  Absolute or conditional discharge

  99

  351

  17

  59

  Fine

  56

  236

  16

  46

  Community sentence4

  48

  268

  24

  71

  Fully suspended sentence

  3

  5

  1

  2

  Immediate custody2

  33

  113

  16

  52

  Other

  9

  40

  2

  9

  1Came into force on 16 June 1997

  2Provisional

  3Includes defendants proceeded against and found guilty at magistrates' courts who were committed to the Crown Court for sentence

  4Includes probation order, supervision order, attendance centre order, community service order, combination order and curfew order

  5Includes detention in a Young Offender Institution and unsuspended sentence of imprisonment

  Pending Deportees
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people are currently held in prison or detention centres awaiting deportation, having already completed a sentence for a criminal offence with a recommendation for deportation on completion of the sentence; and for what periods they have been held in prison or detention centres since the completion of their sentence. [73558]
  634
  disadvantages of requiring those serving community service sentences to wear high-visibility marked protective clothing to make their participation apparent to the public. [73614]

  Mr. George Howarth
  We shall bear this suggestion in mind. Protective clothing is already provided where necessary for health and safety reasons.

  Police Radio
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the progress of the Police Service Radio Communications Project. [73687]

  Mr. Boateng
  I am advised by the Police Information Technology Organisation that negotiations for the award of contract for the Public Service Radio Communications Project (PSRCP) are now entering their final stage, with the aim of completing them in the summer.

  Lancashire Constabulary is the pilot force for the project. The pilot should be installed this year, with evaluation in early 2000.

  Stalking
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions there have been for stalking since the passage of the relevant Act; how many were successful; and what sentence was passed in each case. [73504]

  Mr. Boateng
  The relevant sections 1, 2 and 4 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 came into force on 16 June 1997. Data are given in the table for 1997 and provisionally, for the period January to June 1998.

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The information requested can be obtained only through the examination of individual case records and is therefore available only at disproportionate cost.

  Bookmakers' Committee
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what factors underlie the proposed
  635
  re-constitution of the Bookmakers' Committee; what representations he has received; and if he will make a statement. [73785]

  Mr. George Howarth
  We issued proposals in a consultation letter on 3 December. They sought a balance between the large bookmaking chains and organisations representing smaller bookmakers, taking into account size of membership, number of off-course shops, leviable turnover and levy paid.

  We have received representations from Tyndallwoods solicitors (on behalf of the British Betting Office Association, the National Association of Bookmakers and the Scottish Independent Bookmakers' Association), the Betting Office Licensees Association, William Hill, Coral, Ladbroke and Stanley Leisure. We are currently considering them and will announce the outcome as soon as possible.

  Chief Superintendent Rank
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will reintroduce the rank of chief superintendent for police forces in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement. [74677]

  Mr. Straw
  Following consultation with police service interests and the agreement of the Police Advisory Board, I have given approval for the rank of Chief Superintendent to be reintroduced as soon as possible. The rank of Deputy Chief Constable will be reintroduced at the same time. I will take the earliest legislative opportunity to make the necessary changes.

  Immigration (Country Assessments)
  Kali Mountford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to make available the first revisions of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate's country assessments. [74678]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Revised country assessments were made available to caseworkers during December 1998 and January 1999. They will be made publicly available on the Home Office Internet site within the next few weeks and copies have been placed in the Library.

  The assessments are all sourced to information obtained from independent external sources and from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The assessments have been reformatted to take account of many comments received from various representative bodies and asylum interest groups (the Consultative Group). A list of assessments was set out in my reply to my hon. Friend, the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Twigg), on 13 May 1998, Official Report, columns 127–28.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate of the number of people who will claim asylum in the United Kingdom he has used to calculate the sums required for the new support arrangements in the years(a) 1999–2000, (b) 2000–01 and (c) 2001–02. [74211]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I will write to the hon. Member.
  636
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the administrative costs of the support arrangements for asylum seekers proposed in the Immigration and Asylum Bill per adult asylum seeker per week. [74210]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I have made no separate estimate of the administrative costs of the support arrangements. The support arrangements will be procured by competitive tender. It will be up to potential providers to keep their administrative costs to a minimum.

  Senator Pinochet
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many countries have made representations urging Senator Pinochet's return to Chile. [73215]

  Mr. Straw
  One. The Chilean Government made representations urging Senator Pinochet's return to Chile. I have also, today, answered a separate parliamentary question in respect of a letter from the Vatican.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when, and in what form, representations have been received on behalf of Senator Pinochet from the Vatican. [73214]

  Mr. Straw
  A letter from a senior level in the Vatican was passed, in November 1998, from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to the Prime Minister and the Home Office.

  Persistent Offenders
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of those persistent offender cases surveyed in the Phoenix-based research used to calculate the benchmark figure of 142 days for arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders and in subsequent research were completed(a) within 71 days, (b) within 142 days but more than 71 days and (c) in over 142 days. [74215]

  Mr. Boateng
  I shall write to the right hon. Member.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 15 February 1999,Official Report, column 518, if he will estimate the effect of adopting an upper limit for the Phoenix-based survey on time between arrest and sentence for persistent young offenders to take into account the effect of the minority of cases which may be protracted for reasons outside the control of case management. [74219]

  Mr. Boateng
  On the basis of information currently held, it is not possible to calculate the number of cases where progress is protracted for reasons outside the control of case management. It is not possible to estimate the effect of adopting an upper limit for the Phoenix-based survey which would only exclude such cases. Any upper limit imposed would be likely to exclude cases affected by unnecessary delay, and would not be consistent with the Government's intention to reduce delay in all cases involving persistent young offenders.
  637
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will provide a breakdown of the figures used to calculate the benchmark figure of 142 days for the pledge to halve the time between arrest and sentence for persistent young offenders. [74212]

  Mr. Boateng
  The calculation for the figure of 142 days from arrest to sentence was based on a representative sample of almost 1,500 occasions on which slightly over 900 persistent young offenders were sentenced for almost 4,500 offences during 1996, across England and Wales.

  The dates on which the sampled persistent young offenders were sentenced were obtained from the Police National Computer, Phoenix. As Phoenix does not generally hold arrest dates, this information was obtained directly from police forces. The date of arrest for each sentencing occasion was defined as the earliest date of arrest (or date of laying of information) and was collected in respect of each offence for which a sentence was passed. Once this information had been added, the time from arrest to sentence was calculated on the basis of the difference (in calendar days) between the date of sentence and the date of arrest (or laying of information). The national baseline is the mean arrest to sentence time for the sampled sentencing occasions.

  AIDS (Asylum Seekers)
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what response he plans to make to the concerns expressed by the Terrence Higgins Trust and LEAN in their responses to the White Paper, "Fairer, Faster and Firmer" (Cm 4018) relating to the problem of AIDS and HIV-related illnesses among asylum seekers; and what measures are being taken to address the issue of health among asylum seekers. [74213]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Responses from the Terrence Higgins Trust and the London East AIDS Network to the White Paper "Fairer, Faster and Firmer—A Modern Approach to Immigration and Asylum" were acknowledged in November. Their concerns are being taken into account in developing the new asylum support arrangements under which all asylum seekers will continue to be entitled to essential medical treatment available from the National Health Service.

  Horseracing
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the members of the Steering Group conducting a review of the Tote; and when it will report. [74140]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The Steering Group is chaired by Mr. Peter Jones, the Tote's Chairman. Its other members are Mr. H Bush from Her Majesty's Treasury, and Miss C. Sinclair, Mr. R. Fulton, Mr. J. Dilling, Mr. S. Hickson and Mr. C. Hawkswood from the Home Office. I understand that the Steering Group is nearing the end of its work and hopes to report to Ministers shortly.

  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the future financing of the horseracing industry in Great Britain. [74141]
  638
  Mr. George Howarth
  We are having constructive discussions with the British Horseracing Board about the issues raised in their financial plan, but do not propose to make any general statement about horseracing's finances. Horseracing and bookmaker interests are due shortly to start important negotiations over the betting levy, under the oversight of the Horserace Betting Levy Board.

  Fire Stations (PFI)
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of PFI bids for new fire stations in Lancaster; and if he will make a statement. [74138]

  Mr. George Howarth
  We have received no Private Finance Initiative bids for new fire stations in Lancaster. We provided £70,000 in 1997–98 towards the development costs of Lancashire's pathfinder Private Finance Initiative project to build replacement fire stations in Accrington and Morecambe. We are continuing to advise the fire authority on the preparation of its outline business case for that project.

TREASURY

  Disabled People
  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what amounts in his Department's budget for 1998–99 can be attributed to spending on disabled people; and what proportion this represents of total departmental spending. [71293]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Treasury's spending on disabled people can not be separately identified.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the parliamentary constituencies which the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has visited in an official capacity in the past 12 months. [71332]

  Mr. Milburn
  [holding answer 15 February 1999] In the course of my official duties in the last 12 months I and previous Chief Secretaries have visited the cities and towns listed in the table. In addition I have visited a number of central and inner London areas in the normal course of my duties.

  Date

  Areas

  6 February 1998 (a)

  Dundee

  25 September 1998(b)

  Belfast

  22 January 1999(c)

  Tatton Wythenshawe and Sale (Manchester area)

  27 January 1999(c)

  Leeds

  Note:

  Chief Secretary at the time:

  (a) Alistair Darling

  (b) Stephen Byers

  (c) Alan Milburn

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the parliamentary constituencies which he has visited in an official capacity in the past 12 months. [71333]
  639
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  [holding answer 15 February 1999]In the course of my official duties in the last 12 months I have visited the cities and towns listed in the table. In addition, I have visited a number of central and inner London areas in the normal course of my duties.

  Date

  Area

  27 February 1998

  Glasgow

  20–22 March 1998

  York

  24 April 1998

  Glasgow

  12 May 1998

  Belfast

  15 June 1998

  Cardiff

  23 June 1998

  Slough

  2 November 1998

  Birmingham

  20 November 1998

  Edinburgh

  22 January 1999

  Edinburgh

  25 January 1999

  Bridgend

  5 February 1999

  Coventry

  Disability Discrimination Act 1995
  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact on his Department's policies of the goods and services provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 to be implemented in October 1999. [71264]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Department's current policies, procedures and practices are under review with a view to ensuring that they will be fully compliant with the goods and services provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act by October 1999. The Treasury provides few direct services to the public—our main service is the provision of information either through our Website, publications or the Public Enquiry Unit.

  To consider our compliance with the provisions on physical access, we instructed the building managing agents to undertake a full disability audit. The details of their report are currently being considered.

  On access to communications, we have been in contact with Central Office of Information's Informability Unit to consider compliance with the Act in respect of our printed and electronic (website) publications. We propose to use the Unit to provide information in alternative formats (eg such as braille conversion, audio tapes etc.) where required. Advice will also be taken from Central Office of Information's Informability Unit on the possibility of making our telephone-based public inquiry service accessible to people who are deaf of have impaired hearing and to people with speech impairments.

  Mozambique
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the(a) amount and (b) proportion of overall Government expenditure that Mozambique will pay in servicing its debt in the year following its Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative completion point. [71393]

  Ms Hewitt
  The IMF estimates that scheduled debt service for Mozambique in the year following its expected completion point under the HIPC initiative will be 640
  $98 million. The IMF has not published an estimate of this figure as a proportion of this figure as a proportion of overall government expenditure.

  Withholding Tax
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if it is his policy to exercise the British veto in relation to EU proposals to introduce a minimum withholding tax on income from non-resident savings and investments; and if he will make a statement. [71675]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 22 February 1999] We have made it clear that we will not agree to any proposal which would cause serious damage to EU financial markets. We do not agree with the current draft Directive on the taxation of savings in its current form.

  International Monetary Fund
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the Interim Committee of the International Monetary Fund has considered the report from the External Evaluation of the IMF' s Enhanced Structural Adjustment Facility; and which of the report's findings Her Majesty's Government supports. [72194]

  Ms Hewitt
  The UK strongly welcomed the report from the External Evaluation on the IMF's Enhanced Structural Adjustment Facility (ESAF) when it was presented to the IMF Executive Board last year. In particular, we welcomed the report's findings on the need to implement a new approach to address the social impact of ESAF programmes, on the need for better and more effective collaboration between the IMF and World Bank, and on the importance of ownership to the success of programmes. We encouraged the publication of the external report to promote further public discussion of its findings.

  We have been working at the IMF to ensure that the findings of the external report are used to strengthen ESAF programmes. We welcomed the IMF's paper on "Distilling the Lessons from the ESAF reviews", supported its decision to implement a new approach to ESAF on a pilot basis, and have encouraged the Fund to go further and incorporate the lessons of the review in all ESAF programmes. We will continue to work to ensure that the lessons of the review are fully addressed.

  Taxation (Charities)
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) when the Government expects to publish its report on the taxation of charities; and if he will make a statement; [72657]

  (2) what representations he has received from the charity sector on the Government's review of the taxation of charities. [72656]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government received over 3,000 replies in the first phase of the Review, and are considering carefully all options. I do not want to pre-empt the content of the consultation document, which will be published by the time of the Budget.

  Euro
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the total money supply of the currencies of the countries joining in the euro at the time of the euro's inception. [73240]

  Ms Hewitt
  Provisional data from the European Central Bank show that the money supply (M3) in the euro area at the end of 1998 stood at Euro 4,436.1 billion.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the total money supply of the United States dollar at the time of the euro's inception. [73242]

  Ms Hewitt
  Data for the US money stock is published in Federal Reserve Board Press release H6. This can be found on the Federal Reserve Board Website at http://www.federalreserve.gov.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the average inflation level of the countries joining the euro at the time of the euro's inception. [73241]

  Ms Hewitt
  The average level of inflation in the euro zone, as measured by the Harmonised Index of Consumer Prices (HICP), was 0.8 per cent. in December 1998.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the total money supply of sterling at the time of the euro's inception. [73243]

  Ms Hewitt
  Money supply data for the UK is available in table 3.2 of the Bank of England's monthly publication, "Monetary and Financial Statistics".

  Hydrocarbon Duty
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the loss of hydrocarbon duty in the current financial year from(a) cross-border smuggling and (b) cross-border purchasing. [72956]

  Ms Hewitt
  HM Customs and Excise have no estimate for the revenue lost to the Exchequer through this activity.

  Occupational Pensions
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many occupational schemes have been found to be deliberately in breach of the earnings limits on tax-free contributions during each of the last five years. [73014]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 25 February 19991 We do not record this information.

  Air Miles
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many Air Miles have been earned by him and each of his Ministers; and how he proposes to use them. [73338]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government's policy on the use and disposal of air miles was set out by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in his answer to the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) on 12 January 1999,Official Report, column 141.

  Detailed information on any air miles earned by Ministers as a result of official travel is not recorded centrally.

  Euro Preparations Committee
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on how many occasions the cross-party Euro Preparations Committee has met to date; who is its chairman; and if he will make a statement. [72814]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 25 February 1999] My hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) has agreed to Chair the cross-party Euro Preparations Committee. The first meeting will be held soon.

  Pensions
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what assessment he has made of the impact of lifelong individual savings accounts on occupational pension scheme membership; [73549]

  (2) what plans he has to simplify the regulatory regime for personal pensions. [73550]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Treasury's proposed pooled pension investment (ppi) is a contractual wrapper for pensions savings, not a pension scheme in its own right. It could suitably hold units invested in personal pensions, stakeholder pensions, occupational pensions and AVCs, and will allow movement between these types of scheme without the large financial penalties currently incurred. Ppis will add a new transparency and flexibility to the pension market.

  Debt (Poor Countries)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the estimated debt of the world's 10 poorest countries incurred with the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [73619]

  Ms Hewitt
  Debts owed to the UK by the countries shown in the World Bank's 1998 World Development Indicators as having the 10 lowest GNP per capita figures are as follows:

  Country

  Total debt owed to UK (£ million)

  Burundi

  0

  Chad

  0

  D.R. Congo

  80

  Ethiopia

  12

  Malawi

  1

  Mozambique

  90

  Niger

  11

  Rwanda

  0

  Sierra Leone

  4

  Tanzania

  116

  Total

  314

  Source:

  ECGD, 2/99

  Business Leaders
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the business leaders involved in the 12 business euroteams; and what links they have with Ambassadors for British Business. [73601]

  Ms Hewitt
  The regional euro forums were set up to help support business—in particular Small and Medium Sized
  643
  Enterprises—prepare for the euro. The forums are led by senior business people with representation from key strategic partners who have an interest in supporting

  Name

  Position

  Region

  John Burke

  Chief Executive, Bristol and West PLC

  South West

  Philip Hardaker

  Senior Partner, KPMG

  South East

  Neville Orr

  Chairman, Herdmans Holding Limited

  Northern Ireland

  Neville Reyner

  Eastern

  Dr. John Rigg

  Economic Advisor, Scottish Office

  Scotland

  Tony Rose

  Deputy Chairman, Rover

  West Midlands

  James Ross

  Chairman, Littlewoods PLC

  North West

  Peter Stoddart

  Company Secretary, Nissan

  North East

  Hilary Thompson

  Natwest Bank

  London

  Ken Truman

  Area Director, Lloyds Bank

  Wales

  John Watson

  Director, Yorkshire Building Society

  Yorks & the Humber

  Martin Henry

  Chairman, Lastolite Limited

  East Midlands

  The forums have no links with Ambassadors for British Business.

  Road Haulage Industry
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the amount of revenue lost through British road hauliers taxing their vehicles in other EU countries and purchasing fuel there for United Kingdom journeys. [73767]

  Ms Hewitt
  There are no official estimates for the revenue losses to the Exchequer through these activities.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what discussions he has had with road haulage companies about the impact on their businesses on the fuel duty escalator; what further discussions he plans to have with them before the Budget; and if he will make a statement; [73812]

  (2) what discussions he has had with road haulage companies about the impact which the level of road fund tax has on their businesses; what plans he has to meet them before the Budget; and if he will make a statement. [73813]

  Ms Hewitt
  Treasury Ministers have not met with any road haulage companies, although officials have met with the Freight Transport Association and with the Road Haulage Association as recently as 23 February. Officials have made me fully aware of the concerns of the road haulage industry in the run up to the Budget.

  Euro Coins
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his policy towards the European Commission's proposals on the production of euro coins; what rules will apply in the United Kingdom; what is meant by the proviso that such production should not change the image of the euro; what legal recourse there will be when a breach of this proviso occurs; what is the definition of European territory covered by this proposal; and if he will make a statement. [73768]

  Ms Hewitt
  The European Commission communication sets out arrangements for the enforcement of copyright protection on the common face design of euro coins and 644
  business, for example CBI, Business Links, TUC Chambers of Commerce. The Chairmen of the 12 Regional Euro Forums are as follows:

  the applicable reproduction regime. Among other things, the reproduction regime specifies that reproductions of the common face design should not
  "damage or detract the image of the euro".

  The Commission has assigned the copyright on the design of the common face of euro coins to each participating Member State. Enforcement of the copyright will be ensured by participating Member States according to their national legislation and in compliance with an agreed reproduction regime. The Commission will enforce the copyright in non-participating Member States according to the relevant national legislation. In the event of a breach of the reproduction rules, subsequent action may take the form of civil or criminal proceedings.

  There is no definition of European territory in the Commission rules, but the scope of application of them is coincident with the scope of application of the monetary policy provisions of the EC Treaty.

  Euro Conversion
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate for additional public expenditure arising out of the euro changeover plan for(a) 1998–99, (b) 1999–2000 and (c) subsequent years.[73802]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 1 March 1999] The cost of euro preparations would depend on the detailed approach that the UK took to the changeover. The outline National Changeover Plan is a first step in planning how the UK would make the changeover to the single currency. A further plan will be published in around a year's time.

  Any spending in 1998–99 and 1999–2000 will be accommodated within the spending plans already set out for those years.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the costs of converting to the euro for(a) the public sector, (b) retailers, (c) manufacturers, (d) the financial sector and (e) the economy as a whole. [73803]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 1 March 1999] The cost to each sector of the economy of conversion to the euro would depend on the detailed approach taken to the changeover. For example, costs would depend on

  645
  the extent to which organisations are able to build in euro compatibility where IT systems are being upgraded or purchased for other reasons.

  The outline National Changeover Plan is a first step in planning how the UK would make the changeover to the single currency. A further plan will be published in around a year's time.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the cost to(a) the Inland Revenue, (b) HM Customs and Excise, (c) the other non-ministerial Departments within his responsibility and (d) his Department of converting to the euro. [74143]

  Ms Hewitt
  The cost to those departments of conversion to the euro would depend on the detailed approach that the UK took to the changeover. The outline National Changeover Plan is a first step in planning how the UK would make the changeover to the single currency. A further plan will be published in around a year's time.

  The cost to those departments would also depend on the extent to which they are able to build in euro compatibility where IT systems are being upgraded or
  purchased for other reasons.

  Average Earnings Index
  Mr. Derek Twigg
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to announce the outcome of the review of the revisions to the average earnings
  index. [74433]

  Ms Hewitt
  The report of the external review of the revisions to the average earnings index, announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 23 October 1998, is being published today. The review has been conducted under the direction of Sir Andrew Turnbull and Mervyn King. Copies of the report are available in the Vote Office.

  The Office for National Statistics (ONS) has today separately published the report of the work on the average earnings index by Professor Ray Chambers of Southampton University, which was commissioned by Dr. Tim Holt, the Director of the ONS. Copies of this report have been deposited in the Library of the House.

  At the same time, following the implementation of the immediate technical recommendations made in the Turnbull-King report, the average earnings index which was suspended on 2 November 1998 has been reinstated by the ONS. Details of the reinstated index are set out in Chapter 9 of the Turnbull-King report and also in a separate ONS First Release.

  The Government have accepted the recommendations of the Turnbull-King report and are firmly committed to their implementation. Dr. Holt has already agreed to my request to draw up a programme of action designed to implement the remaining recommendations, including further work to ensure a process of continuous improvement to the index. I have asked Dr. Holt to report to me regularly on the progress that is being made in implementing the recommendations.

  Diesel (Comparative VAT Rates)
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the levels of duty and VAT on diesel in(a) the United Kingdom, (b) France, (c) Germany and (d) Belgium. [74304]

  Ms Hewitt
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) on 23 February 1999,Official Report, columns 241–42.

  Fish Quota
  Ms Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the capital gains treatment of fish quota; and if he will make a statement. [74616]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The fishing industry will benefit from our decision to give capital gains roll-over relief for fish quota. It will enable fishermen to reinvest in the fishing industry without loss of capital and plan more effectively for the future. Regulations will shortly be laid adding fish quota to the list of chargeable assets qualifying for roll-over relief. The Inland Revenue are also today issuing a statement by way of a Press Release which clarifies the circumstances in which roll-over relief will be available for fish quota and other qualifying assets used in the fishing industry.

PRIME MINISTER

  Genetically Modified Foods
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Prime Minister on how many occasions since 1 May 1997 he has received representations from companies with an interest in genetically modified foods and crops. [74223]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the right hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) on 23 February 1999,Official Report, column 232.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Smoking-related Illnesses
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much money was spent in each of the past five years to treat NHS patients in Northern Ireland for illnesses relating to cigarette smoking. [71538]

  Mr. McFall
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  Information relating to the amount spent in each of the past five years to treat NHS patients in Northern Ireland for illnesses relating to cigarette smoking is not available centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Integrated Health and Social Services
  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment she has made of the conclusion of the first report from the Health Committee of Session 1998–99 on the relationship between health and social services (HC74) in respect of the model of integrated
  647
  health and social services operated by the Down Lisburn Trust; and what plans she has to encourage other trusts in Northern Ireland to adopt that model. [71324]

  Mr. McFall
  [holding answer 16 February 1999] In Northern Ireland health and social services have been provided within an integrated structure since 1972. Eleven of the existing 19 HSS Trusts provide health and social services on an integrated basis, some on a model similar to the Down Lisburn Trust. As part of the modernisation of the service, the Government are examining responses to their recent consultation paper on the structure of health and social services entitled "Fit for the Future". Decisions on future arrangements will be taken by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

  Community Psychiatric Nurses
  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many community psychiatric nurses there were in Northern Ireland in each of the last three years. [73230]

  Mr. McFall
  The numbers of Community Psychiatric Nurses employed in the Northern Ireland Health and personal Social Services, at 30 September in each of the last three years are as follows:

  1996: 183

  1997: 180

  1998: 194.

  Schizophrenia
  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people discharged from hospital in Northern Ireland following a main diagnosis of schizophrenia psychoses and subsequently taken to hospital by the police under the Mental Health Acts were refused admission in the last year for which figures are available. [73237]

  Mr. McFall
  This information is not available centrally.

  Non-fossil Fuel
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans she has to encourage non-fossil fuel energy production in Northern Ireland. [72915]

  Mr. Ingram
  Northern Ireland is participating in the current national policy review of new and renewable technologies, which includes an examination of what would be necessary and practicable to achieve 10 per cent. of the UK's electricity needs from renewables by the year 2010 and what contribution renewables could make to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The Department of Trade and Industry plans to issue a consultation paper on the review shortly. Northern Ireland Orders have already been made for 32mw of contracted renewable capacity and consideration will be given to a further Non-Fossil Fuel Obligation competition in Northern Ireland on completion of the review. In addition, the EU supported Energy Demonstration Scheme and INTERREG Programme, continue to offer financial assistance to the developers of new and renewable energy projects.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) 16 to 17 year olds and (b) 18 to 24 year olds in Northern Ireland are unemployed according to the International Labour Organisation definition. [72914]

  Mr. Ingram
  The latest figures available relate to Autumn 1998 (September-November) when, according to the International Labour Organisation definition, the number of 16 to 17 year olds unemployed was 2,400 and the number of 18 to 24 year olds unemployed was 16,000.

  Tourism
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the annual revenue from tourism in Northern Ireland in each of the past five years. [72923]

  Mr. Ingram
  Overall revenue from visitor tourism has grown over the past 5 years. Whilst the record visitor performance recorded in 1995 has not yet been realised, the industry continues to perform above pre-ceasefire levels.

  Annual Revenue from tourism in Northern Ireland in each of last 5 years

  £ million

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  11998

  Visitor

  183

  214

  206

  208

  1212

  Domestic

  59

  57

  60

  60

  n/a

  Total

  242

  571

  266

  268

  n/a

  1Forecast

  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what estimate she has made of the projected annual revenue from tourism in Northern Ireland in each of the next three years. [72922]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Northern Ireland Tourist board has set challenging targets for tourism revenue for 2001, as highlighted in its Corporate Plan 1998–2001. Their realisation will be predicated on a peaceful environment. These targets aim for increases in discretionary visitors with a higher spend per capita to be realised through more targeted marketing and effective industry partnerships.

  Targets—tourism revenue

  £ million

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Visitor

  239

  269

  315

  Domestic

  63

  65

  67

  Total

  302

  334

  382

  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans she has for grant aid to promote the tourism industry in Northern Ireland. [72944]

  Mr. Ingram
  In 1999–2000 the Government have made available £3.8 million for the promotion and marketing of Northern Ireland and a further £4.7 million to assist the development of tourism infrastructure. In May 1988, the Chancellor launched a £4 million Tourism Capital Challenge Fund competition specifically aimed at improving competitiveness in the tourism industry.
  649
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans she has to assist local authorities in Northern Ireland to establish and maintain tourism offices. [72921]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Northern Ireland Tourist Board co-ordinates a network of local authority Tourist Information Centres (TICs) throughout Northern Ireland. It is also currently working with the local authorities to establish a second tier of local information office. Many of the TICs received capital grant, and any additional centres may also be eligible for assistance.

  Electronic Commerce
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans she has to encourage the use of electronic commerce to promote the international expansion of Northern Ireland businesses. [72911]

  Mr. Ingram
  In addition to existing arrangements to promote the benefits of electronic commerce by raising business awareness and by providing advice to companies, work is underway to develop a coherent strategy to establish Northern Ireland as a centre for electronic commerce.

  Internet and E-mail
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans she has to encourage her Department to utilise the Internet and e-mail to reduce waste and the use of paper. [72910]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Northern Ireland Departments are fully committed to achieving the Prime Minister's target that by 2002, 25 per cent. of government services should be available electronically. This will involve the use of the widest range of modern technologies including e-mail and the internet to improve the quality and efficiency of government services to its customers. The Northern Ireland Departments will be reporting progress against plans in this area, in line with the reporting structures implemented by the Cabinet Office.

  In addition to this, the Northern Ireland Departments are again fully committed to achieving the target of 90 per cent. of purchases being handled electronically by the Year 2000, which will make the interface with suppliers more efficient and reduce paperwork. The Northern Ireland Government Purchasing Agency is a the forefront of implementing systems to achieve this target having recently won an Invest to Save Award to develop its electronic ordering services.

  Waste Incinerators
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many waste incinerators are planned to be constructed in Northern Ireland in the next five years; and where they will be located. [72916]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Planning Service under its Chief Executive, Mr. T. W. Stewart. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.
  650
  Letter from T. W. Stewart to Mr. Malcolm Moss, dated 1 March 1999:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the number of waste incinerators to be constructed in Northern Ireland during the next 5 years.
  I can confirm that the Department is currently processing 2 planning applications for waste incinerators in Northern Ireland. One of the applications is from NIGEN Plc at McCaughey Road, Belfast, within the Belfast Harbour Estate. The other is from Belfast Waste Services within the Duncrue Industrial Estate, Belfast, The Planning Service is not aware of any other proposals for waste incineration during the next 5 years.
  I do hope you find this information helpful.

  Waste Disposal
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what percentage of(a) domestic and (b) commercial waste was dealt with in Northern Ireland by (1) recycling and (2) landfill in 1998 and each of the preceding five years. [72917]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Environment and Heritage Service under its Chief Executive, Mr. Robert C. Martin. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Robert C. Martin to Mr. Malcolm Moss, dated 1 March 1999:
  As Chief Executive of Environment and Heritage Service I am responsible for the operational aspects of waste management. Therefore I am replying to your question about the percentage of domestic and commercial waste in Northern Ireland which was dealt with by recycling and landfill each year between 1993 and 1998.
  Unfortunately, it is not possible to provide the details requested because records are not currently held centrally about the amount of waste generated or what happens to it. The Pollution Control and Local Government (NI) Order 1978, requires individual District Councils to maintain such details only in connection with the preparation and revision of their own statutory Waste Disposal Plans.
  However, the position will change as the 1978 Order is superseded by the Waste and Contaminated Land (NI) Order 1997. This Order is being brought into operation through a series of Commencement Orders, three of which have been made since August 1998. Two requirements of the Order are that the Department prepares a waste strategy for Northern Ireland as soon as possible, and that District Councils prepare and agree with the Department, waste management plans which take account of the strategy.
  To this end the Department produced a draft Waste Management Strategy which was issued for public consultation between June and December 1998. We expect that, subject to consideration by the Assembly, the statutory Strategy will be finalised later this year. It will include targets for waste minimisation, recovery and recycling.
  However, for these targets to be effective and realistic, it will be necessary to establish a baseline on how much waste is currently produced, its composition and what happens to it. Therefore, the Department has recently awarded a contract for the completion of a detailed study of Waste Arisings in Northern Ireland. This will provide comprehensive data on the various waste streams by sector, composition and volume. In conjunction with this, the Department will shortly let a further contract for a Waste Characterisation study which will involve the actual sampling of waste collected. The results of these two studies will inform District Councils' development of their Plans and will be available for public information.
  I trust this reply is helpful.

  Punishment Beatings
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) if she will list for the week ended Saturday 20 February the number of violent incidents involving paramilitary groups which took place in Northern Ireland indicating how many involved (i) Loyalist and (ii) Republican groups; [73010]

  (2) if she will list for the week ended Saturday 20 February the number of (a) punishment beatings and (b) punishment shootings which took place in Northern Ireland indicating how many in each category were committed by (i) Loyalist and (ii) Republican groups. [73011]

  Mr. Ingram
  The number of security incidents during the period 14 February-20 February are as shown:

  Incident

  Number

  Shootings

  Nil

  Bombings

  Nil

  The number of casualties as a result of paramilitary-style attacks during the period are as follows:

  Loyalist

  Republican

  Assaults

  1

  1

  Shootings

  Nil

  Nil

  Total

  1

  1

  Note:

  Figures may be subject to a minor amendment in the light of further information becoming available

DEFENCE

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date the(a) Defence Transport and Movements Executive and (b) Defence Postal and Courier Service Agency published their reports for the 1997–98; and what was the cost of production of the reports. [72953]

  Mr. Spellar
  This is a matter for the Chief Executives of the Agencies concerned. I have asked them to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from R. E. Ratazzi to Mr. Mike Hancock, dated 2 March 1999:
  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about my Agency's Report for 1997–98 and the cost of its production, as this falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Defence Transport and Movements Executive (DTMX).
  DTMX's Annual Report and Accounts for 1997–98 was laid before the House on 28 January 1999. The document was allocated number 181 by the Journals Office. The document was a textually accurate final proof of the Annual Report and Accounts. The final document has yet to be printed and we are awaiting a response from The Stationery Office Ltd. regarding the cost.
  652
  Letter from B. J. Cash to Mr. Mike Hancock, dated 2 March 1999:
  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about what date the Defence Postal and Courier Services Agency published their Report for 1997–98 and the cost of production, as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Defence Postal and Courier Services Agency.
  The Defence Postal and Courier Services Agency published its Annual Report for 1997–98 on the 14th July 1998.
  The cost for external printing of the Report was £8,146.45. All production work was carried out by Agency internal resources.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people are currently employed by the Defence Intelligence and Security Centre; and what the figure was at the time of its establishment. [72793]

  Mr. Spellar
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Intelligence and Security Centre. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from C. G. Holtom to Mr. Mike Hancock, dated 2 March 1999:
  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about staff numbers at the Defence Intelligence and Security Centre as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as the Chief Executive of the Agency.
  There are current 408 staff working at the Defence Intelligence and Security Centre. At the time of establishment (1 October 1996) there was only a small implementation team based at Chicksands. The first record of numbers for the Agency relates to 1 April 1997 when the total numbers employed were 386.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people are currently employed by the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency; and what the figure was at its inception. [72796]

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

  Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Mike Hancock, dated 2 March 1999:
  I am replying to your parliamentary question about numbers of people employed by the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) at its inception and currently.
  On 1 April 1995, the inception of DERA, the number of staff employed was in the order of 12100. The comparable figure, for 1 February 1999, in some 11600. These figures are for civilian staff only. You should also note that on 1 April 1997 the support services of DERA were privatised with the transfer of around 1250 people to the private sector.
  I hope the above answers your question.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people are currently employed by the Disposal Sales Agency; and what was the figure at its inception. [72988]

  Mr. Spellar
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Disposal Sales Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Malcolm Westgate to Mr. Mike Hancock, dated 2 March 1999:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the number of people currently employed by the Disposal Sales Agency (DSA) as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the DSA.
  The DSA currently employs 82 people. At its launch on 1 October 1994 the Agency employed 101 members of staff.
  653
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date the Defence Bills Agency published its report for the year 1997–98; and what was the cost of production of the report. [72980]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 1 March 1999] This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Bills Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from I. S. Elrick to Mr. Mike Hancock, dated 2 March 1999:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the Defence Bills Agency's Annual Report for year 1997–98, as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Defence Bills Agency.
  The Defence Bills Agency's Annual Report and Accounts for 1997–98 was published on 7 July 1998 and the cost of production was £20,21 2.00.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people are currently employed by the Logistics Information Systems Agency; and what the figure was at its inception. [72765]

  Mr. Spellar
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Logistics Information Systems Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from P. A. Flanagan to Mr. Mike Hancock, dated 2 March 1999:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence about how many people are currently employed by the Logistic Information Systems Agency; and what the figure was at its inception.
  The Logistic Information Systems Agency was formed on 1 April 1995. At that time, the strength of the Agency was 397. The strength of the Agency on 23 February 1999 was 235.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date the Duke of York's Royal Military School published its report for 1998–99; and what was the cost of production of the report. [72854]

  Mr. Spellar
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Duke of York's Royal Military School. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from G. H. Wilson to Mr. Mike Hancock, dated 2 March 1999:
  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about this Agency's report for 1998–99, as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Duke of York's Royal Military School.
  The report for 1998–99 has not yet been prepared and the cost of production is not therefore available. The report for 1997–1998 however was published on 16 July 1998 and cost £1,177.25.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date the Joint Air Reconnaissance Intelligence Centre published its report for 1997–98; and what was the cost of production of the report. [72987]

  Mr. Spellar
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Joint Air Reconnaissance Intelligence Centre. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.
  654
  Letter from S. J. Lloyd to Mr. Mike Hancock, dated 2 March 1999:
  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the publication and cost of the Agency's annual report as this falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Joint Air Reconnaissance Intelligence Centre Defence Agency.
  The Annual Report for 1997/98 is currently with the printers with an expected publication date of the end of March 1999. The anticipated cost of production is £15000.
  I hope that you will find that this answer gives you the information that you are seeking.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people are currently employed by the Defence Transport and Movements Executive; and what was the figure at its inception. [72948]

  Mr. Spellar
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Transport Movements Executive. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from R. E. Ratazzi to Mr. Mike Hancock, dated 2 March 1999:
  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about current staffing levels in my Agency and at its inception, as this falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Defence Transport and Movements Executive (DTMX).
  When it first formed as a Defence Agency in April 1995, DTMX employed 78 Servicemen/women and 147 Civil Servants; a total of 225 persons. The strength for the financial year ending 31 March 99 is 78 Servicemen/women and 103 Civil Servants; a total of 181 persons.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people are currently employed by the Defence Clothing and Textiles Agency; and what was the figure at the time of its establishment. [72840]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 1 March 1999] This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Clothing and Textiles Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from M. J. Roycroft to Mr. Mike Hancock, dated 2 March 1999:
  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State about the number of people employed by the Defence Clothing and Textiles Agency as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Defence Clothing and Textiles Agency.
  Currently there are 547 people (501 Civilians and 23 Military) employed by the Defence Clothing and Textiles Agency; at the time of its establishment the figure was 522 (503 Civilians and 19 Military). Since formation the Agency has had a significant increase in the range of commodities within its responsibility, including Defence Accommodation Stores and Engineer Stores.

  Strategic Defence Review (New Brigades)
  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence where units of the two new brigades announced in the Strategic Defence Review, and other units returned from Germany, are to be based. [74619]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The two brigades to be formed under the Strategic Defence Review are:
  12 Mechanised Brigade, to be created by converting 5 Airborne Brigade at Aldershot; and the development of 24 Airmobile Brigade, based at Colchester, into a new high capability air manoeuvre formation—16 Air Assault Brigade.
  655
  The Headquarters of 12 Mechanised Brigade will be at Aldershot, and that of 16 Air Assault Brigade in Colchester. I have today placed in the House of Commons Library details of provisional plans under which units of the new mechanised brigade would be based in Aldershot in Hampshire, Tidworth and Larkhill Garrisons in Wiltshire, Bovington in Dorset, Abingdon in Oxfordshire and Windsor in Berkshire, and units of 16 Air Assault Brigade would be located in Colchester in Essex, Woodbridge and Wattisham in Suffolk, Dishforth in Yorkshire, and Canterbury in Kent. These proposals will now be the subject of discussions with local authorities and assessments of environmental impact and value for money.

  If confirmed, the changes would be phased over a number of years, as progress with the necessary barracks refurbishment projects proceeds; but we plan that the move of two parachute battalions from Aldershot to Colchester, where they will be closer to their parent formation, 16 Air Assault Brigade, will take place next year, as will the corresponding move of two infantry battalions to Aldershot from Colchester to form part of the new 12 Mechanised Infantry Brigade.

  MOD Police (Jurisdiction)
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Defence Police Agency officers over civilians not employed by his Department. [73088]

  Mr. Spellar
  In a variety of circumstances, constabulary powers may be conferred on MOD police officers in relation to civilians not employed by the MOD.

  Under the Ministry of Defence Police Act 1987, MOD police officers have the powers and privileges of constables:

  (a)on defence land and property;

  (b) on land and property used by ordnance companies and dockyard contractors for naval, military or air force purposes;

  (c)on land in the vicinity of defence land and land used by ordnance companies and dockyard contractors provided a police constable of the local force has asked for assistance in the execution of his duties on that land;

  (d)on land in respect of which the Secretary of State has agreed to provide the services of the Ministry of Defence Police under an agreement notice published in the London, Edinburgh or Belfast Gazette; and

  (e)in any place—

  (i)in relation to Crown property;

  (ii)in relation to persons subject to the control of the Defence Council or employed under or for the purposes of the MOD or the Defence Council; and

  (iii)in relation to matters connected with anything done under a contract entered into by the Secretary of State for Defence for the purposes of the MOD or the Defence Council.

  General Service Medal
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list(a) campaigns since 1969 for which General Service medals have been issued and (b) campaigns since 1969 where requests for the issue of General Service medals were refused (i) by the Medals Committee and (ii) by his Department; and if he will give the number of casualties in each of the campaigns listed in answer to (b). [73543]
  656
  Mr. Spellar
  Since the beginning of 1969 the General Service Medal 1962 has been issued with the following clasps:

  Northern Ireland

  Dhofar

  Lebanon

  Mine Clearance—Gulf of Suez

  Gulf

  Kuwait

  Northern Iraq and Southern Turkey

  Air Operations Iraq.

  I am not aware of any campaign since 1969 which has not been recognised by either one of these clasps or one of the other campaign medals available to British Service personnel such as the South Atlantic Medal, the Gulf Medal and medals issued by the United Nations, Western European Union and NATO.

  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many representations he has received since June 1997 about awarding a General Service Medal to those who served in the Suez Canal Zone from 8 October 1951 to 19 October 1954. [73542]

  Mr. Spellar
  Since June 1997, the Ministry of Defence has received four Parliamentary Questions on the subject of a medal for service in the Suez Canal Zone between 1951 and 1954, including this one and another tabled by my hon. Friend for answer today. We have also responded to 30 Parliamentary Inquiries from MPs and 256 letters from at least 239 members of the public have been actioned. This latter correspondence includes letters addressed to The Queen, the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Defence and other Defence Ministers as well as direct approaches to officials in those branches dealing with campaign medals. In addition, I was handed a petition containing some 20,000 names in support of a medal for service in the Suez Canal Zone during the early 1950s at a meeting in March 1998, where the case for a medal was discussed in detail.

  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people have applied for General Service Medal Africa (1902–56) in the last five years; and if service in the Suez Canal Zone counts for entitlement to that medal. [73541]

  Mr. Spellar
  In the last five years 268 requests for the Africa General Service Medal 1902–56 have been received by my Department. Of these applications, 95 were successful and medals with the appropriate clasp(s) issued.

  Service in the Suez Canal Zone during the qualifying period of the Africa General Service Medal 1902–56 does not count for entitlement to that medal. The medal is not issued alone, but with the appropriate clasp, which recognises specific periods of service in areas laid down in the appropriate Command Paper. No clasp to the Africa General Service Medal 1902–56 was instituted for service north of the Sahara.

  Meteor Missile
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy to conclude a draft agreement with other European countries to develop the Meteor missile. [72754]
  657
  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 25 February 1999] Technical and commercial assessment of the bids to meet the MOD's requirement for a Beyond Visual Range Air-to-Air Missile, BVRAAM, continues. The Matra BAe Dynamics Meteor missile bid is in competition with Raytheon Systems Ltd. FMRAAM and ERAAM proposals to meet the BVRAAM requirement. A decision on the competition is expected later this year.

  Discussions are continuing with potential partner nations, Germany, Italy, Spain and Sweden, on a Memorandum of Understanding for collaboration on the METEOR proposal provided by Matra BAe Dynamics. Progress is being made and it is hoped that the MOU negotiations will be concluded by the summer. If the METEOR bid is successful, it is expected that the agreed MOU would be signed shortly after a decision on the competition is announced.

  Defence Vetting Agency
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what criteria he used to choose between the relocation of the Defence Vetting Agency to Hartham or York; and if an investment appraisal was undertaken to assess savings from co-location of the Second Division and the Defence Vetting Agency. [72967]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 25 February 1999] An investment appraisal into a number of collocation options demonstrated that collocation of the Defence Vetting Agency (DVA) from its existing four locations on to a single site would represent value for money. Subsequent studies showed that there was little, in financial terms, to choose between Hartham and York, as a location for the DVA.

  Meanwhile, it became apparent that the Defence Communications Services Agency (DCSA) needed additional office accommodation near its headquarters at Corsham, and the Hartham site would meet this requirement. I therefore decided to accept collocation of the DVA at York as being in the best interests of my Department overall, as well as meeting the needs of the DVA.

  The above was set out in a consultative document, which was put to the Trade Unions on 9 November 1998 and a copy will be placed in the Library of the House.

  No investment appraisal was made of the impact of collocating the DVA alongside HQ 2 Division or indeed any other particular Defence organisation.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he has taken to relocate staff in(a) his Department and (b) the agencies for which he is responsible to the regions of the United Kingdom with the highest levels of unemployment; and what plans he has further to decentralise the location of his Department and its agencies. [70468]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 15 February 1999]When considering sites for relocation of MOD and agency establishments, the Department's primary concerns are operational requirements and efficiency. Other considerations include local employment levels, geographic location and environmental impact.
  658
  Currently, the MOD has sites UK-wide. As a result of the Strategic Defence Review, decisions are being made to relocate or collocate a wide range of MOD functions in order to make the Department more efficient. This process is ongoing.

  Gaul (Sinking)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what evidence is held by his Department on the sinking of the trawler 'Gaul' which is not already in the public domain; and if he will make a statement. [72941]

  Mr. Spellar
  There has been an extensive search of our records and I am satisfied that my Department does not hold any evidence on the sinking of the trawler 'Gaul'.

  Birth Certificates
  Mr. Cann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list those purposes for which his Department and its executive agencies require a birth certificate to be furnished by(a) employees, (b) contractors, (c) those applying for (i) employment and (ii) contracts and (d) other persons. [73471]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Ministry of Defence may request birth certificates from prospective employees, both service and civilian, and individuals undertaking work for the Department, to establish proof of identity. However, other official documents, such as a full 10 year passport, may be furnished as proof of identity and are normally acceptable.

  Defence Animal Centre
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he will set targets for the Defence Animal Centre for 1999–2000. [72815]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 25 February 1999] With effect from 1 April 1999 the DAC will no longer be an Agency in its own right and will become part of the Army Training and Recruitment Agency (ATRA). The targets set for the DAC will therefore be incorporated within the ATRA targets.

  Bullying
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many(a) RAF and (b) Royal Navy personnel have been dismissed for bullying, or related offences, in each of the last five years; [73788]

  (2) how many Royal Marine personnel have been dismissed for bullying, or related offences, in each of the last five years. [74263]

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

  Royal Ordnance
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his assessment of the risk to UK armed forces' safety and capability of having no UK-based manufacturer
  659
  of ammunition and rocket propellant after closure of the Royal Ordnance Factory at Bishopton. [73391]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 26 February 1999] All explosive products require Ordnance Board qualification before they can be considered safe and suitable for use by the Armed Forces. We do not foresee any difficulty in obtaining Ordnance Board qualification for products using propellant sourced from friendly and reliable countries in Europe and further afield. Military capability is a question not of where the product comes from, but of the adequacy of supply arrangements. The Government ensure that satisfactory security supply arrangements are in place for the procurement of all key equipments and their components.

  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about progress towards a best supplier agreement between his Department and Royal Ordnance. [73648]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 26 February 1999] Under the Smart Procurement Initiative developed as part of the Strategic Defence Review, MOD is reviewing its relationships with all its suppliers to ensure that the relationship is of mutual benefit to each party. Where appropriate, this includes examining the potential for establishing preferred supplier arrangements. For British Aerospace, and Royal Ordnance in particular, we are looking into the ways by which Royal Ordnance could become the preferred MOD supplier for a number of types of ammunition, where the company has shown through competition, that it can offer a cost effective product.

  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the future of the Royal Ordnance Plant, Glascoed. [73546]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Royal Ordnance factory at Glascoed is a major recipient of work stemming from the award to Royal Ordnance in December 1998 of the £100 million large calibre training ammunition multi year buy. While the future of Glascoed is a matter for the company, the terms governing the sale of the Royal Ordnance Factories to British Aerospace require the Ministry of Defence to be informed of any intention by the company to relinquish any major asset.

  Somchem/Denel
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assistance was given by the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency to Somchem/Denel in preparing its tender for the modular charge system contract recently awarded to them. [73390]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 26 February 1999] No assistance was given by the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency, DERA, to Somchem/Denel in preparing its tender for the Modular Charge System sub-contract. DERA's only role in this procurement was to work, under tasking form the MOD, to provide independent technical advice on the submissions from each company participating in the competition, which were provided through the prime contractor, and to organise the associated firing trials.

  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence in calculating the savings to be achieved from awarding 660
  the modular charge system contract to Somchem/Denel what account he took of (a) possible qualification costs to be incurred in the future by other suppliers of propellants, (b) the cost of the loss of the Bishopton factory as a competitor for the supply of propellants, (c) the cost of extra stocks of propellant needed to offset the risks to supply associated with a foreign competitor and (d) the cost of any failure to supply by Denel. [73392]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 26 February 1999] The Somchem charge was a clear winner of the Modular Charge System sub-contract competition. The implications of this outcome were considered very carefully, including the cost of qualifying alternative sources of propellant, as necessary, should Royal Ordnance close the site at Bishopton. We are confident in the security of supply from Somchem, and do not consider that additional propellant stocks are required. The contracting arrangements will, as is normal for MOD contracts, protect our financial position in the event of any default by the contractor. There are sufficient alternative suppliers of propellant in friendly and reliable countries overseas to facilitate competition and we do not consider, therefore, that prices will necessarily rise in future if Bishopton closes.

  Services Discipline
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consultations he plans in relation to the review of services discipline and law announced in the Strategic Defence Review White Paper. [73775]

  Mr. Spellar
  In the Strategic Defence Review White Paper, we announced that we believed that there would be advantages to be gained from having a single tri-Service Act governing discipline in the Armed Forces.

  Clearly, all three Services will be heavily involved in the project and there will be extensive consultation with them as work proceeds. Furthermore, as Service law frequently mirrors the civilian criminal law, it will be necessary to involve other Government departments with an interest in our proposals.

  However, this project will be a substantial undertaking and it will be some time before the nature of the changes, and hence the scope for wider consultation, are determined.

  Missiles
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) air launched and (b) cruise missiles have been procured from the USA in the past decade; and what missile purchases other than Rapier the USA has made from the UK in that period. [73559]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 26 February 1999] WE have procured 210 Advanced Medium Range Air to Air Missiles and 300 Sidewinder missiles from the USA over the past decade. In addition, we are currently procuring 65 TOMAHAWK cruise missiles from the US, the first of which we delivered this month. Information on purchases by the USA from the UK of missiles other than Rapier is still being collected. I shall write to the hon. Member when this information is available and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Landmine Clearance
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many serving members of Her Majesty's armed forces are qualified in landmine clearance; and what was the corresponding figure in 1994. [74206]

  Mr. Spellar
  There are presently 8,666 personnel trained as combat engineers in the army, 1,100 officers and 7,566 soldiers, of whom 413 are trained in explosive ordnance disposal, which encompasses landmine clearance. The information on these numbers for 1994 is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, it is unlikely to differ significantly from the current figures.

  Disposal Sales Agency
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to set targets for the Disposal Sales Agency for the year 1999–2000. [72764]

  Mr. Spellar
  I aim to announce the key targets for the Disposal Sales Agency early in financial year 1999–2000.

  Joint Air Reconnaissance Intelligence Centre
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which targets the Joint Air Reconnaissance Intelligence Centre did not meet in 1997–98; and what monitoring he has undertaken of those targets in 1998–99. [72766]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Joint Air Reconnaissance Intelligence Centre, JARIC, met all of its Key Targets in 1997–98.

  The performance of JARIC is monitored by the Agency Owner's Advisory Board, which is chaired by JARIC's "Owner", the Director General Intelligence and Geographic Resources, DGIGR, and is made up of the Agency's major customers and its Non-Executive Director. The Chief Executive of JARIC formally reports his progress against Key Targets to the Owner's Board twice a year and also through the Owner's Quarterly Performance Reviews. The first Owner's Board to review the 1998–99 Key Targets met on 7 October 1998 and the second met on 24 February 1999. In his capacity as the Owner, DGIGR is acting on behalf of the Secretary of State.

  Porton Down Research Volunteers
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many former national servicemen who volunteered to be the subject of research at Porton Down have to date been awarded a war disablement pension; and if he will make a statement. [72906]

  Mr. Bayley
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information requested is not available, and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Drugs-related Offences (Service Personnel)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many RAF personnel have been dismissed for drugs-related offences in each of the last five years. [72938]

  Mr. Spellar
  It is not yet possible to provide confirmed figures for 1997 and 1998. However, figures for 1993–96 are as follows:

  RAF personnel dismissed for drugs related offences following a sentence of dismissal from Service at Court Martial

  Year

  Number

  1993

  20

  1994

  8

  1995

  1

  1996

  1

  Note:

  Latest figures available

  In addition to the above figures, the numbers of RAF personnel administratively discharged for drug related incidents, including following conviction by a civilian court, are:

  Year

  Number

  1993

  10

  1994

  22

  1995

  14

  1996

  15

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) Army and (b) Royal Navy personnel have been dismissed for drugs related offences in each of the last five years. [73792]

  Mr. Spellar
  It is not yet possible to provide confirmed figures for 1997 and 1998. However, figures for those dismissed for drug related offences following a sentence of dismissal from Service at Court Martial, Summary Trial or Summary Proceedings, or a sentence of imprisonment from a civilian court for 1994–96 are as follows:

  Year

  RN/RM

  Army

  Total

  1994

  45

  68

  113

  1995

  31

  38

  69

  1996

  112

  29

  41

  1997

  2—

  2—

  2—

  1998

  2—

  2—

  2—

  1The RM figures for this year may be subject to slight revision

  2Not yet available

  Note:

  Latest figures available

  In addition to these figures, the numbers of those administratively discharged for drug related incidents are:

  Year

  RN/RM

  Army

  Total

  1994

  0

  136

  136

  1995

  0

  146

  146

  1996

  1

  121

  122

  1997

  1

  103

  104

  1998

  1

  119

  120

  663
  In addition, further personnel have been administratively discharged under the compulsory drugs testing (CDT) programmes operated by the RN/RM and the Army. These figures are:

  Year

  RN/RM

  Army

  Total

  1995

  —

  106

  106

  1996

  —

  178

  178

  1997

  12

  426

  438

  1998

  13

  336

  349

  Note:

  1. RN introduced CDT in April 1997

  2. Army introduced CDT in December 1994

  Weapons of Mass Destruction
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has made concerning the supply of weapons of mass destruction technology to(a) Egypt, (b) India, (c) Iran, (d) Iraq, (e) Libya, (f) Pakistan, (g) Sudan, (h) Syria and (i) North Korea by (1) Russia and (2) China. [72642]

  Mr. George Robertson
  The UK maintains a continuing dialogue with Russia and China concerning the risks posed by proliferation of technology associated with weapons of mass destruction. Contacts are maintained, at all levels, both bilaterally and multilaterally through relevant international forums.

  Training Exercise (Brunei)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the jungle training exercise in Brunei carried out between 1 April 1997 and 31 March 1998. [72790]

  Mr. Spellar
  These exercises provide necessary training for jungle warfare instructors and for some units who are required to be able to operate safely in a jungle environment as part of their operational role. I understand that these exercises, which are individually assessed by the Army authorities, are regarded as having satisfied the purposes for which they were mounted.

  Nuclear Fuel
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consultations he has had with(a) ministerial colleagues and (b) British Nuclear Fuels concerning the provision of military protection for consignments of plutonium Mox fuel transported by ship to Japan from Sellafield. [70660]

  Mr. Spellar
  Responsibility for the security of the MOX shipments rests with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who carried out consultations in the normal way. In accordance with international obligations, the MOX fuel will be carried in armed transport ships under the protection of specially trained officers of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority Constabulary, UKAEAC. British Nuclear Fuels works with all relevant Government authorities on security issues. In this instance, the Naval Recruiting and Training Agency provided training for UKAEAC under a commercial agreement.

  Departmental Targets
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he will set targets for the(a) Defence Intelligence and Security Centre, (b) Defence Medical Training Organisation and (c) Defence Transport and Movements Executive for 1999–2000. [72778]

  Mr. Spellar
  We aim to announce to Parliament the performance targets from 1999–2000 for each of these three Agencies by the end of April 1999.

  Recruitment (Fijian Nationals)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Fijian nationals have been recruited into the United Kingdom armed forces in the last five years.[73013]

  Mr. Spellar
  In the five years to 1 January 1999, Fijian nationals have been recruited into the Army. All 17 were recruited in the 1998–99 financial year. No Fijian nationals have been recruited into the Royal Air Force during this same period. Information on the number of Fijian nationals recruited into the Naval Service is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Chiefs of Staff
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what dates the chiefs of staff have met since 21 July 1998. [74256]

  Mr. George Robertson
  The Chiefs of Staff have met on the following occasions since 21 July 1998:10 September 1998, 22 September 1998, 6 October 1998, 13 October 1998, 27 October 1998, 11 November 1998,16 November 1998, 1 December 1998, 17 December 1998,18 December 1998, 19 December 1998, 21 December 1998, 11 January 1999, 12 January 1999, 14 January 1999, 3 February 1999 and 23 February 1999.

  Military Exercises
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what assessment he has made of infantry battalion exercises in Kenya carried out between 1 April 1997 and 31 March 1998; [72830]

  (2) how many personnel were deployed on the three infantry battalion exercises in Kenya carried out between 1 April 1997 and 31 March 1998; [72829]

  (3) what is his assessment of the value of the three infantry battalion exercises in Kenya carried out between 1 April 1997 and 31 March 1998. [72975]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 1 March 1999) 2,185 personnel from three units were deployed on the three infantry battalion exercises in Kenya carried out between 1 April 1997 and 31 March 1998.

  These exercises were designed to enable these personnel to gain extensive and realistic training experience by practising their skills and conducting advanced arms training in a demanding environment, over extended lines of communication, and I understand that these objectives were achieved.

  Cold Weather Exercise (Romania)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many personnel were deployed on the mountain and cold weather exercise in Romania carried out between 1 April 1997 and 31 March 1998; [72849]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the principal benefits of the mountain and cold weather exercise in Romania carried out between 1 April 1997 and 31 March
  1998. [72982]

  Mr. Spellar
  A company of 100 personnel from 42 Commando conducted late autumn training in Romania during October 1997. I understand that some 60 Romanian personnel also participated in the exercise. This was the third annual deployment by the Royal Marines to Brasov in the Carpathian mountains. This exercise enabled the Royal Marines to continue to develop their mountain and cold weather operational capability, and also gave them an excellent opportunity to conduct environmental training outside the usual NATO training areas. A further significant benefit was to further the United Kingdom's bilateral defence relationship with Romania, which has developed significantly in recent years, through joint training and patrolling exercises with Romanian mountain troops.

  Imphal Barracks, York
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received on the future of Imphal Barracks, York; and if he will make a statement. [73085]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Since the announcement of the proposed collocation of the divisional headquarters in Craigiehall, Edinburgh, I have answered six Parliamentary Questions and received three letters from hon. Members on this issue, and two further letters from members of the public.

  Roll-on-Roll-off Ships
  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how the procurement of the roll-on roll-off ships indicated in the Strategic Defence Review is progressing under the PFI-PPP; and when he expects the contract to be awarded. [74056]

  Mr. Spellar
  Four consortiums have been short-listed to meet MOD's Military Sealift requirement through the Private Finance Initiative procurement of roll-on roll-off ships. We intend that Invitations to Negotiate will be issued by the end of March. The preferred bidder will be chosen this Autumn and we plan to place the contract in mid 2000 after detailed negotiations.

  Rosyth
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with Babcock concerning the proposed removal of the nuclear submarines from the quayside berths at Rosyth to dry land storage; what assessment he has made of(a) the safety issues and (b) the requirement for additional facilities for the dry storage of reactor components at Rosyth; what estimate he has made of the amount of radiation leakage from the existing nuclear hulks at Rosyth; and if he will make a statement. [72892]
  666
  Mr. Spellar
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence on 4 March 1998,Official Report, column 626. The MOD is currently in discussion with a number of companies, including Babcock Rosyth Defence Ltd., as part of the investigation into options for the storage of decommissioned submarines. The results of the investigation, which are expected to be available by mid-1999, will address all relevant issues, including safety and any requirement for additional facilities for the dry storage of reactor compartments. The decommissioned submarines at Rosyth are regularly and independently monitored. Evidence to date shows that external radiation levels are well within permissible limits.

HEALTH

  Nurses' Pay
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many nurses will benefit from an above-inflation pay rise in the current year. [72390]

  Mr. Denham
  A headcount shows that 418,000 nurses, midwives and health visitors in the Hospital and Community Health Service in England will benefit from a pay rise in April 1999 of at least 4.7 per cent., almost twice the inflation rate of 2.4 per cent. Half of nurses, midwives and health visitors will get 8 per cent. or more this year, including their increment.

  Primary Care
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received about the introduction of primary care groups. [72391]

  Mr. Denham
  We have received many representations about the introduction of Primary Care Groups and I am pleased to note that, from April, we shall have 481 Primary Care Groups covering the whole of the population of England working to tackle health inequalities and deliver improvements in the quality and efficiency of patient services.

  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his estimate of the annual cost of a primary care group. [72395]

  Mr. Denham
  The annual cost of a Primary Care Group will vary depending upon its population size, level of devolved responsibility and the organisational structure that they adopt.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he is taking to increase the accountability of primary care services to the communities they serve. [72408]

  Mr. Denham
  We are committed to making the governing arrangements of National Health Service organisations more representative of local communities. As part of this process, Primary Care Groups will have individuals on the Primary Care Group board who can effectively represent the local community and users' and carers. In addition, we issued guidance on the accountability and the involvement of users and the public
  667
  as part of Health Service Circular 1998/139 "Developing Primary Care Groups", copies of which are available in the Library.

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the total cost, since 2 May 1997, of reducing waiting lists to 1.06 million; when this target is likely to be met; and if he will make a statement. [72392]

  Mr. Denham
  This year we made an extra £417 million available for the National Health Service to support a range of actions to bring down NHS waiting lists and keep them down. We are making an extra £320 million available next year from the NHS Modernisation Fund, plus an extra £20 million capital specifically to support further sustainable reductions in the number of patients waiting for NHS treatment.

  We are committed to reducing NHS waiting lists to 1.06 million within the lifetime of this Parliament, and thereby reducing waiting times. The first step in delivering this target will be a record reduction in waiting lists by April this year to below the 1.16 million we inherited.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on hospital and consultant waiting lists since 31 March 1997 for the Mid Essex hospital trust area. [72397]

  Mr. Denham
  I am taking a close interest in the waiting list position at Mid Essex Hospitals NHS Trust. I was pleased to note that waiting lists have begun to come down over recent months and the Trust is committed to achieving further reductions in 1999–2000.

  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what penalties will be levied against West Sussex health authority hospitals which fail to meet their targets for reduction in waiting lists by 31 March. [72405]

  Mr. Denham
  Any penalties levied against West Sussex Health Authority hospital trusts for failing to deliver their waiting list targets by the end of March 1999 would be matter for the health authority to discuss with individual trusts in the light of their overall performance in 1998–99.

  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the latest NHS waiting figures. [72407]

  Mr. Denham
  The latest waiting list figures give the position at the end of January 1999 and show 153,250 fewer patients on waiting lists than at the end of April 1998. During December there was a slight increase in the total as the National Health Service quite rightly focused its attention on dealing with the large number of emergency cases but we remain on track to deliver our commitment to reduce the total to below the 1.16 million we inherited by April 1999.

  Psychiatric Units (Segregation)
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the advantages of men and women being segregated while in-patients in psychiatric units. [72393]
  668
  Mr. Hutton
  No formal assessment has been carried out. However, we are well aware of the risks that can arise when men and women are cared for together and want to minimise these risks. That is why the achievement of safe facilities for the mentally ill which protect their privacy and dignity is one of our main objectives.

  "National Framework for Older People"
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he intends to publish "National Framework for Older People"; and if he will make a statement. [72394]

  Mr. Hutton
  The process for the development of the National Service Framework for the Care of Older People is already under way. It is anticipated that emerging findings will be published in the autumn and that the National Service Framework will be published in April 2000.

  Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to make it compulsory for methicillin resistant staphylococcus aureus to be included on death certificates in cases where it is likely to have been a cause of death. [72396]

  Ms Jowell
  No. Doctors are required to complete the medical certificate of cause of death to the best of their knowledge. It is not always clear if Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus has been a cause of death or contributed to it, but if the certifying doctor considers it was, this should be recorded on the certificate.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to assist hospitals to prevent incidents of MRSA. [73344]

  Ms Jowell
  The Department has a wide range of activity underway to improve the control of hospital infections including methicillin resistant staphylococcus aureus. Details are given in the section "Infection Control" in the Government response to "The House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology Report: Resistance to Antibiotics and Other Antimicrobial Agents CM4172", which was published on 17 December 1998, copies of which are available in the Library. A Health Service Circular will soon be issued asking the National Health Service to strengthen measures to prevent and control antibiotic resistant infections.

  Long-term Care
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he proposes to take to improve the provision of long-term care; and if he will make a statement. [72398]

  Mr. Hutton:
  The Government have set in hand a number of initiatives to improve the provision of long-term care—including those set out in the White Paper "Modernising Social Services"—and the Carers Strategy published on 8 February. The Royal Commission which we set up to look at long term care for older people published its report on 1 March. The Government are carefully considering its recommendations.

  Women's Unit
  23. Ms Beverley Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made in developing the work of the women's unit. [72399]

  Ms Jowell
  We recently announced an important new programme of work for the Women's Unit. Priorities include integrating the women's perspective into policies, addressing the needs of teenage girls and examining women's incomes over their lifetime. Combined with a major new Listening to Women consultation exercise launched last week, these initiatives will help to ensure that government works better for women and therefore better for everyone.

  Viagra
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the cost of Viagra prescriptions in the forthcoming financial year. [72400]

  Mr. Denham
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health announced on 21 January the start of a public consultation on substantive policy proposals about the treatment of impotence on the National Health Service. The cost of Viagra prescriptions in the forthcoming financial year will be affected by the implementation of any decision we make on our proposals following consultation. Those proposals, if implemented, would, we estimate, reflect the current level of annual expenditure on drug treatments for impotence (including Viagra), an estimated £10-12 million.

  Fluoride
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has for public consultation prior to introducing fluoride into the public water supply. [72401]

  Ms Jowell
  We consider that there should be more wide-ranging consultations than are required under current legislation. Details will be included in a policy statement on oral health and fluoridation in the Public Health White Paper which we plan to publish in the spring.

  Malnutrition
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions he has had with the World Health Organisation relating to malnutrition. [72402]

  Ms Jowell
  The Department of Health has had no discussions with the World Health Organisation on the subject of malnutrition.

  Carers
  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he is taking to support and promote the work of carers. [72404]

  Mr. Hutton
  Our National Carers' Strategy, published on 8 February, describes a substantial new policy package to help carers. We have announced a new special grant, totalling £140 million over the next three years, to enable local authorities to provide a wider range of services to help carers to take a break from their caring responsibilities. We will also be bringing forward legislation, when Parliamentary time allows, to ensure that 670
  local authorities are able to address carers' wishes and needs more directly. Our strategy includes special measures to help young carers and increased help and support for the parents of disabled children. Copies of the strategy report are available in the Library.

  NHS Pay Awards
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions he has had with the chairman of the West Surrey health authority on the local funding of NHS pay awards. [72406]

  Mr. Denham
  None.

  The Chief Executive of the National Health Service Executive wrote to all trust and health authority Chief Executives on 1 February 1999 setting out our response to the Pay Review Body reports, the funding of pay awards, plans for modernising the pay system and other steps being taken to improve recruitment and retention in nursing.

  Detailed allocations to health authorities will be made shortly.

  East Anglian Ambulance NHS Trust
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement concerning the inquiry into the East Anglian Ambulance NHS trust. [72409]

  Mr. Hutton
  The report was published today and copies are available in the Library.

  General Practitioner Shortages
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received about the shortage of GPs in Sunderland; and if he will make a statement. [72410]

  Mr. Denham
  Hon. Members have kept me informed about general practitioner recruitment and retention in Sunderland. The health authority has already undertaken a number of measures to support existing GPs and has successfully introduced a Career Start Scheme. We look forward to receiving the health authority's proposals for a Personal Medical Services Pilot aimed at improving recruitment.

  West Pennine Health Authority
  Mr. Woolas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received on the allocation of resources for 1999–2000 to the West Pennine Health Authority. [72411]

  Mr. Denham
  We are not aware of any recent representations about the resource allocations for 1999–2000 to the West Pennine Health Authority.

  Teenage Pregnancies
  Jacqui Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what actions his Department is taking to help in reducing the number of unwanted teenage pregnancies. [72412]

  Ms Jowell
  On 31 July, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister asked the Social Exclusion Unit (SEU) to work with other Departments building on the work undertaken
  671
  by this Department to develop an integrated strategy to cut rates of teenage parenthood, particularly under-age parenthood, towards the European average and to propose better solutions to combat the risk of social exclusion for vulnerable teenage parents and their children. The SEU has consulted widely to develop its recommendations. It will be reporting shortly.

  A and E Facilities
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will report on progress with modernising NHS accident and emergency facilities. [72381]

  Mr. Hutton
  I refer my hon. Friend to the oral answer my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave to the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Sawford) today,Official Report, column 865.

  Blood Donations
  Maria Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what reports he has received on the impact on the level of blood donations of the recent National Blood Service campaign to recruit more donors. [72403]

  Mr. Hutton
  The country's centrally held blood stocks have risen nearly threefold since the National Blood Authority's advertising campaign started on 5 January. Compared with January last year there has been an average increase of 3 per cent. in the number of donations collected daily, a 25 per cent. increase in new donors giving blood and an increase of almost 100 per cent. in new donors on the register.

  Working Hours (NHS)
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received concerning the working hours of(a) nurses and (b) other NHS staff. [72376]

  Mr. Denham
  Discussions have taken place with representatives of National Health Service staff about the best ways to implement the Working Time Regulations and agreements have been made in the General Whitley Council and with the British Medical Association. The Government believe these Regulations are important because they protect NHS staff from the risks of long hours, and therefore lead to better patient care.

  Organ Removal
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what guidelines his Department gives to hospitals and trusts about(a) the information to be given to, and (b) the permission to be secured from, relatives of patients who die in surgery, before the organs of the deceased are retained; [71089]

  (2) if he will investigate the extent of the practice of hospitals and trusts of retaining the organs of patients who die in surgery; [71088]

  (3) if he will review the legislation governing the retention of tissue or organs of patients who die in surgery; and if he will make a statement. [71090]

  Mr. Hutton
  Deaths which occur during an operation, or before recovery from anaesthetic, must be reported to the coroner, who may order a post mortem examination to establish the cause of death. Such examinations may 672
  require the removal of tissue or organs for further tests. Under the Coroners Rules 1984, it is for the coroner to determine how long the tissues or organs removed should be preserved.

  Although the main organs will be returned to the body wherever possible before burial or cremation, in most cases the time necessary to perform the laboratory tests would cause long and unacceptable delay to the funeral. In these cases, and where tissue samples have been taken, the retained specimens will normally be disposed of separately when no longer required.

  Departmental guidance has not been issued on these matters, nor are there plans to review the relevant legislation. However the Royal College of Pathologists is currently considering good practice guidelines in this area which will include all post mortem examinations, not just those ordered by the coroner. We will work with the College to ensure the guidelines give advice on how best to address these sensitive issues with bereaved relatives.

  Dental Services
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average annual cost of treatment per patient attending an NHS dentist. [72650]

  Mr. Denham
  The average cost of an adult course of treatment in England and Wales in the quarter ending December 1998 was £33.84.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the number of dental patients in the last year for which figures are available who failed to received necessary treatment due to an inability to pay. [72651]

  Mr. Denham
  Help with paying charges is available through the National Health Service low income scheme for those who cannot afford to pay dental charges. In addition, anyone on income support, income based Job Seeker's Allowance, family credit or disability working allowance receives free dental treatment, as do all children.

  Breast Cancer Screening
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which breast cancer screening centres that are conducting pilot studies into the impact of extending the routine call/recall element of the breast screening programme to women aged 65 to 69 years have collated preliminary results; and if he will make a statement. [72660]

  Mr. Hutton
  Preliminary results of the pilot study carried out in Brighton (one of three studies) were published in the British Medical Journal, Volume 317, page 388, dated 8 August 1998. Copies of the journal are available in the Library.

  The National Screening Committee (NSC) has considered the case for extending the National Health Service breast screening programme to older women. The view of the NSC was that the first priority must be to ensure that all women are screened at three yearly intervals and to maintain the quality of the existing programme. The NSC acknowledged the promising nature of the interim results of the pilot studies for extending

  673
  the programme to older women, but recommended that decisions on national implementation should await the final results from all three pilot schemes in April 2000.

  G. Davies
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will investigate the circumstances of the admission to the Hereford NHS hospital of G. Davies of Hereford, on 17 August 1997; and if he will make a statement. [73380]

  Mr. Hutton
  Ministers cannot comment on the cases of individual patients due to the need to maintain patient confidentiality.

  Improper Prescribing
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the doctors struck off in each of the last five years for improper prescribing of medicines and the medical school at which they qualified. [73310]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Arachnoiditis
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will institute a full public inquiry on the links between Myodil and arachnoiditis. [73948]

  Mr. Hutton
  We have no plans to hold an inquiry into the use of Myodil and its associated risk of arachnoiditis.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will introduce a no-fault compensation scheme for those who have suffered from arachnoiditis as a result of medical treatment. [73947]

  Mr. Hutton
  We have no plans to introduce a non-fault compensation scheme for those who have suffered arachnoiditis as a result of medical treatment.

  Asthma
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the cost to the NHS of the medication for the treatment of asthma in(a) 1997 and (b) 1998. [73925]

  Mr. Hutton
  In 1997, the net ingredient cost of drugs used in the treatment of asthma and dispensed in the community in England was £466.2 million. Information for 1998 is not yet available. Some of the drugs may be used for other conditions and it is not possible to split the cost between drugs used to treat asthma and those used to treat other conditions. The net ingredient cost is the basic cost of a drug and does not take account of discounts, dispensing costs, fees or prescription charges income.

  Pharmaceutical Companies (Payments to Doctors)
  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what reports he has received regarding recent allegations that doctors have been paid money by a drugs company to encourage them to prescribe certain drugs; what action he has taken; and if he will make a statement. [73531]
  674
  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer I March 1999] There have been no reports of United Kingdom doctors receiving payments from a pharmaceutical company to prescribe drugs. Regulations which came into force in 1994 prohibit the promise, offer or supply of gifts or other inducements to persons qualified to prescribe or supply medicines. It is also an offence for health professionals to solicit or accept such gifts. Guidelines on the promotion of medicines are contained also in the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry Code of Practice for the Pharmaceutical Industry, which is administered by the Prescription Medicines Code of Practice Authority, copies of which are available in the Library.

  The Medicines Control Agency wrote to all pharmaceutical companies and professional bodies in 1997 reminding them of their legal obligations and our policy of not tolerating unlawful promotions which seek to exert improper influences on prescribers. The public have a right to expect that health care professionals will make decisions solely on the basis of their patients' interests and not on incentives to prescribe or supply certain medicines.

  Allergies
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what training provided by his Department is currently available to NHS general practitioners on the possible causes of allergies and their treatment. [74293]

  Ms Jowell
  The medical education curriculum is a matter for the General Medical Council, medical schools, the relevant Medical Royal Colleges and, in the case of general practice, the Joint Committee on Postgraduate Training for General Practice. These bodies have a vested interest in ensuring that doctors are prepared for the conditions and circumstances they will encounter in hospitals and in general practice.

  Each trainee general practitioner during their year of general practice training, their two year hospital rotation and during their pre-registration year, will almost certainly see patients with allergy related illnesses. Doctors are also encouraged to continue with their medical education after qualification and they would be expected to spend some time developing their knowledge of illnesses commonly encountered including allergic conditions.

  In addition, there is a range of advice and guidance available to general practitioners and other health professionals on allergies. This includes advice on the management of anaphylaxis which the Department sent to all doctors in 1994 in Chief Medical Officer's Update No. 2.

  Haemophilia Society
  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what projects he intends to promote with the Haemophilia Society; and if he will make a statement. [74246]
  675
  Mr. Hutton
  We are currently funding the Haemophilia Society's Hepatitis C Youth Information and Support project. We have indicated that we are willing to assist the society in other forward looking initiatives, and officials are working with them on potential projects.

  Psychiatric Consultant Posts
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many psychiatric consultant posts there are per head of the population in each health authority in the North West Region. [73760]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is in the table.

  Number of consultants in psychiatry specialty by health authorities in North West per region per 100,000 population at 30 September 1997

  Health authority

  Numbers

  Per 100,000 population

  North West Region

  170

  2.5

  Bury and Rochdale HA

  0

  1.3

  East Lanchashire HA

  0

  0.8

  Liverpool HA

  10

  2.4

  Manchester HA

  30

  6.3

  Morecambe Bay HA

  0

  1.6

  North Cheshire HA

  10

  3.5

  North West Lancashire HA

  10

  2.4

  Salford and Trafford HA

  20

  4.0

  Sefton HA

  10

  4.2

  South Cheshire HA

  10

  1.0

  South Lancashire HA

  10

  2.3

  St. Helens and Knowsley HA

  10

  1.8

  Stockport HA

  10

  4.5

  West Pennine HA

  10

  3.0

  Wigan and Bolton HA

  10

  1.0

  Wirral HA

  10

  2.7

  Mental Health Care
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what amounts were spent by(a) social services and (b) the NHS on providing mental health care through voluntary organisations and small independent service providers in the Warrington, North constituency for each of the past five years. [73762]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information is not available by constituency for social services or National Health Service expenditure for mental health provision in the voluntary and private sector. Information on social services expenditure is available only for the Warrington Social Services Department, from its institution in April 1998, and Cheshire Social Services Department for the four years 1995–96 to 1998–99, and this is given. The NHS information given is the expenditure by North Cheshire Health Authority on mental health provision in the voluntary and private sector for the whole of Warrington for the five years 1994–95 to 1998–99.

  Social Services expenditure

  £

  1995–96

  209,726

  1996–97

  273,502

  1997–98

  370,040

  1998–991

  537,314

  1Projected figure

  676

  North Cheshire Health Authority

  £

  1994–95

  9,270

  1995–96

  30,653

  1996–97

  47,755

  1997–98

  1,448,929

  1998–99

  1,439,759

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much was spent per head of the population on mental health in(a) the Warrington, North constituency, (b) the North Cheshire Health Authority and (c) each other health authority in the North West Region in each of the past five years. [73761]

  Mr. Hutton
  This information requested is available only by health authority and not by constituency. Due to health authority boundary/population changes in the North West region consistent information is available only for the years 1997–98 and 1996–97 and this is given.

  £

  Health authority

  1996–97

  1997–98

  Bury and Rochdale

  35.22

  38.00

  East Lancashire

  50.16

  51.21

  Liverpool

  63.10

  73.02

  Manchester

  87.38

  85.53

  Morecambe Bay

  69.74

  73.52

  North Cheshire

  68.29

  75.53

  North West Lancashire

  56.75

  58.86

  Salford and Trafford

  62.28

  59.34

  Sefton

  39.19

  40.67

  South Cheshire

  56.35

  56.53

  South Lancashire

  26.69

  30.89

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  48.76

  47.19

  Stockport

  38.06

  40.17

  West Pennine

  47.80

  53.59

  Wigan and Bolton

  47.46

  46.58

  Wirral

  42.59

  34.72

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much was spent on each health authority in the North West Region on(a) in-patient psychiatric facilities, (b) mental health provision through voluntary organisations and small independent service providers and (c) other community mental health services for each of the past 10 years. [73759]

  Mr. Hutton
  The total mental health spend by health authority is attached and this includes expenditure on National Health Service community mental health services. Owing to health authority boundary/population changes in the North West region, consistent information is available only for the years 1997–98 and 1996–97.

  Figures are not available for mental health provision through voluntary organisations and small independent service providers.
  677

  £000

  Health authority

  1997–98

  1996–97

  South Lancashire

  9,750

  8,325

  Liverpool

  34,157

  29,857

  Manchester

  36,853

  37,596

  Morcambe Bay

  22,877

  21,666

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  17,066

  16,287

  Salford and Trafford

  26,570

  27,653

  Sefton

  11,814

  11,499

  Stockport

  11,685

  11,021

  West Pennine

  25,513

  22,507

  Bury and Rochdale

  14,934

  14,105

  North Cheshire

  23,563

  22,507

  South Cheshire

  38,106

  35,732

  East Lancashire

  26,235

  25,363

  North West Lancashire

  27,665

  26,560

  Wigan and Bolton

  26,991

  27,734

  Wirral

  11,507

  11,480

  North West Region Total

  365,286

  350,192

  Source:

  Health Authority Annual Accounts 1997–98 and 1996–97

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money was spent on mental health services(a) nationally and (b) in Gloucestershire; and what is the average amount spent by (i) shire counties and (ii) all local authorities in each of the last three years. [73816]

  Mr. Hutton
  In 1997–98, the latest year for which information is available, £2,767 million was spent on the purchase of mental illness healthcare in England including £23.6 million by Gloucestershire Health Authority.

  Total expenditure and the average spend on services for people with mental health needs by social services departments for the latest 3 years for which information is available, is set out in the table:

  Local authority

  Gross expenditure (£000)

  Average spend per local authority (£000)

  Average spend per person aged 18 to 64 (£)

  Gloucestershire

  1994–95

  2,174

  2,174

  7

  1995–96

  3,295

  3,295

  10

  1996–97

  3,733

  3,733

  11

  All shire counties

  1994–95

  163,074

  4,181

  9

  1995–96

  197,411

  5,062

  11

  1996–97

  207,680

  5,769

  11

  All local authorities

  1994–95

  339,126

  3,111

  11

  1995–96

  406,261

  3,727

  14

  1996–97

  467,767

  3,931

  16

  Source:

  R03 return

  Residential and Nursing Homes
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list those local authorities which no longer directly run(a) residential and (b) nursing homes. [74060]
  678
  Mr. Hutton
  As at 31 March 1998, there were seven local authorities that did not directly run residential care homes for older people (including those who are mentally infirm). The authorities were Bromley, City of London, Knowsley, Somerset, Stockport, Tameside and Wandsworth. This information is taken from the Department of Health's statistical collection RA1998, Form A, Part 1. Data for 1999 will become available later this year.

  Local authorities do not directly run nursing homes.

  Gamma Knife Technology
  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will take steps to ensure the continued availability of treatment through Gamma Knife technology in Sheffield. [72387]

  Ms Jowell
  Current expert advice is that the gamma knife has been overtaken by new linear accelerator technology (the linac scalpel), which can provide a greater range of treatments. Consequently, in January the NHS Executive agreed, with Sheffield Health Authority and the Central Sheffield University Hospitals NHS Trust, that a migration plan would be devised. This will enable the phasing in of the linear accelerator technology over a three year period whilst continuing the gamma knife service, achieving both continuity and modernisation as the linear accelerator technology comes on stream. The migration plans have been received and a business case will be considered shortly.

  Meningitis
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance he has given to schools in respect of outbreaks of meningitis. [74234]

  Ms Jowell
  Local outbreaks of meningococcal meningitis and septicaemia are managed by local Consultants in Communicable Disease Control who, in conjunction with any outbreak control team, are responsible for providing advice and information to schools and to parents and for organising any local action in the event of a case of meningococcal disease. Guidance on handling outbreaks in schools was published in the Public Health Laboratory Service's Communicable Disease Report on 10 January 1997, copies of which are available in the Library.

  The Department's public education programme provides reliable factual information for parents and young people on spotting meningococcal infection, including how to do the "glass test" to check rashes, through a Departmental leaflet entitled "Knowing about meningitis and septicaemia", available from general practitioners' surgeries. The Department also funds the Health Education Authority to produce public information about meningococcal disease, including a tailor-made leaflet for students called "Look out for your mate" (of which around 1 million copies were distributed through universities and colleges last year), the booklet "A Guide to Childhood Immunisations", which goes to parents of new born children, and a book "Birth to Five" given to new parents. In addition the Department collaborates with the two meningitis charities, the National Meningitis Trust and the Meningitis Research Foundation, to raise public and professional awareness.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, pursuant to her answer of 15 February 1999,Official Report, columns 427–28, on ministerial visits, which hon. Members have been informed of a planned visit to their constituency by her in the last 12 months. [72224]

  Clare Short
  [holding answer 23 February 1999] The MPs, parties and constituencies covered in the cities visited by me and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State are as follows:

  Name

  City visited

  Don Foster, Lib Dem

  Bath

  Peter Robinson, DUP, East

  Belfast

  Cecil Walker, UUP, North

  Rev Martin Smyth, UUP, South

  Gerry Adams, West

  Gisela Stuart, Lab, Edgbaston

  Birmingham

  Robin Corbett, Lab, Erdington

  Stephen McCabe, Lab, Hall Green

  Terry Davis, Lab, Hodge Hill

  Richard Burden, Lab, Northfield

  Jeffrey Rooker, Lab, Perry Barr

  Lynne Jones, Lab, Selly Oak

  Roger Godsiff, Lab, Sparkbrook and Small Heath

  Estelle Morris, Lab, Yardley

  Joan Humble, Lab, North and Fleetwood

  Blackpool

  Paul Marsden, Lab, South

  Terence Rooney, Lab, North

  Bradford

  Gerry Sutcliffe, Lab, South

  Marsha Singh, Lab, West

  Eric Martlew, Lab

  Carlisle

  Jon Owen Jones, Lab/Co-op, Central

  Cardiff

  Julie Morgan, Lab, North

  Alun Michael, Lab/Coop, South and Penarth

  Rhodri Morgan, Lab, West

  Christine Russell, Lab

  Chester

  Giles Radice, Lab, North

  Durham

  Hilary Armstrong, Lab, North West

  Gerald Steinberg, Lab, City

  Alistair Darling, Lab, Central

  Edinburgh

  Gavin Strang, Lab, East and Musselburgh

  Malcolm Chisholm, Lab, North and Leith

  Lynda Clark, Lab, Pentlands

  Nigel Griffiths, Lab, South

  Donald Gorrie, Lib Dem, West

  Derek Fatchett, Lab, Central

  Leeds

  George Mudie, Lab, East

  Fabian Hamilton, Lab, North East

  Harold Best, Lab, North West

  John Battle, Lab, West

  Graham Stringer, Lab, Blackley

  Manchester

  Tony Lloyd, Lab, Central

  Gerald Kaufman, Lab, Gorton

  Keith Bradley, Lab, Withington

  680

  Name

  City visited

  Brian White, Lab, North East

  Milton Keynes

  Phyllis Starkey, Lab, South West

  Sally Keeble, Lab, North

  Northampton

  Tony Clarke, Lab, South

  Andrew Smith, Lab, East

  Oxford

  Dr. Evan Harris, Lab, West and Abindon

  Calum MacDonald, Lab

  Western Isles

  Hugh Bayley, Lab

  York

  As indicated previously, it is not possible for me to say which constituencies I and the Under-Secretary of State visited in the cities concerned.

  Single Currency
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the subject areas within her Department's responsibilities which will be covered by the information campaign on Britain's membership of a single currency. [73673]

  Clare Short
  The Treasury will continue its dialogue with key external bodies to determine what information the public and business would need at each stage of the changeover process. Any information campaign would cover key concerns that the public and business may have. Chapter eight of the Treasury's Outline National Changeover Plan provides further information. Copies of the Plan are available in the House Library.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans she has to issue information from her Department to help the public make an informed decision when they vote on the single currency. [73583]

  Clare Short
  Any plans by the Government to issue information during a referendum campaign on whether or not the UK should join the single currency would be made in light of the Government's response to the recommendations from the Neill Committee on the conduct of referendums. The Government will announce their conclusions on those recommendations when my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary publishes a White Paper and draft Bill before the summer recess.

  Air Miles
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many Air Miles have been earned by her and each of her Ministers; and how she proposes to use them. [73328]

  Clare Short
  The Government's policy on the use and disposal of air miles was set out by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 12 January 1999,Official Report, column 141.

  We do not keep a record of air miles earned by Ministers. We intend to ensure that they are either used for official purposes or donated to charity.

  Aid Programmes (Sustainability)
  Ms Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps she has taken to
  681
  ensure that the objectives of sustainability and environmental sensitivity are incorporated in UK aid programmes. [74315]

  Clare Short
  Our approach to sustainable development and environmental protection is set out in the White Paper on International Development. In December we published DFID's policy statement on the environment—Eliminating world poverty: why the environment matters—which sets out in more detail our policies and procedures. Copies are in the Libraries of the House. We are about to publish supplementary guidance to our Manual of Environmental Appraisal and to provide training to staff, in order to strengthen good practice. The new guidance will be made publicly available.

  Landmines
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what controls have been exercised by her Department over the use of funds paid from the United Kingdom Government to European Union landmine clearance programmes; and for what those funds have been used. [74162]

  Clare Short
  UK's contributions to the European Commission are subject to reporting and audit requirements. In 1998, EC expenditure (combined DG1A, DG1B, DGVIII, ECHO) on mines action totalled some 50.7 million euros (approximately £36 million) for programmes in 11 countries, and for research and development, and contribution to ICRC' s Mines Appeal. The share attributable to the UK was £5.4 million.

  During the UK's Presidency of the European Union in the first half of 1998, we worked closely with member states to achieve more targeted discussions on European Union (EU) mine action within the EU Working Group on Disarmament and Security (CODUN); we urged greater transparency and accountability of European Commission (EC) activities and the implementation of the EU Joint Mine Action Programme.

  My Department has in addition committed £200,000 towards European Union trials for a multi-sensor detection system. We monitor the project, which is on-going, through reports and technical meetings.

  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what proportion of her Department's budget designated for landmine clearance related activity was spent on(a) conferences, (b) transport costs for officials, (c) meetings between officials and (d) research and development in the last year for which information is available. [74217]

  Clare Short
  In 1998–99, we have contributed about(a) 1 per cent. to support civil society participation at international conferences central to the Ottawa process; (b) 0.2 per cent. for official travel to and participation in international conferences, technical discussions and project monitoring; (c) meetings between government officials are not funded from the humanitarian mine action budget; (d) research and development 9.3 per cent.

  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the current situation regarding her Department's funding for the MINELIFTA project. [74142]
  682
  Clare Short
  My Department has not made a funding commitment to MINELIFTA. Up until now, it has not met our criteria for field testing. A new programme of resources dedicated to research and development of equipment for application in humanitarian mine clearance will be launched later this year. Full details of this scheme will be publicised shortly.

  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the non-military agencies currently being funded by her Department for landmine clearance operations; and where they are operating. [74385]

  Clare Short
  The agencies currently receiving funding for humanitarian mine clearance are:The HALO Trust operating in Cambodia, Georgia, Mozambique;
  Mines Advisory Group working in Cambodia, Northern Iraq, Laos;
  Norwegian People's Aid in Bosnia;
  United Nations Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Assistance in Afghanistan, Bosnia is about to start;
  United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in Cambodia.

  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development when she expects to make available the further £5 million for landmine clearance-related work. [74161]

  Clare Short
  In October 1997 I announced that I would double my Department's bilateral annual expenditure on humanitarian mine action to £10 million by the financial year 2000–2001. Planned expenditure for 1998–99 is well over £6 million-a 27 per cent. increase on the previous financial year. I expect to meet the commitment I made.

  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what research and development work has been undertaken since May 1997 funded from her budget for landmine clearance. [74245]

  Clare Short
  From May 1997 to date, about £720,000 has been spent on assessment trials of prototypes and full field trials of equipment for anti-personnel mine detection and clearance, preliminary vegetation clearance and operator safety tests. In addition, my Department has contributed about £140,000 to studies to improve the effectiveness of activities managed by the United Nations.

  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what are her Department's targets for bringing about a reduction in the amount of civilian casualties from landmines overseas. [74386]

  Clare Short
  All the Department for International Development-funded projects work to the United Nations standard for humanitarian mine clearance which aims for a minimum 99.6 per cent. clearance on verification. This ensures that cleared land can be used with confidence by the beneficiaries. Mine awareness is normally included within projects to reduce risk to communities in areas where clearance has not been completed. We look for opportunities to use appropriate technology within our projects to increase clearance rates while achieving the high standards required for humanitarian mine clearance activities.

  Tuvalu
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what training support her Department has given to Tuvalu in each of the last five years; and what plans she has to increase the amount. [73970]

  Clare Short
  Our bilateral development assistance to the Pacific is provided from a single regional programme (total spending will be around £3.75 million in the current financial year). In the particular case of Tuvalu, the view was taken following Independence in 1978 that we could best assist that country's development through the establishment of a Trust Fund to help meet both recurrent and capital expenditure. The Fund was established in 1987 with contributions of £3.2 million each from Britain, Australia and New Zealand. With prudent management, the Fund has since grown substantially in real terms, while providing a reliable source of funds for the Government of Tuvalu.

  Tuvalu is also eligible for awards from a Pacific-wide allocation of the Department for International Development (DFID) and The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) funding for Chevening Scholarships. Three such awards

  Dates

  Location

  Minister

  US counterpart

  1–3 July 1998

  Washington

  Mr. Fatchett

  Karl Inderfurth, Assistant Secretary for South asian Affairs

  Johnny Carson, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for African Affairs

  Dennis Ross, Special Middle East Coordinator

  13 July 1998

  Washington

  Baroness Symons

  Ambassador Wendy Sherman, Under-Secretary for Global Affairs

  Peter Romero, Assistant Secretary for Inter-American Affairs

  John Hamilton. Deputy Assistant Secretary for Central America, Caribbean and Cuba

  22–25 February 1999

  Washington

  Mr. Fatchett

  Stanley Roth, Assistant Secretary for East Asian and Pacific Affairs

  Karl Inderfurth, Assistant Secretary for South Asian Affairs

  Martin Sheehan, Counter Terrorism Coordinator

  Tom Pickering, Under Secretary for Political Affairs

  David Welch, Assistant Secretary for International Organisations

  Martin Indyk, Assistant Secretary for Near Eastern Affairs

  Dennis Ross, Special Middle East Coordinator

  The Secretary of State last visited Washington in January 1998. He has had numerous meetings, sometimes several times a month, with Madeleine Albright outside the United States, most recently in Rambouillet. He will next visit Washington in April 1999, for the NATO Summit.Unfortunately, the information the hon. Member requires on meetings which have taken place in the UK and third countries is not held centrally, and to obtain it would incur disproportionate costs.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received regarding the verdict of the European Court of Human Rights on the United Kingdom's failure to make arrangements to enable Gibraltarians to vote at election to the European Parliament; and if he will make a statement. [73623]

  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he proposes to take following the decision of the European Court of Human Rights on visiting rights for citizens of Gibraltar. [73409]
  684
  have been made over the past five years. In addition, Tuvalu benefits from the support we give to regional institutions (such as the University of the South Pacific, the South Pacific Forum and the Pacific Community) and from our contributions to multilateral agencies (including notably the European Development Fund) active in the region.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Ministerial Meetings (USA)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many times Ministers in his Department have met their counterparts in the US Government since 1 June 1998; and if he will list the(a) dates, (b) locations, (c) Ministers involved and (d) names of the US counterparts at each meeting. [71983]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  [holding answer 25 February 1999] Foreign Office Ministers have frequent contact with members of the US Administration in the United States, in the UK and elsewhere overseas. Since 1 June 1998, the FCO Ministers listed have visited the United States and have had formal meetings with their approximate US counterparts as follows:

  Ms Quin
  Neither my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary nor I have yet received any formal representations regarding the Court's decision, but I am well aware of the strong interest it has generated, including in both Houses and in Gibraltar. We will be taking all available steps to secure an extension of the EP franchise to Gibraltar. We can do this only by amending the 1976 EC Act on Direct Elections. This will require the agreement of all EU member states. HMG will seek such an amendment in the current negotiations in Brussels on establishing Common Principles for EP elections.

  Foreign Media Articles (Ministers)
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if he will instruct his(a) desk officers and (b) relevant staff overseas to compile a list of those articles written by the Prime Minister which they have successfully placed in foreign media; and if he will place that list in the Library; [73606]

  (2) if he will list those articles (a) he and (b) his Ministers have written for foreign publications since 1 May 1997; [73605]
  685
  (3) if he will make it his policy to record for future reference those articles his Department places in the foreign press provided by the Prime Minister's Office; [73604]

  (4) if he will list those (a) ministers, (b) other parliamentarians and (c) non-parliamentarians who have written articles for which his Department has facilitated placement in the foreign press and foreign journals since 1 May 1997. [73602]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We do not maintain the records necessary to compile lists of this sort. To do so would not be a worthwhile use of resources.

  India and Pakistan
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the actions taken by his Department further to the testing of nuclear devices by(a) India and (b) Pakistan. [73979]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  As G8 and EU Presidency, the UK played a leading role in co-ordinating the international response to the Indian and Pakistani nuclear tests. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary hosted a meeting of colleagues from G8 and other countries, at which a senior officials Task Force was established. The Task Force met twice in 1998 under UK chairmanship. In contacts with India and Pakistan, we continue to urge both countries to adhere to international non-proliferation regimes, to take the steps called for by United Nations Secretary Council resolution 1172, and to make progress in their bilateral dialogue.

  My Department has tightened procedures governing exports of dual-use goods to India and Pakistan, and discouraged contact between UK nuclear scientists and nuclear industry personnel and their Indian and Pakistani counterparts.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Governments of(a) India and (b) Pakistan on religious freedom within those countries; and if he will make a statement. [73891]

  Mr. Fatchett
  I raised our concerns about the situation of religious minorities with the Indian Home Minister in November, as did the Foreign Secretary with the Indian National Security Adviser on 20 January in London. I raised our concerns about religious minorities in Pakistan with the Pakistani Minister of Law during my visit there in February.

  Information Working Group (European Union)
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will deposit in the Library a copy of the presentation made by the United Kingdom delegation to the seminar on information about the EU held in Brussels on 27 March 1998; and if he will make a statement on the role of the Information Working Group in respect of the conclusions of this seminar. [73770]

  Ms Quin
  The UK delegation made a presentation on the Internet and circulated a selection of frames from the FCO internet website http://www.fco.gov.uk. A copy of this has been deposited in the Library. The seminar was 686
  co-chaired by the UK Presidency and the Director-General of DGX of the Commission. The UK Presidency chairwoman was also chair of the Information Working Group. This Group discussed draft conclusions to follow-up the seminar. These were adopted by the General Affairs Council on 29 June 1998.

  Congo
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received about the cost to Zimbabwe of the military expedition in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and about the sources of the finance for the operation. [73954]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We are concerned about the impact on the Zimbabwe economy of its involvement in the DRC. Zimbabwe's defence budget is one of the highest in the region. The cost of sustaining the conflict could put the region's long-term development at risk. The Government of Zimbabwe has said that the Government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo is funding the direct costs of its intervention, and that the Government of Angola is providing logistics support.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Zimbabwean Government about its decisions to send troops to the Democratic Republic of the Congo. [73956]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  I have twice raised this personally with President Mugabe, most recently when I visited Zimbabwe on 25 February. Other representations include letters from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to President Mugabe, and lobbying both here and in Harare. We have consistently urged the President to use his influence to bring about a negotiated peaceful settlement to the conflict.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance he plans to give to the National Constitutional Assembly of Zimbabwe to encourage democracy in Zimbabwe. [73955]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We have assisted organisations which are members of the National Constitutional Assembly (NCA) with civic education programmes to encourage democracy in Zimbabwe. At present we are not assisting the NCA itself, but are keeping the situation under review.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Zimbabwean Government about the arrest and detention of the journalists Grace Kwinjeh, Farai Muncazi and Fernando Goncalves. [73953]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  I urged President Mugabe, at my meeting with him in Harare on 25 February, to uphold international human rights standards, including freedom of the press.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he or his officials last met representatives of the National Constitutional Assembly of Zimbabwe. [73952]
  687
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  In the course of their normal duties, officials at the British High Commission in Harare have frequent contact with representatives of the National Constitutional Assembly, some of whom also represent other organisations such as the Zimbabwe Congress of Trades Unions and the Zimbabwe Council of Churches.

  I met some of these individual organisations when
  I visited Zimbabwe in January 1998, and some of them called on officials in London last year. Officials visited Zimbabwe have also met representatives of these organisations.

  North Atlantic Assembly
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what changes have been made in the composition of the United Kingdom parliamentary delegation to the North Atlantic Assembly. [74392]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The right hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) has replaced the hon. Member for City of York (Mr. Bayley) as a member of the delegation.

  Colombia
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has held with representatives of the U.S. Government concerning their anti-drugs policies in Colombia. [73714]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The UK maintains a wide-ranging dialogue on drugs policy with the US. I visited Bogota in September 1997 and October 1998, when I held discussions with the Colombian government on their own approach to the drugs problem.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has held with the Government of Colombia concerning(a) human rights abuses and (b) internal migrations. [73716]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  I have raised the question of human rights, including internal displacement, several times with senior members of the Colombian Government, including President Pastrana and his predecessor, President Samper, both in London and during my two visits to Colombia. These discussions have covered, among other things, the activities of the paramilitaries (which are a major cause of internal migration), impunity, the safety of human rights workers and individual cases.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has held with representatives of British companies operating in Colombia about(a) human rights and (b) environmental damage. [73715]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  I have discussed both human rights and environmental issues with BP.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  KPMG
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the services that KPMG have performed for his Department(a) since 1 May 1997 and (b) in the corresponding period prior to 1 May 1997, indicating the remuneration made in each case. [72013]
  688
  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 22 February 1999] Information on contracts let to KPMG is not held centrally, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  The above information does not include contracts let by the Department's Executive Agencies, and I have asked the respective Chief Executives to reply separately to this question.

  Letter from Desmond Flynn to Mr. David Ruffley, dated 26 February 1999:
  You asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he would list the services that KPMG have performed for his Department (a) since I May 1997 and (b) in the corresponding period to 1 May 1997, indicating the remuneration made in each case. In the absence of Peter Joyce, the Chief Executive, I have been asked to reply on behalf of The Insolvency Service.
  KPMG, as an organisation, have not performed any services for The Insolvency Service in the periods in question. Payments have however been made to KPMG in relation to work done by individual members of the firm in relation to disqualification proceedings brought against directors of failed companies where those individuals acted as liquidator, administrative receiver or administrator of the company.
  The fees paid for such work are as follows:

  (a) since 1 May 1997 £85,600

  (b) in the corresponding period prior to 1 May 1997 £72,100.

  Letter from Ian Jones to Mr. David Ruffley, dated 26 February 1999:
  You recently tabled a Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry about the services that KPMG have performed for his Department. I have been asked to reply on behalf of the Employment Tribunals Service (ETS) which is an executive agency of the DTI.
  The ETS has not engaged the services of KPMG.

  Letter from David Hendon to Mr. David Ruffley, dated 26 February 1999:
  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has asked me to reply on behalf of the Radiocommunications Agency to your Parliamentary Question about the Agency's use of KPMG.
  This Agency entered into no contracts with KPMG since 1 May 1997. It used KPMG's services on one occasion before that date. In financial year 1996/97 the Agency commissioned KPMG to provide financial advice on the establishment of a joint venture company. The remuneration amounted to £120,244 ex-VAT.

  Letter from Dr. Seton Bennett to Mr. David Ruffley, dated 26 February 1999:
  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has asked me to reply on behalf of the National Weights and Measures Laboratory to your question about the services that KPMG have performed for the Agency both prior to and since 1 May 1997.
  Since its creation as a Next Steps Agency in 1989, the National Weights and Measures Laboratory has not availed itself of the services of KPMG.

  Letter from P. R. S. Hartnack to Mr. David Ruffley, dated 26 February 1999:
  I am replying for the Patent Office to your question to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry about the services performed by KPMG and details of any remuneration made by the Patent Office. I can confirm that a nil return is appropriate.
  689
  Letter from John Holden to Mr. David Ruffley, dated 26 February 1999:
  I have now been invited to reply directly to you concerning your question, no 72013, tabled on 16 February 1999, asking the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the services that KPMG have performed for his Department since 1st May 1997 and in the corresponding period prior to 1st May 1997.
  I can advise that KPMG have provided consultancy support in developing the business case for the introduction of the Government Procurement Card between October 1998 and March 1999. The consultancy was commissioned by the Treasury and has been undertaken at no cost to Companies House.

  Low Pay Commission
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on in the current work programme of the Low Pay Commission. [73814]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The Low Pay Commission has been asked to monitor and evaluate the introduction and impact of the national minimum wage, with particular reference to the effect on pay, employment and competitiveness in low paying sectors and small firms; particular groups of workers, such as young people, women, ethnic minorities, homeworkers, people with disabilities and voluntary sector workers; pay structures, including the effect on differentials and different pay systems; and training.

  In view of the representations received on the accommodation offset that can be counted towards the national minimum wage, we have also asked the Commission to give early advice on that issue. It is for the Commission to formulate a programme of work to meet these remits.

  Offshore Wind Farm Industry
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action he is taking to encourage the transfer of British technology and expertise in the offshore oil and gas industries to the offshore wind farm industry. [73815]

  Mr. Battle
  Offshore wind has the potential to make a substantial contribution in future to sustainable and diverse energy supplies and I am pleased to see that UK industry is coming together in this area.

  Through the New and Renewable Energy (NRE) programme, my Department last week sponsored a British Wind Energy Association (BWEA) seminar on Offshore Engineering. Many of the companies attending the seminar currently operate in the oil and gas industries and the application of technology currently used in the oil and gas sectors to offshore wind farms was discussed.

  Poole Bay
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if his Department is requiring Elf Exploration plc to carry out further drilling operations in Poole Bay. [74055]

  Mr. Battle
  The Petroleum Licence covering block 98–12 in Poole Bay was awarded in 1991 with an obligation on the licensees to drill at least three exploration wells. The first of these was drilled in 1993, south east of the location of the well currently under discussion. This was unsuccessful and the licensees asked 690
  for all the outstanding work obligations to be waived. A waiver was granted in respect of one of the wells, but my Department took the view that the other should be drilled in order to fully explore the potential of the licensed area.

  The current licence operator, E1f Exploration UK plc, has been preparing to seek consent to a further well to test a small structure which lies between the first well on the licence and the Wytch Farm oil field, but has now sought my Department's agreement to waive the outstanding commitments and relinquish the licence. This request is being considered and a response will be given as soon as possible.

  Working Time Regulations 1998
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if juvenile employees working part-time on paper rounds are subject to the holiday pay provisions of the working time regulations. [72024]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  [holding answer 22 February 1999] Newspaper delivery boys and girls are not entitled to paid annual leave under the regulations if they are below minimum school leaving age; anyone aged 16 or over who delivers newspapers is, like any other part time worker, entitled to paid annual leave but only pro rata according to the hours they normally work.

  Photovoltaic Industry
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on his Department's support for the UK photovoltaic industry. [73926]

  Mr. Battle
  Last week I announced 3 major new PV initiatives:

  (a) a call for proposals for the development of PV components and systems, with the aim of enhancing the competitiveness of UK companies;

  (b) a field trial for around 100 homes across the country to test a variety of actual PV installations under UK conditions;

  (c) development of a scheme to demonstrate the use of PV in large-scale building applications.

  The total value of these initiatives is expected to be £15 million, with £5 million coming from the DTI. In the case of the demonstration scheme the final go-ahead will have to await the outcome of the Renewables Review, on which I expect to issue a Consultation Paper shortly.

  These new initiatives are in addition to the work on solar photovoltaics that my Department is already funding (under the DTI's New and Renewable Energy Programme, the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council PV R&D programme, and the Foresight Scolar Programme), and will be taken forward in consultation with the PV and building industries.

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Casale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many people are currently employed in the generation of energy from renewable sources(a) in the United Kingdom and (b) in other member states of the European Union. [73772]
  691
  Mr. Battle
  There are over 500 companies involved in renewable energy in the UK, which are estimated to employ some 3,500 people directly. These companies include manufacturers, developers, consultants, and operators.

  Statistics for European Countries are not generally available. In the EU White Paper—Energy For the Future: Renewable Sources of Energy—the Commission cites the example of the wind energy sector which it estimates has created 30,000 jobs in Europe. The White Paper also states that if the contribution of renewables to energy supply in Europe were to double from the current 6 per cent. to 12 per cent. by 2010 it would create at least 500,000 jobs.

  Genetic Testing
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proposals he has to regulate the use of genetic testing in relation to employment; and if he will make a statement. [74145]

  Mr. Battle
  The Human Genetics Advisory Commission has set up a Working Group under the chairmanship of Mrs. Doris Littlejohn (President, Employment Tribunals (Scotland)) to consider the implications of genetic testing for employment. I look forward to receiving their advice later this year.

  Human Genetics Advisory Commission
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will set out the qualifications and areas of expertise of the members of the Human Genetics Advisory Commission. [74146]

  Mr. Battle
  Affiliations and qualifications of members of the Human Genetics Advisory Commission are as follows:Acting chair
  Baroness O'Neill Principal, Newnham College, Cambridge; Chairman, Nuffield Foundation.
  Members
  Professor Cairns Aitken CBE Professor-emeritus of Rehabilitation Studies, University of Edinburgh; Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh; Fellow of the Royal College of Psychiatrists.
  Dr. Micheala Aldred Director, Retinoblastoma Society; Trustee, Genetic Interest Group.
  Professor Martin Bobrow CBE Professor of Medical Genetics, University of Cambridge; Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians; Fellow of the Royal College of Pathology.
  Mrs. Doris Littlejohn CBE President Employment Tribunals (Scotland).
  Professor Norman Nevin Chairman, Gene Therapy Advisory Committee; Professor of Medical Genetics, Northern Ireland Regional Genetics Centre; Fellow of the Ulster Medical Society.
  Reverend Dr. John Polkinghorne KBE Chairman, Advisory Committee on Genetic Testing. Member of the General Synod of the Church of England; Fellow of the Royal Society; Past President of Queens' College Cambridge.
  Dr. George Poste CBE Chief Science and Technology Officer, SmithKline Beecham Plc; Fellow of the Royal Society.
  Ms Moira Stuart Reporter/presenter, British Broadcasting Corporation.

  British Coal (Canteen Workers)
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer of 10 February 1999,Official Report, column 224, what was the average award made to those canteen workers where cases have been settled. [73962]

  Mr. Battle
  The British Coal Corporation tell me that the average settlement cost is around £1,300 per claim.

  Mixed Oxide Fuel Shipments
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the international proliferation implications of MOX fuel shipments. [73212]

  Mr. Battle
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett), to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) on 2 December 1997,Official Report, column 122.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the accessibility of the plutonium in MOX fuel contained in BNFL shipments to Japan for the purposes of making nuclear weapons. [73211]

  Mr. Battle
  The process by which MOX fuel is made combines the uranium and plutonium in such a way that separation by physical means is not possible. To recover plutonium from MOX fuel would require a chemical separation process requiring complex and highly specialised plant, equipment and skills. Very stringent physical protection and safeguards measures are applied to MOX fuel at all times to prevent its theft or diversion.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions have taken place between his Department and(a) the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and (b) the Ministry of Defence on the proposed shipments of plutonium to Japan by BNFL. [73210]

  Mr. Battle
  Responsibility within Government for the security of MOX shipments rests with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. Consultations between DTI and other Government Departments, including the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Ministry of Defence, have continued in the normal way.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects the Japanese to take ownership and control of the materials involved in the proposed shipment of plutonium to Japan; and what agencies are involved in overseeing these shipments. [73209]

  Mr. Battle
  The MOX fuel, which is already owned by the Japanese utilities, will come under the control of the Government of Japan on arrival at the port of entry. For the UK Government, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions deals with the safety of movements of nuclear materials carried out by the UK, while my Department handles security issues associated with these shipments.

  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry for what reasons armed vessels with armed
  693
  escorts are required to accompany shipments of MOX fuel and other nuclear material from BNFL to its overseas customers. [73562]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 26 February 1999] I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) on 18 February 1999, Official Report, columns 364–65.

  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the extent to which the production and export of MOX fuel and other nuclear materials which will be returned to BNFL's overseas customers after reprocessing are consistent with the terms of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. [73561]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 26 February 1999] I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by the then Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche), to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) on 9 December 1997, Official Report, column 528.

  Cannabis Medical Trials
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the progress of the cannabis medical trials. [72374]

  Mr. Battle
  The Medical Research Council have invited two research groups to submit full detailed proposals for clinical trials on the potential therapeutic uses of cannabis. These proposals are expected to be submitted in time to undergo peer review and be submitted to MRC's research selection boards for recommendation on funding in October.

  Oil Extraction (St. Kilda)
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received regarding proposed oil extraction near St. Kilda; and if he will make a statement. [69388]

  Mr. Battle
  I have received correspondence from environmental groups, members of the public and hon. Members expressing concern about the impact of petroleum extraction on St. Kilda, and about the potential contribution to climate change of continuing exploitation of fossil fuels.

  There is no evidence that either the offer of petroleum licences in the Atlantic or activity under such licences has compromised the environmental sensitivity of the area, jeopardised the status of any World Heritage Sites or harmed any particular species or habitat.

  Prior to offering acreage west of the Hebrides in the 17th Seaward Licensing Round, the Department took the advice of the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC), the Government's statutory adviser on conservation matters, about the potential environmental impact of activities under licences. The JNCC advised—and my Department accepted—that because of the environmental importance of the protected area around
  694
  St. Kilda, no acreage within 25 miles of the island should be offered for licensing. In actual fact, the nearest licence awarded is 45 miles away.

  As a further safeguard, conditions were attached to these licences at the request of JNCC and the Scottish Office Agriculture, Environment and Fisheries Department (SOAEFD) which prohibit seismic acquisition and drilling during specified sensitive seasons in order to minimise any potential disruption to local ecosystems.

  The advice from the JNCC, and the Department's subsequent decision-making process about the offer of blocks for petroleum licensing, takes full account of the requirements of the EU Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC). Such advice from the JNCC and other consultees has led to some blocks being excluded from licence offers in particular licensing rounds, despite clear interest from oil and gas companies which wished to see them made available.

  All exploration wells are subject to the Petroleum Pipe-lines (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1998, which implement the European Union Environmental Impact Assessment Directive (85/337/EEC) across the whole of the UK Continental Shelf. Under these Regulations, the Secretary of State must take account of the likely environmental impact of the well before he may decide whether or not to consent to its drilling. Both the JNCC and SOAEFD are consulted about the likely effects of wells in this area and may recommend that a full environmental statement is required before a consent decision can be made. Such statements must be made available to the public for their comments and the Secretary of State must then take into consideration any comments he has received when making his decision about consent for the project.

  Under the Regulations, the same process must be applied to any application for consent to a further well to appraise the commercial potential of an oil or gas discovery, and again to any subsequent proposal to develop such a find for production. The production of an environmental statement is mandatory for most development projects. No application has yet been received for consent to commercial extraction of oil or gas west of the Hebrides.

  Offshore activity, including all exploration wells, is also subject to the Merchant Shipping (Oil Pollution Preparedness and Response Convention) Regulations 1998. These require an oil spill contingency plan to be submitted to this Department for approval before drilling activities may commence. The Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) are consulted in relation to such plans. Each contingency plan is project-specific and will take account of relevant environmental sensitivities.

  The UK offshore oil and gas industry has a good environmental record. Areas west of Scotland were first licensed for petroleum exploration and production in 1972. The first commercial developments in the area are the Foinaven and Schiehallion oil fields, which lie west of Shetland, more than 200 miles northeast of St. Kilda. Regrettably, there have been some small oil spills around these facilities since production started, but all dispersed naturally with no evidence of damage to the environment.

  695
  However, the companies involved have been asked to reassess their operational procedures to ensure that the risk of even small oil spills can be reduced still further.

  The Government are committed to playing its part in tackling the threat of global warming and agrees that we need to move away from dependence on fossil fuels. The Government intend to develop a strategic UK climate change programme for publication later this year which will set out proposals for policies and measures to achieve international targets and its domestic policy aims, including increased support for renewables. The aim of the programme will be to develop an equitable, balanced strategy, covering all sectors of the economy and engaging all parts of the community. It will be finalised after public consultation and the Government will take forward its implementation, probably in 2000 and subsequent years.

  Electron Microscopes
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is his estimate of the number of electron microscopes employed in the United Kingdom 696
  for the purposes of assessing the presence of asbestos fibres in lung tissue in order to advise (a) special medical boards on respiratory diseases; and (b) coroners. [70180]

  Mr. Battle
  Within the DTI, the Office of Science and Technology (OST) has a specific interest in areas of research using electron microscopes, investigating the health effects of fibre inhalation, including asbestos fibres, in relation to the pathogenesis of disease, through the Medical Research Council (MRC) Toxicology Unit in Leicester.

  The DSS is responsible for "special medical boards" which, I am informed, do not use electron microscopy for assessing the presence of asbestos fibres in lung tissue. The Home Office are not aware of any figures for Coroners. My Department has no such estimate; even if it were possible to gather such information, it would involve disproportionate cost.

  Pilot Projects
  Yvette Cooper
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the pilot projects instigated by his Department since 1 May 1997, indicating the area in which each pilot took, or is taking, place. [72640]

  Mr. Byers
  Details of the pilot projects instigated by my Department since 1 May 1997 are set out in the table.

  Pilot projects instigated by DTI since 1 May 1997

  Description of the project

  Area covered

  Investigation into the feasibility of introducing Intelligent Character Recognition Systems into Companies House.

  England and Wales (but restricted to nine regular presenters of documents)

  Running a service whereby presenters of documents can file them electronically with Companies House using an approved software package (four packages approved to date).

  England and Wales

  Providing access to images of all Companies House documents via the CH Direct service. Service piloted with 18 customers.

  Mainly in the UK, but also world-wide via the Internet.

  A project to enable trade fair intermediaries to access the TradeUK National Exporters Database and the Export Sales Leads Service at overseas trade fairs via the Internet.

  World-Wide.

  A project to pilot the Hints to Exporters series on the Internet, rather than through printed copies.

  World-wide.

  Manufacturing for Biotechnology Initiative. A pilot initiative to raise awareness of manufacturing opportunities for biotechnology SMEs and to enhance manufacturing potential.

  National

  Joint project with the British Jewellery and Giftware Federation to test the scope for trade associations to commission the chargeable export services delivered by British Diplomatic Missions worldwide on behalf of companies in their sector.

  National

  Competitiveness and management organisation in SMEs. The pilot compares differences in management styles, then helps companies to choose the styles that suit their particular culture.

  East Midlands

  A project to encourage market research companies to achieve British Standard BS7911.

  National

  Capex Scoreboard. List of 500 UK companies' capital investment figures in comparison with 300 international companies for benchmarking purposes.

  National

  Research on the innovation stories behind successful entrants for the Design Council's Millennium Products awards.

  Pilot interviews conducted nationally.

  Pilot awareness campaign promoting the use of automatic identification technologies among SMEs.

  Hertfordshire

  UK-Russia High Technology Forum. Aims to encourage technology transfer between Russia and some countries in the FSU with the UK.

  National

  Joint project with North Nottinghamshire TEC and local Business Links to examine the challenge of delivering Level Two ICT skills to a mass market.

  North Nottinghamshire

  Joint project with Merseyside SATRO and schools in Liverpool and Salford to examine whether DTI's CD-ROM based information on business best practice could be of value in an educational environment.

  Liverpool and Salford

  Joint project with DfEE to identify the value that firms place on the skills of their workforce in 12 sectors.

  National

  Departmental Policies
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what systems he has in place to ensure that policies being developed by his Department are subject to a crime impact(a) assessment and (b) audit and are not likely to lead to enhanced criminal opportunities. [72680]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 24 February 1999] Government Departments are co-operating on policy developments, and I liaise closely with Ministerial colleagues at the Home Office on any likely implications for crime of new policies.

  Minister for Science
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will place an agenda and minutes for the meeting on 15 December 1998, which the Minister for Science chaired, in the Library. [73020]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 25 February 1999] The meeting referred to was part of the Public Consultation on the Biosciences, which my noble Friend chairs. The meeting was attended by representatives of many different interested parties. This exercise looks at public attitudes to regulation of the biosciences. Minutes for the meeting have been circulated to all attendees of the meeting and a copy has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Internet Web Caching
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the effects on information technology in the United Kingdom of the implementation of the resolution by the European Parliament to outlaw Internet web caching. [73383]

  Mr. Wills
  Unauthorised reproduction of copyright material in electronic form is generally prohibited under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. The European Parliament's proposed amendment to the draft Directive on copyright in the information society, which would mean that temporary copies such as occur in caching could infringe copyright if right owners have not agreed to use of their material in the relevant service, would not therefore change the situation in the UK. Current UK copyright law does not seem to have inhibited the development of information technology services, or placed undue burdens on those providing such services. However, we support moves to clarify the liability of service providers under copyright and other laws, along the lines proposed in the draft Directive on electronic commerce.

  Electronic Red Boxes
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will name the Ministers in his Department who are regular users of the new electronic red boxes. [73693]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 26 February 1999] The Minister of State for Energy and Industry has been using the electronic red box developed for the DTI for some time. This facility enables him to work on electronic copies of documents at home and to access many of the Department's information systems. Following evaluation of his experience later this year, consideration will be given to extending its use to other Ministers.

  Business Regulation (USA)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the operation of the Regulatory Flexibility Act 1980 in the United States. [73231]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  I have been asked to reply.

  Whilst it is not for us to assess the effectiveness of the United States' internal legislative arrangements, we are aware of this Act and officials in the Cabinet Office Better Regulation Unit are in contact with their US counterparts with the aim of increasing our mutual understanding and promoting the exchange of best practice. Many of the main provisions of this Act cover the same ground as certain requirements in our own system of regulatory impact assessment.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the operation of sunset regulation in the United States. [73224]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  I have been asked to reply.

  We are aware of the discussions in the United States and other countries about the use of sunset clauses in regulation. Officials in the Cabinet Office Better Regulation Unit actively participate in such discussions both bilaterally and at the OECD with the aim of increasing mutual understanding and promoting exchanges of best practice. We are not aware of any federal United States legislative requirement for sunset clauses.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the operation of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 1996 in the United States. [73223]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  I have been asked to reply.

  Whilst it is not for us to assess the effectiveness of the United States' internal legislative arrangements, we are aware of this Act and officials in the Cabinet Office Better Regulation Unit are in contact with their US counterparts with the aim of increasing mutual understanding and promoting the exchange of best practice. Many of the main provisions of this Act, aimed at small business, cover the same ground as the UK's Access Business initiative.

SCOTLAND

  Stuart Gair Case
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what steps have been taken to interview new witnesses or witnesses who have changed their evidence in the case of Stuart Gair; and if he will make a statement; [68173]

  (2) what date he received a submission on behalf of Stuart Gair; what action he has taken; and when he expects to complete his consideration. [68188]

  Mr. McLeish
  [holding answer 4 February 1999] A petition claiming a miscarriage of justice in Stuart Gair's conviction was submitted by Mr. Gair's solicitor to my right hon. Friend on 10 September 1998.
  699
  An initial review of the new evidence in Mr. Gair's case has been carried out by the Scottish Office and clarifications and further information sought from the solicitor. However, no interviews or inquiries have yet been commissioned. Mr. Gair's solicitor has indicated that he does not want the Crown Office to be involved in the examination of this case and has requested that my right hon. Friend appoint an impartial body to carry out any investigations.

  In the light of this continuing objection by Mr. Gair's solicitor, the most appropriate way forward would seem to be for the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission to instruct or carry out any necessary investigations once it comes into operation on 1 April this year. The new Commission will have powers to undertake its own inquiries and to obtain statements and reports. One of the main intentions behind our setting up this Commission is to make the review of alleged miscarriages of justice in Scotland clearly independent and to ensure public confidence in the process.

  In these circumstances we are not in a position to estimate how long it might be before a decision is reached in this case.

  Disability Discrimination Act 1995
  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the impact on his Department's policies of the goods and services provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 to be implemented in October 1999. [71268]

  Mr. Galbraith
  [holding answer 22 February 1999] We are acting to ensure that the Department's policies meet the needs of disabled people and comply with legal requirements. The Department already takes positive steps to make it easier for disabled people to make use of its services. We shall continue to do so, not only by complying fully with new duties in the Disability Discrimination Act but by aiming to do more where appropriate.

  Existing guidance on policy appraisal is currently being reviewed in the light of the guidance "Policy Appraisal for Equal Treatment" which the Cabinet Office issued to all Government Departments in November 1998. This was signed jointly by the Minister for Women, the Secretary of State for Education and Employment and the Home Secretary. The new guidance will ensure that all new and existing policies and programmes are assessed for any differential impact, not only on disabled people but on women and people from ethnic minorities. That includes the need to ensure that policies and their outcomes comply with the law. Where necessary, we shall act to remove any differential impact.

  From 1 July 1999, this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament. The report of the Consultative Steering Group on the Scottish Parliament strongly recommended that the Parliament should have an Equal Opportunities Committee. Monitoring and reporting of progress on the Disability Discrimination Act will be for the Scottish Executive.

  Rowett Research Institute
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when his Department received the research 700
  dossier on GMO research into potatoes from Dr. Pusztai of the Rowett Research Institute; when the Minister for the Cabinet Office requested copies of the work submitted to his Department under contract by Dr. Pusztai; which other Government departments or research units have received copies; and on what dates. [72528]

  Mr. Macdonald
  A copy of the report produced by Dr. Putszai for the Rowett Research Institute in response to the Institute's Audit Committee was copied to the Scottish Office on 26 October 1998. The report was published by the Rowett Research Institute on 16 February 1999. Dr. Pusztai was contracted by the Rowett Research Institute to undertake the research on GMO potatoes and it was for the Institute to consider and publish the report.

  The Government welcome the decision by the Rowett Research Institute to publish Dr. Pusztai's report, together with the audit committee's response to this report. The Government also welcome the request by the Rowett Research Institute to the Royal Societies of London and Edinburgh to conduct an independent analysis of Dr. Pusztai's and Dr. Ewen's research. For this to take place, it is clearly essential that all those involved should respond to the requests within the scientific community to make available the data and papers on which their conclusions are based.

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

  University Fees
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the income to be raised by fees paid by(a) Scottish students at Scottish universities, (b) English, Welsh and Northern Irish students at Scottish universities and (c) Scottish students at English, Welsh and Northern Irish universities in the current year and each of the next five years. [72658]

  Mrs. Liddell
  No separate estimates have been made for fees income for Scottish universities as requested. The table provides estimates for fees income for Scottish higher education institutions and further education colleges for the years 1998–99 to 2001–02 only:

  £ million

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Scottish higher education institutions (I)

  15

  26

  35

  40

  Scottish further education colleges

  4

  6

  6

  6

  Total for Scottish institutions

  19

  32

  41

  46

  Scottish students at other UK institutions

  1

  2

  2

  2

  Note:

  All figures are at 1998–99 prices

  It is assumed that most students coming to Scotland from elsewhere in the UK will attend higher education institutions. Within the figures at (I) their contribution is estimated as £2 million, £5 million, £7 million and £10 million respectively. This is estimated using the same average private contribution as for Scottish and EU students. Actual amounts will be dependent on the

  701
  specific funding body responsible providing student support in whatever part of the UK the student comes from.

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

  Schizophrenia Psychoses
  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people discharged from hospital in Scotland following a main diagnosis of schizophrenia psychoses and subsequently taken to hospital by the police under the Mental Health Acts were refused admission in the last year for which figures are available. [73236]

  Mr. Galbraith
  The information is not collected or held centrally.

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

  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what research projects his Department is funding in the current year to test the effectiveness of community care for people suffering from schizophrenia psychoses; and if he will make a statement. [73365]

  Project title, research base and project duration

  Award

  Role of Obstetric Complications in the Aetiology of Schizophrenic and Affective Psychosis (Royal College of Psychiatrists, London, 1 October 1997 to 31 September 1998)

  9,276

  Schizophrenia in the Elderly: Its Prevalence and Suffers' Needs for Health and Social Care (Lanarkshire Healthcare NHS Trust, 1 July 1997 to 30 June 1996)

  85,034

  Cognitive Therapy with Medication-resistant Psychotic Symptoms: A Clinical Trial with Nurses as Therapists (University of Dundee, 1 January 1997 to 31 December 1999)

  112,688

  Hospital Discharge for People with a Mental Illness (University of Glasgow, 1 December 1997 to 31 January 2000)

  1167,177

  A Randomised Controlled Comparison of Neuroleptic Maintenance in Combination with Individualised Psychoeducation in the Prevention of Relapse in Schizophrenia (Ayrshire & Arran Community Healthcare Trust, 1 June 1997 to 12 May 2000)

  115,989

  The Prevalence and Impact of Substance Misuse in Schizophrenic Patients in Scottish Urban and Rural Settings (Health Services Research Unit, Aberdeen, 1 February 1999 to 30 January 2001—dates to be confirmed)

  166,424

  1 Co-funded by CSO and Social Work Services Group of The Scottish Office

  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people with a main diagnosis of schizophrenia psychoses were discharged from mental illness hospitals in Scotland in each of the last three years; and how many of them were taken into local authority residential care in the same year. [73360]

  Mr. Galbraith
  The number of people with a main diagnosis of schizophrenia psychosis discharged from mental illness hospitals in Scotland for the last 3 years for which complete information is available is shown in the table.
  702
  Mr. Galbraith
  The Chief Scientist Office (CSO) within the Scottish Office Department of Health has responsibility for managing funds which support research activity to further the development of patient care and health services within the NHS in Scotland.

  Mental Health is one of the health priorities in Scotland, and CSO's awards to mental health research projects in 1998–99, total some £2M. Many of these projects may be relevant to schizophrenia psychoses alongside other severe mental health problems, and some may have implications for methods of care, including community care, for sufferers. Projects, completed or still running in 1998–99, which we have identified as definitely relevant to schizophrenia psychoses (and perhaps—to varying extents—to community care for sufferers) are detailed below. Their awards total some £657K of the £2M.

  CSO also manages the NHS in Scotland's Research and Development (R&D) Support Fund, which supports research and development in NHS hospitals, general practice and other health care settings in Scotland. R&D Support Fund expenditure on mental health is estimated to be some £3M in 1998–99. R&D Support Fund expenditure on schizophrenia psychoses cannot be identified separately, except at disproportionate cost. From 1 July 1999, this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  Year ending

  Number

  31 March 1994

  2,739

  31 March 1995

  2,623

  31 March 1996

  2,680

  Information on discharges to local authority residential care is not collected or held centrally.

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

  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many of those convicted of crimes in
  703
  Scotland in the last year for which figures are available have ever been admitted to National Health Service mental illness hospitals with a main diagnosis of schizophrenia psychoses. [73357]

  Mr. Galbraith
  The information is not collected or held centrally.

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

  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the admissions by diagnosis and order of admission indicating percentage changes over the previous year in numbers and rates per 100,000 population of patients suffering from schizophrenia psychoses in Scotland in the last year for which figures are available. [73368]

  Mr. Galbraith
  The number of admissions to psychiatric in-patient care in Scotland, with a main diagnosis of schizophrenic psychoses during the latest years for which complete information is available, is shown in the table:

  Number of admissions

  Rate per 100,000 population

  + or - per cent.

  1995

  3,547

  69.1

  —

  1996

  3,611

  70.3

  +1.8

  Males proceeded against where the main offence was sodomy, gross indecency, shameless indecency or statutory homosexual offences Scotland 1988–97

  Main offence

  19881

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  Sodomy (Common Law)

  11

  18

  12

  9

  5

  17

  15

  12

  8

  13

  Gross Indecency (Common Law)

  2

  —

  2

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Shameless Indecency (Common Law)

  28

  39

  50

  57

  62

  85

  103

  103

  128

  113

  Statutory Homosexual Offences2

  56

  43

  75

  103

  76

  61

  78

  50

  41

  30

  Total

  97

  100

  139

  170

  143

  163

  196

  166

  177

  156

  1 Excludes 3 males proceeded against for homosexual offences and 17 males proceeded against for lewd and libidinous offences where the main offence is not known.

  2 Includes Section 7 of the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 1976, Section 80 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980 and Section 13 of the Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 1995.

  Males with a change proved where the main offence was sodomy, gross indecency, shameless indecency or statutory homosexual offences Scotland 1988–1997

  Main offence

  19881

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  Sodomy (Common Law)

  8

  14

  12

  8

  5

  16

  12

  11

  6

  11

  Gross Indecency (Common Law)

  —

  —

  2

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Shameless Indecency (Common Law)

  27

  34

  43

  44

  52

  70

  91

  89

  98

  92

  Statutory Homosexual Offences2

  52

  42

  72

  98

  74

  60

  75

  46

  39

  27

  Total

  87

  90

  129

  151

  131

  146

  178

  146

  143

  130

  1 Excludes 1 male with a main charge proved for a homosexual offence and 12 males with a main charge proved for lewd and libidinous offences where the main offence is not known.

  2 Includes Section 7 of the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 1976, Section 80 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980 and Section 13 of the Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 1995.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Bereavement Support
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the total cost to the taxpayer
  704
  From 1 July 1999, this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mrs. Laing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list general Government expenditure in Scotland on (i) agriculture, (ii) fisheries, (iii) education, (iv) prison service, (v) police service, (vi) health, (vii) transport and (viii) housing, in(a) cash terms and (b) 1998–99 prices, for each year since 1992. [73624]

  Mr. Dewar
  Figures for identifiable general government expenditure in Scotland from 1992–93 to 1996–97 were published in "Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses 1998–99", Cm 3901, in April 1998. A breakdown into more detailed functional categories is not available.

  Indecency Offences
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many persons have been(a) charged with and (b) convicted of offences of (i) sodomy, (ii) gross indecency and (iii) shameless indecency by one male person with another in each year for the last 10 years. [73544]

  Mr. McLeish
  The available information on prosecutions for homosexual offences, including statutory offences, is given in the tables. From 1 July 1999, this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  of benefits paid to widows and widowers (1) if the benefit rules were to remain unchanged and (2) if the reforms in "Support in Bereavement" were implemented, in (a) 2002, (b)2007, (c) 2012 and (d) 2017. [71100]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is in the table.
  705

  Indicative estimates of the expenditure on widows benefit without reform and the net savings which may accrue following reform

  £ million in 1998–99 benefit rates

  Expenditure on existing widow benefit scheme without reform

  Costs(+)/Savings(-) from proposals (net of means-tested benefit offsets)

  2002–03

  950

  +100

  2007–08

  800

  -100

  2012–13

  800

  -200

  2017–08

  950

  -450

  Notes:

  1. Estimates for the effects of reform are presented net of means-tested benefit offsets, in line with those in "A new contract for welfare: support in bereavement". Means-tested benefit offsets were estimated using the 1995–96 Family Resources Survey and the Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiries. They assume a constant offset ratio in order to provide illustrative estimates for later years.

  2. The forecast of expenditure under the existing Widows Benefit scheme together with the underlying contributory benefit effects of reform have been provided by the Government Actuary's Department.

  3. Estimates provide broad orders of magnitude and are rounded to the nearest £50 million.

  4. A start date of 2001–02 has been assumed.

  Benefit Integrity Project
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the Benefit Integrity Project ended in Greater Manchester; what has replaced it; and how the replacement is different from its predecessor. [73547]

  Mr. Bayley
  The administration of Disability Living Allowance is a matter for Peter Mathison, Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Andrew F. Bennett, dated 1 March 1999:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking when the Benefits Integrity Project ended in Greater Manchester, what has replaced it, and how the replacement is different from its predecessor.The Benefit Integrity Project (BIP) will end nationally on 31 March 1999 and is to be replaced by a new and fairer system. No new cases will be selected for the BIP after this date. Cases where action has already started will continue to be processed through the stages of adjudication including review and appeal.From April, a new system of "Periodic Review" will be introduced. This will incorporate the lessons already learned from BIP, and will be fairer as it will gather information by home visits and postal enquiries across the whole range of rates and components of Disability Living Allowance (DLA). It will therefore provide for awards to be increased as well as decreased in line with entitlement.At the outset, those DLA recipients whose cases have been examined by the BIP will be excluded from the process, as will those people in any one of the specific categories of exclusions from the BIP. People with a fixed period award due to end within the next three years will also be excluded.The process will be evaluated after six months. The findings will be used to continue to improve the process to make it more sensitive to the circumstances of the individual concerned. Additionally, we will be testing new ways of evidence gathering for DLA claims. Discussions are taking place with disability groups to ensure that the new system is sensitive and is both fair and effective.I hope that you have found this reply helpful.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many applications have been made to the Child Support Agency for the deferment of arrears; and how many have been granted. [73719]

  Angela Eagle
  Information is not available about the number of applications for deferment of arrears. However, Child Support Agency records show that there are currently 7,647 cases, where arrears of child support maintenance have been deferred. As at 31 January 1999 the Agency had made 1,233 payments of compensation to parents with care under the deferred debt scheme.

  Mr. Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what discussions his Department has had with the Child Support Agency over its decision not to inform non-resident parents of the Government's policy on the deferment of arrears arising from delays in the Agency's completion of assessments. [73718]

  Angela Eagle
  Child Support Officers are expected to consider whether deferment of arrears should be offered in all cases where arrears of maintenance are due to delay by the Child Support Agency in completing initial maintenance assessments and periodic or change of circumstance reviews. A non-resident parent may also ask the Agency to consider deferring arrears of maintenance at any time. We are satisfied that these arrangements are sufficient to ensure that non-resident parents are offered deferment of arrears, whenever this is appropriate.

  Lone Parents
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many lone parents receive Income Support, broken down by constituency. [73474]

  Angela Eagle
  Information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is as follows.

  In August 1998 there were 955,000 lone parents receiving Income Support. Reliable information by parliamentary constituency is not available at present.

  Currently, the best estimate for the number of Lone Parents in each parliamentary constituency is based on the number of cases in each Local Authority area whose boundary overlaps that of the constituency. However, this will overstate the number of cases in many areas, as a single Local Authority may overlap several parliamentary constituencies.

  It is anticipated that reliable constituency breakdowns for England will become available by the end of March.

  Source:
  August 1998 Income Support Statistics Quarterly Enquiry, the latest figures available.

  Air Miles
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many Air Miles have been earned by him and each of his Ministers; and how he proposes to use them. [73329]

  Mr. Timms
  The Government's policy on the use and disposal of air miles was set out by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 12 January 1999,Official Report, column 141.
  707
  Detailed information on any air miles earned by Ministers as a result of official travel is not recorded centrally.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Ennis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people in the Barnsley, East and Mexborough constituency will gain from the reduction in national insurance contributions scheduled for April. [73372]

  Mr. Timms
  The information is not available.

  Throughout Great Britain, some 20 million people will pay an average of nearly £70 a year less in National Insurance contributions as a result of the abolition of the employee entry fee in April 1999.

  Pension Splitting
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the charges which will be made for couples splitting a pension on divorce. [73551]

  Mr. Timms
  Broad estimates of the charges, which private pension schemes might make for couples sharing a pension on divorce, are contained within Annexe 2 of the Regulatory Impact Assessment of the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill as introduced in the House of Commons on 10 February 1999. Copies of the Assessment have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Cold Weather Payments
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the total amount of money paid in cold weather payments in 1998. [73781]

  Mr. Timms
  Last winter (1997–98) over 55,000 Cold Weather Payments were made at a total cost of almost £0.5 million.

  To date this winter (1998–99), an estimated 26,000 payments have been made at a total cost of over £220,000.

  The expenditure depends on the severity of the temperature conditions during each winter.

  Winter Fuel Payments
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many state pensioners received the winter fuel allowance in the last year for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [73783]

  Mr. Timms
  This winter, around 10 million eligible pensioners received a Winter Fuel Payment. Around 1.5 million of the poorest pensioners—those receiving Income Support or income-based Jobseeker's Allowance—received their payments in November 1998. The remaining 8.5 million eligible pensioners receiving one of the other qualifying benefits received their payments during January 1999.

  Housing Benefit
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will assess the benefits of introducing a universal housing benefit scheme covering both rent and mortgage payments. [73747]
  708
  Angela Eagle
  The help provided for people on low incomes to meet their housing costs is kept under review. Housing Benefit helps people on low incomes meet their rent, whether they are in or out of work. Help with mortgage costs is provided for those on Income Support or income based Jobseeker's Allowance. Extending help with mortgage costs to those with low incomes but above the level of Income Support or income based Jobseeker's Allowance could cost up to £1 billion per year, if it was fully taken up.

  Radiation
  Mr. Paul Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council's report on diseases caused by radiation. [74675]

  Mr. Bayley
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has today laid a copy of the council's report before Parliament (Cm 4280). We have given the report careful consideration and are pleased to say that we have accepted the recommendations set out in the report. Regulations implementing the recommendations will be made in due course.

  Decision-making and Appeals
  Mr. Caplin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he will lay regulations under the decision making and appeals provision of the Social Security Act 1998; and if he will make a statement. [74676]

  Angela Eagle
  Last year in the Social Security Act we laid the foundations for a new system for handling decisions and appeals in benefits, child support and vaccine damage claims. Today my right hon. Friends the Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Social Security are laying the main Regulations, which will provide the detailed legal framework for this new system.

  The new system for handling decisions and appeals is a major step to modernise the delivery of Social Security and child support as part of the Government's programme for welfare reform. The current system needs to change. It is confusing for claimants and staff. Putting mistakes right is complicated and claimants often have to appeal, even when a mistake is obvious to all concerned. Appeals take far too long to be cleared—on average seven months—even where they have no prospect of success. These delays are unacceptable.

  The changes we are making will enable the Benefits Agency, Child Support Agency and Employment Service to provide a more helpful and accessible service to the public.

  Under the new system, decisions will continue to be based on the facts and the law, with a right of appeal to an independent tribunal. There will be clearer, simpler decisions and a programme to develop simpler communications for the public. There will be new arrangements for handling disputes, so mistakes are put right more easily without having to go to appeal. There will be one type of appeal tribunal, rather than five, with one unified set of rules and three, two or one member tribunals according to the issues raised by the appeal. Appeals, which have no prospect of success, will be resolved more quickly.
  709
  The new arrangements will come into operation during the second half of this year. They will apply to child support from the beginning of June. For benefits they will be introduced in stages between July and November, to help maintain service to the public while the new arrangements start to operate.

  The Independent Tribunal Service will be replaced by The Appeals Service, which will encompass both the administration of appeals and the appeal tribunals. The administration of appeals will be undertaken from April 2000 by a new executive agency of this Department. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will set targets for the Agency, which will be published and reported on annually. The President of appeal tribunals and the panel members who hear appeals will be appointed by my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor and remain independent of this Department.

  Benefit claimants and child support clients will receive full information about what the new system means for them as the changes come into effect.

  National Pensioners Convention
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the meetings which he has had with the National Pensioners Convention since May 1997; who attended them; and if he will publish the proceedings of these meetings. [73735]

  Mr. Timms
  As under previous Administrations, it is not the normal practice to provide details of private meetings with specific individuals or organisations.

  Benefit Interviews
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what procedure to obtain benefits will be required of claimants who are allowed to defer or not attend the interview in the Single Gateway to Benefit. [74000]

  Angela Eagle
  Where a decision has been made to either waive or defer a claimant's work-focused interview, the claimant will need to provide a fully completed claim form and meet all the relevant entitlement conditions to obtain benefit.

  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the time required for the interview of those entering the Gateway. [73989]

  Angela Eagle
  The length of time required to conduct an interview for those entering the Gateway will vary according to the needs of the individual concerned.

  Benefit Fraud
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what the expenditure on the advertisement of the Benefit Fraud Hotline has been in each month since May 1997. [73994]

  Mr. Timms
  Since May 1997 there have been two advertising campaigns for the National Benefit Fraud Hotline. The first was in March 1998 at a cost of £225,000 and the second started in October 1998 and is due to be completed at the end of March 1999 at a cost of £290,247.
  710
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many calls to the Benefit Fraud Hotline have been recorded in each month since May
  1997. [73995]

  Mr. Timms
  The information is in the table.

  Number of calls recorded at the National Benefit Fraud hotline since May 1997

  Month/Year

  Number

  May 1997

  19,272

  June 1997

  16,272

  July 1997

  18,808

  August 1997

  14,755

  September 1997

  16,236

  October 1997

  13,202

  November 1997

  11,770

  December 1997

  10,829

  January 1998

  17,206

  February 1998

  15,780

  March 1998

  15,345

  April 1998

  19,007

  May 1998

  13,149

  June 1998

  13,692

  July 1998

  15,512

  August 1998

  11,104

  September 1998

  13,694

  October 1998

  12,805

  November 1998

  14,285

  December 1998

  12,160

  January 1999

  13,925

  Private Pensions
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what amount is unpaid with respect to national insurance rebates for contracted out private pensions; [73996]

  (2) what interest has accrued on the money which has not been paid to contracted out private pensions as national insurance rebates; [73998]

  (3) for how long the national insurance rebates to contracted out private pensions have not been paid; [73997]

  (4) what estimate he has made of the loss of investment profit from the failure of the payments of the national insurance rebates to contracted out private pensions. [73999]

  Mr. Timms
  The information is not available in the format requested.

  The calculation of the National Insurance Rebates contains an assumption that they are paid in the October following the end of the tax year for which they are due. Normally around 90 per cent. of payments have been made by that date, increasing to 95 per cent. by December. This year by October 14 per cent. had been paid, by December this had increased to 46 per cent. Currently 77 per cent. has been paid.

  The delay in payment of the age related rebates has allowed the retention of Government gilt's which would otherwise have been sold to meet the age related rebate payments. In determining any potential gain to the National Insurance Fund as a result of the delay, certain assumptions need to be made about the pattern of payments that would have been made and the rate of return on gilts. Assuming certain payment patterns and

  711
  a 6 per cent. rate of return then the gain to the National Insurance Fund is tentatively estimated to be around £58 million.

  We have been paying compensation at the rate of 0.5 per cent. per month for each month of delay, since November 1998. To date £21 million has been paid and it is estimated that the total compensation figure will be around £38 million.

  We have not made any estimates about the actual loss of investment incurred as a result of the delays. Instead we have implemented a system to compensate individuals which takes into consideration the following factors: First the calculation of the rebate, in particular the assumption within the calculation that the payment is made in October, following the end of the tax year for which it is due. Second the need to provide certainty for scheme members and personal pension holders. Third the investment return prevailing at the time (September 1998) and finally the need for straightforward and cost effective administrative arrangements which would minimise the additional work required by pension providers, scheme administrators and Contributions Agency.

  The level of compensation was discussed with the Government Actuary's Department who agreed that 0.5 per cent. per month represented a reasonable level of compensation given the prevailing market conditions in September 1998 and on the assumption that the arrangements put in place at that time were designed to cover a few months delay.

  Benefits (Personal Advisers)
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what the cost of training a personal adviser is; what length of time it takes to train a personal adviser; and what specific areas of training personal advisers undergo for(a) the New Deal for Lone Parents and (b) the Single Gateway to Benefit. [73990]

  Angela Eagle
  Personal advisers working on the New Deal for Lone Parents receive up to six weeks training, at an average cost of £4,337 (including travel and subsistence), half of which is provided by the Employment Service and half by the Benefits Agency. All personal advisers are fully trained in the skills and knowledge required to deal with the client group, and specifically in jobsearch activity; benefits and allowances training; advanced interviewing and presentational, marketing and representational skills.

  The Single Gateway pilots will provide the information we need to determine the optimum investment in training for our personal advisers. The programme of learning we are currently developing will, however, ensure that personal advisers have the necessary balance of skills in order to deal with a wide range of clients in differing circumstances.

  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of advisers in the Single Gateway to Benefit will be trained to deal with all areas of special needs in each interview centre. [73991]

  Angela Eagle
  One of the key questions which the single gateway pilots will help us address is how far it is reasonable to expect one individual to be able to deal with 712
  the special needs of all our customers. In the initial stages of the pilots we will be setting up adviser teams. Each team will have the range of expertise required.

  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his oral statement of 23 February 1999,Official Report, column 225, what estimate he has made of the total number of personal advisers required for the Single Gateway to Benefit when it is rolled out nationally in its final stage. [73987]

  Angela Eagle
  We will use the single gateway pilots to determine the number of personal advisers that would be required if the Single Work-Focused Gateway were to be rolled out nationally. We will consider national implementation in the light of these findings.

  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of personal advisers required for the Single Gateway to Benefit is planned to be recruited from outside the employment and benefit agencies. [73988]

  Angela Eagle
  The recruitment arrangements for Personal Adviser posts have been developed to fill posts, as far as possible, using existing staff in the Employment Service, the Benefits Agency and the Local Authorities. Staff whose current job is directly affected by the introduction of Single Work-Focused Gateway will have priority.

  Staff will be selected for Personal Adviser posts on the basis of their suitability and competence for the work. There is no pre-determined proportion of posts to be filled by staff from the Employment Service, the Benefits Agency or the Local Authorities. If there are insufficient suitable internal candidates to fill posts, external recruitment will be considered.

  Four of the pilots will be run by the private/voluntary sectors. They may wish to use their own staff to undertake the service or may contract existing Employment Service, Benefits Agency and Local Authority staff.

  CSA Computer System
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) when the contract to develop the new CSA computer system under the ACCORD project will be formally awarded; and if he will make a statement; [74224]

  (2) how much the contract to develop the new CSA computer system under the ACCORD project will cost; and when the money for it was authorised. [74227]

  Angela Eagle
  In December 1998 the Department announced the setting up of the Modern Service One Project (MS1). This project represents the first key stage of the strategy to transform the Department's service delivery and supporting information systems in line with our objectives for modernising the service.

  The modernisation of the Child Support Computer System is being taken forward as part of the MS1 Project. Negotiations are proceeding with AFFINITY under the ACCORD arrangements for the delivery of the IS/IT products required to support MS1. Currently the MS1

  713
  project is working with AFFINITY in the clarification and development of more detailed requirements and high level design of the first key products to be delivered. It is anticipated that this work, scheduled to take three months, will enable the Department to finalise contracted arrangements. Until the negotiations are complete costings for the new Child Support Computer System will not be available.

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many hours downtime the current CSA computer system has experienced each week in(a) 1996–97 and (b) 1997–98. [74225]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is in the table and shows the weeks in which there was downtime in 1996–91 and 1997–98.

  Period week commencing

  Downtime Hours

  Service availability—by week—1996–97

  1 April 1996

  1.60

  29 April 1996

  0.48

  27 May 1996

  0.08

  17 June 1996

  4.32

  29 July 1996

  7.90

  12 August 1996

  0.50

  21 October 1996

  1.91

  4 November 1996

  0.60

  11 November 1996

  0.10

  18 November 1996

  0.30

  6 January 1997

  0.50

  3 February 1997

  0.50

  10 February 1997

  0.10

  Service availability—by week—1997–98

  14 April 1997

  0.10

  21 April 1997

  0.10

  28 April 1997

  0.10

  12 May 1997

  9.66

  2 June 1997

  1.00

  30 June 1997

  1.70

  14 June 1997

  0.10

  28 July 1997

  0.30

  11 August 1997

  0.10

  26 January 1998

  0.98

  16 March 1998

  0.32

  Notes:

  The downtime is attributable to the Child Support System Mainframe and the software that runs on it.

  Television Licence Fee
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of the income of a retired man on a single pension is represented by the cost of the annual BBC licence fee. [74069]

  Mr. Timms
  It is estimated that the BBC licence fee for a colour television set represented 1 per cent. of the average annual gross income of a single retired man on a State Pension in 1996–97.

  Poverty Report
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if responsibility for the production of the annual poverty report in relation to Scotland will fall to his Department or to the new Scottish Executive. [74231]

  Angela Eagle
  The Government plan to report on tackling the causes of poverty and social exclusion on a UK-wide basis.

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what statistics he will collect and publish as part of the poverty report. [74229]

  Angela Eagle
  We will be drawing on a wide range of statistical information looking at the causes of poverty and social exclusion. The report will also contain information on indicators of success.

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what targets he will set for(a) his Department and (b) other Departments in his annual poverty report. [74230]

  Angela Eagle
  This report will act as a cross-departmental framework for tackling the causes of poverty and social exclusion. It will include information on indicators of success, drawing on targets already in place or currently being developed, against which we can chart progress.

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects to publish the first annual poverty report. [74228]

  Angela Eagle
  We aim to publish the first annual report on tackling poverty and social exclusion later this year, a final date is yet to be set.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Access to Justice Bill
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to inform and advise the public about changes to legal aid following the publication of the Access to Justice Bill [Lords]. [73377]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Access to Justice Bill was published on 2 December 1998, but the Government's proposals to reform legal aid were first outlined in October 1997. Since then, my Department and the Legal Aid Board have publicised them in numerous speeches and interviews and in articles in the media. Consultation papers have been published on various aspects of the reforms. The White paper,Modernising Justice, published in December 1998, set out the Government's intentions and a summary of the White paper has been widely circulated. The full text of the White paper is also available on the Internet. Explanatory notes for the Access to Justice Bill are also publicly available.

  Decree Absolute Index
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to make the Decree Absolute Index open to public inspection without the present fee. [73469]

  Mr. Hoon
  There are no plans to allow public inspection of the Decree Absolute Index free of charge. However, the usual fee remission and exemption rules do apply.

  Community Project Scheme
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department how many visits by magistrates have taken place under the community project scheme run by the Magistrates' Association and partially funded by his Department at(a) schools and (b) community groups, since the scheme began. [73613]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Magistrates in the Community Project was established in 1995 and was developed from the Schools Project. In the last three years there were 5,400 visits to schools and 1,980 visits to community groups, a total of 7,380 visits.

  Scriveners' Company
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department, (1) pursuant to his answer of 22 February 1999,Official Report, column 44, concerning representations from the Scriveners' Company, what other representations he has received concerning proposals to amend the Scriveners' jurisdiction; [73285]

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 22 February 1999, Official Report, column 44, what representations he has received on proposals to amend scriveners' jurisdiction from sources other than the Scriveners' Company. [73972]

  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department (1) what representations he 716
  has received calling for the abolition of the monopoly of the Worshipful Company of Scriveners of notarial work in London; [73468]

  (2) what discussions he has had regarding the proposal to end the monopoly of the Worshipful Company of Scriveners of notarial work in London. [73467]

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department how many responses were received to his consultation on the abolition of the scriveners' jurisdiction. [74214]

  Mr. Hoon
  In the course of the review of the monopoly undertaken by the Department last year, the Lord Chancellor received representations from 12 parties. Of these, six were in favour of ending the monopoly, four were in favour of retaining the monopoly, and two were neutral. The respondents were:

  In favour of abolition of the monopoly:

  The Office of Fair Trading

  The Law Society

  The Association of Solicitor Notaries in Greater London

  Mr. Kober-Smith

  Mr. Hartwig

  Ms Roney

  In favour of retention

  The Worshipful Company of Scriveners

  The Society of Public Notaries of London

  John Venn & Co.

  Mr. O'Meara

  Neutral

  The Faculty Office of the Archbishop of Canterbury

  The Notaries' Society.

  The Lord Chief Justice, the Bar Council, the Institute of Legal Executives, and the Corporation of London were also consulted but did not make any representations.

  Single Currency
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to issue information from his Department to help the public make an informed decision when they vote on the single currency. [73579]

  Mr. Hoon
  Any plans by the Government to issue information during a referendum campaign on whether or not the UK should join the single currency would be made in the light of the Government's response to the recommendations from the Neill Committee on the conduct of the referendums. The Government will announce their conclusions on those recommendations when my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary publishes a White Paper and draft Bill before the summer recess.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the subject areas within her Department's responsibilities which will be covered by the information campaign on Britain's membership of a single currency. [73664]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Treasury will continue its dialogue with key external bodies to determine what information the public and business would need at each stage of the
  717
  changeover process. Any information campaign would cover key concerns that the public and business may have. Chapter eight of the Treasury's Outline National Changeover Plan provides further information. Copies of the Plan are available in the House Library.

  Jurors (Payment)
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the daily allowance for people on jury service; and what plans he has to uprate the allowance. [73303]

  Mr. Hoon
  The daily allowances where the periods of time over which earnings or benefit are lost or additional expense is incurred are: Up to 4 hours—£24.84 and more than 4 hours—£49.68. Where a juror has served on more than 10 days, they can claim up to a maximum of £99.37 for each day over the tenth day. We will be considering whether or not the allowances should be increased.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will introduce a system of allowances for jurors based on their actual income loss. [73301]

  Mr. Hoon
  It is necessary to place a limit on the amount of financial loss allowance payable to jurors to ensure that the expenditure from the public purse is not excessive. There are no plans to alter the current system, which allows jurors to receive up to £49.68 per day for loss of earnings, rising to a daily maximum of £99.37 after 10 days of jury service. Courts will listen sympathetically to applications for excusal or deferral if financial hardship might result.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department what reports he has received of jurors seeking to evade jury service because they cannot afford the loss of income to their business. [73658]

  Mr. Hoon
  I understand that there have been occasional complaints from self employed people called for jury service. Generally, these are dealt with at the originating court and information is not kept centrally.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department on what basis the current level of juror allowance is set. [73304]

  Mr. Hoon
  The allowances are broadly based on the average earnings figures. For employed people, they are not subject to deductions for income tax or national insurance. They are updated periodically to allow for inflation. All increases are approved by the Treasury.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department what official visits he, his Ministers or officials have paid to Zimbabwe since May 1997; whom they met; and what was discussed. [73463]

  Mr. Hoon
  Since May 1997 neither myself, the Lord Chancellor, nor any officials from my Department have made any official visits to Zimbabwe.

  Air Miles
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department how many Air Miles have been earned by(a) him and (b) the Lord Chancellor; and how they propose to use them. [73339]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Government's policy on the use and disposal of Air Miles was set by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 12 January 1999,Official Report, column 141.

  Detail information on any Air Miles earned by Ministers as a result of official travel is not recorded centrally.

  Barristers' Renumeration
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the minimum amount to which a junior barrister would be entitled when representing a client on legal aid for one day. [73302]

  Mr. Hoon
  Legal aid renumeration regulations do not set minimum entitlements.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Fisheries
  Mrs. Butler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the reduction in the number of foreign vessels licensed by his Department over the last two years; and what steps those vessels are taking to maintain an economic link with the United Kingdom. [74617]

  Mr. Morley
  Following changes in registration requirements in 1993 information is no longer maintained on the beneficial ownership of UK registered fishing vessels. However, we estimate that over the last 2 years the number of over 10 metre vessels which are part or wholly owned by overseas interests has fallen from some 160 to 140.

  From 1999 onwards all vessels fishing against the UK's quotas are required to demonstrate that a satisfactory economic link is maintained with our coastal communities. That link may be achieved by landing at least 50 per cent. of the vessel's catch of quota stocks in the UK, by employing a crew of whom 50 per cent. are normally resident in a UK coastal area, by incurring operating expenditure in the UK for goods and services provided in UK coastal areas or by demonstrating an economic link by other means providing sufficient benefit to populations dependent on fisheries and relative industries. Responsibility for maintaining an economic link rests with the vessel owner and compliance will be assessed annually after the conclusion of each quota year.

  There is clear evidence that these new arrangements, which have been blessed by the Commission, are being taken very seriously. Although vessel owners are not required to give notice of the means by which they will

  719
  be achieving an economic link there has been a series of discussions with the Fisheries Departments about the means by which satisfactory links can be established.

  As a result of such discussions we have accepted that some 17 vessels belonging to the North Sea Fish Producers Organisation may achieve part of their economic link by making part of their annual quota allocation available for redistribution by the Fisheries Departments, with the remainder of their link being achieved through other means such as landings, crewing or expenditure in the UK. The quota, which will consist of 50 tonnes of North Sea sole along with smaller quantities of turbot and brill and Channel plaice, will be used to extend the fishing opportunities for the inshore fleet and in particular the under 10 metre vessels.

  Genetically Modified Foods
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to the answer of 2 February 1999,Official Report, column 604, to the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), what was the date of the first assessment by his Department of the impact of genetically modified feed material on human health; if he will list the studies commissioned in this area with the dates of those studies; and if he will make a statement. [73400]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 1 March 1999] The implications for human health from the use of animal feed materials derived from a genetically modified crop were first considered in 1994.

  Work was commissioned in 1996 with the Laboratory of the Government Chemist to determine the effects of processing on maize by-products, in connection with the application for a marketing consent for pest resistant maize. A further MAFF-funded study at Leeds University has looked at the various parameters used to process animal feeds and their effect on DNA; this was completed in 1998.

  More recently, follow-up work has been commissioned with ADAS, to investigate the effects of processing on DNA in certain feeds under controlled commercial conditions.

  There has been other relevant work which has considered the potential for gene transfer from GM organisms to gut bacteria.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the agricultural implications of the introduction of genetically modified crops into United Kingdom agriculture. [73401]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 1 March 1999] The Government believe that there are potential benefits to UK agriculture from the introduction of genetically modified crops. At the same time we recognise that there are widespread concerns about potential risks which they may pose to the agricultural environment. In response to these two considerations, we have set in hand a programme of research into the potential risks, and are proceeding with caution at the farm level by arranging a limited number of field-scale trials this year with full ecological monitoring.
  720
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will place in the Library responses to his Department's consultation document on genetically modified herbicide-resistant crops in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [72227]

  Mr. Rooker
  The comments on this discussion paper (issued on 10 July 1997) can be found in the Libraries of the House, and are available for viewing by the public on request in my Department's library at Whitehall Place.

  The responses received were taken fully into account when formulating the statement I made to the House of Lords Select Committee on European Legislation on 21 October 1998.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the reports from outside bodies on genetically modified food received by his Department in September 1998. [73502]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Government welcome all reports by outside bodies that make a constructive contribution to the debate about genetically modified (GM) food and biotechnology. In this context, the Government particularly welcomed the Royal Society report on GM foods and crops published in September 1998.

  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has had with the Catering Committee about genetically modified foods in the House; and if he will make a statement. [72999]

  Mr. Rooker
  I have had no such discussions with the House Catering Committee on this matter.

  I would, however, refer the hon. Member to the statement issued by Sue Harrison, the Director of Catering Services and Head of the Refreshment Department for the House of Commons, on 17 February 1999, in which she makes it clear that although the use of foods containing genetically modified (GM) organisms is avoided wherever possible, there is no outright ban on the use of such foods in the House of Commons dining rooms and cafeterias.

  The Government continue to be committed to ensuring that all GM foods are clearly labelled to enable all consumers, including hon. Members, to be able to make an informed choice about whether or not to eat such foods.

  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what powers Her Majesty's Government have to impose a moratorium on the production and sale of genetically modified foods(a) with and (b) without EU permission. [72998]

  Mr. Rooker
  Under Article 12 of the EC Novel Foods Regulation (258/97), a member state may act to either temporarily restrict or suspend the trade in, and the use of, an approved novel food or food ingredient in its territory if as a result of new information, or a reassessment of existing information, it has detailed grounds for believing that its use endangers human health or the environment. In such cases, it is required to immediately inform the European Commission of its decision. The European Commission then has three months from the date of referral to resolve the matter or adopt the member state's proposed measure.
  721
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will introduce legislation to require all genetically modified foods to be clearly labelled when offered for sale to the general public. [72997]

  Mr. Rooker
  It is already a requirement under EC law (EC Regulations 258/97 and 1139/98) that foods are labelled to inform consumers when their content has been genetically modified. GB legislation to enforce Regulation 1139/98, which requires all foods containing genetically modified soya and maize to be clearly labelled, will be brought into force as quickly as parliamentary procedures allow.

  Quarantine
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the outcome of the review of quarantine rules in the cases of blind people who need their guide dogs to accompany them on visits abroad. [72822]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 1 March 1999] The Government are considering the outcome of the consultation on the review of quarantine rules undertaken by the Advisory Group on Quarantine. We will announce a specific way forward as soon as we can.

  Sir George Young
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to amend the secondary legislation on quarantine to make it compatible with European Community law. [72907]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Government are considering the outcome of the consultation on the report of the Advisory Group on Quarantine, which recommended changes to the quarantine system. Implementing such changes would require legislative amendment.

  Sir George Young
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what contingency plans he has drawn up in case his defence in respect of the Quarantine Abolition Fighting Fund application for judicial review should fail. [73000]

  Mr. Rooker
  Any action that the Department took following the judicial review would depend on the terms of the judgment, whatever that might be.

  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will authorise the release from quarantine of clinically healthy dogs and cats which show valid serological evidence of immunity to rabies; and if he will make a statement. [72942]

  Mr. Rooker
  No. The Government are considering the outcome of the consultation on the review of quarantine rules undertaken by the Advisory Group on Quarantine. The Advisory Group recommended that changes to the present system should not be introduced until an alternative administrative and operational infrastructure is in place.

  BSE
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on reports that files on BSE controls between 1990 and 1995 are missing from his Department. [72292]
  722
  Mr. Nick Brown
  All the material facts about Departmental papers have been passed to the BSE Inquiry. It would not be appropriate or fair for me to make any comment while that Inquiry is still in progress.

  Beef Ban
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what advice he has received from the Government's Chief Scientist about banning beef on the bone. [72611]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  None. This is primarily a matter for the Chief Medical Officer, Professor Liam Donaldson, who advised me and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health after he had considered the most recent scientific assessment by the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee.

  Consultation Exercise
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the latest possible date for responses to the consultation exercise, Towards a New Direction for UK Agriculture. [66906]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  There is no specific close down date. Responses will be taken into account in decisions on the national implementation of CAP reforms over the foreseeable future. Those received while negotiations are still continuing will be fed into the final stages of that process.

  Beef on the Bone
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) when he expects to make a decision about the lifting of the ban on beef on the bone; [68105]

  (2) what is the current advice he has received from the Chief Medical Officer on the safety of beef on the
  bone. [68059]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman) on 4 February 1999,Official Report, columns 1077–78.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish the advice of the Chief Medical Officer on the safety of beef on the bone in each of the last three years. [68060]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  The advice to Ministers on this matter, given by the then Chief Medical Officer, Sir Kenneth Calman, on 3 December 1997, was the subject of a Department of Health Press Release issued on 5 December 1997. Further advice from his successor, Professor Liam Donaldson, was given in a memorandum on 18 January and published on 4 February. Both the Department of Health Press Release and the memorandum are available in the Library of the House.

  Bovine TB
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) when he plans to renew support for research into bovine TB traces in badgers killed by road traffic accidents; [73216]
  723
  (2) in what form the results of research into bovine TB traces in badgers killed by road traffic accidents will be published; and when he expects such results to be available. [73217]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Krebs report and that of the Independent Scientific Group recommended a limited reintroduction of the Road Traffic Accident survey as part of a programme to establish the prevalence of TB among badgers. We are currently considering the implementation of these recommendations and an announcement, including details of data publication, will be made when a decision is reached.

  Novel Foods
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list those matters that have been referred to the Standing Committee for Foodstuffs under Regulation (EC) No. 258/97 concerning novel foods and novel food ingredients. [69871]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  The following matters have been discussed at the Standing Committee for Foodstuffs under Regulation 258/97 since it came into force in May 1997:

  Lactulose

  Hemp extract

  Soya and Maize labelling1

  Psyllium seed Husk

  Sitostanal esters

  Stevia rebanudiana

  Erythritol

  Phospholids

  Genetically modified tomato products1

  Phytosterol esters

  Olestra

  High pressure processing

  Linola

  Criteria for accepting notifications under article 3(4) of regulation 258/971

  Oilseed rape oil1

  Processed genetically modified maize1

  Interesterified fats

  1 Genetic modification issues.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list for each of the initial assessments in connection with the placing on the market of genetically modified novel foods or novel food ingredients, pursuant to Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No. 258/97, the comments or reasoned objections made by(a) himself, (b) other Member States and (c) the European Commission. [69874]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 8 February 1999] Initial assessments under EC Regulation 258/97 have been made for the following novel and GM foods: Stevia rebaudiana, phospholipids, chicory, and tomatoes (for processing).

  The UK Advisory Committee for Novel Foods and Processes (ACNFP) concluded that there was insufficient information provided to be able to come to a view on the safety of the Stevia rebaudiana, chicory and phospholipids. Concern was also expressed about the lack of suitable labelling proposals for the latter two. The ACNFP concluded that the GM tomato products were as safe as processed products from non-GM tomatoes.
  724
  I am pressing the European Commission to develop clear rules on confidentiality to enable us to publish details of comments or reasoned objections made by other Member States relating to novel food applications.

  Winemaking Industry
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the current situation of the English winemaking industry. [73503]

  Mr. Morley
  In recent years the English and Welsh wine industry has been remarkably successful and innovatory, having made particular progress with the development and production of sparkling wine. English and Welsh wine is very much on the edge of the major wine producing area of Europe and because of this there are inevitable difficulties of climate, relatively low yields and other uncertainties. This has led to the cessation of production of some marginal vineyards in recent years. However, I am sure the industry can look to the future with confidence. My colleagues and I take every opportunity to promote its products.

  Air Miles
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many air miles have been earned by him and each of his ministers; and how he proposes to use them. [73330]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  The Government's policy on the use and disposal of air miles was set out by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 12 January 1999,Official Report, column 141.

  Detailed information on any air miles earned by Ministers as a result of official travel is not recorded centrally.

  Ministerial Meetings (US Ministers)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many times Ministers in his Department have met their counterparts in the US Administration since 1 June 1998, indicating the dates and locations of each meeting, the Ministers involved, and the name of the US counterpart. [71982]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  I met my US counterpart, Mr. Dan Glickman the US Agriculture Secretary, on 22 January 1999 in Berlin for a formal bilateral meeting to discuss issues of mutual concerns.

  Cattle Tagging
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make representations to the European Commission regarding new cattle tagging requirements to be implemented on 1 January 2000 in respect of the particular difficulty that these will present to commoners in the New Forest. [73009]

  Mr. Rooker
  Cattle need to be tagged early in their lives so they can be traced and it is in the farming industry's interest to ensure this happens. Currently cattle eartags must be applied within 30 days of the birth of an animal. For dairy animals, one of the eartags required must be applied within 36 hours.
  725
  The 30 day deadline will reduce to 20 days on 1 January 2000. If there are major practical difficulties with this next year, we will look at bringing these to the attention of the European Commission.

  Organic Farming
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the level of financial support in the EU for organic farming.[72959]

  Mr. Morley
  Aid actually paid varies considerably between and within member States both in respect of levels of aid and types of production. EC Regulation 2078/92 sets out the limits on EU funding towards such aid.

  Following the recommendation of the Select Committee on Agriculture and having taken views from consumers, environmentalists and farmers, we have announced plans to almost double the rate of aid available to farmers in England converting to organic practices. Subject to the approval of Parliament, the new rates will be introduced shortly.

  Fishing Vessels (Inspections)
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many fishing vessels were boarded by fisheries inspectors in the last year for which records are available; how many such actions resulted in legal proceedings for breach of regulations; and what was the nationality of the vessels concerned. [73282]

  Mr. Morley
  During 1998, the UK enforcement authorities boarded 4,189 fishing vessels at sea. Those boardings resulted in the masters and/or owners of 19 vessels being successfully prosecuted for breaches of fisheries regulations. The nationality of the vessels concerned were 8 UK, 5 Belgian, 5 French and 1 Irish. There are some cases which are still being processed and the numbers of prosecutions may therefore rise.

  Countryside Stewardship Scheme
  Ms Keeble
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many applications made to the countryside stewardship scheme have been(a) approved and (b) funded in (i) 1996–97, (ii) 1997–98 and (iii) 1998–99. [73098]

  Mr. Morley
  The Ministry only approves applications for which funding is available. The number of applications approved in each year are as follows:

  Financial years

  Approved applications

  1996–97

  1,135

  1997–98

  1,172

  1998–991

  1,272

  1 To date

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the parliamentary constituencies which he has visited in an official capacity in the past 12 months. [71348]
  726
  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 15 February 1999] I have visited the following parliamentary constituencies in an official capacity since my appointment as Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food:

  Battersea

  Cardiff, Central

  Cotswold

  Dumfries

  East Lothian

  Edinburgh, Central

  Exeter

  Fermanagh and South Tyrone

  Harrogate and Knaresborough

  Hereford

  Hexham

  Kensington and Chelsea

  Kingston and Surbiton

  Lagan Valley

  Livingston

  Mid Ulster

  Midlothian

  Montgomeryshire

  North Cornwall

  North Norfolk

  North-West Norfolk

  Northavon

  Oxford, East

  Plymouth, Devonport

  Plymouth, Sutton

  Roxburgh and Berwickshire

  South Down

  South-East Cambridgeshire

  South-West Devon

  South-West Norfolk

  Teignbridge

  Tiverton and Honiton

  Torridge and West Devon

  Totnes

  Truto and St. Austell

  Upper Bann

  Vale of York

  Vauxhall

  West Tyrone

  Workington.

  Departmental Policies
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what systems he has in place to ensure that policies being developed by his Department are subject to a crime impact(a) assessment and (b) audit and are not likely to lead to enhanced criminal opportunities. [72750]
  727
  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 24 February 1999]I refer the right hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department in relation to departmental co-operation, on 24 February 1999,Official Report, column 311. I can also confirm that MAFF's policies are
  728
  subject to audit monitoring to prevent and detect fraud, both internal and external to the Department. In particular, MAFF applies controls to guard against fraud and irregularities in administering Common Agricultural Policy schemes. These controls are subject to regular audit under EU procedures.

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

Infectious Salmon Anaemia
Lord Mackie of Benshie Lord Mackie of Benshie asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to deal with the problems in the Scottish salmon farming industry caused by the spread of Infectious Salmon Anaemia.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sewel): My Lords, action is being taken on a number of fronts. The Government's basic aim is to eradicate this outbreak of ISA by effective controls to contain the virus, because that is in the best long-term interest of the industry and of the wild stocks. To limit the impact on jobs, attempts are being made to accelerate the availability of alternative sites consistent with proper consideration of environmental concerns. Finally, recognising the contribution that fish farming makes to remote rural areas, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland announced on 8th February that the Government were prepared to provide up to £9 million over three years, on a matching pound for pound basis, towards any fund that the industry might establish collectively to aid individual farmers affected by ISA. Discussions with the industry about such a scheme continue.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, as is customary, I thank the Minister for that reply; but I cannot think that it tackles the problem properly. It is extraordinary that the Government order people to destroy their stocks but refuse compensation. In the case of foot and mouth disease, where there is compulsory slaughter, full compensation is paid. Do the Government remember that, in the case of BSE, the Tory Government offered only half compensation for BSE cattle, with the undoubted result that many slipped through the net? Does the Minister agree that it is important that the whole of the industry, which is very important for the West, goes along with the government measures? Does he further agree that a scheme that asks the industry to provide pound for pound is not a sufficient response? Where do the Government think the outbreak came from?
Lord Sewel: My Lords, to deal with the noble Lord's last question, we are under an obligation and are working to ascertain the source of the outbreak. As yet, we are not in a position to announce definitive findings. I am aware that a number of interests wish to know the source when the information becomes available.
1544
There is no legal liability for the Government to pay compensation. There has been no previous case of any financial aid in cases of fish disease. We are making an exception in this case in recognition of the significant contribution that fish farming makes to the economies of remote areas in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, it is about a year since this outbreak took place. I gather that 10 fish farms are already infected and 15 are suspect. Is the Minister aware that it will be necessary at some point for him to reveal the origin of the disease and how it was transmitted? There is no doubt that Norway comes under the microscope. When the Minister addressed the House on 27th October, he said that,
"we are moving to a period in the year when we will soon know whether the virus and the disease have been contained".—[Official Report, 27/10/98; col. 1906.]
Is it now under control? Also, are wild salmon in danger from this virus?
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I shall be happy to reveal the origins of the virus when there is sufficient scientific evidence to support any finding. I can confirm that there are 10 confirmed sites and 15 suspected sites. Scotland has some 300 fish farms. It is important to recognise that the last confirmed outbreak of the disease occurred in September last year. It is encouraging that no new outbreaks have been confirmed. Nevertheless, there are no grounds for complacency.
Lord Moran: My Lords, I welcome the measures taken by the Scottish Office to control this serious disease. Will the Minister confirm that he will resist calls for ISA to be downgraded from the status of a list 1 disease requiring compulsory slaughter as this might have the disastrous consequence of allowing it to become endemic, as it is now in Norway?
Lord Sewel: My Lords, the noble Lord makes a good point. Norway adopts a completely different approach to the treatment of this disease, recognising that it is endemic in their waters. Our policy is based on eradication. We believe that that is in the long-term interests of both the fish farming industry and wild fish interests. We shall maintain that policy until our scientists advise us that it is no longer credible. I hope that that situation will not arise.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, are the tanks within which Norwegian ships move the salmon from farm to farm suspect? If they are, are the Government doing anything about regulating the washing out of those tanks?
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I should clarify a point which I am sure the noble Baroness would not wish to go unclarified. There is no importation of live salmon from Norway. There are movements between sites. We have set up an industry working party to improve the husbandry and overall healthcare and sanitation

1545
procedures which are adopted for the well-boats. I am pleased to say that the industry is co-operating thoroughly in that regard.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that this virus is of no danger with respect to human consumption and that it will not enter the food chain? Can he also confirm that in Canada and Norway, where there is experience of this virus, it has been brought under control? Is it the intention of Her Majesty's Government to apply similar controls so far as the Scottish farmed salmon industry is concerned?
Lord Sewel: My Lords, the answer to the latter point is no. The controls exercised in Norway, in particular, are predicated on the basis that the virus is endemic. We wish to remove the virus entirely, and that requires an eradication policy, not a containment policy. With regard to the noble Lord's first point, I can confirm that the virus cannot live at temperature levels found in the human body.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, will the Minister expedite the identification of temporary sites where those farmers who have been affected by this problem can grow on the next crop of smolts? When he is looking at those emergency sites, will he also consider moving those fish farms currently unaffected which we now know have been wrongly sited in, for example, sea lochs with very little water movement, to better sites where many of the problems affecting the industry and wild stocks will not occur?
Lord Sewel: My Lords, the planning responsibility for salmon farms is in the process of being transferred from the Crown Commissioners to local authorities. The point which the noble Lord makes is an interesting one. I am not sure how it would be implemented. With regard to the noble Lord's first point, I can assure him that we are working closely with the industry, local authorities and SEPA to ensure that temporary sites are made available where that is compatible with the proper environmental precautions.

Overseas Territories: White Paper
2.46 p.m.
Baroness Young Baroness Young asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they expect to issue the White Paper on United Kingdom Overseas Territories announced by the Foreign Secretary in a speech on 4th February 1998.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government intend to publish the White Paper on the Overseas Territories during the week commencing 15th March. The White Paper will provide a comprehensive review of Britain's relations with the Overseas Territories, including the
1546
relationship with the Government, their financial regulation and the protection of their rich environmental heritage. The preparation of the White Paper has involved wide-ranging consultation on a broad group of subjects. We believe that our proposals will be welcomed.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply and I welcome the fact that the White Paper is to be published in two weeks' time. Is the Minister aware of the great uncertainty which has been created in these countries, particularly over issues such as citizenship and the relationship of the Overseas Territories with the European Union and the question of tax harmonisation, which would have an immense effect on places like the Cayman Islands and the British Virgin Islands, to name but two?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am aware of these issues and have discussed them in a number of the Overseas Territories during recent visits. The White Paper will cover a wide range of issues. It was important to consult with the Overseas Territories and with other government departments in Whitehall. I hope that the period of uncertainty to which the noble Baroness refers will soon be over.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, can the Minister, without anticipating the White Paper, assure the House that it will contain a repetition of British policy that there will be no compromise on sovereignty against the wishes of the people of Gibraltar and that it will therefore effectively be a rejection of the present Spanish proposals for joint sovereignty? Is the Minister prepared today to reject those proposals, which are so demonstrably against the wishes of the people of Gibraltar?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I do not anticipate that the White Paper will be the vehicle for announcing any change in Her Majesty's Government's policy towards Gibraltar. I am sure that that does not come as a surprise to the noble Lord. Our policy towards Gibraltar remains the same as I have described in previous statements that I have made to your Lordships' House.
Lord Steel of Aikwood: My Lords, is the Minister at least able to assure the House that the White Paper will draw a clear distinction between those territories that are genuinely overseas, in the sense of being remote, and Gibraltar, whose future clearly can be determined within the ambit of the European Union?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I believe it has already been pointed out that there are differences in the case of Gibraltar. When my right honourable friend announced the intention to publish a White Paper he made it clear that some of the issues would not have a direct bearing on Gibraltar. After all, the question of the right of abode for citizens of Gibraltar has already been decided. I do not wish to anticipate the terms of the White Paper; indeed, I am

1547
sure that noble Lords would be very cross with me if I did so. However, I believe that I can give the noble Lord the assurance that he seeks.

NHS: Access to Services
2.50 p.m.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree Baroness Knight of Collingtree asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they propose taking to ensure that patients do not have to move house to receive the medication they need.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hayman): My Lords, we are determined to tackle unwanted variations in access to services. We are taking action to ensure that the most effective services are available more consistently across the country. We are putting in place mechanisms to develop clear national standards, to promote their implementation and to monitor progress.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, I am grateful for the response of the Minister. Is not rationing of health treatment by postcode freely acknowledged to be taking place by the majority of GPs and even the chief executive of the National Health Service Confederation, who advises people to move house to get better treatment? I assume that this rationing does not stem from malice but from the fact that some areas have the means to pay and others do not. I am aware that NICE will come into play, as the Minister said, but exactly how will it bring about equality? Are the Government to give more money to areas that do not presently have enough so that there is equality of treatment; will they withhold money from those areas that now have it so that there is equality in the sense of no treatment, or what?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, we spent many happy hours discussing some of these issues yesterday in Committee. Whether a local health authority funds a particular treatment or gives priority to it is not simply determined by money. It is for the authority to assess the most important issue that faces its local community. To do that is particularly difficult when there is a dispute, as there are in many new drug treatments, about clinical effectiveness. The steps that we seek to take in drawing up national service frameworks for particular conditions and suggesting that the National Institute for Clinical Excellence sets guidelines for appropriate treatment for particular conditions are designed to ensure that every health authority receives the same reputable clinical and academic advice about the effectiveness of treatments. We must recognise that at individual patient level the doctor and patient will have an input as to the appropriate treatment and the local health authority will have to decide the priorities.
Lord Winston: My Lords, the noble Baroness has raised a most important question. Is my noble friend aware that it is not just a question of drugs but
1548
treatments and that in the case of reproductive medicine, for example, patients are forced to change address in order to receive equivalent treatment in a different area of Britain? Can my noble friend suggest what should be done to ensure that there is equality of treatment for these patients'?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I recognise the issue to which my noble friend refers, particularly in regard to infertility treatment. We are, however, trying to tackle the variations in prescribing and availability of services that grew up because of the fragmentation of the health service and the two-tierism and variety implicit in GP fundholding. No one should assume that this is a new problem; it is one that we seek to reverse. As to access to NHS infertility treatment, particularly tertiary services involving reproductive techniques, the Government are commissioning a survey of health authorities to find out exactly what the variations are in provision. We hope to issue guidance towards the end of the year having examined the survey results and considered the policy and cost implications of the clinical guidelines on infertility that are being developed by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, apart from infertility treatment there are many other glaring examples of postcode rationing, such as beta interferon for the treatment of multiple sclerosis, Aricept for Alzheimer's and Taxol for breast cancer, to name but a few. Will the department be asking the new National Institute for Clinical Excellence to look urgently at those aspects of postcode prescribing? Will the institute have sufficient resources to do that?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the noble Lord is right to point out the crucial role that the institute will have in these kinds of areas and how it can speed access for patients more fairly to clinically effective treatments. These are not easy issues. Questions are raised about particular treatments. The noble Lord referred to Taxol. The department wrote to all regional directors of public health to draw to their attention the view of the JCCO and oncologists about the effectiveness of that treatment. The noble Lord may well be aware that in recent articles in The Lancet the results of a new trial, ICON II, have been produced which have questioned that advice. We are in a shifting area when new treatments are introduced. It is important that we have the strength of the national institute to assess clinical effectiveness.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, is the Minister content that when a patient is being treated in another area health authority the home area authority rings the family of that person close to death and says that it can provide better treatment, rather like a tradesman who offers a magic cure? Is that helpful to the family? I can assure the Minister that that occurs.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, if it occurs I shall be very grateful if the noble Lord can provide me with

1549
details of such a case. I undertake to investigate it because, as he describes it, that is a situation that is most concerning.
Lord Peston: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, while it is reasonable for central government to take an interest in how resources are allocated, there must be permissible variations according to local services? Does he also agree that in an area where doctors prescribe less rather than more it cannot be taken for granted that it is indicative of wrong prescribing? I speak as chairman of the Office of Health Economics. Does my noble friend further agree that sometimes more prescribing is worse than less prescribing when it comes to assessing local priorities?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right to point out that these are not simplistic analyses in the sense that if more is spent on something higher quality can be achieved. The aim is to ensure that patients have access to high quality services. Members of your Lordships' House who have taken a great interest in the prescription of antibiotics, for example, recognise that high quality service does not suggest that there should be widespread prescription of unnecessary antibiotics.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, are the Government working in full co-operation with the pharmaceutical industry to determine the effectiveness of various drugs for the benefit of patients?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, obviously the role of the pharmaceutical industry in developing new and effective drug treatments is crucial. Recently we have issued a consultation document explaining to the industry how the new appraisal techniques that the National Institute for Clinical Excellence is to undertake will be used in order to assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of new drugs as they are introduced.
Earl Howe: My Lords, how do the Government plan to achieve the levelling up in the availability of treatments that they say they want to achieve when for the first time in the history of the NHS the drugs budget is to be capped and the size of that budget is not to be increased substantially? Does it not imply that if health authorities increase the availability of some treatments inevitably they will restrict the availability of others?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, we believe that unified budgets that allow health authorities and individual clinicians to look across the range of services and medicines that they provide is an important way to encourage local responsibility and flexibility. As my noble friend pointed out, spending more on drugs is not necessarily the best way forward. GP practices which have decided to adopt higher rates of generic prescribing while ensuring high quality services for patients would also make savings which, under the new arrangements, could be ploughed back into their services.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, how does the Minister propose to provide every treatment for
1550
everyone? The Minister will remember the figures from yesterday indicating that few people in this country who would benefit from beta interferon for multiple sclerosis are receiving it. Research indicates that all cases would benefit from the drug. How can the drug be provided throughout the country to everyone who needs it without finding extra resources?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, we are putting substantial extra resources into the NHS. The figure is £21 billion in the UK over the CSR period.
However, I do not think that I suggested that everything would be available to everyone immediately. It will take time to achieve what we seek. It will take time to build up a more equitable access to high quality services for all patients, but that is what we are determined to do.

Miners' Health Claims: Financial Awards
3 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they are taking to expedite the decision on awards to former miners suffering from bronchitis and emphysema.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, the Government have agreed with the plaintiffs' solicitors the tariff of compensation damages and the use of a single medical assessment process. We hope to reach an agreement on the detailed handling arrangements in the next few weeks.
In order to make further interim payments, we have tendered for a national spirometry testing programme which should enable us to begin to make offers in April.
We are aiming to begin the main medical assessment process in the summer.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I welcome that promising reply from the Minister. Is my noble friend aware that there was recently great satisfaction among former miners at the decision to make generous compensation, as I understand it, to those suffering from vibration white finger? However, is he aware that it is estimated that about 100,000 former miners suffer from bronchitis, emphysema and related chest diseases? Has an estimate been made of the amount of money likely to be available for the payment which he mentions? Will he confirm that compensation has been agreed? That is the interpretation I place on the Answer. Will the Minister ensure that there is rapid payment, and that we do not repeat the disgraceful delay of the past few years?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, as I hope I made clear, a tariff has now been agreed with the plaintiffs' solicitors' group. Therefore, that part of the process is now agreed. We still have to deal with exactly how the claims are processed. However, we hope that

1551
we shall be able to do so by the end of the month. The main medical assessment process should begin in the summer. So we are making good progress, although obviously we should like to do so even more quickly.
As regards the total amount of compensation, the figure will be in excess of £1 billion, and it is covered in the Comprehensive Spending Review. There was no figure when we came into government; no liabilities existed. We have a figure of over £1 billion in the Comprehensive Spending Review; and the Government are committed to making certain that the liabilities are covered.
Lord McNair: My Lords, will the Minister reassure the House that coalminers who suffer from emphysema and bronchitis resulting from silicosis due to the different geological characteristics of the mines where they worked will be treated in the same way as those suffering from pneumoconiosis?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the settlement announced in January 1998 solely covered chronic bronchitis and emphysema. It does not cover pneumoconiosis; and silicosis, I understand, is also not covered, being more related to pneumoconiosis than chronic bronchitis and emphysema.
Lord Lofthouse of Pontefract: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. In a debate on the issue in the House on 16th November, I drew the attention of your Lordships to the fact that if every miner who had made an application had to go for an individual medical it would take years for them to receive settlement. Bearing in mind that it has been calculated that 10 miners a week die of this dreaded disease, by the time they had all had individual examinations a considerable number would have died.
Will the Minister give further consideration to my suggestion in the previous debate? Could those who have had examinations and been awarded industrial injuries benefits based on those examinations be given immediate compensation without further examination, based on a percentage award of the industrial injuries benefit? That would prevent many of those men having to wait many years, and enable them to receive compensation before they died.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I agree that one of the tragedies of the situation is that people are dying while the process is going on. But we have taken considerable action. We have already paid interim payments to those people who are receiving benefits under the industrial injuries disablement benefit for chronic bronchitis and emphysema. In those cases we know that they suffer from chronic bronchitis and emphysema and have worked underground for 20 years. Therefore we can make interim payments to them.
The people not covered are those suffering from pneumoconiosis. We do not know whether they are suffering from chronic bronchitis and emphysema. We brought forward the special process of the spirometry tests so that we can make interim payments to those people.
1552
In many cases we shall also be able to make full and final payment once we know what the lung function tests show. In those cases we shall do so. But for full compensation in many cases we shall have to await the full medical assessment process. We are doing everything to bring forward that process.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, can the Minister assure us that every protection from the health hazards which have caused so much distress and suffering in the past is now being given to miners working in the pits?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I can only assure the House that the regulations are being covered. It is no longer the responsibility of the Coal Board but of the individual operators to comply with the regulations.

Business
Lord Carter: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lady Symons of Vernham Dean will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement being made in another place on events in Uganda. The Statement is likely to be taken between the Report stage of the Road Traffic (NHS) Charges Bill and the Report stage of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Bill.

Financial Services and Markets: Select Commitee
3.7 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Commons message of yesterday be now considered and that a Select Committee of eight Lords be appointed to join with the Committee appointed by the Commons, as the Joint Committee on Financial Services and Markets, to report on the consultative document on the draft financial services and markets Bill presented by Her Majesty's Command on 21st December 1998 and any further draft of the Bill which may be laid upon the Table of both Houses by a Minister of the Crown;
That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords be named of the Committee:

L. Burns,

L. Eatwell,

L. Fraser of Carmyllie,

L. Haskel,

L. Montague of Oxford,

L. Poole,

L. Taverne,

V. Trenchard.

That the Committee have power to agree with the Commons in the appointment of a Chairman;
That the Committee have leave to report from time to time;
That the Committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;
That the Committee have power to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom;
That the minutes of evidence taken before the Committee from time to time shall, if the Committee think fit, be printed and delivered out;
That the Committee shall report by 30th April 1999; and that the Committee do meet with the Committee appointed by the Commons this day at half-past four o'clock in Committee Room 3A.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the noble Lord give the House some indication of the rights that Members of this House will have to attend this committee? What rights do they have to any papers which may properly be placed in their possession?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, Members of your Lordships' House will have the usual rights of attendance before this committee. That is to say, in its public hearings Members of your Lordships' House will have the right to attend. On the invitation of whoever is appointed as chairman of this committee—if your Lordships accept the Motion today—your Lordships will be entitled to attend deliberative sessions, but only with permission.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and a message was ordered to be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

Commonwealth Development Corporation Bill [H.L.]
3.10 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 18 [Minimum Crown share-holding]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 8, line 19, leave out ("section") and insert ("Act").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 4 and 5. These three amendments all affect paragraph 14 of Schedule 2. That paragraph deals with a technical point arising from the Companies Act 1985. It excludes the Secretary of State from the Companies Act definition of shadow director for certain purposes. Those are the purposes set out in paragraph 14(2) of Schedule 2. That serves to ensure that certain administrative and other obligations of the Companies Act, which would be time-consuming and unnecessary in the context of a public/private partnership, will not arise.
The purpose of Amendments Nos. 1 and 5 is to extend the duration of the provisions of that paragraph of the Bill. The main change is made by Amendment No. 5. As drafted, paragraph 14 of Schedule 2 provides that the exclusion of the Secretary of State from the obligations I have mentioned lasts for as long as the Commonwealth Development Corporation is wholly owned by the Crown. By changing the wording of paragraph 14(1), Amendment No. 5 would have the effect of extending the duration of that exclusion so that it would last for as long as the special share was held by the Crown.
Amendment No. 1 is merely consequential on Amendment No. 5. As drafted, the Bill uses the expression "special share" only in Clause 18 and so the definition in Clause 18(2) applies only to that clause. Since Amendment No. 5 would introduce the same expression into Schedule 2, it is necessary to amend Clause 18(2) so that the definition applies to the whole Bill; in other words, to Schedule 2 as well.
The reason for extending the duration of the provision is to put beyond doubt for as long as the partnership between CDC and the Government exists the question of whether the Companies Act obligations which I mentioned earlier arise. The provision is essentially intended to remove the possibility of unnecessary regulatory burdens being placed upon the public/private partnership; and to provide clarity as to the Companies Act obligations which apply to the person involved in the partnership. The provision should therefore last for as long as the public/private partnership continues.
Amendment No. 4 ensures that the Treasury is brought within the scope of the provision. As a result of the Bill requiring Treasury consent to certain actions of the Secretary of State, together with the Treasury's involvement with the decision-making processes in relation to CDC, the Treasury, as well as the Secretary of State, may risk falling within the definition of shadow director in relation to the CDC or an associated company. Therefore, it is appropriate that the exclusion should apply to the Treasury also, for the reasons to which I referred earlier. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 21 [Treasury consent]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 9, line 19, at end insert—
("( ) making an order under section 1(3),").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Clause 21 ensures that the Secretary of State can take certain financial steps under the Bill only with the Treasury's approval. This amendment adds a further action to the list contained in that clause. It ensures that the Secretary of State can make an order providing for the allotment of shares on CDC's registration only with the consent of the Treasury.
The making of that order, relating as it does to CDC's financial restructuring, falls within the province of the Treasury. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 25 [Interpretation: general]:
Baroness Rawlings Baroness Rawlings moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 11, line 23, at end insert—
("(3) With the exception of this section this Act shall not come into force until the Secretary of State has laid in draft before the House of Commons an order contained in a statutory instrument making such provision relating to the tax liability of the CDC as will encourage private sector investment in it, and the order has been approved by resolution of that House.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in Committee, we questioned a number of aspects of this Bill. It represents for the first time ever the practical application of private/public partnership, a rather nebulous idea. We are still sceptical about the PPP concept. It appears to presuppose that the only successful route is the third way that between the public and private sector. However, tertium non datum. I understand that a young progressive Government would wish to escape the stricture of Aristotelian logic. But we doubt the future success of the formalised third way.
However, in this particular case, we all want to see the continued success of the CDC/PPP—I apologise for so many acronyms. There are three fundamental elements which are crucial to the CDC's success: the balance sheet structure, the timing of the offer to the private sector and, last but not least, its tax status.
I do not believe that it is necessary to return to the first two elements with amendments. It is in the Government's interests to get the balance sheet and the timing right, as the Minister indicated in Committee. I take this opportunity to thank the Minister for his co-operation, understanding and, especially, for his clarity and candour in relation to all the previous points raised. Perhaps the Minister will help me once more by assuring us that, first, the CDC will be endowed with a strong balance sheet containing the right proportion of equity and loans so that it is attractive to private sector investors; and, secondly, that the offer of the CDC shares to the private sector will not be rushed, given the challenge of increasing returns without betraying the spirit of the development purpose. Of course, the respect of the latter is ensured by the memorandum and articles of association.
However, we feel we must return to the third and most important matter—that of the CDC's tax status—with an amendment. I should state at the outset that I am most grateful to the Minister for alerting me to the fault in the drafting of my original amendment. The effect of the redrafted amendment is to make the coming into force of the Act conditional on achieving for CDC tax liabilities which will be attractive to the private sector. I trust that the new wording is acceptable.
The amendment reflects our conviction that it is imperative for the success of the partnership that the CDC is tax efficient. Only through new tax-efficient provisions will the current downward trend of CDC's returns improve. Only if the returns improve will the CDC attract a sufficient number of private investors to make it a genuine PPP.
As the tax issue is so crucial, I feel that it is prudent to solve it at the outset. In a Written Answer given on 16th February, the Minister said:
"The Government have agreed the broad principles for a tax solution that will provide the Commonwealth Development Corporation Public Private Partnership (PPP) with the required tax efficiency".—[Official Report, 16/2/99; col. WA 74.]
I hope that this debate will give the Minister the opportunity to expand on that important and welcome statement and that, having acknowledged the importance of the issue in Committee, he will be able to go further and accept the substance of the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I support the amendment. I begin by congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, on the reworking of the amendment because it is one which is extremely difficult to draft. This amendment comes from two amendments which were tabled separately in Committee. Having moved one of those amendments, I realise how difficult it is to achieve an amendment which meets the high criteria set out by the noble Lord. It may be that there are some problems with the wording of this amendment.
On these Benches, we support the initiative being taken in proposing a public/private partnership on the basis that it will, it is hoped, increase the amount of work that the CDC does on development in the developing countries, which can only be good. The issue, however, that has caused so much concern is that of tax. By tabling the amendment, we are putting forward our concerns that this issue has not been addressed.
In Committee, the Minister said that it was unlikely that he would be able, at this stage of the Bill, to come forward with a definitive solution to the problem. However, by accepting the amendment he would be acknowledging that there is a problem. I hope that when those in another place come to scrutinise the Bill they will be given the opportunity to consider proposals put forward. If they draft amendments, such amendments will come back to this House and we shall be given a second opportunity to scrutinise this point.
I hope very much that the noble Lord will accept the amendment. I specifically say that because in the seven years that I have been a Member of this House, I have never yet tabled an amendment that has been accepted.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to both the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, and the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, for the way in which they dealt with the amendment. I confirm that we are very much on the same side in what we want to achieve from the Bill. I am afraid that the noble Baroness lost me with her Aristotelian logic. I was brought up in a much more rigid school where symbolic, mathematical logic was the order of the day. I hope that philosophy teaching is less rigid than it was when I was at university. I shall study to understand the import of what she said.

1557
The noble Baroness asked whether I could assure her that the right proportion of equity and loans would be achieved to make the new CDC work properly. I can certainly give her that assurance. Even under its present regime, the CDC is already working very hard to reduce the proportion of its capital in the form of loans and to increase the proportion in the form of equity in preparation for the regime proposed by the Bill.
The noble Baroness asked for an assurance that we would not be rushed into the final stage of this process. I can give her that assurance also. Clearly, it is to nobody's advantage if we move to the market in the PPP, private/public partnership, format at a time when market conditions are unfavourable. We cannot anticipate now when that will be, but we shall certainly not be rushed into it.
I turn to the issue of taxation. The noble Baroness asked what tax regime is needed to attract sufficient private investment to provide the gearing which will improve the quantity and quality of the work that the CDC can do in developing markets. I can confirm that it is the Government's view that the CDC has to be tax efficient if it is to achieve its goal of investing in developing countries, using private capital raised in the context of a competitive private investment market dominated by offshore funds. As the House will know, it is the policy of the Government that we could not take the CDC offshore. It would be entirely inappropriate for an organisation of this kind to be located, for example, in the Cayman Islands.
The noble Baroness referred to my Written Answer of 16th February. I stated then that the Government have already agreed the broad principles for a tax solution that will provide the CDC public/private partnership with the required tax efficiency. Work is continuing on the details. However, I am sorry that such work has not been concluded to a sufficient extent to allow us to bring forward the necessary amendment to the Bill today or even at Third Reading.
We intend to introduce the necessary amendments to the CDC Bill at the appropriate time in the House of Commons. I make it clear that I refer to amendments to the CDC Bill rather than provisions in a finance Bill. That means that amendments introduced in the House of Commons will inevitably come back to this House for final decision. I can assure the House that there will be no move to Royal Assent without such an amendment or amendments being agreed by both Houses. Therefore, I think I can give both noble Lords the assurance they seek that we shall not conclude proceedings on the Bill without the tax solution which they and we require.
Amendment No. 3 would require the Secretary of State to lay before the House of Commons an order making provision as to the tax liability of the CDC, such provision as will encourage private sector investment in it, and to have that order approved by the House of Commons. The Government are not opposed to the sentiment behind the amendment. I hope I have made that entirely clear. However, we believe that secondary legislation would be the wrong way to make this kind
1558
of provision concerning tax. I well understand the difficulty experienced by those who framed the amendment. It is impossible to put an amendment into primary legislation which anticipates a provision which cannot yet be made. I appreciate that the advice from the Public Bill Office created great difficulties for them. I sympathise. However, I am sure they will understand that the proper way to make the necessary provision is by primary legislation and that is what we intend to do by tabling amendments to the Bill in the House of Commons.
With those assurances and expressing much regret to the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, who wants an amendment on the statute book in his name—I am sure we can find a way of doing that—I urge the noble Baroness not to press the amendment to a vote.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, I wholeheartedly thank the Minister for his answer and assurances. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, too, for his support. I congratulate the Government on finding an opportunity to include this matter. In particular, I appreciate the determination of the Minister in pursuing the matter with the Treasury and the Inland Revenue. I know that that is not an easy task.
The proviso attached to the tax rate also demonstrates the Government's commitment to PPP. I am sorry to hear that the Minister is unable to accept the amendment. However, as he has accepted the spirit of it, I shall withdraw it for the moment. No doubt we will return to it at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 2 [Modification of Companies Act 1985, & C.]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendments Nos. 4 and 5:
Page 15, line 14, leave out ("the Secretary of State shall not") and insert ("neither the Secretary of State nor the Treasury shall").
Page 15, line 16, leave out ("Corporation is wholly owned by the Crown") and insert ("Crown continues to hold any special share provided for under the Corporation's articles of association").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to these amendments with Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.

Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.
Scottish Enterprise Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Road Traffic (NHS Charges) Bill
3.28 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Payment for hospital treatment of traffic casualties]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 24, at end insert ("; or
(e) a payment made in respect of an accident caused by a vehicle which is not required to be insured by virtue of section 144(2) of the Road Traffic Act 1988.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, perhaps I may start our proceedings on Report by expressing my thanks to the Minister and to his noble friend Lady Hayman for the very full letter I received a few days ago which answered many of the points of detail that arose in Committee. It was an extremely helpful letter. As a result, I can tell the House that I shall not be moving some of my amendments.
In Committee I asked the Minister to explain why Crown vehicles were not caught by the Bill as drafted. I understand that there are over one million such vehicles, some conventionally insured on the market despite the exemption they enjoy from that legal requirement. In reply, the Minister stated that the premise of the Bill was simply to collect existing charges but to do it better and not to extend the scheme or to introduce new charges. I really have to challenge that answer because it clearly is not true. The Bill extends the recovery of charges to a very significant new category of driver; namely, those who are uninsured or untraceable. It does that, of course, through the Motor Insurers' Bureau.
My substantive point is this: there appears to be no reason in logic or equity why the victims of accidents caused by Crown vehicles should be treated any differently from the victims of accidents caused by other vehicles. If the Government believe that it is appropriate to recover the costs of treating victims of uninsured drivers from honest, premium-paying motorists, and to extend the scope of the Bill to do so, I do not see why they should not include Crown vehicles in the scheme as well. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his kind remarks about the explanation sent to him following the Committee stage.
I start by reiterating that the purpose of this Bill is to introduce a system to collect existing charges, but to do it more effectively than in the past. There is no intention to extend the scheme or introduce new charges. The existing charges are only due where compensation is paid by an authorised insurer in respect of a claim against a motor insurance policy.
The bodies listed in Section 144(2) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 are not required to carry compulsory insurance and therefore have no obligation under the current law to meet NHS charges. Amending the law to bring those bodies into the net of obligations associated
1560
with compulsory vehicle insurance goes much wider than this Bill, concerned as it is with collecting existing charges more effectively.
The noble Earl raised today, as he did in Committee, the issue of the Motor Insurers' Bureau. I should like to make two points in that regard. First, the MIB can and does meet the cost of private sector medical treatment in cases where the accident victim opted for care in the private sector. The private sector hospital can require the MIB to settle the patient's medical bills directly. The Bill intends that the NHS should be able to do likewise.
Secondly, it is worth pointing out that in the time of the previous administration, in 1992, it was proposed by the then government to recover state costs from the MIB. One must ask why it is wrong to seek to give the NHS parity with private sector hospitals. The MIB acts in exactly the same way as any other authorised insurer. It should meet the same risk as those insurers.
I listened carefully to the noble Earl and, while I do not want to offer him any expectations, I should like to reflect on what he said. On that basis I hope that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. I understand the point in relation to parity in so far as it affects the Motor Insurers' Bureau and its existing liability to pay for private treatment. But my point today can be summed up in one word: equity. Why should Crown vehicles escape the net? I realise that they are not in the net at the moment and that the Bill is largely designed to improve the current system for those who are liable for charges. That is a substantive point. I am grateful to the Minister for saying that he will consider the matter and I understand that that is without commitment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 [Information contained in certificates]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 3, line 31, after ("out") insert ("in").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, Amendment No. 2, which I tabled in Committee, addresses itself to a simple point of drafting. Clause 3(2) of the Bill does not make grammatical sense. If the phrase between the two commas is removed, it is clear that the word "in" has been omitted.
In Committee the Minister seemed to think that I was being a little over-pernickety and argued that what really mattered was that the sense was clear. My strong feeling is that that is not good enough. Of course we know what the wording means, but we should not knowingly pass a badly drafted section of a Bill into law. I am happy to say that that point was supported in Committee by at

1561
least two other noble Lords. I therefore bring back the amendment in the hope that the Minister will reconsider his reply. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, well-spotted! The noble Earl pointed out that the wording of the Bill can be improved. I accept that and am prepared to accept his amendment.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the Minister. This is a major triumph for the Opposition and I express my gratitude to him and his colleagues for all the deep thought that must have gone in to that reply.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 3, line 43, leave out ("2nd July 1997") and insert ("1st April 1998").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in the wake of that major concession my hopes are rising by the second. I join with the noble Earl in thanking the Minister for his considerable courtesy in writing a letter which, even to my jaded brain this morning, made sense and influenced the approach of these Benches to some of the amendments we tabled. It was a model of clarity.
However, Amendment No. 3 is still a bone of contention between us. I read carefully what the Minister said in Committee on 18th February and it still appears to be a Bill containing many elements of retrospection. We believe that the principle should be that the insurance company should only pay out the amount of charge that was known at the time the premium was paid.
What we see on the Marshalled List today represents a compromise from that position to some degree because one needs to set a date and perhaps it is unduly onerous to set a date that is the passing of this Bill. However it is abundantly unfair for insurers to have to accept the date of the Budget in July 1997 when it was not possible for them to ascertain what the charges should be. I know that the Minister said discussions had taken place with the insurance industry and it appeared to accept this point. But it appears to me to be somewhat "Sicilian" negotiation with the insurers—"This is really an offer you cannot refuse"! It would be far preferable to move to a different date.
It seems that the current date of July has either been taken as a Budget or, in a sense, it is two years back from where we are now because that is the assumption as to the amount of time it takes to settle an accident claim. Either way, it is extremely arbitrary. We should therefore like to see some movement from the Government. In particular, it would be useful to know the precise estimated difference in the cost between the date of April 1998 and July 1997. What is the impact on the NHS of taking the two different dates? I beg to move.
Earl Howe: My Lords, in Committee, alongside the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, I argued that the Bill's retrospective nature was undesirable in principle and
1562
practice. It is undesirable because retrospection should not be incorporated into new law without good reasons, and in this case no such reasons exist other than a blatant desire on the part of the Chancellor to defray NHS running costs to the latest possible date.
As the noble Lord rightly pointed out, there is no way that insurers who wrote motor policies between 2nd July 1996 and 2nd July 1997 could have budgeted for the additional costs to which the Bill will give rise. It is also wrong that the Government are legislating for a period even before they were elected to office. Replying to me in Committee, the Minister made no attempt to answer those fundamental points, which is not surprising as there are no satisfactory answers.
Insurers who are no longer writing motor business will he particularly severely affected. That category, faced with a claim, would be most unlikely to recoup any costs imposed arising from policies written during the period in question. The Minister was unable to answer that point and the response he made was extremely weak—that it takes up to two years for charges to feed through to the NHS, so setting a date of 2nd July 1997 for the provision to apply was not unreasonable. That wholly fails to address whether 2nd July 1997 is a fair starting point. To put the matter at its starkest, some motor policies priced on the old basis will have continued in force for more than one year after the Chancellor's announcement. That cannot be fair.
The amendment seeks to strike a fair compromise. The Minister indicated in Committee that the insurance industry is content with a starting point of 2nd July 1997, but my information is that that is not the case. The industry was only prepared to acquiesce with extreme reluctance. A starting date of 1st April 1998 would not entirely eliminate the Bill's retrospective impact but would allow a reasonable period after the Chancellor's announcement for insurers to factor in the new risk to motor policies written after that date. I ask the Government to think again.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for his acknowledgement of the clarifying letter from my noble friend Lady Hayman.
There has been a great deal of discussion about retrospection. The noble Lord referred to Sicilian negotiations. I am not sure what he meant but I am certain that that is not an accurate description of the discussions between the Department of Health and the Association of British Insurers, which suggested that applying the higher rate of charges to NHS treatment from 2nd July 1997 would be reasonable. The insurers' representative body sought a meeting with the Secretary of State precisely because it wanted to discuss when the new charges for NHS treatment would be introduced. That meeting was held one year ago to the day—on 2nd March 1998, when insurers themselves advanced the date of 2nd July 1997 as being reasonable and fair for the new higher rate charges to take effect.

1563
At that stage, the insurers had eight months' notice of the intended changes. They have had a further full year to adjust their practice. The average time taken to process a claim for compensation is two years. NHS charges are due when compensation is paid. In April 1999, when the new scheme should begin, some of the compensation payments coming through will relate to accidents in 1997 but many will relate to accidents after that time.
The argument has been made that insurers selling policies in 1997 would not have been aware that they could include exposure to the new higher rate NHS charges and that insurers must find additional money to meet that demand. Claims against motor vehicle insurance policies have risen over 10 years—using figures supplied by the Association of British Insurers—from £2.2 billion in 1986 to £5.1 billion in 1996. In 1996, the NHS recovered only £13 million in respect of treatment following road traffic accidents, which is one quarter of 1 per cent. of the money that insurers paid out on motor vehicle insurance policies.
Insurers selling motor vehicle policies in 1997 would have taken into account the possibility of a claim against that policy under the current provisions of the Road Traffic Act 1988 whereby an insurer could have faced a maximum charge for in-patient treatment of £2,949. That would have been part of the insurer's consideration. Under the new higher rate charges, the insurer can face a daily rate charge for the same accident of £435 per day, although admittedly there is a maximum charge of £10,000.
The average length of stay in an NHS hospital following admission after a road traffic accident is just over eight days. At the new higher rate charge, that average will produce a bill of about £3,500—a difference in cost in an average case of about £500. Given that the insurer could also be made to pay for treatment received in the private sector and must have allowed also for that possibility when setting premiums in 1997, the increase in NHS charges is only a small part of the insurer's cost.
I do not accept that our proposals are anything more than a small element in the insurance industry's calculations. It is interesting to view in parallel the implementation of social security benefits recovery legislation. That provides a system whereby the compensator is liable for the full amount of benefit paid up to the date of the compensation payment, subject to a five-year maximum. That certainly may reduce the compensation payable to the injured person, but only where benefits and compensation have been paid for like need.
Recovery of benefits legislation introduced by the previous administration applied from the beginning to compensation payments made after the legislation came into effect, irrespective of when the injury occurred. That relates both to the 1989 legislation, which affected victims, and the 1997 revision of the scheme, which affected compensators. The government of the day announced that they would move to introduce legislation 12 months before the 1989 Act was passed. In a subsequent case brought under the European
1564
Convention on Human Rights, that period of notice was accepted as reasonable and the Commission rejected a claim that the Government's action was retrospective.
We are considering now legislation where the intention to act was announced one-and-a-half years ago. The expectation that the new scheme would raise about £100 million each year was announced by the Treasury in October 1997£16 months ago. The actual range of income that the Department of Health considered feasible was made known to the Association of British Insurers in January 1998—more than 12 months ago.
We have been asked to consider the compromise position of 1st April 1998. For the reasons given, that is not more acceptable than the date agreed with the insurers of 2nd July 1997. For many years the NHS missed out on income that was its due. We were on record as saying that we wanted to rectify that position as soon as possible and move to charges that better reflect the costs of treatment. We have an agreed date with the insurers for so doing.
Any delay such as that proposed in the amendment in implementing the higher rate charges would be at further cost to NHS hospitals. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, asked me to quantify this. It is hard to give him an exact figure. However, putting the starting date for higher rate charges back from 2nd July 1997 to 1st April 1998 would be likely to reduce the direct income to hospitals providing care for accident victims by around £30 to £40 million. That may not seem to be a great deal when set beside the billions of pounds that insurers pay out every year in car-related claims, but clearly it is a very significant sum to NHS hospitals. The real boost to hospital incomes comes from the fact that we begin for the first time to pick up all the claims that are made and to raise NHS charges in all of these cases. The move to full costs is a long overdue step, but one that I think should not attract undue attention out of proportion to its real effect on insurers. On that basis, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that most interesting response. Indeed, there was a great deal of meat in it, especially as regards the cost and the difference between the two. I believe that it deserves considerable reflection between now and Third Reading. I must thank the noble Lord for the care that he took in responding. It is a difficult matter because obviously there are issues of principle versus the question of cost to the NHS. One needs further reflection in order to resolve some of the issues that have emerged. Nevertheless, I thank the Minister for his reply and, in the meantime, beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 4 not moved.]
Clause 9 [Appeal to the court on point of law]:
Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 6, line 36, leave out ("Regulations may provide that").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like formally to move this amendment because my own amendment is so closely cognate to it. The letter which I received

1565
from the Minister is unclear and needs a little clarification. However, despite the fact that my brain was working superbly this morning, it may be me rather than the wording of the letter. I do not quite understand the impact of Order 55. Not being a litigation lawyer, it is not entirely clear to me whether that order will still operate to allow an appeal under the Bill, despite the fact that no regulations may be made.
If the Bill simply provides that regulations "may be made" and, in the event, they are not made, what impact would that have in those circumstances? For example, would Order 55 override that to allow an appeal, or would regulations need to be made in order to allow an appeal? The letter is not entirely clear in that respect.
I accept the fact that Schedule 1 to the rules of court is, so to speak, a temporary schedule, whereas the rules themselves now seem to be fairly fixed. Therefore, there are some further issues involved. I still feel rather uncomfortable about an appeal not being enshrined in the Bill and simply being allowed under regulations. If the Minister could clarify the question as to whether an appeal is available even if regulations are not made, that would be most helpful. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I understand the concerns that led to the moving of this amendment. There is the particular concern that, while those in Scotland will have on the face of the Bill a right of appeal to a higher court, people in England and Wales will have that right only through subordinate legislation. I should like to make it very clear at the outset that there is no question but that a right of appeal will be available to the High Court in England and Wales. Placing that right in regulations is simply a practical arrangement designed to cope with the fact that provisions governing what happens to an appeal are currently being reviewed. The review affects England and Wales only.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, was certainly correct to say at Committee stage that, as part of the review, the main rules of court had already been published. They have and they will come into effect on 26th April 1999. The provisions which appear in the schedules to the rules, however, re-enact existing court rules. The schedules are still under review by the Civil Procedure Rules Committee.
The provisions which will govern appeals from the High Court in England and Wales are found in Schedule 1. They, in turn, re-enact provisions found in Order 55 of the Rules of the Supreme Court. Order 55 applies to cases where an appeal lies by or under any enactment. They are general provisions covering many types of appeals from courts, tribunals and other decision makers. We are particularly interested in the provisions which govern what the High Court may do with an appeal. The provision of Order 55 enable the court to give judgment or to remit the matter for rehearing and to make further orders. Order 55 specifically provides that its provisions have effect subject to any other provision made by or under an enactment. We do not at this stage anticipate making
1566
any further provision for NHS charges appeals to the High Court, because the provisions in Order 55 cover the matter.
It would, however, be unfortunate if NHS charges appeals were always bound to follow general provisions without the flexibility to ensure that the system properly meets the needs of parties to the appeals and the court, especially when we do not know how the provisions found in Schedule 1 to the rules will look in the future. An important element of the scheme is that we want to work with insurers to ensure that it operates well for all parties. Removing the flexibility about appeals would endanger that aim.
Some concern was expressed in Committee that the provision in Scotland is somehow stronger than the provision which applies in England and Wales. I hope that I have satisfied your Lordships as to why there is a need for regulations in England and Wales. However, I understand that in Scotland it is simply not necessary to make provision for the Court of Session to remit the matter being looked at by the court to a tribunal; it is part of a court's inherent jurisdiction. So the Scottish rules of court do not deal with the matter at all, nor do they need to. As a consequence, regulating powers are not necessary for Scotland.
I conclude by repeating that there is no question but that a right of appeal will be available in England and Wales to the High Court.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply which was extremely clear; indeed, it even amplifies the terms of the letter to which I referred. In making that clear to me, he has effectively answered in the affirmative the question of whether or not it would be possible to have a right of appeal despite the fact that regulations may not be made. Therefore, on that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
Clause 11 [Provision of information]:
[Amendment No. 7 not moved.]
Clause 14 [Regulations governing payments into court, etc.]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 9, leave out lines 19 and 20.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in speaking to this amendment I should like simply to make one comment. In Committee I raised the issue of payments into court because it seemed to me that Clause 14(2) of the Bill was saying that regulations would treat all payments into court as though they were compensation; in other words, all payments into court would trigger the 14-day period within which the NHS charges had to be collected. However, I now understand that that is not the case. Indeed, I am grateful once again to the noble Baroness for what she said in her letter about this matter.
I now realise that the regulations which will be brought forward will distinguish between instances where a payment into court does constitute a compensation payment and instances where it does not.
Having said that, I should like simply to add that I am entirely content. We await perusal of the terms of the regulations when they emerge. I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I follow the noble Earl in thanking the Ministers for the letter on this subject. I am very impressed by the sheer ingenuity displayed within the Department in terms of their approach to the payments into court. We had quite a discussion in committee about the whole issue and it was a little difficult to see quite how regulations would bite on payments into court. This does clarify it and it is reassuring that it will be enshrined in this level of detail in the regulations. On that basis I would agree that these amendments are unnecessary.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, perhaps I may simply thank the noble Earl and the noble Lord for their comments. These possibly quite complicated matters will be covered in the regulations.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 9 not moved.]

Business
Baroness Amos: My Lords, before we move to the Statement on events in Uganda I would like to take this opportunity to remind the House that the Companion indicates that discussion on a Statement should be confined to brief comments and questions for clarification. Peers who speak at length do so at the expense of other noble Lords.

Uganda
4 p.m.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, with the leave of the House I will now repeat a Statement on Uganda which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.
"Madam Speaker, with permission I will make a Statement on the recent kidnappings in Uganda.
"I must first say to the House that these events occurred in a remote part of Uganda and we do not yet have official corroboration of the most recent developments. We will of course make further public statements as we receive confirmation, but the House will wish to hear what is known so far.
"Yesterday morning 14 tourists, including six British nationals, were abducted from Bwindi Impenetrable National Park in the Kisoro District of Uganda. In addition to the British nationals, those abducted included US, New Zealand, Canadian, Australian and Swiss nationals. Several others who were present at the time of the attack, including one British citizen, managed to avoid capture. Those who
1568
did so returned to Kampala last night, where they were all debriefed and offered support by the British High Commission.
"As soon as we learned of the abductions we were in immediate touch with the Ugandan authorities. Our High Commissioner told the Ugandan Foreign Minister that we expected every effort to be made to achieve the rapid and safe return of those abducted. He made clear that there should be no intervention which might put lives at risk. The Foreign Minister gave us that assurance, and undertook to keep us fully informed. Two members of the High Commission travelled to the area to liaise with the local authorities.
"This morning we received reports that some of the hostages had been killed, but that others had been rescued. I regret to inform the House that our present information is that four of the six British nationals were among those who were killed. The whole House will wish to join with me in expressing our deepest sympathies to their relatives and families.
"We are seeking urgent clarification from the Ugandan authorities of the circumstances in which these deaths took place. It is not yet clear whether the Ugandan military intervened directly, but if that is confirmed we will want an immediate explanation of how this happened despite the assurances we were given yesterday.
"From our interviews with those who escaped we believe that the abductors were a rebel group opposed to the present Government of Rwanda, and operating from over the border in the Democratic Republic of Congo. This is the first such incident in Uganda, although last August the same rebel group seized a number of tourists, including one British dual national, who had strayed over the border into the Democratic Republic.
"Our travel advice for Uganda was last updated on 19th February. It warned:
'Rebels are periodically active in Uganda/Rwanda/Congo border areas around Kisoro District. Although the situation is currently peaceful, it can change quickly'.
"Yesterday, in the light of these kidnaps, we revised our travel advice to warn against all travel to these border areas.
"My honourable friend the Minister of State for Africa has just returned from an extended trip to nine countries involved in the conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo. In each of them he pressed the need for a negotiated settlement and underlined the willingness of the United Kingdom to do all we can, both in the European Union and the Security Council, to support such negotiations. This latest tragedy demonstrates the distressing human cost of that continuing conflict and the urgent need for a settlement."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.4 p.m.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place and I should like to associate these Benches with the Government's sense of shock and outrage at the tragic

1569
outcome of this unprovoked attack on British tourists in Uganda. Our first thoughts must go to the families of those involved who have been anxiously awaiting news about their loved ones. To the families of the victims we extend our deepest sympathy.
It seems that history has repeated itself as the tragedy in Yemen is now mirrored by events in Uganda. There still remains much uncertainty about the exact chain of events which led to these tragic deaths. I am sure that the Minister will agree that it is vital that this uncertainty is cleared up as soon as possible for the sake of all those involved.
Can the Minister give an assurance that when our High Commissioner saw the Ugandan Minister of State yesterday he made it clear that above all the Government sought a peaceful end to the hostage affair? I note what the Foreign Secretary has said in his Statement, but perhaps the noble Baroness the Minister could elaborate as to whether he stressed the importance of mediation and the importance of avoiding a rescue attempt which could be botched and which could cost the lives of innocent men and women. Were offers to mediate made and what co-operation was asked for or received from other western diplomatic posts? Can the Minister say how the French authorities, through their deputy ambassador, Anne Peltier, were apparently able to negotiate the release of all the French hostages and some Australians? Can the Minister confirm that a member of the High Commission staff, together with Ugandan officials and American colleagues, will be flying to the scene to ascertain exactly what happened and to establish the exact chain of events which led to the death of the tourists? Does the Minister agree that the reports that the British and American tourists were deliberately singled out for mistreatment by their captors are extremely disturbing?
I totally understand the position facing the Minister and the Government in terms of details available to the Government at this stage, but is the Minister in a position to be able to confirm these reports and can she shed light on what motivated the Hutu rebels in this way?
I am grateful to the Minister for outlining the Foreign Office's travel advice. Keith Betton of the Association of British Travel Agents has said that, while the Foreign Office advised people of the potential dangers, he felt that the advice was not clear and referred to armed robberies and hi-jackings rather than to abductions. Of course, although those who travel to dangerous places do so at their own risk, I am sure that the Minister would agree that they must be in no doubt from the Foreign Office's advice that the regions which they are visiting are potentially hazardous. However, given the recent kidnappings of foreigners which have ended in tragedy in Chechnya, Yemen and now Uganda, does the Minister feel it is timely to review the detail contained within, and indeed the quality of, the Foreign Office's travel advice?
This incident is a stark reminder of the wider theatre of bloodshed in the Great Lakes region of Africa. The conflict there is real and dangerous. Unchecked, it is raging on and threatens to engulf the entire region, denying all Africans who live there any hope of peace and prosperity. It is incumbent upon us to work with those
1570
governments who share our values in order to help them establish the rule of law and political systems which respect human rights, democratic values and liberty itself.
4.7 p.m.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, we on these Benches would like to echo the sympathy that is being expressed on all sides of the House to the relatives and families. I would also like to associate those feelings with my noble friend Baroness Williams of Crosby who would have taken this Statement if she could have done.
From the information available it seems to me that the advice given by the FCO was entirely in accordance with the situation that existed at that time. It is extremely difficult to provide information for all parts of Africa and it has been my experience in the past that the FCO has always given a judged and well valued opinion. It is extremely unfortunate that this area has now become unsafe due to the activities of this rebel group.
I hope very much that the Government will express their appreciation of those Ugandan soldiers who were killed in the rescue attempt. Sometimes it is too easy to lay the blame for the deaths of people who are taken hostage at the doors of those who would have rescued them. When we consider the nature of the rebels who took the hostages, it would be extremely unfortunate not to thank them for and recognise the sacrifice the Ugandan soldiers made in trying to rescue the hostages. It is obvious that mediation with this group of rebels is extremely difficult, as they have few political objectives. It seems that this was a well planned and co-ordinated attempt to kill people and to destroy property at the camp. I hope that the one thing this tragedy will have achieved will be to redouble the effort to restore peace to this extremely troubled region of Africa.
4.10 p.m.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Moynihan and Lord Redesdale, for their comments. I join with them in expressing sympathy to the families who are caught up in this appalling tragedy. The agony those families must be suffering is compounded by the uncertainty, alas, as to who has been so tragically killed. There is also much uncertainty as regards the exact circumstances in which these appalling events took place. It must be an agonising time for the families until we are able to bring a little more certainty to the position.
The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, asked me about the way in which our High Commissioner had dealt with this issue with the Ugandan authorities. The High Commissioner stressed to the Ugandan authorities that every effort should be made to secure the rapid and safe return of the hostages. Alas, we have all too sadly in recent weeks had some unhappy experiences with British tourists being taken hostage. I assure your Lordships that our paramount concern in all these incidents is the safety of the British travellers who are caught up in these appalling events. That was made absolutely clear yesterday to the Ugandan authorities. I join with the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, in acknowledging that others have been killed in trying to secure the safe return of the

1571
hostages. I say to the noble Lord that we do not have the details of what exactly has happened. There may be a number of conflicting reports. It would be quite wrong for me at this Dispatch Box to make any authoritative statement on what has happened until we are absolutely clear about the details in this case.
The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, asked about the position of the French. As I understand the position, no French hostages were taken. I believe that a deputy high commissioner from the French post was a tourist at the time. We shall have to get some details on that before I say anything more on the point. I hope that the noble Lord will bear with me until I am able to give him and indeed the House a fuller explanation. That also holds good for the reports that he, and I expect other noble Lords, have seen with regard to the singling out of United States and United Kingdom citizens. It is terribly important that we get some certainty on this. At the front of my mind—I am sure it is at the front of all noble Lords' minds—is the fact that British families are waiting for advice on what has happened. That advice must be accurate.
The noble Lord referred to the travel advice. The travel advice on Uganda was focused on different parts of Uganda. A clear section of the advice referred to the Kisoro district and mentioned the periodic activity of the rebels there. Up until these appalling events occurred, the position was peaceful. However, it was pointed out that this could change quickly. We constantly examine this travel advice. We shall continue to do so in respect of Uganda and indeed other areas which may be affected by this activity.
We held a useful seminar in the Foreign Office last week on the way in which the Foreign Office pulls together travel advice. As I say, that is done on a regular basis. We received some useful indications from members of the travel industry as regards what they would find helpful. We stressed to the travel industry and to those who travel abroad that travel advice is what it says it is; namely, it is advice. That is all we are able to give. There are no guarantees involved in giving advice. I believe that everyone who travels to this remote area does so because it is remote. That is part of its enchantment. There is wildlife to see there which in so many other parts of the world simply does not exist.
I agree strongly with what both the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, said about the absolute importance of focusing every effort—as my honourable friend the Minister of State has done during his recent trip to the area—to try to find a peaceful solution to the appalling conflict that is raging there around the border area and which is spilling over so tragically to involve totally innocent tourists.
4.16 p.m.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I rise to support the Minister in what she has said. I apologise for missing the Statement, which I have just read. I am sure the noble Baroness will agree that it is crucial that people realise that all the Foreign Office can ever do is to issue advice, as she has just said. This area has always
1572
been notoriously uncertain, shall we say? It forms the triangle between what is now the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Rwanda and Uganda.
I, too, express sympathy for the families involved. Having dealt with some of these situations in the past, I can well understand what they must be feeling. However, I urge the Minister—I believe she is inclined to do this—not to make any further announcements until we have some certainty about the situation. This will take time. I have travelled to that area, but not deep into the park, and I know how difficult the communications are. I am quite certain that Michael Cook, the High Commissioner, will do everything he can to resolve this matter as quickly as possible. However, we must be certain about what has happened.
Will the Minister and her colleagues make it quite clear to the British tourist authorities—whoever they are—that at no time can the Foreign Office do more than advise? It is quite wrong to try to hold—as I heard one commentator do—a high commissioner or any of his staff responsible because people entered this region. That is just simply not possible. If one travels to uncertain regions where we know there have been machete wielding Hutu rebels, one runs a risk. It is as simple and as short as that.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, for her support. If I may say so, it is all the more welcome because of her well recognised expertise and knowledge of this part of Africa. I thank her warmly for what she has said. The noble Baroness is right; it is wrong to rush into a judgment at the moment as regards what exactly has happened. For the sake of those who are personally involved and others who are connected with this appalling incident we must discover the truth of what has happened. That is difficult as it is an area where communications are problematic. It is some way from Kampala. The terrain is difficult, as I am sure the noble Baroness knows better than most. Two of our diplomats have travelled there as quickly as they can. I very much hope that they are in the area now. It will, of course, be their primary concern to establish exactly what has happened and to obtain for us the advice that we need to enable us to bring some certainty to those families who are suffering such an agony of uncertainty at the moment.
Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords, I associate myself entirely with all the sentiments that have been expressed. Does the Minister agree that both diplomatic posts abroad and the consular department in London have a very difficult balance to draw between alarmism and complacency? In these situations it is extremely difficult to avoid retrospective criticism for having just got it wrong. Is the Minister aware that I recently had reason to visit Indonesia from Singapore the day after the United States Government had issued blanket advice not to visit Indonesia to all their citizens? I therefore asked the High Commission in Singapore for our travel

1573
advice and I was extremely impressed by the detailed care with which the travel advice had been drawn up, as a result of which I visited Indonesia.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for what he said. I do not want to concentrate too much on travel advice because a human tragedy is being acted out here. While it is important to discuss the role played by the Foreign Office in giving advice, it is of paramount importance at the moment to find out what has happened and to bring certainty to the situation. Of course, there is always a balance to be struck over travel advice—that came out very strongly in our seminar last week. Deaths of British tourists travelling abroad can occur in the safest countries. Sadly, as is well known, there was a death of a British subject on the Champs-Elysées only last year. Our advice is used as a model by many other countries, including France, which send officials to the Foreign Office to see the way in which we draw up our advice. I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Wright, and the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, that the advice has to be based on facts. It is no good saying afterwards that people should have known things when there was not factual evidence to adduce. Anything else would undermine the value of that advice and people would just dismiss it as too alarmist. We shall continue to work on it and we shall continue to look at the way in which we draw it up, whichever country is concerned. And, of course, at the moment, we shall continue to look at the advice on Uganda very carefully indeed.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, does the Minister agree that Uganda is generally peaceful and that tourism should not be unduly discouraged in other parts of the country? Uganda is in need of radio communications for outlying areas, and a programme of disarmament and a round table to discuss regional difficulties is an imperative.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we have had to advise against all travel to Uganda's border areas with Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo. There is evidence—we stated this in our advice before the appalling incidents of yesterday—of rebel attacks and road ambushes in the northern districts of Gulu, Kitgrum and the western Nile. Within the past few weeks we have seen some awful bomb attacks in Kampala. Anyone who is thinking of travelling to Uganda would be well advised not only to read the travel advice but to look at the further advice contact points which are mentioned in the travel advice. They should seek advice from the British High Commission if they are going to any of the difficult areas. Establishing proper contact within the country in some of the outlying areas is very important, but I would not wish anything I say at the moment to detract from the importance that we attach to people who are thinking of travelling to this part of the world to think very carefully indeed.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I support what the noble Baroness said. Admittedly, my knowledge of the
1574
country goes back some years when I had the responsibility on behalf of the United Kingdom Parliament of going there for some time and presenting a gold mace to its national assembly after independence. Is the noble Baroness aware that even in those days it was not a peaceful country? The parts of it which were less disturbed were, nevertheless, subject to tribal rivalries which caused a good deal of trouble then and have done more so since. In those days—and it is still so now—about a third of the country was impenetrable because of tropical forests. The noble Baroness is quite right in stressing the difficulties and potential dangers that there are in going there unless all the circumstances are borne in mind.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his support. He is quite right. This is not a peaceful part of the world, which is why my right honourable friend the Prime Minister asked my honourable friend Mr. Lloyd to go to the area and travel through the key countries involved in the conflict. Mr. Lloyd has just returned from an extensive tour of the region. He saw not only the key leaders of the countries concerned but also the secretary-general of the Organisation of African Unity. Mr. Lloyd underlined our commitment to a peaceful solution and our readiness to use whatever support we can through the UN, the OAU and the EU to help secure a negotiated settlement to this difficult conflict.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is not the presence of these rebels in that part of Zambia a product of the disorder in the Democratic Republic of Congo? Does the Minister agree that her honourable friend Mr. Tony Lloyd is to be congratulated on the arduous shuttle he has undertaken to the regional capitals in order to see what can be done to sort out the problem so that peace can be extended not only to the DRC but to the neighbouring countries affected by the conflict? Can she say whether her honourable friend achieved a result in terms of persuading neighbouring powers such as Angola, Zimbabwe and Namibia not to participate in the fighting in the DRC, and whether during the short stop-over he had in Addis he spoke to the secretary general of the OAU and whether that organisation has any measures of conflict resolution which it could apply in this case?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, there are two threads to the noble Lord's points. I join with him in congratulating my honourable friend Mr. Lloyd on his tour through the area in order to do everything he can to help find a solution. The noble Lord asked what results my honourable friend has managed to secure. I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me for a degree of ignorance about this issue. I have spent the morning concentrating on the consular aspects and the difficulties which have been thrown up for the British families involved. My honourable friend has offered the good offices of Her Majesty's Government to both the OAU and, bilaterally, to the countries concerned. He has also offered to see what can be done through the EU to help resolve this appalling

1575
conflict. If there is anything more helpful I can say on the detail of those offers and how they were received, I shall write to the noble Lord.
The noble Lord said that these appalling incidents are the direct product of what has happened in the DRC. I feel a certain diffidence about confirming that there are any direct linkages. It is important that we establish why this has happened, who are the criminals who took these hostages and what were their motives. Speculating on this at the moment will not help the really dreadful position that the families, who need some certainty, are in.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, some of us on the Cross-Benches would like to be associated with the sympathies being extended to the families. As some one who was in Uganda in October, I should like also to commend the Foreign Office for the advice it gives. I should like particularly to commend the diplomats who went directly to the area. It does not always happen, but it did on this occasion. The noble Baroness said that she does not think she can answer the wider questions, and yet we are not confined to the question of tourism. Does she not agree that the aggression in this case was not directed against foreign tourists but against Uganda? It is only one of many events which have occurred—as the BBC is now reporting—arising from the terrorism of the Interahamwe Hutu guerrillas all along the Zaïre border. Ugandans are facing this situation all the time. Will the noble Baroness also extend sympathy to President Museveni and his government who are doing their utmost to contain this threat without breaching international law?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his comments and particularly those concerning the British diplomats involved. I am sure that they will leave no stone unturned in trying to discover exactly what happened. I agree with the noble Earl that this appalling business throws up the wider question of the roots of the conflict in that part of the world. I hope to give more detail to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. If I am able to do so I shall put a copy of my letter to him in the Library of the House.
The noble Earl made the assumption that this is action directed against Uganda. I merely remind him that there are reports, to which the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, referred, that some nationals were singled out in particular. That would seem to imply that there may be other forces at work here. We have a highly complex situation. We know that it has lasted for a number of years. There are many different countries involved and within them there are different groupings. I do not suppose that there is a single line of argument that can be drawn from all this. We shall certainly do our best to find out exactly what happened, and why, in order to bring certainties to the families. As the noble Earl indicated, we of course extend our sympathy to the Ugandans who, I am sure, are doing everything they can to help us find out why our tourists in the area were treated in such an abominable way.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, my noble friend has already spoken on behalf of the Cross-Benches. I am far
1576
too new on these Benches to be able to speak on their behalf although I suspect that I do and, indeed, on behalf of the whole House, in saying how enormously grateful we are to the noble Baroness for the very warm and sympathetic way she has handled this horrible question. We ask her to extend to the families of all the victims, if she can, our warm, loving thoughts and prayers at this horrible time.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I do not suppose there is anything that can compensate for the loss of a family member. If anything could, then I am sure that the kind words of the noble Baroness are of comfort to them.
Lord Rowallan: My Lords, does the Minister believe that we are now in the midst of a move by rebel terrorists to kidnapping whereas 10 years ago skyjacking was their usual tactic? Kidnapping now seems to be happening more and more all over the world. Can the Minister say whether it is a general trend and, if so, what the Foreign Office is doing about it?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I caution the House against rushing to any conclusion. The noble Lord is obviously summarising some of the more terrible incidents which have involved not only British tourists but others from the United States, Canada, New Zealand and many other countries. My right honourable friend suggested in another place today that the Foreign Office should now take forward the suggestion made some while ago that we look at the possibility of consultations with experts on the subject of kidnapping. It is a very worrying development. I suspect that there has always been a certain degree of kidnapping taking place in the world. But the motivation for such kidnapping, moving from perhaps the straightforward financial aspect to political motivation, which we have seen demonstrated in some recent instances, is a very worrying development. I do not wish to commit my right honourable friend except to say that I believe the points raised by the noble Lord are worthy of further consideration. If we feel that we need further expert advice I assure the noble Lord that we shall take the appropriate steps.

Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Bill [H.L.]
4.35 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Referral of young offenders to youth offender panels]:
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 13, after ("sentence") insert ("or a sentence of electronic tagging").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope it will be obvious from the drafting of the amendment that it is intended to leave the court the option to pass a sentence involving electronic tagging on an offender even though it is for a first offence or in the other circumstances

1577
outlined in the Bill. At the moment the court can pass a custodial sentence for the offence or it can dismiss it. However, in some cases the matter is compulsorily referred to one of the new offender panels.
When we discussed this matter in Committee the Government rejected the idea that electronic tagging might be used by the youth offender panel as part of its monitoring process in making sure that the young offender concerned carries out the terms of the contract. Therefore, if youth offender panels are unable to use that device it should remain open to the court in the first instance before the matter is sent to the panel. I still marginally prefer the idea that the panel should have the option of tagging available, but at the same time I recognise that the Minister had a valid point in saying that it was a restriction of liberty and therefore should be confined to the court rather than be given to a panel of that nature.
It is true that the restrictions which can be placed on an offender by a panel through the contract can include the restriction of liberty at least in the negative sense. So the position is not quite so black and white. For the purposes of this amendment I have accepted that electronic tagging is not available to the panel. Therefore, it seems to me that in appropriate cases, when the law otherwise provides for it, it should be available to the court in the first instance. I beg to move.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I am surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Cope, has returned to this subject. Electronic tagging is a form of limited house arrest. It has the drawback of not having counselling built into it. In fact, the only contact would be with the monitoring staff of the company which supplies the electronic tagging. I agree that electronic tagging is an alternative to custody, but in that regard when a child is held in custody he or she is certainly going to be surrounded by adults skilled in discussing their future with them. Electronic tagging does not have that effect. In any case, I regard it as unsuitable for first offenders. I wonder why the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, is trying to extend the list of exemptions from the wisely few compulsory referral conditions.
Lord Windlesham: My Lords, at earlier stages of the Bill I spoke in support of the referral of young offenders under the age of 18 to youth offender panels. It is a policy that has been widely welcomed both inside and outside this House as a constructive alternative to custody or to other disposals that are currently available to magistrates' courts. But how will the proposed new arrangement work in practice?
During the first day of consideration in Committee, again at the initiative of my noble friend Lord Cope of Berkeley, there was some discussion about the compulsory nature of the referral order which would bring the case before the youth offender panel; that is, the panel to be set up by local youth offending teams.
If we examine the first two clauses of the Bill, as I have done with some care, we see that the drafting is elaborate and not at all easy to follow. Why is that? It is because, providing certain conditions are fulfilled, the
1578
making of an order is to be mandatory. As a result, many of the conditions are in effect exclusionary. Clause 1(1)(a) states:
"neither the offence nor any associated offence is one for which the sentence is fixed by law".
I shall return to that shortly. If it is such an offence, the young offender is excluded from eligibility for an order. Clause 1(1)(b) states that if the court is proposing to impose a custodial sentence or make a hospital order, the young offender is excluded. The amendment of my noble friend Lord Cope would add a third disposal; namely, a sentence of electronic tagging. We have just heard some well-argued criticism that to do so would add just one more to the existing list, and there may be something in that argument. Clause 1(1)(c) states that the court must not be considering an absolute discharge.
Providing that each of those conditions is satisfied, we then move on, as the magistrates' courts will need to do, to Clause 2. That sets out a second list of requirements to activate a compulsory referral. A young person must have,
"pleaded guilty to the offence and to any associated offence".
He must have had no previous convictions, nor have been bound over to keep the peace or to be of good behaviour. Why is all this necessary? It is necessary because the making of the order is not to be left to the discretion of the court.
In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, argued, when challenged by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway, that the new order was not a sentence. The Minister said:
"What makes the new referral order different from the ordinary sentence disposition is that its purpose is not a sentence (full stop)".
I pause there. Whether the noble Lord said "full stop" or whether it is a typographical error inserted by Hansard I do not know, but that is what appears in the printed record. He went on:
"Its intended purpose is to ensure that the conviction of the young offender, who has to be a first offender and plead guilty, will trigger on a basis of mandatory obligation an inquiry into the reasons for the offending behaviour. That is the real importance of the youth panel. It is not a sentence in itself; it is the triggering of an inquiry".—[Official Report, 18/1/99; col. 375.]
How does that eloquent reply relate to the wording in the Bill? If we turn to Clause 1(2)(b) we find that if the conditions stated in the earlier sub-paragraphs are satisfied,
"the court shall sentence the offender for the offence by ordering him to be referred to a youth offender panel".
Such action may or may not trigger the subsequent series of events to which the noble Lord referred. However, the wording in what will become the statute, unless it is changed between now and the Bill becoming law, is that "the court shall sentence". If it was intended that the court should make an order, the wording could have been that the court "shall make an order", or simply that the court "should order" the offender to be referred to a youth offender panel.
I hope I am not making too much of a meal of this matter by attaching some broader reflections to the narrower amendment moved by my noble friend

1579
Lord Cope. I do so because there is a dangerous trend in criminal policy at present—the most dangerous of all trends in my opinion—towards mandatory sentencing.
For many years, the only sentence fixed by law, which is referred to as one of the conditions precedent in Clause 1(1)(a), was the mandatory sentence of life imprisonment on conviction for murder. But that is no longer the case. As noble Lords will be aware, the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 authorised three new categories of criminal offence which would attract mandatory sentences: repeat offences of violence, for which there is a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment on second convictions; serious drug offences, for which, on third conviction, there is a mandatory sentence of seven years; and repeat offences of domestic burglary for which there is a mandatory sentence of three years on third conviction. The first two were implemented shortly after the general election in 1997, but the third, the mandatory sentence for repeat domestic burglaries was not brought into force. Many people inside and outside the Prison Service believed that it never would be implemented and that the new Government were understandably being cautious in considering repeal. That is now not going to happen. Totally unexpectedly, in January this year, it was announced that a mandatory sentence for repeat offences of burglary would be implemented, and we await a commencement order to that effect before long.
My reason for speaking at some length on this issue is that I am convinced, and I am not alone in this, that mandatory sentencing is fundamentally wrong. I should be very reluctant to see any extension, although it may seem a trivial matter in the context of this Bill on the treatment of young offenders. Any extension of mandatory sentencing has to be scrutinised in a wider context.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, we are indebted to my noble friend Lord Windlesham for his rather full but very relevant comments on the use of the word "sentence" in Clause 1. One asks oneself: when is a sentence not a sentence? It is when the court has not been required to decide the ultimate fate so far as treatment for a criminal act by the offender is concerned. Although my noble friend's comments go well beyond the scope of the amendment, they refer to a matter which should be put right and which could be put right at Third Reading. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, will bear that possibility in mind.
Having mentioned the noble Lord, perhaps I may express my thanks and say how impressed I am by the lengthy letters he has sent to noble Lords about various matters which were raised at an earlier stage of the Bill and which he promised to consider.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord for his letters, which were gratefully received. I believe that Clause I would be improved if it included the concept of sentencing. That is a new thought and I look forward to hearing the Minister's comments on it.
1580
Turning to Amendment No. 1, I wonder what kind of offences my noble friend Lord Cope has in mind for which electronic tagging would be appropriate. My view is that the more cases that can be remitted to the panel, the better for these young offenders. I should not like the existence of an option of electronic tagging to result in offenders not being referred to a panel. On the other hand, in cases of offences where a custodial sentence would be awarded and where a panel would not be involved, I should be happier if a sentence of electronic tagging could be awarded instead of a custodial sentence. I should be interested to know what kind of offences would be appropriate for a sentence of electronic tagging rather than a custodial sentence.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I have been in this arena before and I have referred to my abhorrence of mandatory sentencing. I received the answer that it was not a sentence anyway. Having looked at the Bill, that argument does not, with respect, seem wholly viable. I return to the matter because I so much agree with everything said by my noble friends Lord Windlesham and Lord Renton. This is a serious problem. One reverts to the point, which the Government will not accept, that the sentence should be left to the discretion of the magistrates and not be the subject matter of a mandatory penal regime. There is no reasoned answer to that. The process of leisurely, constructive debate, which the noble Lord, Lord Williams, always entertained with such grace and charm, has come to an end. His brief says, in effect, "This is what we are going to do, and we are going to do it because we want to." We have driven into a cul-de-sac. The only way out is that suggested by my noble friend, Lord Renton, with his years of experience. We should return to the matter at Third Reading, try to put it straight and do away with the mass of verbiage in Clause 1(1) and (2) which is wholly unnecessary. Of course, it is necessary to keep the substance of the structure, but it does not have to be so complex and circumscribed with conditions. This is a matter for the discretion of the magistrates. We are in a cul-de-sac and can only seek to bale out of the vehicle and walk our own ways, unless the matter can be dealt with at Third Reading.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, has helpfully widened slightly the scope of the amendment, which deals with electronic tagging, in an important respect. At Second Reading I complained about the lack of flexibility shown in the provisions for youth offender panels and referral orders. Your Lordships have already pointed out that the sentence is mandatory, but it is mandatory in extremely limited circumstances; namely, where a person is before the court who has pleaded guilty, who has never been convicted previously and who has never been bound over in criminal proceedings previously. That would exclude persons who were subjected to mandatory sentencing for burglary, drug offences or rape, because those are repeat offences and consequently would not come within the scope of these provisions.

1581
My complaint is the lack of flexibility and the imposition of a mandatory referral under the Bill. I believe that this is a matter that must be dealt with at Third Reading.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, I do not treat myself to reading old copies of Hansard, but I have a fairly clear recollection, first, that I did not say "full stop" and, secondly, that what I was saying, in answer to the reasoned points put by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, was that this was not a sentence in the conventional sense. I invite noble Lords, not least the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, to turn over from page 1 to page 2 where one sees abundant support for what I was—I dare say fallibly—trying to suggest. We find there:
"the court may sentence the offender for the offence by ordering him to be referred to a youth offender panel".
So one has the words,
"ordering him to be referred",
in the Bill itself.
On a more fundamental matter, I entirely understand the point of principle which has been referred to by four noble Lords; namely, what is claimed to be the objectionable aspect of mandatory sentences. I respectfully agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, said. If that is the argument of principle, this is not the amendment to attach it to. This amendment gives a further alternative by way of tagging.
On a point of drafting, there is no such thing as a sentence of electronic tagging, so the amendment would be defective. But that is not the fundamental point, of course.
Coming to the general points about mandatory sentences, life imprisonment for murder remains the only sentence fixed by law. The provision in Section 2 of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 is not fixed by law because it is possible for the court, in exceptional circumstances, not to impose the sentence. The same applies to Sections 3 and 4. I do no more than simply point to them; that is the fact.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, is right. We have a difference of approach. He said that we were driving the vehicle up a cul-de-sac and we ought to bale out. I am not sure that I want to follow that advice, for fear of damage to neighbouring houses. I believe I have made it plain that in the policy we have arrived at we are looking to a fundamental shift in the way the youth court deals with young, first-time offenders. One sees this not only on page 2 of the Bill but also at the bottom of page 1 where Clause 1(2)(b) states:
"the court shall sentence the offender … by ordering him to be referred to a youth offender panel".
It is our policy conclusion—I cannot put it more gracefully because we have reached that conclusion and we intend, unless voted down, to stick to it—that, except where a custodial sentence is imposed or where there is an absolute discharge, all offenders within the category, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford,
1582
rightly said, is a limited category, should have the benefit of being referred in the way that the Bill provides. The only exceptions are absolute discharge or custody. Plainly, in some cases custody will be necessary, and there may well be cases in which absolute discharge is the appropriate outcome. We do not believe that there is any persuasive or compelling argument to allow curfew orders to be used in the same way. At the moment they are being trialled. They have been trialled since 1995 for offenders aged 16 and over. The power in respect of 10 to 15 year-olds has been trialled since the beginning of last year. Those trials will continue until June of this year. No decision has been made on the extension of those powers nationally. With the greatest respect to the point of the amendment—I put on one side the infelicity of drafting—we do not believe that the point of the sentence should be varied in the way suggested by the noble Lord. We want referral, which means an in-depth consideration at an early stage of an offender within that limited category. Effectively, that means a first-time offender who has pleaded guilty. Experience demonstrates that early intervention can be effective. We do not want it to be an option or something that can be considered. Except in the circumstances of custody or absolute discharge, we want the court to sentence by ordering referral to the youth panel.
I have listened carefully to the arguments that have been put forward. I understand the points of principal difference. As the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway implies, the probability is that we shall be unable to agree. I hope that I have put that as tactfully as I may. I cannot see any possibility of agreement, unless noble Lords are wholly persuaded by the case that I have put forward.
5 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, this has turned into a rather wider debate than my proposed amendment. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Windlesham for causing that widening. I apologise for the infelicitous nature of the drafting of the amendment. However, the noble Lord was kind enough not to oppose the amendment solely on those grounds. In response to my noble friend Lord Brentford, I view curfew orders—tagging—as an alternative to custody rather than as an alternative to referral to a panel, although obviously there will be marginal cases in which if the court has flexibility the decision will be based on one of the three options, or any two of them. However, in view of the drafting it is unwise to pursue this amendment too far.
But we are still in a position in which curfew orders are being trialled. Trials have recently been extended to other categories, and the question as to whether or not they will be of great use has not yet been settled. But for certain categories of offenders this Bill rules them out before the trial of the curfew orders has been completed. That arises because of the compulsory nature of this provision in certain circumstances such as those explained by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas. I argued against compulsion at Committee stage. Perhaps we should return to that argument since it is the underlying one.

1583
As to whether a referral of this kind is or is not a sentence, I cannot put my finger on the particular passage in Hansard but my recollection is that the Minister said rather later in the Committee stage that it could be regarded as a sentence if one so wished. Whatever the legal niceties of the wording, I believe that offenders will regard being sent to a panel that requires them to have to pay money—admittedly in reparation rather than by way of an ordinary fine, but they still have to pay money—as a sentence. Alternatively—perhaps in some cases as well—they will be confined to their homes for part of the day and be subject to a curfew, whether or not an electronic tag is attached. For that matter, they must avoid going to other places. All of these matters are available as parts of the contract. They are in the nature of a sentence and will be seen by offenders as such. Whatever the legal niceties, these will be regarded as sentences by the public at large, even if they are not viewed that way by legal minds or the courts themselves. However, I seek leave to withdraw Amendment No. 1.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 [The referral conditions]:
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 12, leave out from ("conditions") to end of line 19 and insert ("shall be such conditions as are set out in regulations made under subsection (3).").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 2. Contrary to the suggested groupings, it may be wise to consider also Amendment No. 3 because that is consequential on Amendment No. 2. As we discussed in relation to the previous amendment, I wish to leave it to the discretion of magistrates, or the Crown Court in some cases, whether to impose the new referral in various cases. However, the Minister does not really trust magistrates in this respect and wants an element of compulsion. This amendment has a purpose similar to that of my more radical amendment moved in Committee, but it does not go so far.
The amendment provides that there should not be an automatic referral in the first place under the Bill but allows the Secretary of State, in pursuance of his order-making power, to introduce compulsory automatic referral at a later stage. I believe that that would permit a more gradual introduction of the compulsory element rather than to start with that element on the day that the Bill becomes an Act. I believe that it is desirable to start the compulsory element in a gradual way, if it is to start at all, rather than write it in firmly on day one. We all know that the Secretary of State has power to vary these matters and to move offenders with certain characteristics from "discretionary" to "compulsory" or, for that matter, in the opposite direction. I suggest that the whole of the compulsory part of it should be introduced in a more gradual way. Amendment No. 3 widens the definition of "discretionary" to include all of the guilty pleas in the early stages as part of the re-writing of the Bill in this respect. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I shall follow the example of the noble Lord and speak to Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 together. I deal first with Amendment No. 2. This amendment would remove the compulsory referral conditions from the face of the Bill. As the noble Lord indicated, it introduces a power for
1584
the Secretary of State to set compulsory conditions by way of regulations. The flaw here is that Clause 2(3) provides the Secretary of State with the power to alter the conditions set out in Clause 2(1), but this amendment removes those conditions from the clause. Therefore one would be left with a provision which might be regarded as undesirable. We would have in the Bill the power to amend compulsory referral conditions without any compulsory conditions to be amended. I do not think that that would be a useful step forward. That is an important point. It is not simply cosmetic drafting.
I do not think that I can expand on what I said in the quite lengthy debate on the first amendment. We have deliberately targeted this new disposal at the group of offenders we consider most likely to benefit: young, first time offenders, pleading guilty. We believe that we should limit it in that way. We want to direct resources effectively to tackle offending behaviour. That focus has been deliberately chosen, we believe rightly, to fall on first time offenders to have early intervention as soon as possible to break the cycle of offending behaviour.
Amendment No. 3 would have little practical effect, but it would add further to the words in the Bill which have already been criticised as not entirely clear—although I do not accept that. At present the Bill allows the court some discretion to make a referral order where the compulsory referral conditions have not been met. They are specific circumstances which are set out in the Bill.
The court has a discretionary power to make a referral order when dealing with a young person charged with multiple associated offences and entering not guilty pleas on one or more of them provided he enters a guilty plea on at least one of them.
The noble Lord's amendment would take from the Bill the fact that not guilty pleas can be entered and a referral order made under the discretionary referral conditions. It would not alter the power to make orders in such cases since it would only require that the young person plead guilty to one or more offence without ruling out the possibility of pleading not guilty to any other associated offences.
The only consequence of Amendment No. 3 that I can foresee is a degree of confusion created by doubt as to whether not guilty pleas do or do not preclude a discretionary referral order. I am convinced (for what that is worth) that the present drafting is preferable to the alternative formulation proposed in Amendment No. 3.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, Amendment No. 3, which I had thought consequential upon Amendment No. 2, brought out a fuller response than I had anticipated. If one were altering the Bill as proposed in Amendment No. 2 it seemed to me essential to alter the wording of subsection (2) to make clear that even though it was not compulsory for the offender to plead guilty to one of the offences nevertheless he could be referred.
The Minister also said that I should have put forward a consequential amendment to subsection (3). I take into account the legal advice that he was kind enough to give

1585
me. However, it does not seem to me that the amendment is all that faulty. Subsection (3) states:
"The Secretary of State may by regulations make such amendments of this section as he considers appropriate for altering in any way the description of offenders".
The description of offenders which would remain in the Bill if my amendment were carried would provide that the compulsory referral conditions,
"shall be such conditions as are set out in regulations".
Perhaps the drafting is somewhat repetitive and no doubt could be improved if the Minister were prepared to accept the spirit of the amendment. However, clearly he is not so prepared because he wants to keep the compulsion inherent in the Bill and in the scheme. We have already suggested that compulsion is a matter to which we may wish to return. But for the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 33, after ("section") insert ("or of the age limit in section 1(1)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment makes clear that the Secretary of State could vary the conditions for compulsory or discretionary referral to include an age limit.
At present the age limit occurs in Clause 1(1) and is not able to be altered by regulations, as are all the other conditions. Therefore all the conditions must apply to a person under 18. It is possible, perhaps likely, that in future the panels may work differently for younger offenders—perhaps those under 16—than for older offenders. The Secretary of State may wish to make referrals compulsory in more cases of those under 16, or some other age. Alternatively, he may wish to remove some of that age limit from the compulsion element.
The amendment seeks greater flexibility with regard to age subject to the fact that the Secretary of State will have to make regulations which would be subject to the affirmative procedure before Parliament. I beg to move.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the referral order is intended to be targeted at the group we think it is most likely to benefit; namely, first time offenders aged 10 to 17. That is why the Bill makes it plain in the Long Title—it refers to the referral of offenders under 18—and in the conditions for making a referral order, to which noble Lords have referred, that it is only available for those under the age of 18.
We are expanding the principles of restorative justice into the youth court. We believe that that is the proper approach in the Bill. We think that young people early in their criminal careers are more likely to respond positively to the panel approach and to be successfully diverted from crime, as I indicated earlier today.
1586
One could not manage the referral order in the way in which we envisage it in terms of adults since the youth offender panel will be organised and serviced by the local youth offender team. I take the noble Lord's point that there may come a time on some other legislative occasion when one might wish to extend that opportunity to adults, but in its Long Title and structure, the Bill is deliberately focused on those who are not over the age of 18.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I am not clear from what the Minister said whether the Secretary of State will have the power to have different conditions for different groups of young offenders under the age of 18—those under 16, or perhaps over 16. Can the Minister indicate whether the Secretary of State will have the power to differentiate within the under-18 age group?
I understand the Minister's argument that he does not wish the youth offender panels to have to deal with those over 18. We had a discussion earlier as to what happens where the offence is committed when the offender is under 18 but during the passage of perhaps a considerable number of months between the commission of the offence and coming to trial the offender passes his 18th birthday and the apparatus of youth panels becomes impossible to use. However, I understand the Minister's assertion that we should not extend this machinery to those over 18. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 [Making of referral orders: attendance of parents etc.]:
The Deputy Speaker (Viscount Allenby of Megiddo): My Lords, before calling Amendment No. 5, I should inform your Lordships that if it is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 6.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 4, line 45, leave out from beginning to ("to") in line 2 on page 5 and insert ("may make an order requiring—

(a) the appropriate person, or

(b) in a case where there are two or more appropriate persons, any one or more of them,").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in this substantial group of amendments are Amendments Nos. 5 to 16. Some of the amendments are in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, and some in my name.
Perhaps I may summarise the purpose of the government amendments. Your Lordships will remember that the noble Lord, Lord Cope, raised the interesting question of whether or not—I think I summarise fairly—the attendance of both parents should he seriously considered where appropriate. I undertook to consider the matter and that is the genesis of the amendments to which I am speaking now.
I had some reservations, which your Lordships may remember, about the practical difficulties of insisting in

1587
every case that both parents or guardians should be present. It was helpful that the noble Lord, Lord Cope, raised the question. I agreed that we should be encouraging parents to be involved wherever possible and that it would be helpful for the courts to have discretion to order the attendance of both parents where it seemed reasonable and practical to do so. Therefore, the amendments to Clause 5 introduce that discretion.
It will not always be practical for both parents to attend. There may be other family or employment commitments. There will be some cases where it will be feasible, desirable and practical for both parents to attend to support their child through the youth offender panel experience. I repeat my gratitude to the noble Lord for raising the issue. We have reached the conclusion that it is helpful, if the court sees the presence of both parents as positive and constructive, that the court should have the power to order their attendance. That is the purpose of the amendments in my name. That is in relation to those offenders who are under 16, where parental attendance is always required, and for 17 year-olds where parental attendance is considered appropriate.
Clause 5 also addresses the position of those young offenders for whom parental responsibility is with the local authority. In those cases, plainly, the local authority representative should be the key individual required to attend meetings. But in those cases where responsibility has been vested in the local authority but the young person is still living at home with the parent or guardian, the court may well decide that the presence of the parent or guardian would also be of value. Therefore, the effect of the amendments is to include discretion for the courts to order the presence of the parent or guardian in addition to the local authority representative.
I believe that the amendments in the name of the noble Lord. Lord Cope, and the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, are set to achieve the same ends. I do not consider that there is a difference between us. We sought to reflect the spirit of our previous discussion in Committee in what we believe to be properly drafted form.
There is still a concern in my mind about the definition of an offender for whom the local authority may have parental responsibility. We are looking at that as a matter of urgency. I merely indicate that a small amendment may be required with which I shall deal on Third Reading, if that is agreeable to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, we are grateful to the Minister for bringing forward these amendments. It was an issue which I, rather than my noble friend, raised in Committee, although the amendments were in the names of both of us. I am extremely grateful to the Minister for taking on board our concerns. It is important that if both parents are able to attend, they should be encouraged to do so. The government amendments put forward today allow that to happen. However, they allow rather than encourage it to happen. It may be that after Royal Assent
1588
the Home Office will issue guidance to the courts in relation to the legislation. If that is so, perhaps it will be possible to include in that guidance encouragement to the courts to have both parents present. The amendment allows it rather than encourages it. Perhaps the Minister will consider that point.
The Minister has accepted the matters which we raised. I should be grateful if he will respond to my point about the guidance. However, we shall certainly accept the government amendments and I shall not move Amendments Nos. 6, 10, 11 and 13.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, at the risk of returning to the debate about when is a sentence not a sentence, in criminal justice social work practice it was routine to explain to offenders who had been placed on orders such as probation and community service orders that they had not been convicted. It was explained that they had not been convicted because they could be resentenced in the event of a breach of the order.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, there is a small point which is worrying me. Does "parent" include step-parent? Sometimes, in some families, the step-parent has greater responsibility for, and influence over, a child than a divorced parent. There may need to be a slight adjustment to the Bill at the next stage. It is important that the person who is acting as the parent, who may not legally be the guardian, is the person responsible because sometimes he may have the greatest influence over the child.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I always shudder when small points are raised because they are always the ones for which one has no briefing. My immediate reaction—which I am sure is wrong—is that it probably does include that. However, perhaps I may research that and write to the noble Lord. As always, I shall put a copy in the Library.
I was right, and it is not even my birthday. It is included.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, perhaps he will answer my question about the guidance which his department may issue.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I shall certainly give consideration to including in guidance the points raised by the noble Viscount. We are at a very early stage because the Bill was introduced in this House. However, there is no doubt at all that guidance of one sort or another will be useful and I shall certainly bear in mind what the noble Viscount said.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the Minister for his reply.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I commend the government amendments to the House.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendments Nos. 7 to 9:
Page 5, line 3, at end insert—
("(1A) Where an offender is under the age of 16 years when a court makes a referral order in his case—

(a) the court shall exercise its power under subsection (1) so as to require at least one appropriate person to attend meetings of the youth offender panel; and

(b) if the offender falls within subsection (5), the person or persons so required to attend those meetings shall be or include a representative of the local authority mentioned in that subsection.").

Page 5, line 4, leave out ("Subsection (1) does") and insert ("Subsections (1) and (1A) do").
Page 5, line 7, leave out from ("(5)") to end of line 9 and insert (", each person who is a parent or guardian of the offender is an "appropriate person" for the purposes of this section.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 not moved.]
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 5, line 10, leave out (""the appropriate person" for the purposes of subsection (1) is") and insert (", each of the following is an "appropriate person" for the purposes of this section").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 13 not moved.]
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendments Nos. 14 to 16:
Page 5, line 13, leave out ("or") and insert ("and").
Page 5, line 14, leave out first ("a") and insert ("each").
Page 5, line 14, leave out ("and with whom he") and insert ("with whom the offender").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
5.30 p.m.
Clause 6 [Establishment of panels]:
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 5, line 40, after ("held") insert ("within 10 days of the making of the order or orders").
The noble Lord said: We now move on to the position where the offender has been sentenced or ordered to be referred to the panel, and the panel is about to start its work. The question the amendment addresses is one which we also discussed in Committee; that is, how soon that work should begin. I suggested then that it should be within 14 days of the sentence being passed. When I say "begin" I mean the time when the panel should have its first meeting and commence its work.
The noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, suggested that that should be within three days. There seemed to be some agreement among Members of the Committee that three days was too short a period and 14 days too long. In the amendment I have therefore suggested 10 days.
I believe it was the Minister who said that three days was too short and 14 days too long. However, there was some agreement for that proposition.
Of course, the first meeting should be as soon as conveniently possible, both for the panel and others concerned. That is why I believe that a time limit would be a good idea. It will take time to set up membership of a panel and fix a time for meetings. Members are likely to be busy people with other things to do than just sit about waiting to be called upon to serve on the panel.
In particular, victims will often need a little time. They do not just have to turn up, but have to consider—sometimes very carefully—whether to confront an offender in such circumstances. They will need time to make the necessary arrangements to attend such meetings. They may also need to take advice and be encouraged to attend. They may be reluctant, immediately after a court case, to confront an offender.
Therefore, it seems to me that a reasonable time limit should be set. As I have said, having been told that 14 days was too long, I propose 10 days. I beg to move.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, we support the amendment. This addresses precisely the point made in Committee by my noble friend Lord Mar and Kellie. Whenever a youngster has been ordered to appear before a youth panel, it is important that the effect of that panel is not lost on that youngster. Therefore, a time factor is important. The sooner the meeting is held—we are referring to the first meeting in this instance—the more importance will be attached by the youngster to the work it will do. We certainly support the amendment.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, after the hard words spoken as regards Amendment No. 1, perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Cope, that I certainly agree with him on this amendment.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: The noble Lord, Lord Cope, mentioned that we debated similar amendments. If my memory is right, I believe that the time limits discussed varied from three to 15 days.
I sympathise with the motive behind the amendment. We want youth justice delivered as quickly as possible. That is why, in a slightly different context, we are looking to halve the average time it currently takes to deal with persistent young offenders. I underline the fact that I have a good deal of sympathy with the motive behind the amendment and, indeed, the other amendments which varied as regards time.
Reducing unnecessary delay is not the only issue to consider. It is important that the panel meetings should be properly prepared in order to proceed successfully. The noble Lord, Lord Cope, rightly observed that such preparation may include contact with the victim. That needs to be done without delay but must also be approached sensitively as people differ in their reactions to crimes committed against them.
In Committee I stated that this is the sort of issue in which we want to use pilot schemes, and I repeat that. A number of different timescales have been proposed. I suggest to your Lordships that it is unwise to put a

1591
particular figure on the Bill. At present, we do not have the experience upon which to reach a soundly-based conclusion. This is exactly the kind of issue that we intend to discuss with those who have relevant professional experience.
Perhaps I may say to the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, that we shall issue guidance in the pilot areas. I suggest that it is best to evaluate the time limits as they appear in the guidance, and as translated into practice in the pilot areas. We will then see, on the basis of practical experience, what time limits are realistic. Once we have carried out that review, it is intended to have national standards to be approved by the youth justice board.
I hope that I have been able to reassure your Lordships. I sympathise with the point behind the amendment. However, at present we do not have the practical experience on which to reach a conclusion. I respectfully suggest that we will be much better informed having seen guidance and pilot schemes in practice.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, it is encouraging to have the support of the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, and the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, and to have sympathy, at least in principle, from the Minister.
However, the Minister draws attention to the practical difficulties of writing it into the Bill as opposed to the guidance. I believe that point has validity. In the circumstances, I hope that I shall not offend those who spoke in support of the amendment, but I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 6, leave out line 2.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 18 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 19. There seems to be a little confusion or difficulty in the Bill as regards this matter. Subsection (2) states that the panel is to be constituted in accordance with guidance to be given. On the other hand, subsection (5) permits the Secretary of State to make certain regulations regarding who should serve on the panel. It seems to me that it would be better if all matters regarding constitution of the panel were to be found either in guidance or regulations. I would prefer them to be in regulations.
In Committee we discussed the kind of people who might serve on the panel, in particular, magistrates or policemen as suggested in the original White Paper upon which the Bill is based. Those are the type of matters which may appear in guidance or regulations. They may vary from time to time as experience is gained in the management of such panels and the effects are seen. We all believe that there should be a certain flexibility in this matter; that we should not attempt now to fix in stone, or at least in statute, the constitution of the panels. That is why the Secretary of State has the power to vary
1592
them. But I would prefer, as the amendment suggests, that the constitution of the panel should be put into regulations. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I do not believe that there is much difference in approach between the noble Lord, Lord Cope, and the Government. We both want to make certain that the individual members of the panels can deal effectively with young offenders and that they are representative of the whole community. Amendments Nos. 18 and 19 seek to make the constitution of panels a matter of regulation rather than guidance.
The Bill already states that each panel shall contain at least three members, of whom one will be a youth offending team member. The constitution of each panel needs to respond to the specific circumstances of the young offender. The pool of panel members therefore needs to encompass a wide range of skills and experience. It will be important to use them flexibly—I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cope—and to the best effect.
We will have guidance on the constitution of the panels but it will be prohibitive because one needs the flexibility about which the noble Lord spoke. The Bill in its present form allows the Secretary of State to set regulations as to qualifications, experience and any other criteria that people will need to fulfil if they are to become panel members. That is the crucial tool to be used to ensure that panel members are of the right calibre.
I understand the noble Lord's desire to require the Secretary of State to be governed by the word "shall" rather than "may". Perhaps I can indicate, and thus reassure the noble Lord, that we have no intention of allowing panel members to be recruited without setting down clear qualification criteria in the regulations. Thereafter we will have the proper balance between qualification criteria in the regulations—there will not be any recruitment before those are made—and the flexibility on which the noble Lord and I agree in relation to selecting individuals for a specific panel for a specific offender.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, with the leave of the House; I may be forgetting what I heard in Committee and have not had time to look at the Official Report. Can the Minister remind me, and perhaps the House, whether there will be a pool of people known to be available in each area from whom members of the panel can be selected, or whether there will be a fresh search each time the need arises? I am trying to picture how this will work from a pragmatic point of view. Will there be a pool of people suitably qualified according to the definition set out?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, yes. There will be a pool of panel members who will have different skills, different experiences and different expertise.

1593
Each panel also has to have at least three members drawn from that wider pool, so the noble Baroness is quite right.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, the Minister set out clearly his view on the matter and stressed to us that regulations will be made before any panels are appointed. That relates to the wording of Amendment No. 19, which seeks to replace "shall" by "may". With the Minister's reassurance I do not intend to press that amendment.
However, I feel that it is better if the maximum concerning the constitution of the panels, including qualifications, is set out in the regulations rather than in guidance. I am not relying wholly on the fact that a parliamentary procedure is necessary in the case of regulations but not in the case of guidance; it is only the negative procedure, in any case, which is the least control that Parliament can be given over the matter.
That is one aspect, but it is better also if the constitution of the panels is a more formal matter than something tucked away in guidance which can be altered at any point by the Secretary of State. It should be a formal matter; it is a formal arrangement which is part of the regime for young offenders. It should therefore be set out in statutory regulations as much as possible. However, the Minister has gone some way towards reassuring me and those who agree with me, including my noble friend. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 19 not moved.]
5.45 p.m.
Clause 8 [First meeting: agreement of contract with offender]:
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 7, line 45, leave out ("or otherwise").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 20 is another modest amendment. It concerns the question of how the panel will ensure that the offender carries out some of the things he is obliged to do. Some of those are set out in Clause 8(2) of the Bill and include making financial reparation. It will be fairly clear whether or not he has done that. But many of the other requirements involve the offender going to a specific place at a specific time—for example, to attend mediation sessions; to carry out work or service; to be at home at times specified in the contract (a sort of curfew); to attend school or another educational establishment, or to attend a place of work.
All those requirements may be part of the contract and at a later stage the panel will have to say, ultimately to the court, whether or not the offender complied with the conditions. However, later on—this is where the amendment comes in—the programme may not provide for the monitoring of the offender's whereabouts,
1594
whether electronically or otherwise. I have some sympathy with electronic tagging as a means of monitoring an offender's movements in these circumstances. But if we rule out "or otherwise", the panel will not be able to monitor whether or not the offender has carried out any of the requirements. Indeed, taken to the extreme, nobody will be able to monitor whether or not he has carried out his obligations; for example, whether or not he turned up for school. If the teacher were to call the roll it seems to me that the offender would be entitled to say, "You are not entitled to ask me whether or not I am here and, what is more, you are not entitled to write down whether or not I am here". To do so would be to monitor his whereabouts otherwise than by electronic tagging; in other words, by another means.
It seems to me therefore that if we rule out all other means as well as electronic tagging, we are preventing the proper monitoring of whether or not the offender has complied with his obligations. We should therefore delete the words "or otherwise" so that we are only ruling out, by Clause 8(3)(a), the electronic means of monitoring his whereabouts and leaving the others in. I am not sure what "the others" are, apart from calling the roll in school and the equivalent procedures in the other places where he might have to turn up, but the panels need to be able to monitor the whereabouts of the young offender. I beg to move.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I have some sympathy with the noble Lord, but a meeting with the supervising officer is not monitoring. I believe that the Bill has in mind the type of human monitoring that has been trialled. In that scheme, the offender was monitored either through visits by monitoring staff at home or a previously agreed place, or by telephone. I quite like the scheme, which does not seem to have proceeded beyond trial. It had the merit of some human contact but perhaps one drawback was that the monitoring staff were untrained, so the counselling contact was perhaps not good enough.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, does the Minister consider that Clause 8(2)(i) means that one alternative of the terms of the programme is:
"enabling the offender's compliance with the programme to be supervised and recorded"?
Or is that paragraph supposed to attach to the whole subsection? There is something strange in the wording. When I first read that subsection, I thought it meant that the terms of the programme might be any of those things, which would enable,
"the offender's compliance with the programme to be supervised and recorded".
If that is the case, monitoring is not needed and can be ruled out. If subsection 2(i) is simply one of the considerations, it seems that one has to monitor or there could be misunderstanding in the wording. One has to find out whether the person has been at school or a mediation session. Does the Minister understand the problem?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, Clause 8(2) makes it plain that the terms of the programme may include,
"provision for any of the following",
so any of the provisions (a) to (i) can be included.
The noble Lord, Lord Cope, dealt with his stance on electronic tagging. I understand that is outwith the purpose of Amendment No. 20, so I am not being discourteous in failing to deal with electronic tagging.
We included the phrase "electronically or otherwise" in subsection 3(a) to ensure that the legislation will be sufficiently flexible to accommodate advances in technology. Having seen the amendment, I was concerned that the Bill's wording may be too prohibitive in the way that the noble Lord suggests. By precluding the monitoring of the offender's whereabouts by electronic means or otherwise, we may prevent a young offender team member from checking up on a young person, to ascertain whether they are complying with a particular element of his or her contract. We would not want that consequence and it was not our intention. I am most grateful to the noble Lord for tabling the amendment.
If our preliminary view remains, we will be looking to alter the wording and, if necessary, I will put it right on Third Reading. I am grateful to the noble Lord, not for the first time, for raising an issue that we had overlooked, possibly, because we were focusing on electronic monitoring rather than personal monitoring. I undertake to give the matter further careful thought and, if necessary, come back to it on Third Reading.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his response. I am not sure what technology other than electronic could be pressed into service. Perhaps ultrasound, but that would involve electronics as well. The Minister acknowledges that there is a real if small point here, which he will consider. It could be dealt with by including a definition of "monitoring" that would restrict its meaning, to permit the sort of controls that we both have in mind. In view of the helpful nature of the Minister's reply, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 8, line 35, at end insert ("unless it has already expired.").
The noble Lord said: This group includes Amendments Nos. 22, 23, 24 and 26 and has been tabled to clarify the role of the panel and the powers of the court after the referral period has expired.
In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Cope, was concerned that the courts might be constrained in dealing with a breach of contract if the compliance period expired by the time that the case returned to court. He was understandably concerned that if the courts could only discharge orders in those circumstances, a young offender who failed to co-operate could evade sentencing. I am happy to
1596
reassure the House that that is not the case. The expiry of the compliance period does not constrain the courts. There is no automatic time bar in the arrangements.
Following the noble Lord's intervention, which I again found helpful, we considered again the panel's role at the end of the compliance period. The Bill sets out the expectation that the final meeting will be held before that period expires. The first amendment to Clause 12 strengthens the arrangement by stipulating that the meeting shall be held before it expires. The duration of the referral period and attendance at panel meetings is ordered by the court.
The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Cope, would have the opposite effect. I cannot see a compelling reason to do anything other than to encourage the team to operate in the most efficient and timely manner, to ensure that all the business with the young offender is completed within the compliance period. The purpose of the final meeting is to consider the young offender's compliance with the contract. If compliance is satisfactory, the panel has the power to discharge the order. Where it is not, the young offender may be referred back to the court for breach proceedings. There will he cases where the young offender fails to attend that meeting, and non-attendance at a panel meeting is one of the triggers for the panel to return the young person to court.
There may be a good reason for the young person's absence—perhaps ill health—and, in all other respects, the young person may have complied in full with the requirements of the order. It would be a waste of the court's time for the case to be referred back, so I have tabled a further amendment to Clause 12 to make it clear that the panel may, where appropriate, discharge the order in the young person's absence. Written confirmation of that decision will follow, as required in Clause 12(2)(b).
Compliance will not always be so clear, however. The panel may have serious doubts about the reasons for the absence of the young offender from the meeting, and may already have concerns about compliance with the contract terms. While the government amendments will preclude the panel from adjourning and readjourning to prolong their discussion with the young offender, they will not preclude the panel from referring the case back to the jurisdiction of the court for the breach to be considered. Where it is agreed that a breach has taken place, the court retains the power to resentence. This is made clear in the amendment to Schedule 1.
In light of the fact that breach proceedings may take place after the period of the referral order, the amendment to Clause 9 clarifies the position with regard to revocation. It makes clear that where formal revocation takes place after the expiry of the referral order, that does not have the effect of extending the period of the order beyond the original expiry date.
The government amendments have been drafted to deal with the noble Lord's concerns, and I hope that they meet his purpose. I beg to move.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I am rather puzzled by the Government's insistence, reinforced by

1597
the amendments, that the last meeting of the panel—at which it will take the final decision that an offender has complied with the contract—should take place before the end of the contract period. From memory, I believe that that will be between three and 12 months, and will be set at the time the offender first appears in court. It may end, for example, just after Easter or just after Christmas. Indeed, the only possible or reasonable date upon which to hold the last meeting of the panel falls before the holiday period. Therefore, if it is obliged to be before the end of the contract period, it could actually be quite a long time—some weeks, in some circumstances—before the end of the period. To oblige the panel to make up its mind whether or not the offender has completed all the conditions of the contract over the whole period when there are still some weeks to go seems to me to be unwise.
Ideally, I would want the panels to hold their final meeting on more or less the last day of the period, so that the matter is dealt with promptly. Nevertheless, at the same time, the panels would have the opportunity to see how offenders have behaved during the whole period. If panels are obliged to have such meetings before the time has expired, which seems to me to be the purport of the Government's amendments, they will sometimes have to make a premature decision about the final completion of the offender's terms under the contract.
My amendment would provide that panels could meet after the period has expired. It is perhaps too permissive and it may be that the circumstances in which they would do so should be restricted. However, it does not seem to me to be sufficient just to say that, if necessary, a panel could meet without the young offender concerned being present. If such an offender were available to be present for some reason a day or two after the expiry date, that would seem to me to be perfectly satisfactory and would enable the panel to make a better decision about whether he has complied with the terms of the contract. Therefore, my amendment has a justification over and above the amendments that have been tabled by the Government.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
6 p.m.
Clause 12 [Final meeting]:
[Amendment No. 22 not moved.]
Lord Williams of Mostynmoved Amendments Nos. 23 and 24:
Page 10, line 36, after ("holding") insert (", before the end of that period.").
Page 11, line 6, at end insert—
("( ) Nothing in section 7(2) prevents the panel from making the decision mentioned in subsection (3) in the offender's absence if it appears to the panel to be appropriate to do that instead of exercising either of its powers under section 7(2).
( ) Section 7(2)(a) does not permit the final meeting to be adjourned (or re-adjourned) to a time falling after the end of the compliance period.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Youth offender panels: further court proceedings]:
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 45, line 44, at end insert ("; and
(c) where appropriate, may impose an additional sentence in respect of the time of the panel which has been wasted by the behaviour of the offender.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we have now moved on to the position where the contract has been completed— or, at least, the contract period has been completed—but the contract itself has not been fully complied with and the offender has, therefore, been referred back to the court for sentencing. As I read the Bill as it stands, the court has to ignore the existence of the panel and what has happened during the period of the contract when deciding what sentence to pass. It has to pass a sentence relevant to the offence and not take into account anything that has happened since that time. I see some logic in that, but it seems to me to be very important that the court should also be able to consider the additional information about the offender which has come to light as a result of his response to the panel and to the contract, to which he agreed; or, for that matter, his refusal to agree to a contract, if he refused.
When the young offender returns to the court the latter is in a position to know more about him as a result of what has happened and should take that into account. Part of the reason for moving this amendment, which would give the court power to impose an additional sentence in respect of the time of the panel which has been wasted by the offender, is to provide some form of assistance to the panel in its work. If my amendment is passed, there would be a bit of a stick behind the purpose of the panel. The offender could not just string the panel along. Some young offenders who will find themselves enmeshed in all this are extremely manipulative. In effect, they will string the panel along to see how long they can get away with it. If they know that, whatever they do, the sentence will be exactly the same as if they had been sentenced in the first place, it seems to me that there will be nothing to deter them from doing exactly what I said. That would be a terrible waste of the panel's time; and we certainly do not want that.
We should bear in mind the fact that some of these cases will have been compulsorily referred to such panels; in other words, if the Bill remains as it is, the magistrates will have no discretion. Such offenders will be compulsorily referred, even if the magistrates suspect that the panel might be wasting its time. If the magistrates prove to be right, there is no way in which the court can allow for that in sentencing. However, I think that there should be, hence the tabling of this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I still fail to see the logic of the precise circumstances that the noble Lord, Lord Cope, has in mind in relation to this amendment. I have sat as a youth court magistrate and I believe that those courts have ample powers to deal with the circumstances that are presented to them. I do not think that one needs any draconian measures. Indeed, there may be special circumstances where the youngsters who

1599
appear before the youth panels are given a contractual obligation and yet are unable to meet it. I shall give your Lordships an example. If someone is made the subject of a probation order and is unable to meet the requirements of the Probation Service, he will be brought before the court, which has ample power to deal with the situation.
We discussed youth panels earlier. However, there may be borderline cases where, for example, they fail to make a hospital order. There may indeed be other borderline cases where it is right and proper to say that youngsters make use of some of the provision that has been agreed with the youth panel, but that may be very difficult in relation to certain individuals. There may be those who abuse drugs, who are brought before the panel and given a contractual obligation, and yet may not be able to meet it because of the very condition from which they suffer. I do not believe that the courts require additional powers for them. They can take into account the circumstances as presented to them. The powers are there and they can sentence the youngsters accordingly. I cannot support this particular amendment.
Lord Monson: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, does he agree that the amendment uses the word "may" and not "must"? I believe that that answers the reservations that he has expressed.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that observation. I wish that I had the same confidence in the ability of all magistrates to distinguish between the two.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, surely the sentencing of a young person is done in the normal way, taking into account how that particular young person is likely to react to a certain sentence. More will be known about how a young person will react to a sentence because of the experience of appearing before the panel, and his reaction to that, than was known before. I should have thought that it would be very difficult for a court not to take that into account to a certain extent. I am not quite sure whether the underlying philosophy—that an attempt should be made to make a referral to the panel before someone finally appears in court—necessarily precludes that. I believe that the Government are a little unwise to assume that it is unnecessary to take account of what has happened during the referral period or, indeed, even to ask about it.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, when a young offender breaches the terms of the contract and it is determined that the non-compliance is unreasonable, the court has to consider re-sentencing. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, is right in saying that in those circumstances the court will re-sentence in respect of the original offence with the full range of sentencing powers that they would have had there been no referral order.
This amendment seeks to give the court power to make an additional sentence in respect of the time the panel may have wasted. I do understand the noble Lord's arguments, but I cannot accept his amendment.
1600
Breach of a referral order is not an offence. It is an indication that the referral order is not working in that case. In the worst cases, when it is plain that there is no prospect of co-operation, we would expect—and I take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, here—that the offender would be brought back to the court with the minimum of delay and the minimum therefore of wasted time on the part of the panel, and we intend to ensure through clear guidance that young offenders are given the minimum opportunity to manipulate the panel or give the panel the runaround, as the noble Lord, Lord Cope, indicated.
It is important to bear in mind that the breach of the referral order is not the offence for which the offender is being sentenced. The offender is being sentenced for the original offence for which the referral order was made and has then failed. We do not think therefore that what the noble Lord, Lord Cope, proposes is acceptable, but I stress that we intend to have clear guidance about prompt returns in cases of failure to co-operate.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I should first like to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, that I was not proposing that it should be automatic that an additional sentence would be imposed. I am only proposing that the court should have the opportunity to do so. As I read the Bill, the court at the moment cannot take into account even the most obstructive and difficult behaviour of the offender towards the panel. The Minister seemed to be confirming this by saying very firmly that breach of a referral order is not an offence in itself and should not lead presumably, therefore, to any alteration of the sentence which is imposed on the young offender. However, I am grateful to the Minister for assuring us all that the guidance will provide for the minimum of manipulation (if that can be done), and in particular for the offender to be brought back to court quickly if that seems to be the way in which it is all going. Such a provision would be less necessary if there were not compulsory provisions on the magistrates, but that, as we have already said, is an argument for another time. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 45, line 46, at end insert ("; but those powers are exercisable even if, in a case where a contract has taken effect under section 8, the period for which the contract has effect has expired (whether before or after the referral of the offender back to the court).").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 16 [Witnesses eligible for assistance on grounds of age or incapacity]:
6.15 p.m.
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 12, line 27, leave out ("17") and insert ("18").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rix, as well as my name. Unfortunately the noble Lord is not well and is

1601
unable to be here this evening, but I am sure that he would have moved the amendment much better than I can.
At Committee stage a similar amendment was introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia. The noble Lord, Lord Rix, supported it on the ground that this new legislation ought to be in line with the age limit of children to be found in the 1989 Children Act. I also supported this amendment and noted the inconsistency between the Long Title of the Bill, which refers to offenders under 18, and this clause, which now deals with witnesses and which stipulates 17 as the upper limit of childhood.
The Minister responded positively in discussion at that stage, indicating that protection would be afforded to 17 year-olds with disabilities and to 17 year-olds in circumstances in which there were legitimate concerns of intimidation. However, I am still concerned about the majority of 17 year-olds which will include some with mild learning disabilities who do not fall into either of these categories, yet may be considered vulnerable solely on account of age. It seems to me that their position remains ambiguous unless this amendment is accepted. In my view 17 year-olds should be considered children. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I would like to support my noble friend on this amendment. We are getting into a rather strange position and I am not blaming the Government. It is partly due to the previous legislation. When we discussed the difference between Northern Ireland law and the law of England and Wales as regards the definition of youth—and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, for the long letter that he wrote to me on the 25th February, explaining all this and giving the background—we found that the age limit for youth in Northern Ireland is 17, whereas in England and Wales it is 18.
Here we have the question of what I call delicate witnesses suffering from mental disorder, impairment of intelligence and physical disability, and there we are referring to the age of 17. I feel that it is somehow very artificial that we should have these different ages for different circumstances when dealing with the criminal law relating to youth. The circumstances that are different (on the one hand living in Northern Ireland or in England and Wales and, on the other hand, suffering from some slight impediment) do not seem to me to justify the differences in the age limits. I hope it is not too late for the Government to consider the desirability of being consistent and it is for that reason that I support this amendment.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I sympathise with the desire for certainty and indeed consistency, as the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said a moment ago, which was I think raised when we discussed this matter in Committee. There is obviously a period of time between true childhood and adulthood and (the noble Lord is quite right) Parliament has not produced consistent outcomes.
1602
As I said on the earlier occasion, a girl is able to give consent to sexual intercourse at the age of 16, in other words before she can drive a car; she can buy cigarettes before she can buy drink; and she can be held on remand with adults before she is eligible to be tried for a minor offence in an adult court. There are discrepancies undoubtedly. What we have done here is to adopt the age limits for young people set by Parliament only eight years ago when we passed the Criminal Justice Act 1991, which is of course two years after the Children Act 1989. At that time Parliament agreed that the age limit for treating a witness as a child for the purpose of privileged access to special measures, like video recording or live-link, should be 17 in sexual offence cases and 14 in cases involving violence. It also agreed that the age limit for treating an offender as a child for the purpose of being dealt with by the court, or a witness as a child for the purpose of reporting restrictions, should be set at 18.
I recognise the case that the noble Lord has made for a comprehensive overhaul of age limits. However, I do not think this Bill is the vehicle in which to do that because the discrepancies—as the noble Lord. Lord Renton, indicated—are dotted about a considerable body of legislation. I am happy to say that my resistance to this amendment does not, of course, mean that 17 year-old witnesses cannot have access to special measures. The Bill allows 17 year-olds to claim eligibility for special measures on the grounds that intimidation, disability or disorder, or the nature or circumstances of the offence, will otherwise reduce the quality of the evidence they have to give. I recognise that if one wants perfect symmetry, one can take examples from other Bills. However, if one wants to aim for perfect symmetry underpinned by a wholly consistent approach, this Bill does not constitute the opportunity to do that.
Lord Renton: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, of course he was justified in referring to age limits of various kinds, right down to the age of 14, in other circumstances mentioned in other Bills, but here we are dealing with an important matter within the scope of this Bill alone—leaving aside the other Bills—in which we should try to achieve consistency. It is relevant to mention that we are now going to re-establish a Northern Ireland parliament. Knowing the people of Northern Ireland as I do—and whom I have good reason to know through my responsibilities in the past—I should have thought that the people of Northern Ireland might be rather resentful if they find that there is a disparity between the definition of youth for the purposes of this Bill in this country and its application to similar circumstances in Northern Ireland.
Without doing what the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, said might be done—namely, going right across the statutes in order to achieve consistency—here is an outstanding matter in which I suggest that an attempt could and should be made in this Bill. The Bill, of course, will have to go to another place. Therefore

1603
there is plenty of time for the Government to think about it. I hope that before the Bill receives Royal Assent that may very well be done.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, like my noble friend I hope that the Minister and those who advise him, and also the Ministers in his department in the other place, will give this matter further serious consideration because it is an important matter.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, will he reflect on the fact that the Minister says that we cannot put all the inconsistencies right in this Bill? However, that is not necessarily a reason for adding another inconsistency by means of this Bill.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I entirely agree. The Minister has been helpful in some respects in replying to this amendment but, as I said, I hope that he and his advisers will reflect upon the matter further and that before the Bill finally completes its passage through both Houses of Parliament the Government will bring forward an amendment of this kind. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Annaly Lord Annaly moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 12, line 38, at end insert—
("(c) that the witness is deaf and will require a sign language interpreter for the purposes of giving evidence.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 28 is also supported by my noble friend Lord Swinfen and the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, who is not able to he present today. He supports the amendment strongly. I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 29 and 44, which also stand in my name and those of the two other noble Lords I have just mentioned. They are all connected and they concern profoundly deaf people who rely on sign language to communicate.
This matter is particularly relevant in the context of a court. 1 must declare an interest. I have a stepsister and a halfsister who are both profoundly deaf, one of whom is under the wing of the RNID in Blackburn. The RNID has been kind enough to brief me on these amendments. I declare another interest in that the RNID and British Telecom have sponsored two text phones for me, one of which is in my office in this House. Should anyone wish to communicate with a deaf person, they should feel free to use the phone in my office. I believe it is the only such phone in this House, believe it or not.
I can speak quickly to Amendments Nos. 28 and 29. I believe it is justified to mention on the face of this Bill deaf people who rely on sign language because they are a vulnerable category of people. They may suffer from a mental disorder, as is mentioned in Clause 16(2). I propose to include a further provision. Deaf people may look quite normal but if they cannot hear and have never heard a thing since they were born, I need say no more about how vulnerable they are. Amendment No. 29 proposes to insert the words, "the means of communication" in the Bill. That speaks for itself.
That leads me to Amendment No. 44, which requires a little more explanation. It concerns the case for video recording all sign language communication within a court. The case for video recording all sign language that occurs within a court—whether by a deaf person or an interpreter—is quite simple. Without video recording a mistake can occur in interpreting which can never be corrected as sign language is a visual-spatial language. At the very best audio recordings or written accounts are simply a record of an interpretation. The video taping of all communication by sign language within a court is therefore the most basic safeguard to ensure that mistakes in interpreting can be picked up. It is a simple step to ensure that justice occurs for both deaf and hearing people.
The case for video taping is strong. I wish to highlight research which was carried out two years ago by the Deaf Studies Research Unit at the University of Durham. In the report, Equality Before the Law—Deaf People's Access to Justice, the authors state,
"Yes, interpreters make mistakes. They make wrong decisions. We have certainly observed such errors. Sometimes they have been resolved quickly, at other times they have been ignored. Some errors could have grave consequences. It is generally agreed that it is almost impossible to interpret for any period of time without making some type of error. It is even more likely that the interpreter will make several debatable decisions. When we consider the number of court cases involving deaf people that will proceed with just a single interpreter and with no one in the court who actually knows what they are doing, how competently or incompetently they are proceeding, then this must give all those who have an interest in justice cause for concern".
It therefore comes as no surprise to learn that a key recommendation of this study is that in all stages of legal interaction a video recording should be taken. The video recording within courtrooms at the very least would be easy to undertake and would cost little, yet such a step would do much to ensure that mistakes could be corrected and equality before the law obtained for deaf people. I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I support this group of amendments. With regard to Amendment No. 28, one of the circumstances set out in Clause 16(2)(a)(i) is,
"suffers from mental disorder within the meaning of the Mental Health Act 1983".
A profoundly deaf person may suffer from that, but most deaf people do not. Sub-paragraph (ii) states:
"otherwise has a significant impairment of intelligence and social functioning".
Just because someone is profoundly deaf does not mean that he is not intelligent. Some profoundly deaf people are extremely bright. Neither does it mean that they have an impairment of social functioning. Subsection (2)(b) states:
"that the witness has a physical disability or is suffering from a physical disorder".
As far as I am aware, profound deafness is not a physical disability or a physical disorder; it is a sensory disability. The Minister and his advisers should look at this part of the Bill in that light. The same also applies to Amendment No. 29.

1605
With regard to Amendment No. 44, my noble friend pointed out that it is essential to have a video recording of the sign language interpretation. There are relatively few interpreters of sign in this country and some are better than others. In answer to a question the other day, the noble Lord the Minister, when talking about video recording police interviews which can be brought into the criminal proceedings in court, mentioned that it was perfectly satisfactory to have a sound recording of that interview. That would be perfectly all right for those who can understand the spoken word; a profoundly deaf person cannot understand the spoken word. He may be able to lip read but there will be no effective video recording of the lips of the people speaking—certainly not of the profoundly deaf person.
There should be excellent video recording facilities in these instances. If excellent ones are not available—the noble Lord the Minister was talking about the costs and said that not all police stations have recording equipment—I should have thought that it would be possible, because there are so many camcorders around today, to borrow one and even to get someone in—and, if necessary, put them under oath not to reveal what has gone on—to video record the profoundly deaf person's signing and the signing of the interpreter translating. If there is a sound recording of someone translating from, say, Chinese into English, that can be corrected later on. There is no alteration. But it is no good having a sound recording of a sign language interpretation. It makes no sound. Therefore, it is essential to have a video recording of it. Such an occasion will come up rarely, but it is important. I hope that the Minister will give serious thought to this matter when he is considering, the amendments. I sincerely support my noble friend's amendment.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I, too, support my noble friend's amendments. It seems to me that it might be possible to define physical disability so as to include deafness and sensory disability within that term. I accept that it is not generally regarded as within that term and that is. after all, crucial to the amendment. If it were within that term, there would be no need for Amendment No. 28 and, I suppose, Amendment No. 29. Nevertheless, there is no doubt that profoundly deaf people suffer from a disability which prevents them from giving evidence in the normal way.
Similarly, as my noble friend has said, it is absolutely useless to have a tape recording of sign language. It would not show anything. The video recording is essential in such cases, as drafted in Amendment No. 44.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, I support this group of amendments. The impression I get is that errors may creep in with the sign language. The nearest analogy is that of the third umpire that one now has at important cricket matches; someone who can study a video of what actually took place and then give a clear impression of whether a person is out. On that kind of analogy, it seems to me that there should be a video recording so that people can subsequently make sure that what the witness has said has been correctly
1606
interpreted by the court. While I appreciate the problems of not always having the recorders available, it is something towards which we should be aiming.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the Trials Issues Group looked at the difficulty of those who are deaf in court and the entitlement of deaf witnesses to a sign language interpreter is perfectly plain. The Bill does not affect that. That is by way of background.
My advice is that Clause 16(2)(b) covers deaf witnesses, including those who are deaf by virtue of neurological disability, a point raised by the noble Lords, Lord Swinfen and Lord Cope. The advice I have is that deaf witnesses are covered by Clause 16 (2)(b). I must underline that the guidance we propose to provide will make that abundantly clear.
If deaf witnesses have a problem in communicating they may have great difficulty in giving their evidence in the way they would wish. Distress can be considered as an effect of disability, which should be considered under Clause 16 rather than Clause 17. I repeat what I said in Committee. It is perfectly possible that applications for special measures can be made under both Clause 16 and Clause 17 and they can be granted under both. I repeat: the application needs to set out why the witness was eligible for special measures and what special measures were needed with reference to either or both Clauses 16 and 17.
Under Clause 17, the court may consider whatever factors it thinks are relevant. The clause sets out a list of factors which must be particularly taken into account, but it is not an exhaustive list. The court will consider the factors under Clause 17(2)(c) if they seem to be relevant. I therefore do not think that the first two amendments are needed.
As to the question of the video recording of sign language interpreting in court, increasingly, experience shows that the sign language interpreters are accredited. That is not a perfect answer because not all of them are, but I am told that most of them are accredited and those who are not are normally recommended to the court by those who are properly able to judge their competence. At present, the video recording of proceedings in court is contrary to Section 41 of the Criminal Justice Act 1925. It is covered by the general prohibition in Section 41.
What I can do, and what I am happy to do, is to say that I will consider—I am dealing now with Amendment No. 44 because it is rather different—the matter with the Lord Chancellor's Department. Whether it will have a view that is agreeable to the noble Lords, Lord Annaly and Lord Swinfen, who put forward the amendments—and did so very moderately—I do not know. I certainly undertake to look at that, perhaps get some indication of the extent of the problem, and see whether the Lord Chancellor's Department has a view, hearing in mind that it is essentially within the remit of the Lord Chancellor's Department rather than the Home Office as it concerns the conduct of a criminal trial.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down. may I say that my understanding is that examination-in-chief can take place over a video recording. I am speaking now as a layman. I am not a lawyer. If I use a wrong expression I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me. I understand that with a vulnerable witness the video recording of the first interviews at the police station can be used in court as primary evidence.
I was suggesting that it is necessary to examine the sign language given by the profoundly deaf person at the police station, which may be accompanied by the signing of an interpreter who may have been engaged at short notice and therefore may not be perfect. The situation may become fairly heated and excited as the profoundly deaf person is asked awkward and sometimes most unpleasant questions. They may have been the victim of an assault and be still upset. It is essential that there is an opportunity to examine the very first signing which one can do with a verbal recording. But that cannot be done with a person who speaks through sign only. There is that aspect of the matter as well as the court aspect. I appreciate the noble Lord's view that at the moment it is illegal to video in a court room. I appreciate that the noble Lord will take up the matter with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. The initial recording at the police station is as important—possibly even more so—than at court.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I appreciate that this is Report stage, but I believe that the noble Lord is entitled to a full response to that latter aspect of the matter. When I answered the noble Lord, Lord Annaly, recently, I was not simply saying that an audio recording would be of benefit to the person at the police station who was profoundly deaf. I underlined that the audio recording would be available and also a signed, written record. That was the second part of my answer, which the noble Lord may have forgotten. I was careful to do that. I take the point that technology is available and that one can have split-screen recording so that one has a view of the suspect or the questioned person's demeanour as well as of the actual signing. I shall certainly consider it with the Lord Chancellor's Department. I do not know whether we will come to a conclusion that is satisfactory to noble Lords who have urged this course. I shall certainly consider the matter carefully.
Lord Annaly: My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for his reply which offers hope. The noble Lord can do no more than talk to the Lord Chancellor and use his powers of persuasion. As regards Clause 16(2), the noble Lord said that he did not agree to the amendment. My concern is that the magistrate, judge and, if necessary, the jury may not perceive a perfectly normal, but deaf, person as a vulnerable witness. That is why I asked for that particular amendment to be included in the Bill. The noble Lord said that he would mention the matter in the notes for people to see. My suspicion is that when something is included in the small print people do not necessarily refer to it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 17 [Witnesses eligible for assistance on grounds of fear or distress about testifying]:
[Amendment No. 29 not moved.]
Clause 18 [Special measures available to eligible witnesses]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 14, line 9, at end insert—
("( ) The withdrawal of a notice under that subsection relating to a special measure shall not affect the availability of that measure in relation to a witness if a special measures direction providing for that measure to apply to the witness's evidence has been made by the court before the notice is withdrawn.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 115 to 119 and Amendments Nos. 121 and 124. We have laid these amendments relating to transitional provisions. The reason is that not every special measure is likely to be made available on the same date to every eligible witness in every court area, in the magistrates' courts as well as the Crown Court.
Implementation plans are being considered by the project groups established under the supervision of an inter-departmental steering group led by the Home Office. We are concerned to produce an integrated programme for all the 78 recommendations of the Speaking Up for Justice report. We are likely to have advice by the end of April.
We would not want to lead witnesses to believe that they could benefit from the new measures in Chapter 1 of Part II of the Bill, especially before a training strategy has been implemented, guidance has been produced and the necessary equipment is in place. It may be necessary to commence this chapter early to allow for pilot arrangements. I emphasise that no detailed decisions about timetables and approaches have yet been taken. We simply want to allow the maximum flexibility.
Therefore, until full implementation, there will be a continuing need to rely on existing provisions such as Sections 32 and 32A of the Criminal Justice Act 1991, which provide for video and live link evidence from children. There will be a continuing need to rely on the common law power of the court to arrange for such measures as taking off wigs and gowns; for screens, sign language interpreters and signboards. The amendments are essentially designed to ensure that in the earlier stages the new arrangements and the old are able to run side by side. They also provide for the situation where a notification that a measure is available to a court is withdrawn by the Secretary of State. The amendment provides that witnesses who had been awarded the measure through a special measures direction before the measure was withdrawn would still be able to benefit from them.
The amendments also provide that we can commence rule and order-making powers provided for by both parts of the Bill before commencement of the substantive provisions to which they relate. This is an administrative device but it should enable us to bring in measured and effective implementation of the substantive provisions in the Bill when their time comes. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 19 [Special measures direction relating to eligible witness]:
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 15, line 4, leave out ("might tend") and insert ("would be likely").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is a redraft of an amendment introduced at Committee stage to ensure that special measures are not ruled out by judges unless there are good grounds to do so. As currently drafted, special measures can be rejected on the rather loose grounds that they might tend to inhibit the evidence. The Minister warned of the need for a balancing act between protecting the witness and allowing the court discretion in such matters. That is why he did not support the earlier amendment which he considered went too far in favour of the witness. I hope that this redrafting of the amendment will be a compromise solution sustaining the balancing act that the Minister is so keen to safeguard. I believe that the amendment strengthens the verification conditions of the clause creating a slightly stronger burden of proof in line with the test on the balance of probabilities without denying the court discretion in such matters. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am sorry that I cannot accept the amendment. The courts have to ensure that the witnesses' evidence is properly examined and that they do not set up obstacles to its being challenged by a party to the proceedings. That is why we believe that we have got the balance right in Clause 19(3)(b) which provides,
"whether the measure or measures might tend to inhibit such evidence being effectively tested by a party to the proceedings".
If the court has any doubts about whether it will be possible to test a witness's evidence adequately if the evidence is going to be given with a special measure, which may sometimes be difficult, the court should not award the measure. I believe that conflicts will be rare. Special measures are designed to improve the quality of a witness's evidence. They are not designed to prevent the evidence that the witness gives from being challenged.
The phrase introduced in the amendment, "would be likely to inhibit", would require the court to decide whether it is likely, on the balance of probabilities, that a measure would inhibit a witness's evidence being tested. If it considered, for example, that there was a one in three chance that it might be inhibited—a substantial risk, but still more unlikely than likely—then, if it followed the test strictly, it should award the measure.
"Might tend to inhibit" would allow the court to refuse measures where there is a real risk of inhibition but the risk is not so high that it is more likely than unlikely. "Tend to" caters for a more general interpretation of inhibition in the context of the wider circumstances of the case.
We have doubts as to whether this amendment would be capable of being upheld because of the conflict with Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, whereby everyone charged with a criminal offence has the right to have witnesses against him examined, and to have those who are called on his behalf examined under the same conditions. That is a point that I include in the
1610
debate; it is not determinative of the Government's response. We simply think that the balance referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, is about right in the present phraseology.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, this is possibly a matter of six of one and half a dozen of the other. The language is very close. But language tends, and is likely, to change over the years. However, I thank the Minister for the trouble that he has taken in replying. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 20 [Further provisions about directions: general]:
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 15, line 44, at end insert—
("( ) In particular, the court must state in open court its reasons for any special measures direction which restricts the ability of representation of the news media to observe fully all the proceedings of the court.").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this amendment is the first of a group of amendments concerning the press. Amendment No. 33 allows the news media to see witnesses.
We understand that witnesses may need to be protected and screened from either the accused or the public, or both. However, it is important that under exceptional circumstances, when for some reason the news media are also to be screened, the court should have to say why. Otherwise, we run the risk of courts taking, as it were, the easy route and automatically excluding everyone.
If the news media are not present (this point relates to a later amendment) there is always lopsided reporting. The amendment asks the Government to explain the reasoning behind this clause. There has been great concern in the press about the Bill, as the Minister is aware. There is a strong case for the onus to be put on the courts to explain their decisions. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, Part II of the Bill has two main aims: to encourage witnesses to come to court to give evidence and to help those who need it to give their evidence when they get there. Clause 19(4) already provides that any special measures direction must specify particulars of the provision made in respect of each special measure which is to apply. The amendments seek to alter that position by imposing an obligation on the court to justify any special measure which restricts the media's ability to see what is going on and to give specific permission to restrict the media's view. We do not think that is necessary.
I do not believe that it is essential for the media to have an unrestricted view of a witness giving evidence if that is impossible in practice; and I do not believe that the interests of open justice require that the court should have to give reasons to the media why special measures have been awarded if their effect is to restrict that view.
The reasons are clear enough. The court will only be able to award the special measures described in Chapter I of the Bill if the witness needs them to give best quality evidence. The court will have to give its reasons

1611
for awarding every individual measure. It seems unnecessary also to require the court to spell out each time that it is not imposing the measure simply to obstruct the press.
I agree that where possible the media should be able to see witnesses as well as hear their evidence and report it; but I do not believe that it should be a critical factor in the court's decision to award such measures. After all, the measures are there in order to obtain the best evidence from witnesses and to help the witnesses who are giving evidence by reducing the feeling of being simply on public show or in a public debate while they talk about matters which they may feel will place them in danger or about which they find it extremely difficult to talk, even to those who are closest to them.
The measures are all designed so that witnesses can be watched while they are giving evidence by the judge or magistrate, the jury, and a legal representative, so that the evidence can be properly challenged by the parties to the case. If in some circumstances the media, particularly in older courtrooms, simply cannot see the witness, they can hear the evidence. If the evidence is given by live link or video they can see that also.
Perhaps I should say a word or two generally. The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, is right. Some of his concerns will be more fully ventilated when we debate amendments to Clause 24. In Committee, I promised your Lordships that I would meet representatives of the media as fully as they wanted. I and my officials have met them. We are still having discussions, which I hope are open-minded on both sides, about how we safeguard the genuine public interest in having media reports of court cases. I shall speak to some amendments later this evening. I am simply touching on the amendments to Clause 24 to indicate that we take the rights of a free press in a civil society extremely importantly.
I believe that there are sufficient safeguards in the Bill as presently drafted. Therefore, I cannot on behalf of the Government accept Amendments Nos. 32 to 34.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister's considered reply. However, I do not find it entirely satisfactory. The Minister rightly raises the issues of a live link, so that the media can see, and of old courtrooms and the difficulties that exist where the press are unable to see, possibly as a result of seating arrangements. I accept that point.
However, where that is the case, and I suspect that it will be the case with regard to witnesses in a minority of cases, it seems reasonable to ask the court to explain its reasons. That is all that the amendment seeks to do. It does not in any way force the court to screen or unscreen. It does not force the court to do anything. It merely says that where the court is decided on an action, it must give its reasons. That is not unreasonable.
I accept the other points made by the Minister. However, the press—certainly the Guild of Editors and other members of the press to whom I have talked—have all made the point that the onus should be on the
1612
court to state its reasons. This is an important point. It is a simple one. It is not an onerous duty to place upon a court. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
6.59 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 32) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 80; Not-Contents, 105.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Lyell, L.

Anelay of St. Johns, B.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Annaly, L.

McNally, L.

Astor, V.

Maddock, B.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Mancroft, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Belstead, L.

Marlesford, L.

Bridgeman, V. [Teller.]

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B

Carlisle, E.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Monson, L.

Chalker of Wallasey. B.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Chesham, L.

Northesk, E.

Colwyn, L.

Palmer, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Cranborne, V.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Prior, L.

Dholakia, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Razzall. L.

Falkland, V.

Renton, L.

Fookes, B.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Russell, E.

Geddes, L.

Seccombe, B.

Gray of Contin, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Grey, E.

Skidelsky, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Haddington, E.

Stewartby, L.

Hampton, L.

Swinfen, L.

Hamwee, B.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Hamar-Nicholls, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Harrowby, E.

Tope, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hemphill, L.

Vinson, L.

Henley, L. [Teller.]

Vivian, L.

Hooson, L.

Waddington, L.

Kimball, L.

Weir, V.

Kingsland, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Ludford, B.

Windlesham, L.

Luke, L.

Wise, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Ahmed, L.

Chandos, V.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Christopher, L.

Alli, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Amos, B. [Teller.]

Clinton-Davis, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Bach, L.

David, B.

Blackstone, B.

Davies of Coity, L.

Blease, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Borrie, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Bragg, L.

Desai. L

Bristol, Bp.

Donoughue, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Brookman, L.

Evans of Watford, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Burlison, L.

Gallacher, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Gilbert, L.

1613

Glenamara, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Nicol, B.

Goudie, B.

Orme, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Grenfell, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Hacking, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Hardie, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Puttnam L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Hayman, B.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Rea, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Renwick of Clifton, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Hoyle, L.

Sawyer, L.

Hughes, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Sewel, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Shepherd, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Simon, V.

Jay of Paddington, B. [Lord Privy Seal]

Simon of Highbury, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Judd, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Kirkhill. L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Levy, L.

Thomas of Macclesfield, L.

Lockwood, B.

Thornton, B.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Uddin, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Varley, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Warner, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Watson of Invergowrie, L.

Molloy, L.

Weatherill, L.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Whitty, L.

Monkswell, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Montague of Oxford, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
7.8 p.m.
Clause 22 [Screening witness from accused]:
[Amendment No. 33 not moved.]
Clause 23 [Evidence by live link]:
[Amendment No. 34 not moved.]
Clause 24 [Evidence given in private]:
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 18, leave out lines 40 and 41 and insert ("or
(d) bona fide representatives of newspapers or news agencies.").
The noble Viscount said: Amendments Nos. 36, 37 and 38 are grouped with Amendment No. 35. These amendments concern the press. I welcome Amendment No. 36 standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, which I believe addresses the concerns raised in my Amendments Nos. 37 and 38. If that is not the case, I am sure that the noble Lord will explain to me the way in which the amendments differ.
An important issue is raised in Amendment No. 35, which goes further than the amendments grouped with it. As currently drafted Clause 24(2) provides that representatives of newspapers and news agencies are included in the group that can be removed from the court.
The Guild of Editors and various other press organisations are concerned about this very general power. They feel that it is not consistent with the
1614
principle of open justice and the long-standing exception to permit the press to be present as the public's representative when other members of the public are excluded in similar circumstances. There are plenty of circumstances in which the public are excluded but the press is allowed to remain. One asks why in those circumstances the press should be allowed to stay. At Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, cited the example of a hostile press, for example those who represented the National Front or something of that kind. There is clear evidence—no doubt the noble Lord will put me right if I am wrong—that if a reporter sought to intimidate a witness in court, in any court building, on the way to court, or in any publication or coverage of the case that affected the witness's willingness to testify or changed his or her evidence, the existing law of contempt and the powers of the court would be sufficient to deal with that problem.
The Government appear to take the view that there are exceptional circumstances in which the press should be excluded. Quite naturally, that has caused alarm bells to ring. I am aware that the Minister is concerned about this matter and has had meetings with representatives of the press. As he said at an earlier stage, he is a supporter of the press and its ability to report court proceedings. I believe that in this electronic age when there are cameras in court it is important that information technology should allow the press immediate access to transcripts. I should like the Minister to address that point because it would clear up confusion in the mind of the media as to exactly how the Government see the process working.
It is difficult to envisage a case in which media representatives should merit total exclusion and that the discomfort felt by witnesses could not be met by other means now within the powers, for example by means of technology. If the press lacks an absolute right to live links, transcripts and tape recordings, fair and accurate reports will be very difficult to produce. That is probably the most important issue that is raised by Clause 24.
While thanking the Minister for going some way to alleviate our concerns and also for the meetings that I know he has had with representatives of the press, I do not believe that this issue has been satisfactorily resolved. This is an opportunity for the noble Lord to explain the Government's thinking on this matter so that noble Lords can give the matter careful consideration. I beg to move.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, this amendment is grouped with Amendments Nos. 36 to 38. I briefly repeat my comments of a few moments ago. I said in Committee that I would have further discussions with the media. We have had useful discussions with the broadcast and print media. I am particularly grateful to Miss Santha Rasaiah of the Guild of Editors and the Newspaper Society who has been very patient and extremely helpful in putting forward what I recognise to be genuinely held concerns within the press.

1615
I do not believe that the noble Viscount is right in one respect. He gave the example of the presence of National Front reporters and said that that would amount to contempt. That is not so, unless they committed an act of contempt by way of harassment or intimidation. Their presence might in some circumstances disturb witnesses, but I believe that to be a marginal point. The amendments that I have tabled are designed specifically to make clear that the court should exclude the press only where it expressly wishes to do so rather than as a matter of routine or assumption.
The noble Viscount rightly pointed out in Committee that the very fact that the press was currently the only group specified on the face of the Bill perhaps suggested that it should be excluded more regularly than other groups. That is quite the opposite of our intention. I tried to give the press a safeguard that it could not be excluded without a deliberate decision by the court in particular circumstances. Undoubtedly, that would be a greater safeguard for our colleagues in the press. Whether or not that is sufficient for their purposes is another question. I am still in correspondence with them. Based on my latest instructions, I hope to have a meeting with them at 11 o'clock tomorrow morning.
The second amendment is a specific protection for the press. The noble Viscount is quite correct that its purpose is essentially that of his last amendment; namely, continuation of the protection by way of
"privilege or exemption from liability in respect of fair, accurate and contemporaneous reports of legal proceedings held in public".
What I seek to do in that amendment has the same purpose as that which underlies his Amendment No. 38. Therefore, to that extent he is quite right.
My amendment is not set in stone. I want to assist the press as fully as possible. We had extremely good discussions in the context of the Data Protection and Human Rights Acts and were able to reach a compromise that satisfied all parties. I stress that I recognise the importance of a free press in reporting court proceedings. Any exclusion of the press should be extremely rare. I table these amendments at this stage, but I am still considering whether or not the present amendments in my name are as good as we can get them. I hope that on that basis and with fairly vigorous reassurance—however, there can be no promises—the noble Viscount will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. Before he sits down, perhaps I may put two questions. I preface them by saying that my Amendment No. 35 makes reference to
"bona fide representatives of newspapers or news agencies".
I realise that "bona fide" is an expression that is open to interpretation and probably does not satisfy the Minister. However, that was my modest attempt to exclude those who might not be regarded as representatives of proper news media (if that is a term that can be used). I should like to put two specific questions to the Minister. First, the noble Lord said that the press would be excluded only in extremely rare circumstances. I believe that the difficulty faced by your Lordships lies in understanding
1616
those circumstances. Can the Minister give an example of rare circumstances? I believe that that would be helpful.
Secondly, if the press is excluded, does it mean that it lacks those absolute rights to live links, transcripts or tape recordings during the proceedings or at a later stage? It would be helpful if the Minister could answer that question.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the press does not have an absolute right to live links. It does not have a right to have cameras in court. At present it does not have the right to have tape recordings. On my recollection of the law a journalist is entitled to operate a tape recording in court only with the specific authority of the tribunal.
I undertake to think carefully about the legitimate worries of the press. I regard them as genuinely held. They are an important aspect of the proper reporting of court proceedings in this country.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister's reply. I am sorry to press him, but if the press were excluded for some reason, will it then be given access to those court proceedings at one time or another, whether or not it has an absolute right? Is it the Government's intention that the press should be able to report those proceedings?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Viscount does not understand the present position. No transcript at present is kept by the magistrates' court. Very often now there is no contemporaneous transcript in the Crown Court. There used to be, but the proceedings are now mainly recorded mechanically and transcripts are not available until ordered.
I do not think that the exclusion of the press has anything to do with whether or not it has access to specific pieces of evidence. I repeat: it has no right to a camera; it has no absolute right to take tape recordings; it has only the opportunity to request the court that the proceedings be tape recorded.
I believe that two issues are being confused: first, the exclusion of the press and, secondly, what "rights" it might have. Those are, in fact, limited and are not as extensive as the noble Viscount mentioned.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister's response. I did not seek to say that the press had greater rights than it does at present. I sought to establish the Government's view in circumstances where the press was excluded. The Minister was unable to give me an example. How will the press report the case when it is excluded for a part of the proceedings? What is the Government's intention? Is the press to be allowed to know what happens in those proceedings?
I recognise that there are two issues here. I believe that they are linked. However, the Minister said that he will continue his discussions with the media, the press and the Guild of Editors. I am delighted to accept that important statement. The Minister has gone a long way with his amendment. The issue will require more

1617
negotiation between the press and the Minister. We shall wish to consider the matter carefully and return to it at Third Reading. In the light of what the Minister said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 19, line 4, at end insert—
("( ) A special measures direction shall not be taken to provide for the exclusion under this section of representatives of newspapers or news agencies except to the extent that it does so expressly.
( ) Any proceedings from which persons are excluded under this section (whether or not those persons include representatives of newspapers or news agencies) shall nevertheless be taken to be held in public for the purposes of any privilege or exemption from liability available in respect of fair, accurate and contemporaneous reports of legal proceedings held in public.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 37 and 38 not moved.]
Clause 26 [Video recorded evidence in chief]:
Lord Thomas of Gresford Lord Thomas of Gresford moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 19, line 8, leave out first ("the witness") and insert ("a witness who is eligible by virtue of section 16(1)").
The noble Lord said: I move now to an entirely different topic. It deals with the special measures proposed in Clause 26 concerning video recorded evidence-in-chief. It is linked to Clause 27: where a special measures direction may provide for a video recording of evidence-in-chief that same direction can include video recorded cross-examination or re-examination.
The purpose of the amendment is to limit the circumstances in which such a direction can be made to exclude all witnesses and to include merely witnesses who are eligible for assistance on the ground of age or incapacity as set out in Clause 16(1) of the Bill.
When I raised the matter in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, replied at col. 1357 of Hansard of 1st February:
"There is a case, if it is carefully and cautiously approached, for keeping nervous witnesses out of court and allowing them to give their evidence in a more relaxed way. We need to bear in mind that for witnesses intimidated by threats or fear of violence the law already allows the written statements of absent witnesses to be placed before the court, or for a witness to be granted absolute anonymity in court".
Since the noble Lord referred to the existing law under Section 23 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, I thought that it would be instructive to compare the existing law with the proposals set out in the Bill in order to indicate the extent to which the law is weakened so far as concerns the interest of the defendant.
Section 23 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 states that,
"a statement made by a person in a document shall be admissible in criminal proceedings as evidence in any fact of which direct oral evidence by him would be admissible if"
—there are a number of conditions—
1618
"the statement was made to a police officer or some other person charged with the duty of investigating offences or charging offenders".
A statement that is made to a police officer or to a person charged with investigating offences is made in a statutory form and, as the statement will say in terms, any person who says anything he knows to be false or does not believe to be true in that statement can be charged and convicted of an offence and is subject to penal sanctions. Under the 1988 Act the statement has to be one to which the proper provisions apply. The second condition is that,
"the person who made it does not give oral evidence through fear or because he is kept out of the way".
"Fear" is a rather stronger word than the words employed in the Bill. For these existing provisions to apply, "fear" must be established by evidence to the appropriate standard of proof—that is to say, beyond reasonable doubt—and such evidence must itself be admissible.
The court has a duty to consider where the interests of justice lie with regard to the admission of the evidence. Essentially, for the provisions to apply at present there must be admissible evidence which will prove that a witness is in fear before the statement can be read.
When one looks at the provisions of this Bill, it is helpful, first, to look at the circumstances, set out in Clause 17(1), in which a person becomes eligible for assistance. It is not simply through fear proved by admissible evidence. That clause states that,
"a witness in criminal proceedings … is eligible for assistance … if the court is satisfied that the quality of evidence given by the witness is likely to be diminished by reason of fear or distress on the part of the witness in connection with testifying in the proceedings".
So the first question that one must ask in relation to Clause 17(1) is: what is the standard of proof? Does the court have to be satisfied so that it is sure—the criminal burden of proof—that the quality of evidence is likely to be diminished?
Secondly, it refers not only to reason of fear but also to distress, so that a witness who says, "I cannot give evidence because I am distressed", not, "because I am fearful" can have special measures applied to him. There is no reference in that clause to the court considering the application that was made for the special measures to apply in the interests of justice.
Clause 17(3) states:
"In determining that question the court must in addition consider any views expressed by the witness".
What does that mean? That does not mean that it is evidence on oath given by the witness. Presumably it can be by a letter or hearsay evidence. The court must consider any views expressed by the witness. The same standard of requirement is not suggested in this Bill.
Under subsection (4) a complainant in a sexual offence is presumed to be eligible for assistance. There is already a weakening there of the circumstances in which special measures can be ordered.
Perhaps I may turn to the particular clause in question and my amendment to it. Clause 26(1) states:

1619
"A special measures direction may provide for a video recording of an interview of the witness to he admitted as evidence in chief of the witness".
That is simply an "interview of the witness". It is not qualified in any way. it clearly does not have to satisfy any particular statutory requirements; it is not under oath; and there is no criminal sanction for anything that the witness may say in that interview.
Of course, it has the practical disadvantage that it may apply to any witness who cannot necessarily be identified when the interview takes place. If my amendment were to be adopted, it would be fairly obvious that the proposed witness was either a child, under Clause 16(1), or a person who suffers from a mental disorder or who has a significant impairment of intelligence and social functioning. So, in those circumstances, from the very beginning of an investigation, the police can say, "This is the sort of witness for whom special measures will be required", and an interview can be carried out in a particular way.
However, that video-recorded interview does not, according to Clause 26, have to be carried out even by the police. I presume that a discussion between a complainant and her solicitor or anybody else could be admitted under this special measures dispensation.
Then, as I have said, the circumstances of Clause 27 follow. Once the court makes a determination by way of a special measure in relation to any witness in any sort of case—we are not dealing with sexual complaints but with any sort of case—then the cross-examination by way of a video recording can also be ordered at the same time.
In a subsequent amendment I shall deal with what I consider to be the perils of video cross-examination, but before we reach that stage I must deal with Clause 26. Therefore, my amendment is extremely important. It simply cuts down the broad expression of "witness" to a witness who can be identified at the beginning of an investigation by the police and provides for proper safeguards to be put in place and proper questioning to take place. Instead of the broad definition of "witness" it provides specifically that it shall refer to a child under the age of 17 or a mentally impaired person for whom, perhaps, some special regard must be had. I beg to move.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to reduce the availability of video-recorded evidence, in the context of Clause 26, and limit it to those persons, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, said, who are covered by Clause 16(1). It would therefore exclude those who are covered by Clause 17(1).
It is important to remember that, because every critical observation made about interviewing and hearsay, and all the criticisms which the noble Lord made about the introduction of a Clause 26 video-recorded interview in the context of Clause 17, would, it seems to me, apply also, with equal force, to Clause 16. But there is no attempt to remove the possibility of giving Clause 26 interviews in evidence in Clause 16. So there is an inconsistency there.
1620
I anticipate that this measure would be used mainly for witnesses who are eligible under Clause 16, whether because they are children or they have a disability or disorder which may affect their evidence. I do not anticipate it being widely used for witnesses eligible under Clause 17. I believe that it would be quite difficult to convince a court that the measure should be used.
Also, one needs to remember that the party calling the witness must consider whether the witness's evidence would have more impact if given live at trial, whether by live television link or in the courtroom itself. There may be witnesses who are subject to such intimidation or who have such distress that they would give better evidence if kept completely away from the court on the day of the trial and could give better evidence in a relaxed setting soon after the events. This provision merely seeks to give the court discretion to allow that if it considers it appropriate.
In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, said that that is tipping the balance too far against the defendant. I disagree. I return to my point. If it is fair and keeps the appropriate balance in the context of Clause 16, I suggest that is quite fair and is an appropriate balance by virtue of Clause 17.
I repeat what I said in Committee. For those who are intimidated by threats or fear of violence, the written statements of absent witnesses can be put before the court. In some circumstances, witnesses can be given anonymity on a public interest immunity certificate. We are not going that far here. We are merely giving the courts the discretion to make a direction that video-recorded evidence from a relevant witness should be admitted where the court is persuaded that the measure is needed to put important evidence in its best form before the court.
In Committee, the noble Lords, Lord Thomas and Lord Cope, raised the issue of whether the police have proper training to interview a witness. They have now been doing it in relation to child witnesses since the implementation of the Criminal Justice Act 1991. Nothing in the Bill affects the powers of the courts to admit documentary hearsay when the circumstances are appropriate under the Criminal Justice Act 1988, and one should not overlook that point. Section 23 provides for the admissibility of hearsay in extreme circumstances; in other words, when it is the only way of getting the evidence from the witness.
The purpose of the Bill is quite different. We are trying to improve the completeness, coherence and quality of oral evidence given by the witness. I would suggest that that is more of a safeguard in many circumstances than the admissibility of witness statements in writing without the opportunity of any cross-examination. Clause 30(5) does not affect the operation of the law relating to hearsay.
I repeat that in the context of Clause 17 this power is likely to be rarely used. It is more likely to be used in the context of Clause 16.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, raised the question of how strongly the views must be expressed by the witness and how they are to be expressed. The witness's views are taken into account. It is for the court

1621
of trial, whether magistrates or a judge presiding in a jury trial, to come to its own conclusion as to whether or not such views are persuasive. That is an exercise with which the courts are familiar at present.
I express my appreciation of the care with which the noble Lord has raised his objections. However, I believe them to be unfounded. I repeat that in the context of Clause 17 this is a power which is likely to be used quite sparingly.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, my objection to the way in which Clause 26 is framed is its breadth, referring to any witness in any case. I suggest there is no inconsistency in conceding that in the case of a child or a person suffering from mental incapacity, special provisions should and could be made. One is broadening the whole scope of the clause to people who are not simply intimidated—the word used by the Minister—but those who can claim eligibility for having their videoed interviews shown by way of evidence-in-chief through distress at giving evidence. It is very much a weakening of the existing position where fear has to be proved before a statement can be read to the court.
I am grateful to the Minister for his usual courtesy in dealing with the amendment. However, he has not addressed the fact that there is no criterion that the courts should act in the interests of justice nor has he addressed the lack of sanction that applies to a videoed interview. In my view, these matters are important and must be returned to at Third Reading. For the moment, however, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned. In moving this Motion I suggest that the Report stage begins again not before 8.25 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

National Minimum Wage Act 1998 (Amendment) Regulations 1999
7.43 p.m.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 16th February be approved [10th Report from the Joint Committee].
My Lords, I am proud to come to this House today to present these draft regulations on the national minimum wage. For the convenience of Members I shall speak about both sets of regulations together.
This Government were elected on the promise that they would introduce a national minimum wage. We are now approaching the end of a long road which has brought us to the brink of delivering that promise.
Your Lordships have, of course, already contributed to this process. There were useful and interesting debates on various issues when the National Minimum Wage Bill was being considered last year. I hope that the debate this evening will be equally productive.
The Bill provided the framework of powers to establish a national minimum wage. The draft regulations which are now before the House use some of those powers to put the detailed technical arrangements in place. I shall explain what they do in a little while.
The Government have placed a premium on consultation and transparency throughout the process of bringing forward the minimum wage. We set up the Low Pay Commission which did a UK-wide consultation, receiving some 600 responses from all sectors and sides of industry. We placed its report before this House. We carried out a further consultation on the draft regulations and received some 300 responses. A report on its outcome has been placed in the Library of the House. We have also laid before the House a report on areas where the regulations depart from, or build on, the original Low Pay Commission recommendations.
I believe that this has been a massive and continuing effort with input from all sides: employers, workers, trade associations, unions, academics and Government. My noble friend Lord Haskins has welcomed the way in which my department has carried out this process.
As a result of the consultation, we have adjusted the regulations in a number of ways. These reduce unnecessary burdens on business, but without compromising protection for workers. First, we have decided not to proceed with a requirement for employers to provide a statement of the minimum wage on every payslip. We believe it is preferable to wait and see whether that should become necessary in the light of experience. I believe in any case that employers will find it to be in their own interests to ensure that their staff know about the minimum wage in order to avoid confusion and unnecessary disputes. My department is including, in the guidance that will be available, a model poster which I hope employers will want to display at the workplace. We cannot require employers to do that but it seems a sensible thing for good employers to do.
We have always regarded it as important to ensure that workers are aware of their rights, and employers of their obligations. We fully recognise that the Government have a role in this process as well. That is why the National Minimum Wage Act requires the Secretary of State to publicise the minimum wage. That is why we are spending around £5 million to ensure that people know what the national minimum wage is all about.
Secondly, we have decided not to require employers to keep specific records, but that they should be required to keep sufficient records instead. In other words, it will be left to the employer to judge what counts as sufficient in the first instance. We considered this issue very carefully because some businesses have told us that they would welcome knowing precisely what records should be kept. As a result, the guidance will contain advice on the kind of records that might be regarded as sufficient.
I believe that is a sensible starting-point. It should not reduce protection for workers, because they will still have a right of access to the records if they believe they are not receiving the minimum wage. In the event of a dispute, it will still be for the employer to prove that he

1623
has paid the minimum wage, rather than for the worker to prove that he has not received it; and it will still be a criminal offence not to keep records or to keep or produce false records.
We have also included special rules for workers who receive an annual salary in regular payments but who work irregular hours at different times of the year: for example, workers who work only during the school term but who are paid a regular amount throughout the year. During the consultation, concerns were expressed by representatives of employers and workers that the original draft regulations would require them to restructure their work and pay arrangements, even though the workers in question received the minimum wage for the time they were actually working. The effect of these rules is to treat annual working hours as if they were evened out across the year, reflecting the evening out of pay received. As a result, there should not be any need to restructure existing arrangements.
I hope that I have shown that the Government have taken pains to listen to responses, and have adjusted the regulations where appropriate but without reducing protection for workers or affecting the integrity of the minimum wage. As a result I am confident that the regulations will achieve their main aim; that is, the elimination of unfairly low pay, but with minimum knock-on effects or disruption to existing arrangements. The cost, as estimated in the Regulatory Impact Assessment, is confined purely to the impact on the paybill at around 0.6 per cent. of the total UK paybill.
I said that I would come back to the coverage of the regulations themselves. In my view the regulations do the minimum necessary to enable a minimum wage system to operate effectively. Without going into all the details, I shall pick out the main areas which they cover.
They set the rate of the minimum wage: £3.60 for those aged 22 and over; £3 for those aged from 18 to 21; and £3.20 for those aged 22 and over who are undertaking accredited training in the first six months of a new job. In this respect, the regulations also define what counts as "accredited training".
The regulations define what counts as pay—broadly in line with what the Low Pay Commission recommended. It is absolutely essentially to do that for certainty and to ensure that the rate amounts to the same thing for every worker and employer. The starting point is gross pay including, for example, incentive payments or bonuses as well as tips paid through the payroll. Accommodation can be counted, up to a maximum of £19.95 per week. But other elements are excluded; for example, overtime and shift premia, allowances that are not consolidated into basic pay, the provision of tools, a uniform or other equipment needed for doing the job.
It is equally essential to define what hours count as time when the minimum wage is payable. Again, the regulations keep broadly to what the Low Pay Commission recommended. In general, the times when a worker is at work and required to be at work will count, as well as travelling or training during working hours. There are also special arrangements for calculating the hours of pieceworkers and workers who have specified tasks but no set hours in which to do them.
It is also essential to show how to calculate a worker's hourly rate of pay, so as to check whether he or she is receiving the appropriate rate of the national minimum wage. The basic principle of the regulations is straightforward: the amount of pay that counts towards minimum wage pay is divided by the number of hours for which the minimum wage is payable.
I hope that that has given a flavour of what the regulations cover. The guidance will provide a comprehensive introduction to the rules, with many worked examples to assist understanding.
The introduction of a national minimum wage represents a significant step in tackling poverty in this country. At the same time we have sought to make certain that small businesses in particular do not have to take on any unnecessary administrative burdens. These regulations represent a sensible and reasonable starting point. But it will also be important to ensure that we keep a close watch on how things develop in practice, so that we are in a position to respond as necessary.
As I have already indicated, the Low Pay Commission has been given a role in monitoring the introduction of the minimum wage. I am confident that it will carry out this task as expertly as it conducted its first investigation and I look forward to receiving feedback. We shall also be getting more continuous feedback from the Inland Revenue, who have been appointed to enforce the minimum wage. In addition, we shall keep an eye on cases that come forward to the courts and the tribunals. By keeping all these avenues open, I am confident that when the time comes to make any adjustments to the regulations in the light of experience, we shall he able to do so in a reasonable way.
I hope that I have been able to explain what the regulations are, what they do and why, and to show that they reflect the outcome of a very thorough process to which the Government responded in a flexible and realistic way. I commend the regulations to the House.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 16th February be approved [10th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Sainsbury of Turville.)
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I know the Minister will not be surprised when I say that the Opposition did not welcome this Act and did not believe it to be a good one. However, we believe that any proposal that ameliorates the problems that might arise with the National Minimum Wage Act is to be welcomed.
During the passage of the Bill through both Houses we warned the Government that it would have adverse effects on employment prospects of some vulnerable categories of employees. Though the noble Lord spoke to both orders together—I will continue to deal with them together—my comments now refer specifically to the amendment regulations.
To adapt an aphorism of the late Harold Wilson as he then was, one person's minimum wage is another person's job seeker's allowance. This is not the first U-turn that the Government have had to make over the operation of an Act which has not yet even come into

1625
force. On 8th February, in response to a Question from me, the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, defended the application of the national minimum wage to au pairs only to find himself later cut off at the knees by the Secretary of State of the DTI who announced that it did not apply to them, which is what I had argued.
I mentioned this matter to the Minister outside. This morning two pieces of paper were faxed to me. One was an extract from Stephen Byers' report on regulations supplementary to the national minimum wage dated 16th February. It contained a paragraph which said that au pairs are excluded from the national minimum wage regulations. At the same time, or shortly afterwards, I was faxed something from one of the activity centres (to which I shall turn later) which appears to be preliminary guidance on the national minimum wage from the Department of Trade and Industry. The activity centre is not sure whether it received it on 23rd or 24th February, but it was certainly either last Tuesday or Wednesday. It stated that all workers, including part-time workers, pieceworkers, home workers, agency workers, domestic workers including au pairs must receive at least the national minimum wage.
I understand that a problem arose in that the Home Office did not anticipate what the DTI would announce a week later. Those things happen. But it is extraordinary that, once the Secretary of State at the DTI had made a statement on it, a leaflet on guidance was dispatched by officials of the DTI more than a week later saying that au pairs are included in the national minimum wage.
I am particularly glad to see that the Government are going to take powers to exempt those over the age of 26 in the categories (b) and (c) referred to in the regulations. Those are persons who participate in a scheme under which shelter is given in return for work and those participating in a scheme designed to provide training and work experience.
In the debate on one of my amendments I drew attention to the problem of those working at holiday summer schools, what are usually called "activity centres". I warned that the application of a national minimum wage to their staff, who were actually engaged in gaining work experience towards national vocational qualifications, would not only put the activity centres out of business but would also have a devastating effect on local communities who depended upon them, as well as depriving up to 200,000 children every year from a much-needed facility provided by these charities.
Unfortunately the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, who dealt with the amendment at that time, was unable to offer me any comfort except to refer to Section 44 of the Act, which I do not believe to be applicable. However the provisions go some way towards meeting the needs of the activity centres. I hope that the Secretary of State will exercise the powers he had taken in that regulation in their favour as soon as possible. I say, "go some way" because it would only be applicable if they were over 26; not in the gap between 18 and 26 when people might be working in those centres or studying there.
1626
It is also a matter of some considerable disappointment, especially to those in the engineering industry, that the Government, when taking these second thoughts, have still not exempted apprentices. That was a recommendation of the Low Pay Commission and I hope that even at this stage the Secretary of State will consider that.
There is also a change in the proposed record-keeping requirements, which I will mention later and which the Minister has just discussed. I am not against politicians of whatever party making U-turns whenever they realise that they have got something wrong or have discovered that the electors who sent them to the other place do not agree with them. I am certainly not criticising the Government for their change of mind in respect of people over 26. On the contrary, I congratulate the Government and welcome their decision.
The main regulations, which we awaited with bated breath, define the value of the elements that make up the national minimum wage—cash payments, residential accommodation, food and other benefits in kind. In Committee, I introduced an amendment that defined in the simplest possible terms wages, benefits and anything so defined by the Inland Revenue for the purpose of income tax. I hope that your Lordships will excuse me for quoting myself. I said:
"The plain and simple effect of the main amendment … is to define 'remuneration'. It is defined as being anything which the Inland Revenue would treat as taxable. In other words, if it is subject to income tax then it is income. It is as simple as that".
It still is. I argued that the Inland Revenue, with its long experience of defining wages and dealing with attempts at evasion was the best possible interpreter—especially with the impending amalgamation of the Benefits Agency. I asked—with some prescience, if I may say so—whether the regulations would be drafted by the Inland Revenue or by
"dedicated amateurs on the subject in the DTI".—[Official Report, 11/6/98; col. 1255.]
In a few moments, your Lordships will be able to form your own opinions. In replying to that helpful and constructive amendment the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, said—and mark this closely:
"Employers and employees will want to know precisely what does and does not count as payments for determining compliance with the minimum wage".—[Official Report, 11/6/98; col. 1257.]
In debates on other topics, the Minister and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, stressed the importance of employers and employees alike knowing exactly what was payable.
Paragraph 36(1)(a) on page 33 defines the amount to be taken into account where living accommodation is provided. The length of the regulations speak for themselves when compared with my nine-word definition:
"whichever is the lesser of the following—
"(a) the amount resulting from multiplying the hours of work done in the pay reference period (determined in accordance with Regulations 20 to 29) by 50p, and reducing that product by the proportion which the number of days (if any) in the pay reference period for which living accommodation was not provided bears to the total number of days in the pay reference period; or"—

1627
I shall not continue. When the Minister was discussing that regulation, it sounded simple but not when an employer or an employee has to examine it. If the object of the regulations is to enable employees and employers alike to understand what their respective rights and obligations are, perhaps the Minister will tell us how the owner of a late-night chippy who allows staff who have missed the last bus home to sleep on a camp bed in the stock room can work out the value of the accommodation.
I do not want to rub salt into the wounds, but what about Regulation 37(2)? It states that:
"For the purposes of Regulation 31(1)(i), the amount of the deduction the employer is entitled to make or payment he is entitled to receive in respect of the provision of living accommodation shall be adjusted by multiplying that amount by the number of hours of time work actually worked by the worker in the pay reference period (as determined in accordance with Regulation 20) and dividing the figure so obtained by the total number of hours of time work the worker would have worked in the pay reference period (including the hours of time work actually worked) but for his absence."
The words "work worked" and "worker" appear eight times in one gigantic sentence of 101 words, including a reference to theoretical hours that a worker would have worked but for his absence from work.
To describe those regulations as a dog's breakfast is to risk running foul of the RSPCA. The Minister said that guides are being produced. I ask that those produced by the DTI are written in simple language capable of being understood by unsophisticated employers and employees, and that they will be published as soon as possible.
Part V of the regulations refers to the records that the employer is required to keep. Regulation 38(2) says that the records that an employer shall be required to keep shall be in the form a single document. Let me applaud that uncharacteristic brevity and simplicity.
I remind your Lordships that in Committee, I argued for an amendment requiring the records to be kept in a quote "reasonable" form and that PAYE records should he regarded as adequate records, to avoid duplication.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, rejected my amendments as being unduly prescriptive, but offered to consider closely and sympathetically the relationship between the PAYE and national insurance records and those required for the purposes of the 1998 Act. I am glad that after the consultation process, the Government conceded that I was correct and that two sets of records on two separate bits of paper are not required. I am also delighted that the Government have abandoned the idea of the massive written statement that in their original consultation document an employer would have had to prepare weekly.
The Government professed the desire that employees would be able easily to see that they were getting their entitlement to the national minimum wage. I doubt that they will be able to do so simply by reading the regulations. The main beneficiaries from the regulations are likely to be the lawyers, but then they work for much more than £3.60 per hour. This is the Government's Bill.
1628
The Government are responsible for the regulations that are supposed to make it work. We shall not oppose them.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, I begin with a slight admonition of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon. In the debate on the Bill, I disagreed with virtually everything she said, but she is someone with whom I have had the best of relations. It is not true that the Opposition opposed the Bill. One opposition party did so, and that was the Conservative Opposition. There is more than one opposition party in this House. One might say that there are three opposition parties, if one takes the two wings of the Conservative Party—but that is for another occasion.
It should be made entirely clear that the Liberal Democrats have been four-square with the Government on the necessity of introducing the minimum wage legislation. We have supported them throughout. I trust that the Minister will take my remarks in that context. Unlike the noble Baroness, we come from a position of overall support for the legislation's aims and objectives.
We entirely support the position that the Government adopted after consultation with regard to record-keeping. We were concerned, like many others in the House and the business community, that a draconian structure would be imposed—particularly on small employers. We much welcome the approach indicated by the Minister and set out in the Bill. We hope that the same commonsense approach will be adopted by the Government when listening to the concerns of the business community on other regulations as the legislation moves forward initially in coming years.
I want to put down markers for three areas of some concern. Although the Minister was not involved directly in the legislation, he will be aware—together with the noble Lord, Lord Simon of Highbury—that one of our concerns is to advocate permanent status for the Low Pay Commission. Although some progress is reflected in the regulations, we would press the Government to go further in entrenching the commission as a permanent body to monitor the regulations' effects on the general business community, young people and regional variation—on which we have bored for Britain.
Our second concern goes less to the form of the regulations and more to the timing. The regulations are intended to come into effect on 1st April 1999. That is a short time for regulations of such complexity affecting all employers to be introduced. Indeed, both in this House and in another place a number of people have expressed concern with regard to the working time regulations. Some felt that these were introduced on a very fast time track without necessarily allowing an appropriate period for the business community to take them on board, accommodate them and implement the results. We have some worries that the timetable will impose pressures on business. In future, when new regulations are to be brought in or finalised, we ask the Government to undertake to ensure that there is perhaps a longer lead time into the period than will actually happen between early March and 1st April when the regulations come into effect.

1629
A further point flowing from that is that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, indicated—indeed, it was touched upon by the Minister—these are complicated regulations; indeed, by definition, they must be complicated. Presumably the key document for employers and employees will be not so much the regulations, which will provide the framework within which rights are given and obligations undertaken, but the explanatory memoranda that are sent out and the information that the department gives to firms, companies and staff regarding the implementation of these regulations. Such explanatory memoranda should be written in as easy a manner to understand as possible. They should also be produced and disseminated, in the light of the very tight timetable, as soon as the regulations have been approved by Parliament. I would welcome some indication from the Minister that that point has been taken on board; that the process is under way; and that employers can expect to receive clear instructions on how to implement these regulations as soon as they are in place. But overall, as I said at the beginning, we support the Act and clearly, therefore, we support the regulations that are being brought in to implement it.
The Lord Bishop of Bristol: My Lords, in addressing your Lordships' House I want to make it quite clear that the Church is not taking issue with the principle of the minimum wage or of the legislation to establish and regulate it. Indeed, many of us have fought for this for a long time and we believe it to be right. The Church is not seeking any general exclusion from the provisions of this Act. However, the Church does have concerns about the possible impact of the legislation on religious communities. About 200 community houses have been identified as being affected by the legislation and some 20 communities have actually been actively lobbying on behalf of the rest. If I may say so, it is estimated that each community is involved with about 500 people a year at the lower level; indeed, in the L'Arche Communities, the number is something like 5,000 people a year. Those are considerable numbers of people who are being served.
Perhaps I may give the House just one example, which I believe will help noble Lords understand the exact nature of the problems. I should like to take the L'Arche organisation which describes itself as,
"Building communities with people who have learning difficulties".
The regulations do not, apparently, recognise the particular characteristics of "intentional" communities like those run by L'Arche. For example, the L'Arche organisation sees itself as running communities where people join freely in a spirit of service and receive in return modest payment and accommodation. L'Arche's pay policy is that every community member receives payment on the same basis, according to need rather than reward—an idealism which, I suspect, many people wish they were able to follow. This is an important principle that L'Arche has held for the past 25 years in its houses here in the United Kingdom, and one it wishes to retain.
1630
The major problem with the new National Minimum Wage Regulations is that they do not allow L'Arche to take any account of the value of free subsistence and accommodation that its live-in assistants receive over and above the figure of £19.95 per week, as set out in the regulations and to which reference has already been made. That is clearly unrealistic, given the fact that such accommodation actually costs more in the region of £100 a week. If L'Arche were allowed to take account of the full value of the accommodation and living costs at the same level paid to live-out assistants in its workshops, the wage levels of live-in assistants would exceed the minimum wage figure given in the regulations. So it is not trying to find a way to make things work on an easier basis; it is the way in which costs are actually worked out.
However, if the people we are talking about here were demoted to the status of volunteer they would fall outside the regulations; but would be denied any additional payment over and above basic subsistence and accommodation. Their long-term security would be totally the responsibility of the state. L'Arche believes that it is thus being penalised for treating people well. So surely, if no concessions are made, L'Arche believes that it will he faced with an increased wage bill of about £500,000 a year. As it is dependent on local authority funding that is already fixed, it could only continue to operate by making assistants redundant or, in extremis, returning people with learning disabilities to the care of their local authority, with all the costs implicit in that action.
Surely the latter is not the intention of the legislation, or of the Government in introducing it. I was, therefore, delighted to hear the Minister say that officials are even now preparing guidance on the interpretation and application of minimum wage regulations. But as they are now to come into being on 1st April of this year, noble Lords can understand that 200 community houses look to this month with considerable concern. Representatives of those communities and other Church bodies look forward to the opportunity to discuss how these voluntary workers are to be considered under the legislation, and how they are to be treated. Such religious communities do very special and valuable work; indeed, it is often work that no one else is willing to undertake. Surely it is in no one's interest that their service should thus be jeopardised.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, we have had a useful debate which has focused on a number of key aspects of this important measure. I should like to deal with the main points which have arisen. We estimate that there are 2 million workers who will benefit from these regulations. Employers, too, have welcomed the regulations as laid. The Confederation of British Industry has said that the Government have made a number of sensible changes which should help keep down the administrative burden.
I should like, first, to deal with the question of delay and the concern that has been raised that there has been too little time between laying the regulations and their entry into force. On the other hand, others—and we will come to this later—may see the regulations as being

1631
unduly complicated and difficult to understand. It is obviously important to ensure that business and workers are able to adjust as smoothly as possible to the new legislation. I can assure noble Lords that the Government have done all they can—and will continue to do so—to ease the transition.
In the first place, the Government have conducted a very thorough consultation on the regulations. A large number of representations were received raising important issues which required careful consideration. I believe that it was right for the Government to take the time to ensure that the regulations properly reflected the outcome of the consultations. However, I do not believe that it would have been right to put back the date of the implementation from I st April. That would have gone against the recommendation of the Low Pay Commission and would have denied low paid workers the benefit of the minimum wage for a longer time: they have waited long enough.
I turn now to the question of complexity. It is always easy to take a piece of legislation and make it sound ridiculous by concentrating on particular aspects of it. These regulations are inevitably complex in some places. This is because they need to cover the great variety of working and pay arrangements throughout the country. For example, they must cater for piece workers at home and in the factory, people who work on commission, workers who are engaged in unseasonal employment and workers who do long or unusual hours as well as their employers. That is where the complexity comes in—because life and work are indeed complex. In this respect, these regulations are no different from other areas of employment law which must cover the exceptional as well as the standard cases.
I can, however, assure the House that for the great majority of businesses and workers who operate on the basis of a nine to five day with regular pay, the regulations represent a straightforward approach which is in line with the definition of pay and working hours that was recommended by the Low Pay Commission in its report published last June.
In addition, the Government are committed to ensuring that employers are aware of their obligations and that workers are aware of their rights under the minimum wage. As I said at the start of the debate, we have decided to spend some £5 million on telling people about the national minimum wage in the run-up to 1st April and after.
There is already a helpline which sends out preliminary guidance and answers enquiries. My department is already issuing preliminary guidance based on the overall scope and effect of the National Minimum Wage Act. When, subject to the approval of this House, the regulations are passed, my department will he releasing detailed guidance as well as shorter leaflets designed for employers and for workers. We asked businesses what they wanted to see in such guidance and we have aimed to produce it. In particular, businesses have told us that they wanted clear and comprehensive guidance with worked examples. I believe that the guidance we have produced, and the back-up enquiry lines, will be helpful to both small and large businesses in adjusting to the minimum wage.
1632
I shall now deal with one or two other specific points raised in the debate. There was the question of au pairs. I think we have arrived at a sensible position on this in which au pairs will be excluded, but only to the extent that they are treated as part of a family, particularly as regards the provision of accommodation and meals and the sharing of tasks and leisure activity.
The guidance note, to which the noble Baroness referred, was specifically listed as preliminary guidance. We have instructed the distribution company not to give out any more copies until the definitive guidance is available, and the definitive guidance will make clear what we have done in relation to au pairs and the extent to which they are exempted.
I turn to the question of wages: what wages should be counted as income. The situation here is simple. It is different from the point of view that it is specifically defined in the regulations because we do not want all the possible benefits other than the specific case of accommodation to be counted against the minimum wage and therefore lead to the dilution of the basic principle. That is why we have only set on the accommodation offset and we have fixed that at a specific figure of a maximum of £19.95.
The question was also raised of charities and intentional (religious) communities. The position of charities and religious groups is one to which we have given a great deal of thought. We have concluded that there is no way of allowing workers to opt for less than the national minimum wage without giving less scrupulous employers the opportunity to put pressure on vulnerable workers to sign away their rights. DTI officials are in contact with many of these groups and will be working with them to produce special guidance for charities adjusting to the National Minimum Wage. Our overall approach has been endorsed by the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, community service volunteers and major charities. If you are a genuine volunteer there is no reason for you to be caught by the minimum wage in the first place. But if you are a low paid worker, you will be caught by the minimum wage. There are in this case particular issues which relate to the interaction between intentional communities and the question of accommodation, and we will need to work through that with the DTI officials.
The question of apprentices was raised. I would only say here that there is a complicated balance to be made between incentives to employers and incentives to employees. I believe that employers who believe in the value of training will continue to do this even in circumstances where, after the first year, they have to pay the minimum wage.
In approving these regulations we have been taking part in a historic process. The introduction of a national minimum wage into a flexible labour market—the first time since the last war that this has been attempted—will help lift 2 million people out of poverty and reliance on benefit and I hope will prove also a spur to improved business performance. I beg to move.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

National Minimum Wage Regulations 1999
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 16th February be approved [10th Report, from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Sainsbury of Turville.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Bill [H.L.]
8.24 p.m.
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Clause 26.
Viscount Colville of Culross Viscount Colville of Culross moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 19, line 15, at beginning insert ("Subject to section 30(5)").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, at the Committee stage I asked the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, to consider the rather difficult problem confronting courts—and it will be Crown Courts and magistrates' courts—when they decide whether to admit evidence which comes via a video recording. The noble Lord was kind enough to write to me, as he has done for so many others, and he said, first of all, that there is the test that appears in Clause 26(2) and (3). He also pointed out that, by virtue of Clause 30(5), the provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, Section 78 (which is a familiar and widespread discretion) will also apply, as indeed I think is the case now. The difficulty is, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, was setting out before the adjournment, that we are now proposing to deal with a much wider range of potential witnesses who will give their evidence via video recordings. We therefore need to be clear about the type of discretion and the criteria upon which a court is to use its discretion if there is an objection to any such evidence.
The more I have looked at this the more difficult it has seemed to me to be. I am not sure that this is the right amendment at all. I have come to the conclusion that it is probably better if one leaves out altogether subsection (2) and subsection (3) of Clause 26. However, that is not the amendment, and I am at present probing how the Government are intending that this should be dealt with by the courts. The only existing statutory special measures that I know of are in relation to the video recording of children's evidence. They were put into the Criminal Justice Act 1988 by some new sections in the Criminal Justice Act 1991. These are all being repealed and replaced by the provisions of this Bill. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, is familiar with the case of G v. DPP, where Lord Justice Phillips, as he then was, now the noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillips, gave a lapidary judgment in the Divisional Court in a difficult case arising out of the evidence of two small children.
There are a number of aspects of this case which are illustrative of the problems that are likely to arise. The first point that emerges is that when Lord Justice Phillips looked at the existing special provisions for deciding on the admissibility of children's evidence, which is the same to all intents and purposes as what is now in Clause 26(2) and (3), he said that there was no material difference between them and Section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. If that is right, my original proposition that we do not need subsections (2) and (3) is probably the correct response to all of this, because of course Section 78, as I said, is saved by Clause 30(5).
However, the case goes on to illustrate graphically the problems that will arise. As I said, they will arise in the magistrates' court as well as in the Crown Court. I suggest to the House that we ought to be abundantly clear about how they are to deal with these matters. The case of G turned on the proposition that a highly skilled psychologist should be called to give evidence—his report ran to 115 pages—about the reliability of the evidence of the two children concerned. They were perfectly normal children and there was nothing to suggest they were particularly unreliable. However, he was asked by the defence to produce this report and for the magistrates' court to rely upon it, and then the Crown Court on appeal. After a great deal of argument the magistrate decided—it was a stipendiary—that he would not and the Crown Court said that it would not rely on it either. The Divisional Court, under Lord Justice Phillips, said that it was quite right not to do so because in the case of normal children there was no need to have a psychologist's report to decide whether their evidence was admissible or reliable.
However, the point that emerges from this is whether the evidence can be considered to be reliable. That may be comparatively simple when one is dealing with ordinary, straightforward children. It may be a little difficult if they are young, but, on the other hand, there is by now a substantial body of experience—the noble Lord, Lord Williams, mentioned this before dinner—in the hands of the police and social workers on preparing witness statements by children. There is the memorandum of good practice which was prepared after the Cleveland case which is widely used.
This Bill, however, embraces a far wider scope of people who potentially may give evidence by video link. We were talking about them before dinner. I refer to Clauses 16 and 17. As to some of them, I suggest to your Lordships that the reliability of their evidence may be a live issue indeed. There may well be the necessity to call expert evidence on the whole of that subject. There will, of course, be borderline cases where it is not immediately clear to anyone whether there should be expert evidence.
I believe that the further one delves into this, the more sensible it is to rely upon the now widely used powers to admit or to reject evidence under Section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. We do not need a new, separate and probably unnecessary—if Lord Justice Phillips is right—test to be written into the Bill. But at least if the Government will not give way on this matter—I do not ask the noble Lord, Lord Williams, to

1635
give a definitive answer tonight because I only put some of this in the letter I wrote to him—they at least ought to give a signpost to the courts when they come to consider some of these difficult issues.
I did not see Clause 30(5)—or, if I did, I did not comprehend that it took in Section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act and applied it to the whole of this chapter of Part II. I do not believe that all practitioners, all courts and all magistrates will necessarily see that either. Therefore at the very least I put down this amendment in order to provide them with a little signpost. They would at least have their attention drawn to this and perhaps they would have their attention drawn to the fact that it has now been said by Lord Justice Phillips that there is no great difference between their familiar test and that which is in the legislation.
The whole of this is experimental. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, said that this provision seeks to improve the quality of evidence. I am sure it is right to try to do this, but I think that we ought to make it workable, otherwise the whole exercise will end up in a prodigious flow of appeals and all kinds of problems in the course of getting these cases right. I am concerned about this because I know the way in which it would have to be done. I know that it is not necessarily easy to find any guidance when one is sitting in a remote court away from London and having to do one's best in unfamiliar territory. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, will not think that I am trying to impose upon him anything which is in the least sinister. I just want some clarity about this. I do at least suggest that we ought to have the guideline which I put forward in this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for raising this matter and also for his courtesy in correspondence with me. I believe that there is a strong case which he has outlined for providing clear published guidance on these measures when they have received Royal Assent. However, I shall deal with his point now.
In Committee we had a discussion about what self-direction a court should give itself when considering the admissibility of video recorded evidence-in-chief. Subsections (2) and (3) of Clause 26 effectively reproduce the current test for the admission of such evidence in Section 32(a) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. Subsection (2) of course provides that recordings of this kind may be introduced only if that would be in the interests of justice. Subsection (3) empowers the court to edit recordings to excise any part of them which the court considers to be so prejudicial to the accused that the prejudice which would result outweighs the desirability of using the whole recording; in other words, the well-known balancing exercise.
If further guidance is needed, the noble Viscount is quite right in that a judge may look to Sections 78, 82 and 83 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act on the admissibility of prosecution evidence and of course to the quite substantial case law which has been built up around those provisions. Clause 30(5) makes it quite plain that the powers in Clause 26, and indeed in the
1636
rest of the provisions in Chapter I of Part II of the Bill, do not affect the operation of any rule of law relating to evidence in criminal proceedings. If further help is needed, one can look to Clause 58(2) of the Bill which provides that nothing in Part II of the Bill affects any power of a court to exclude evidence at its discretion, whether by preventing questions being put or otherwise.
I well appreciate the noble Viscount's intentions. I hope that I have been able to give the clarity that he looked for. I have already indicated that we shall seek to provide clear guidance on these points for judges and other courts to follow. I do not think therefore that the proposed amendment, if it were included in the Bill, would be of assistance. However, I recognise the great service the noble Viscount has done in giving me the opportunity to, I hope, clarify matters.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, will he address the point made by the noble Viscount that a signpost in the terms of the amendment might be helpful in this respect? The Minister reproduced almost exactly the letter he wrote to the noble Viscount, for which we are all grateful, but that did not address the idea that a signpost within these terms would be helpful. Without altering the substance of the law, it would nevertheless make it easier for people to refer to it and to manage it.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I did respond to that point because I said twice that it was our intention to provide clear published guidance when we have Royal Assent. It seems to me that that clear guidance would be of assistance in the circumstances that the noble Viscount described.
Viscount Colville of Culross: My Lords, I am very unhappy about this. The Minister may well wish to issue guidance, but guidance does not have the force of statute. A court looking at this now very wide-ranging proposition that there should be video evidence in all kinds of wholly deserving circumstances will find that it is confronted by two tests. There is the test in Clause 26(2) and (3) and there is the one in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. The noble Lord is quite right. There are two in that Act. They are in Sections 78 and 82(3). Unless we say on the face of the statute that these are either the same or are different—and if so, in what way they are different—the courts are bound to try to find a difference between them. They will say that if Parliament says that there are two separate exercises of discretion, Parliament must have intended that there should be two separate exercises and not the same one. If Lord Justice Phillips is right and there is no material difference between the two, what has happened is this: when the whole exercise of introducing children's evidence on video was put into the law in 1991 it was thought wise by the draftsman at the time to make special provisions, which are now repeated in the Bill. That was because it was new and no one was quite sure how it would work. No doubt that was a wise thing to do. It has now been working for some years.
We now have what I should have thought is a fairly firm decision by the Divisional Court that really there is no difference. I wonder why the Government now wish

1637
to perpetuate the distinction that appeared in 1991 when it probably is not necessary. All it will do is to confuse. However much guidance may be given, the only guidance that will be of any use is that there is no difference between the two tests. If that is the guidance that will be given, I cannot see why we have to have two tests in the first place.
I shall not press the matter today. I want to ask the noble Lord, Lord Williams, to look carefully at this case. I am sure he will do so because he always follows up these matters with the greatest care and courtesy. However, I think we have reached the stage where what used to be Section 32A(2) and (3) of the 1988 Act as inserted in 1991 has had its day and that we should now simplify matters and get rid of it. We will then go back to the simple test with which everyone is familiar and on which, as he said, there is a great deal of accumulated case law. I hope that the noble Lord will look at this carefully again. He nods his head. I am sure that is a genuine promise. I believe that we are liable to get into a great deal of litigation and trouble unless this is sorted out. Frankly, guidance will not do. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 27 [Video recorded cross-examination or re-examination]:
Viscount Colville of Culross Viscount Colville of Culross moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 20, line 31, leave out ("the") and insert ("such a").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this amendment is directed to a different point. In a moment I shall listen carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, has to say when he moves to leave out the whole clause. However, assuming that the clause stays in, I shall put a proposition to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, in relation to the place that I have marked down by this amendment.
I envisage that the original material for video-recorded evidence will be taken at an interview, probably with the police and perhaps other appropriate persons present. It will then be available to be looked at by the parties, and in due course by the court. There will be a stage at which a decision has to be taken, probably by the prosecution, that this material is to be used in court, if leave is given, as the evidence-in-chief of that witness. There is likely to be a long period of time before a decision can be taken as to whether the cross-examination and re-examination also shall be by way of video recording because of the problem that was discussed previously in this connection that one has to go through the whole of the process in the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act before full disclosure takes place and the defence is in a position to cross-examine.
In this amendment I am suggesting that instead of the special measures direction dealing at the same time with the admission of the evidence-in-chief and also the cross-examination, it would be more sensible to provide that those should be dealt with separately and one after the other, as the second one arises, if it does. The Bill as drafted indicates that one would have to take the
1638
decision about cross-examination at the time when the initial decision about accepting the evidence-in-chief by way of video recording is taken. I cannot believe that that is sufficiently flexible. I am not entirely certain that that is what the Government intend. But if they do, I think it is impracticable. I beg to move.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I understand the purpose of the noble Viscount's amendment to allow courts to direct that there should be a video recorded cross-examination after they have directed that video recorded evidence-in-chief should be admitted. That is already possible under Clause 27 as currently drafted.
Clause 27 requires a provision for cross-examination to be recorded on video to be included in the same direction as the direction that admits video-recorded evidence-in-chief. This could be when the direction to admit video-recorded evidence-in-chief is first made or by way of an amendment to the first direction at a later stage. The intention behind this is to ensure that a video recording of the witness being cross-examined will be shown at trial only if the court has admitted a video recording of the evidence-in-chief.
Unless the video evidence-in-chief has been admitted, a direction for video recorded cross-examination could be pointless. The court might decide not to admit a video recording at all and direct that the witness should give evidence-in-chief live at trial, or it might decide to edit some of the questions and answers in evidence-in-chief.
It could be impractical for a party to cross-examine without knowing what would be in the final tape of the evidence-in-chief. The clause does not exclude the possibility that the court could indicate to either of the parties making an application that, on the assumption that a video recording of the evidence-in-chief will be admissible, the parties can plan for video-recorded evidence-in-chief and for video recorded cross-examination as well.
By making the direction for the cross-examination contingent on the admission of the recording of the evidence-in-chief, the court reserves the right to wait until it has approved the video recording of the evidence-in-chief before confirming the direction for video-recorded cross-examination.
There may be some cases where a party wishes to apply, first, for video-recorded evidence-in-chief to be admitted, and later to come back to the court and apply for a video-recorded cross-examination—perhaps after discussion with the other party or if a witness's circumstances change. In those cases, if the court wished to direct that video-recorded cross-examination should take place, it would simply amend the original direction. That would be the situation both under the clause as it currently stands and, I suggest, if it were amended as indicated in the amendment. I do not think that the amendment would improve matters. I hope my explanation may help.
Viscount Colville of Culross: My Lords, it may not improve matters, but it clarifies them. It does not seem

1639
to me that what the noble Lord, Lord Williams, has said is immediately apparent in the text of the Bill as it stands. It appears that the decision on both matters has to be taken at the same time. I am sure that that is impracticable, as I have said. However, if the noble Lord says that the Bill is to be interpreted on the basis that there can be a new application after it has been determined that the case is ready and that the defence wishes to carry out cross-examination on the video link and that the original special measures direction can be amended accordingly, then I would be content. That is a matter that could properly go in the guidance. However, I am a little disappointed that such a modest amendment which has, as the noble Lord said, precisely the effect that I hoped it would have is still not acceptable to the Government. I cannot see why. I shall not pursue the matter and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Colville of Culross Viscount Colville of Culross moved Amendment No. 42.
Page 21, line 22, after ("diligence") insert ("or after due disclosure").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I wish to discuss the point of this amendment to make sure that the defence is not put at a disadvantage. I am sorry to tell your Lordships that the preparation of cases in the criminal courts does not always proceed as smoothly as it should. Cases come for trial, or very nearly reach it, without all the necessary preparations having been made. I do not wish to apportion blame; it is simply a fact. What concerns me as regards Clause 27(6) is the test of what a party could not have discovered with reasonable diligence.
Some of the circumstances which might lead to the re-opening of cross-examination already carried out on video could arise at a very late stage. There could be the disclosure of something, perhaps under public interest immunity, which had not previously been thought suitable for disclosure to the defence. There is a continuing duty on the prosecution not only up to, but also during the trial—and on the judge as well—to consider anything which is claimed to be protected by public interest immunity. If there is a change in the situation before the trial, but after the video cross-examination has taken place, then the existence of the material in question cannot possibly be known to the defence and not even reasonable diligence can allow the defence to discover that it existed. However, it would then be in the domain of the court. The defence will know about it, and it will have to persuade the judge that it can recall the witness for further cross-examination. I hope that this will be an extremely rare occurrence. It would be monstrously unfair in such circumstances if anything in the Bill were to prevent the court allowing the defence in a proper case to re-open the matter.
I move the amendment in order to explore the proposition with the noble Lord, Lord Williams. I am sure it is not intended to cut out an application from the defence, even at a late stage, if something which it had not expected arises and affects the way in which the
1640
cross-examination would have been carried out, had it been known on the video recording. I look forward to the noble Lord's explanation to make sure that there is no injustice built into the subsection as it now stands. I beg to move.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I have some sympathy for the amendment. The Law Society has recently been in touch with me. I have therefore tabled an amendment to a later clause which is intended to improve the disclosure for the defence in various ways. I shall come to it at a later stage, presumably on another day. I have sympathy with what the noble Viscount says about the difficulties of disclosure in some cases and his reason for moving the amendment.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, it is always helpful to hear the views of those with practical experience, as the noble Viscount has, of regularly sitting and considering matters where these problems may arise. What he says is worth careful consideration. I cannot accept his example of late disclosure of material that had formerly been the subject of public interest immunity non-disclosure. It seems to me, as a first response, that if there were non-disclosure in such circumstances, then no reasonable diligence would have been able to discover that material. I do not believe that that will bite.
If it is agreeable both to the noble Viscount and your Lordships, I would like to think about this matter with some care to see if the phrasing is absolutely perfect. I put it very much in a neutral way. It may be that one ought to have an "interests of justice" test here so that one would not necessarily attach to the defendant the incompetence of his advisers. I take the noble Viscount's point. I shall think with some care about the general theme he has introduced. As I said, my immediate response is that his illustration in terms of non-disclosure in the public immunity context is not a danger. But there may be other dangers that I would like to think about and discuss with officials. I shall certainly ponder the matter with some care.
Viscount Colville of Culross: My Lords, I shall be very happy with an "interests of justice" test here. At the moment there is a burden on the defence which it may not be fair for it to discharge. If the noble Lord will be kind enough to do what he has promised and look at the matter again, with the possibility that we shall amend the clause, I believe that we will ensure that there is no injustice in a case of this kind. In response to that promise I beg leave to with the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Thomas of Gresford Lord Thomas of Gresford moved Amendment No. 43.
Leave out Clause 27.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I seek to leave out Clause 43 entirely. I take some encouragement from what the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, said a moment ago in recognising that there are certain dangers in the clause which he wishes to consider. The clause is completely unsatisfactory as it stands. I hope that the

1641
noble Lord's response to my amendment is not to believe that I am attempting to obstruct cross-examination and re-examination. I am addressing the practical difficulties which arise out of such a system.
The raison d'être of the special measures is that the quality of evidence given by a witness is likely to be diminished by fear, distress or, under Clause 16(1), because of youth or mental incapacity. It has to be recognised that videoed evidence-in-chief and cross-examination on video is unsatisfactory as a way of proceeding and that the most satisfactory kind of evidence before a court, whether before magistrates or a jury, is that of a live witness whose body language, answers and responses can be judged by the tribunal in the appropriate setting. So one begins with a presumption that oral evidence given live is better in the generality of cases than video links of this kind.
The practical difficulties that arose when we discussed this clause on a previous occasion were acknowledged by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn. The noble Lord said that in effect we had to make a start somewhere and that we should get matters under way and see how they work out.
Some of those difficulties remain. For example, in discussions on the two previous amendments there seemed to be an assumption that the defence would be applying for the cross-examination of a witness by way of video link. I should have thought that to be a very unlikely occurrence, and that those defending would wish to cross-examine, possibly through a video link, but not by means of a video-recording, and it would be the prosecution who would advance to the court a request for a direction that the cross-examination and re-examination should be recorded. So the approach would come first from the prosecution, not from the defence.
The question then arises: when would that application be made? Would it be made immediately the matter was committed for trial, or, under the new procedure, when it appeared in the Crown Court? Would an interview taken at the time of the original complaint then be produced and the prosecution advance to the judge: "This is our evidence-in-chief. Now we say that through fear and distress this should be the evidence before the jury and cross-examination should be by way of video"?
If it is at that early stage in the proceedings, what impact would it have on the defendant? The question arises: has he appointed counsel? As we know, counsel in a trial, or a solicitor in a magistrates' court, can be appointed at a late stage. Are the defendant's instructions final? Anyone with experience as an advocate in the criminal courts knows that a defendant often advances a completely untrue and futile story which his own advocate will quickly show to be unreliable and untruthful; and from his own advocate's discussion with him in conference it can sometimes be established that he actually has a better defence if he tells what he says is the real truth about what happened. Not long ago I had the experience of losing an appeal in the Court of Appeal and of my client then saying to me, "Now I want to tell you what actually happened".
1642
What he then told me at that time was a full defence to the original matter and was a much better foundation. So it is simply assumed that when a client is originally seen by his lawyer, solicitor or barrister, what he tells his lawyer will be the defence that ultimately emerges from that discussion at the trial itself.
Under subsection (6) of Clause 27, if a defendant were under pressure from his own side to say, "I understand now that what I said before is untrue and this is the truth", he would not be in a position to apply for cross-examination of a vulnerable witness and would be at a considerable disadvantage as a result. The insertion at some point in the clause of "in the interests of justice" or some other provision, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, referred to a moment ago, may improve the protection that a defendant should have in all criminal proceedings.
I move this amendment simply on the basis that there may be circumstances where cross-examination and re-examination by way of video-recording is appropriate. However, I do not believe that sufficient thought has been given to what those circumstances are. I look forward to the re-think that the noble Lord has promised, and I hope will promise me when he responds to the amendment. I beg to move.
9 p.m.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Lord that direct evidence would be much better than the use of video. However, as I understand it from discussions on previous legislation, the virtue of the video is to have the evidence when it is fresh instead of waiting until the court has convened and then taking the evidence direct. The virtue of the video, both in-chief and, to a lesser state, in cross-examination, is to have the material when it is fresh and therefore more likely to be reliable.
Viscount Colville of Culross: My Lords, this matter has been discussed before. I have great sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, in doubting the expediency of including this clause in the Bill.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, is right. Ideally, the object of the exercise would be to have the cross-examination when the whole matter is fresh in the witness's mind. The more of a disability the witness is under, the more important that is. It is important for children, whose memory span can be very short. I am sure it is equally important in relation to people with other kinds of disability.
The one point that is absolutely plain from the previous discussions is that nothing of the kind is going to happen under Clause 27. The whole of the procedure under the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 would have to have been fulfilled before anything could be done by way of applying for cross-examination on video. I cannot see that that is going to happen at a time when the evidence is fresh in the mind of the witness.
The difference between having a cross-examination on video and having it through a video link at the trial itself is probably no more than a matter of a few weeks.

1643
If that is all that we shall achieve by Clause 27, I fear it is very little. I am consequently ambivalent about this matter, although I should not wish to oppose it. If the noble Lord and his advisers believe that there is even a small advantage to be gained in terms of obtaining reliable evidence from vulnerable witnesses, I do not wish to stand in their way. However, I believe that we shall find that the use of the provision will be minimalised by the practicalities in the criminal court.
Lord Warner: My Lords, I rise to remind noble Lords that the arguments in relation to video evidence of evidence-in-chief are different from the arguments with regard to video evidence of cross-examination and re-examination. The arguments about taking evidence from vulnerable witnesses close to the event are the arguments for video evidence of evidence-in-chief. The arguments in support of Clause 27 relate to the intimidatory effect on some witnesses of being cross-examined in court and the difficulty in some cases of bringing forward and sustaining a prosecution if the witness is to be cross-examined in a court setting.
The point of Clause 27 is to ensure that some of the low levels of prosecution in cases of sexual offences where vulnerable witnesses are concerned would be mitigated by the provisions of the clause, which would enable a greater degree of security to be given to those witnesses, who would not have the fear of being cross-examined and re-examined in a court setting as distinct from on video. Those seem to me to be arguments for retaining Clause 27 as it stands.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may ask him what distinction he draws between cross-examination which is recorded through, presumably, a video link and cross-examination where the jury or magistrates are in one room and in an adjoining room, subject to the usual safeguards, there is the witness. Why is there more stress on the witness when the trial is actually taking place than when the evidence is recorded when he or she is being cross-examined?
Lord Warner: My Lords, the danger in this debate is that we are looking at these issues through the eyes of self-confident people who are able to cope with an argument and cross-examination. Many of the people we are talking about are terrified of the thought of going into a court and reliving their experience through cross-examination and re-examination about it. From my own experience in the past of dealing with both children and people with learning disabilities in these circumstances, I believe that the prospect of being in court and being cross-examined directly on an episode which was extremely scarring to them makes them reluctant to come forward and be a prosecution witness.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, that live evidence, both evidence-in-chief and cross-examination, is to be preferred over video evidence, whether it is live link or recorded. I believe that I get a better and more complete picture of the story a person is telling if I am
1644
in the room with them than if I see them on television. Ordinary television is a highly professional production, with proper lighting and so on, which can distort the message, as can an amateur video. Presumably a court video is somewhere between the highly professional production of the BBC and the amateur video with no professionalism about it. I therefore believe that live evidence is to be preferred by the court.
However, like the noble Lord, Lord Warner, I do not think that that is what we are talking about here. We are concerned with the protection of vulnerable witnesses, not only in cases of sexual offences but in any case. The question is whether video evidence is merely an electronic means of having screens—which it seems to me it may be in some respects. But we are still left with the distinction which the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, drew between the Clause 23 provisions for evidence by live link and the Clause 27 provisions for video recording of evidence in advance. I believe the difference is that with live link the timing is entirely in the hands of the court in the way it is progressing with consideration of the matter before it and that therefore tension can build up on the child or vulnerable witness who is prepared and waiting to give his or her evidence by live video link, whereas where the recording is done in a prepared way that element of tension is at least minimised.
I therefore believe that there is a case to be made with regard to cross-examination of some vulnerable witnesses, apart from the case for freshness, to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, referred. I accept that that applies to evidence-in-chief, but it is extremely difficult to deliver and may adversely affect the quality of the evidence on cross-examination or re-examination if all the other procedures which are necessary, such as disclosure, and so on, before there can be effective cross-examination are to take place. I believe that cross-examination, even by video, needs to be as near to the court proceedings as possible. That does not necessarily rule out for ever the idea of recording it on video as opposed to it being done by way of a live link.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, many of the topics that derive from consideration of Clause 27 have been discussed earlier in the context of particular amendments. I shall try, therefore, not to trample over ground that we have already traversed. Clause 27(1)(a) concerns the cross-examination of the witness and any re-examination to be recorded by means of a video recording; in other words, it is not a video cross-examination but a cross-examination that is recorded on video. The two are quite different.
There is much in what all noble Lords have said with which I agree. Essentially, these measures arose from recommendations of the late Judge Pigot in his report of the Advisory Group on Video Evidence published 10 years ago. He suggested that in the case of children and certain other vulnerable adult witnesses a video-recorded preliminary hearing should be held in informal surroundings away from the atmosphere of the court. I entirely agree with the comment of my noble friend Lord Warner. For someone who is accustomed to

1645
court—I believe virtually all speakers are—it is difficult to realise the terror that it holds for people without that past experience. It was the intention of the Pigot recommendations that the hearing would be held as soon as practicable after the video of the witness's evidence in chief had been admitted as evidence.
The Pigot approach points to two advantages. The first, to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, pointed, is that the questioning of the witness can take place at an early stage. Secondly, it is important to echo the observation of my noble friend Lord Warner that witnesses can be questioned in a relaxed setting away from the more charged atmosphere of a court, which for many people is frightening and may involve adjournments, unfamiliarity and contact with strangers. Many of those factors are deeply distressing to some potential witnesses whose evidence at the moment simply goes unheard.
I take the point made certainly in Committee by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, that the new disclosure provisions, particularly primary and secondary, mean that in many cases the defence is unlikely to be ready or willing to cross-examine until shortly before the trial begins. Obviously, that waters down the first advantage alluded to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. The second advantage remains. For some vulnerable witnesses, whether because of age, incapacity, fear or distress, there is benefit in having the cross-examination closer to the event. Although it is not perfect, bearing in mind the problems of primary and secondary disclosure, it is nevertheless better for many than waiting for the trial.
I believe it is unlikely that most witnesses eligible for special measures will need such a provision. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, that very often evidence via a live link will help people who need this assistance to give best evidence. There will be a small number of cases, particularly those involving vulnerable witnesses, in which a live link or video-recorded evidence-in-chief with a live link is not enough for them to give their best evidence. Therefore, in a relatively small number of cases that opportunity should be available. That is the reasoning behind Clause 27. There is the protection that the accused will not be present, although he must be able to see and hear what is being said and communicate with his counsel. The technology is perfectly well able to deal with this. The conduct of the cross-examination will always be under the control of the judge or magistrate. There is no need to edit a tape because the conduct of the cross-examination will be under the control of the court. Clause 27 contains the safeguard of the exclusion of video-recorded cross-examination if it is made other than in conformity with rules of court.
We hope that the judges or magistrates who control video-recorded cross-examinations are the same as those who preside at the trial. I appreciate that that cannot be guaranteed, but I expect the Court Service, judiciary and magistracy to make every effort to ensure that that is so. We believe that there are proper safeguards in terms of legal representation and that subsections (5) and (6) are reasonable. I reiterate my promise to consider again whether or not there is a need for an overarch of the
1646
interests of justice. I do not think that the fears expressed will be justified in practice. I believe that there are safeguards. I shall consider with some care what has been said. I believe it to be undoubted that we need Clause 27 for a limited number of witnesses.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, perhaps I may pick up the phrase "a limited number of witnesses". I understand the argument that where freshness of evidence is required, where it is a matter of memory, in respect of those referred to in Clause 16(1)—namely, children under the age of 17 and those suffering from an incapacity—some cross-examination that is recorded has merit. But for those who seek the protection of special measures under Clause 17(1) in order that the quality of their evidence is not diminished other considerations apply. It is not a question of memory but of fear or distress. Therefore their recollection is likely to be as good at the time of trial as any other witness called to give evidence in person.
I asked the noble Lord, Lord Warner, about the distinction between a recorded and a live link cross-examination in so far as it impinges upon the fear and distress of the witness. His answer was that the court would sit on a certain day; the witness would become apprehensive as that day approached, would suffer nerves, and so on. However, if the evidence were to be recorded, there would be an appointment; the day would approach; the witness would know that at the other end of the link where the recording was taking place there was not simply the counsel or solicitor for the defendant but the defendant who has to be there to give instructions. So what difference is there as regards the fear and distress that the witness will suffer whether the evidence is recorded or live?
The court suite consists of a room in relaxed colours. It is fitted out in order to relax a witness when he gives evidence over a live link. I do not see that the situation involves anything more frightening than might occur at some police station, or wherever it is proposed that the video recording takes place. I do not see the distinction.
A point referred to in Committee, and to which I refer again, is that if a recording is made too far in advance of the trial and there is a change of instructions, disclosure or anything else, the interests of justice will demand that the witness comes to the court at trial time and is cross-examined further over a live link on the matters which have emerged. Therefore in a substantial number of cases the prospects are that the witness will be cross-examined on two separate occasions. Those who seek special measures under Clause 17(1) are likely to be in equal fear or distress whether the evidence is recorded or is on a live link. It seems sensible to me to ensure that they are available at the time of trial when all the preparations are complete, all disclosure has taken place and there is no prospect of a second cross-examination arising.
I await the proposals of the Minister at Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 44 not moved.]
Clause 28 [Examination of witness through intermediary]:
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 22, line 18, at end insert—
("( ) Rules of court may make provision for the appointment and appropriate training of an intermediary.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment to Clause 28 requests the introduction of a statutory requirement for the rules of court to make provision for the appointment and appropriate training of intermediaries. The comments made on this point in Committee still hold.
It is vital that standardised guidance should be available to accompany the introduction of this innovative measure. Witnesses with learning difficulties could benefit enormously from the support of intermediaries and it is a measure which I wholeheartedly support. Nevertheless, I believe that this is also one of the most controversial measures in the Bill which will need to be effective from the outset. If intermediary schemes are not properly and systematically implemented, we run the risk of them being jettisoned on the grounds that they are likely to inhibit the production of quality evidence, a result which would prove to be extremely detrimental to some vulnerable witnesses with learning disabilities. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I agree that an intermediary must be fit for the purpose before he is trusted by the court. Clause 28 already provides that anyone appointed to undertake the task must be approved by the court. I can tell your Lordships—and I hope it is of assistance to the noble Lord who moved the amendment—that before Clause 28 can be implemented, we shall need to have proper guidelines setting out the role of intermediaries and what qualifications and training would be appropriate.
The steering group to which I referred earlier, implementing the Speaking Up for Justice recommendations, is looking at what that guidance should be both for potential intermediaries and those who may be involved in questioning a witness with an intermediary's assistance. That latter point should not be overlooked in terms of professional training and competence.
There are similar schemes in jurisdictions as diverse as South Africa, the United States, Western Australia, New Zealand and the Irish Republic. We are looking at the lessons which we can learn from them.
It has taken years to develop an accreditation scheme and training for language interpreters. An agreement has now been introduced with the aim of standardising arrangements for sign language interpreters, which has been adopted by all the main agencies. We hope to ensure that, by the end of 2001, every sign language interpreter working in courts and police stations will be selected from the Council for the Advancement of Communication with Deaf People directory. In the interim, agencies are encouraged to use accredited interpreters wherever possible.
1648
Certainly, I need to remind myself that the communication needs of witnesses with whom intermediaries work vary enormously. Some of those witnesses may be children and some may be disabled. For a variety of reasons, it is wrong just to use the tag "disabled" without remembering the different natures, causes and consequences of disabilities. There are a variety of effects. Some people may be disordered although capable of giving evidence, which, in some circumstances, is capable of being safely relied upon.
We believe that the standards and safeguards need to be flexible. We do not want rigidity in the form of a statutory regime. We believe that decent working guidelines are likely to be better. We do not wish to deny access to justice for those witnesses who have difficulties. Therefore, I hope that I have met the spirit of what the noble Lord is seeking. I hope that I have assured him that we are working towards a common purpose. I believe that our way is likely to achieve a better result.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, that is a most encouraging response for which I thank the Minister. I am sure that when the noble Lord, Lord Rix, reads it, he will be as encouraged as I am. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 31 [Warning to jury]:
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 23, line 20, at end insert (", or
(b) a statement made under section 30(1).").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment extends the existing warning to the jury against pre-judging the defendant in cases where special measures are employed to include a warning against pre-judging the witness. This is vital to avoid both unwitting and deliberate prejudice on the part of the jury who may not be aware of why the special measures are being employed, and the role those special measures have in improving the quality of the witness's evidence.
The noble Lord, Lord Rix, has corresponded at length with the Minister in order to impress upon him the importance of the amendment. He has asked me to pass on his thanks to the Minister. Perhaps I may also thank him for copying all correspondence on the Bill to me. That has been most useful.
The Minister advised the noble Lord, Lord Rix, that training of the judiciary is the crux of the matter. The Minister has indicated on earlier occasions that he expects judges to refer to the use of special measures as part of their summing up and their outline of proper inferences in each case. I invite him today to advise the House of his department's plans to ensure that judges are well trained in the proper use of special measures and that, in turn, they also educate the jury in cases where special measures are employed.
My final point is that I fully accept the need for a warning to protect the civil liberties of the defendant. In no way do I wish to detract from that. However, it seems to me that as a number of these special measures have never been used before, one would wish to guard against

1649
prejudice in the direction of either party. It needs to be understood that special measures are being employed to enhance the quality of evidence produced and that their use has no bearing on the culpability of either party. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, Clause 30(2) provides that evidence given in the context that we are discussing has the same status as if it has been given in direct oral evidence in court. Subsection (4) provides that in estimating the weight to be attached to the statement, the court must have regard to all the circumstances from which an inference can reasonably be drawn.
I am, indeed, grateful for the correspondence and the conversations I have had with the noble Lord, Lord Rix. I am able to tell the House what I told him; that is, in those circumstances I do not believe that a judge would fail to give the jury instruction on the status of the evidence, the new law on competency and the significance, if any, of special measures used in the trial. I do not believe that judges would fail to include mention of the provision in Clause 30(2) to the effect which I indicated a moment ago, that they are to be treated as if made in direct oral testimony.
As the noble Lord stated, the key to this is training—I repeat, not just for judges and magistrates, but for practitioners as well. We are developing a training strategy which is being taken forward by the inter-departmental steering group, which I mentioned earlier. I am happy to tell your Lordships that that group is working in close consultation with the Judicial Studies Board, which does remarkable work in the training of the judiciary. It is, of course, a judge-led body responsible for judicial training, not only of judges but the magistracy as well.
I know that the Judicial Studies Board, and in particular its Equal Treatment Advisory Committee, is happy to consider any suggestions for improving the training of judges, including magistrates, in relation to these issues.
I think that that should be a reasonable comfort. It is the undertaking that I have given to the noble Lord, Lord Rix, in our correspondence and conversations.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response which is, I believe, a comfort. It is good to have it on the official record. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 23, line 20, at end insert—
("( ) For the avoidance of doubt, the judge must not warn the jury that it is unsafe to rely on the evidence of a witness on the ground only that the witness is a patient in a special hospital detained under Part III of the Mental Health Act 1983.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is an amendment that I was asked to table by the Law Society. I understand that in the early 1980s a number of nurses at Rampton Special Hospital were
1650
prosecuted for the ill-treatment of several patients. This was under the provisions of Section 126 of the Mental Health Act 1959 which was subsequently replaced by a similar provision in Section 127 of the Mental Health Act 1983. The nurses' appeal against their conviction was upheld in the Judicial Committee of your Lordships' House in R v. Spencer in 1987.
I am told that the prosecution case depended wholly on the evidence of patients who were detained at Rampton as a result of earlier criminal proceedings against them. In considering the appeal, the committee ruled that while the full corroboration warning given in cases of sexual offences was not required in a case under the provisions of the Mental Health Act, juries nevertheless had to be warned in clear terms of the dangers of convicting on the unsupported evidence of a single patient and that one patient could not be treated as supporting the evidence of another patient.
In the Judicial Committee the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, to whom I have shown my notes and who is therefore aware of what I will be saying, stated that three dangers in this case justified the jury being told to act with great caution: first, that the patients were all persons of bad character; secondly, that they were all suffering from some form of mental disorder; and, thirdly, that they might all have conspired together to make false allegations.
The noble and learned Lord prefaced those three criteria for warning the jury to treat the patients' evidence with caution by saying:
"The complainants were men of bad character. They had been sent to Rampton rather than to an ordinary prison … [They were] mentally unbalanced … anti-authoritarian, prone to lie or exaggerate … [and] could well have old scores which they were seeking to pay off".
The ruling in the above case is clearly only applicable to cases involving mentally disordered people who have committed criminal offences. However, it has served to encourage the discriminatory belief that people with mental health problems or learning disabilities, particularly special hospital patients, can never be believed.
A number of inquiries have taken place into all three special hospitals in the past 20 years. Several of those have either looked specifically at allegations of ill-treatment of patients by staff or have raised that as a major cause for concern. Many of those inquiries commented on the inadequacies of the hospital complaints procedures and the difficulties faced by patients in getting their complaints taken seriously.
Patients in special hospitals are clearly vulnerable and should be entitled to protection against abuse and ill-treatment. They should therefore be able to pursue allegations of abuse against them and be eligible for the special measures available under this Bill to enable them to give their best evidence in court. It is then for the court to decide the weight of the evidence put before it as in other cases. It is possible that provisions in this Bill will make the ruling in R v. Spencer redundant. The amendment seeks assurances, for the avoidance of doubt, that vulnerable witnesses will not be excluded from the Bill's provisions purely

1651
on the grounds that they were patients in special hospitals and detained under the Mental Health Act. I beg to move.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, a shiver always goes down one's spine when one knows that a previous judicial statement is going to be cited. It is always a relief when one finds that the judicial statement emanates from the Appellate Committee of your Lordships' House because, unless there was a minority, there are bound to be four other Law Lords to share the blame. I have merely done the work which they accepted.
I cannot understand the criticism that one should caution a jury to be particularly careful when one is dealing with men of bad character who have been sent, having been convicted of crime, to a special hospital because of their mental state. The amendment states that for the avoidance of doubt,
"The judge must not warn the jury that it is unsafe".
I do not think a judge would so warn the jury. He may well warn the jury that it might be unsafe,
"to rely on the evidence of a witness on the ground",
etc. I do not see what can be wrong in advising a jury to take particular caution in regard to evidence emanating from the circumstances described by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen. I would be against this amendment.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, since the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 and the judgment by the Court of Appeal in the case of Makanjuola in 1995, there is no absolute obligation on the judiciary to warn the jury that a witness is suspect or that the jury should be careful of relying on the evidence without some form of co-operation purely because the witness falls into a particular category.
The judge remains under a duty to ensure that the case for and against the defendant is put fairly and adequately. I agree with the thrust of the remarks made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. If the judge finds some evidential basis for suggesting that the witness's evidence may be unreliable, it is the judge's duty to decide what he should say, in what terms, according to the situation of the witness in a particular trial.
The Bill redraws the law on competence. It provides special measures for certain witnesses, but I could not accept the proposition that no comment could be made in the circumstances described by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. We should not constrain a judge summing up or a magistrate approaching a witness's evidence in that way.
When we talk about best quality evidence, we mean evidence that is as coherent as the witness, with such assistance as is appropriate, can give—evidence that is as complete and coherent as the witness can manage. If he needs help, so be it. That does not mean that the evidence of persons under a disability should have any more or less status than the status that would be attached if those persons were not in need of special measures. That still means that an untruthful witness is still
1652
untruthful, even if assisted with special measures. A misguided witness in those circumstances may remain a misguided witness.
One ought not to place an absolute prohibition on a judge coming to his conclusion as to what he ought to say about evidence that may be suspect. In this circumstance, recognising that this is a boomerang that will come back to strike me on the head later, we ought to leave it to the discretion of the judges in this particular defined circumstance.
Lord Swinfen: I shall read with considerable interest, as will my advisers, the Minister's remarks. This probing amendment is designed to make certain that patients in special hospitals are not automatically considered to be guilty and making a nuisance of themselves, but to ensure that they have a fair opportunity; that if they are mistreated, justice is done to them.
If their evidence in court appears dishonest to the judge, it will appear to be dishonest also to the jury. The judge has a right and duty to draw that fact to the jury's attention. But such witnesses should not be considered before they even stand to give evidence necessarily to be unreliable and not to be trusted. One has to see the evidence. As has been said before, the demeanour of the witness must also be seen. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 33 [Complainants in proceedings for sexual offences]:
Lord Thomas of Gresford Lord Thomas of Gresford had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 48:
Page 24, line 5, at beginning insert ("Without the leave of the court,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I can just imagine the tabloid headlines:
"Gotcha! New Labour supports the discretion of the judges".
Indeed, that has to be a tabloid headline for tomorrow.
I do not propose to move Amendment No. 48 at this time. This is a matter which engaged your Lordships' House in Committee for well over an hour and a half some weeks ago. It is not appropriate for me to seek the opinion of the House at this late hour and with so few noble Lords present in the Chamber. Therefore, this is a matter to which I shall return on Third Reading.
[Amendment No. 48 not moved.]
Lord Ackner Lord Ackner had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 49:
Page 24, line 10, at end insert—
("except with leave of the judge who shall give leave if, and only if, he is satisfied that it would be unfair to the defendant not to be at liberty so to cross-examine.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I adopt the same approach mutatis mutandis and, accordingly, will take up no time of the House.
[Amendment No. 49 not moved.]
Baroness Mallalieu Baroness Mallalieu had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 50:
Page 24, line 10, at end insert—
("( ) This section shall not come into force until the Secretary of State has certified that, in his opinion and in the light of experience gained after the passing of this Act, it is necessary to bring this section into force for the reasonable protection in criminal proceedings of witnesses who are complainants in sexual offences.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, for the same reasons, I propose not to move Amendment No. 50 tonight.
[Amendment No. 50 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 51 not moved.]
Clause 35 [Direction prohibiting accused from cross-examining particular witness]:
[Amendment No. 52 not moved.]
Clause 36 [Further provisions about directions under section 35]:
[Amendment No. 53 not moved.]
Clause 37 [Defence representation for purposes of cross-examination]:
[Amendments Nos. 54 and 55 not moved.]
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at fourteen minutes before ten o'clock.

  Spain: Resident British Nationals
  Spain: Resident British Nationals
  UN Resolution 53/55: Preparation of Report
  UN Resolution 53/55: Preparation of Report
  Luxembourg Compromise
  Luxembourg Compromise
  Burma
  Burma
  North Korea
  North Korea
  European Community Law: Breaches
  European Community Law: Breaches
  Gibraltar
  Gibraltar
  North Atlantic Assembly: UK Delegation
  North Atlantic Assembly: UK Delegation
  Government Bills: Number Started in Lords and Commons
  Government Bills: Number Started in Lords and Commons
  Voting Records Peers Not Taking Party Whips
  Voting Records Peers Not Taking Party Whips
  Further Education In Scotland: Statistics
  Further Education In Scotland: Statistics
  Full-time Education in Scotland Statistics
  Full-time Education in Scotland Statistics
  Scottish Parliament: Opening Ceremony
  Scottish Parliament: Opening Ceremony
  War Pensions: Report on Assessment of Hearing Loss
  War Pensions: Report on Assessment of Hearing Loss
  Deregulation and Contracting Out Act, Part I
  Deregulation and Contracting Out Act, Part I
  Harrogate: Cycling on the Stray
  Harrogate: Cycling on the Stray
  NGOs and Water: Workshop
  NGOs and Water: Workshop
  Sudan
  Sudan
  Immigration Centre, Croydon: Visa Backlog
  Immigration Centre, Croydon: Visa Backlog
  Human Rights Act 1998: Section 12
  Human Rights Act 1998: Section 12
  Wackenhut (UK) Ltd.
  Wackenhut (UK) Ltd.
  Prison Boards of Visitors
  Prison Boards of Visitors
  Immigration and Nationality Directorate: Country Assessments
  Immigration and Nationality Directorate: Country Assessments
  Police Forces: Rank of Chief Superintendent
  Police Forces: Rank of Chief Superintendent
  South African Driving Licences
  South African Driving Licences
  Strategic Defence Review: Bases for New Units
  Strategic Defence Review: Bases for New Units
  Stirling: Site of Former REME Depot
  Stirling: Site of Former REME Depot