Sitting of 4 March 1999

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS
LONDON LOCAL AUTHORITIES BILL [Lords]
Read a Second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions
  TREASURY
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked—

  Euro
  Mr. John Bercow: If he will make a statement on preparations for possible British entry to the euro zone. [72413]
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): As the Prime Minister said on 23 February, the Government believe it important to make practical preparations now if we wish to have the option of considering joining the euro in the next Parliament. The preparations have been supported by a standing committee, which has included the Confederation of British Industry, chambers of commerce, the British Bankers Association, the Bank of England, the Financial Services Industry Association, the Consumers Association, the Trades Union Congress and others. One hundred business organisations have been involved. I can announce that banks, retailers and small businesses will be among those involved in working parties, conducting a business examination of critical issues. Any decision, of course, would involve a referendum of the people of this country.
  All political parties in the House have been invited to join a parliamentary committee to consider the work of the standing committee. One of the parties asked—the Conservative party—has refused to join.
  Mr. Bercow: I am grateful for that reply. Given that Lord Simon could give no clear idea to the Treasury Committee on Tuesday of how much money the Government will have to spend to prepare for the euro,
  1194
  over and above the £29 million already incurred, why does the right hon. Gentleman not just admit that, in seeking to drag Britain into the European single currency, which the former Spanish Prime Minister, Felipe Gonzalez, has described as
  "the greatest abandonment of sovereignty since the foundation of the European Community",
  he does so with a cost that he will not calculate, for a benefit that he cannot quantify, at a risk to the British people that he dare not admit?
  Mr. Brown: I thought that, when the hon. Gentleman started, he was making a bid to fill the Conservatives' empty chair in the committee. The £29 million which he is talking about is money related to the start of the euro in Europe, for which the Bank of England and others have had to make preparations. It is normal, when legislation is published, to publish the moneys that would have to be allocated to social security, the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise, and that will be done in the normal way. The usual value-for-money test will be met, and Parliament will have a chance to vote on the legislation. We have done everything that is proper.
  The question that the Conservative party must answer is this: if we are to decide on computer systems, for example, for social security, Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise for 10, 20 or 30 years ahead, is it not sensible to build in a facility to include the euro? If the Conservatives abandon or seek to abandon meaningful preparation, they are denying the British people the choice. We have a Conservative party that refuses to consider joining the euro, refuses to consider preparations, and now even refuses to discuss considering preparations. Its motto is: be unprepared.
  Mr. Mike Gapes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Conservative party's behaviour on this issue is in marked contrast to this Government's and to the interests of British business and people? There will be serious implications for business, regardless of whether this country joins the euro, so we must be properly prepared to deal with that—unlike Conservative Members, who just take their bat away and say, "We're not playing."
  Mr. Brown: I agree with my hon. Friend. Two months ago, the Conservative party in the House of Commons lost the support of hereditary peers. Now it has lost the support of business, the CBI, the British Bankers Association and chambers of commerce, which all believe that it is sensible to consider practical preparation. The Conservative party is becoming a marginal force in British politics.
  Dr. Vincent Cable: Is the Chancellor aware that the Back-Bench committee to which he refers duly met this morning in a businesslike manner? Can he think of any rational reason why the official Opposition should choose to boycott a committee on which all other United Kingdom parties are represented, including several that are hostile to economic and monetary union?
  Hon. Members: Order.
  Madam Speaker: Order. This is a reasonable question; it is a parliamentary matter.
  Dr. Cable: Can the Chancellor explain why the official Opposition may not wish to participate in public scrutiny of expenditure on the changeover plan, which they will otherwise complain is improperly or secretly spent?
  Mr. Brown: We hope that every political party in the House would see the national economic interests in this matter, and would participate in the committee. I am very pleased that all other political parties have decided to be part of the group and have sent a nominated representative.
  Mr. Desmond Swayne: Quislings!
  Mr. Brown: I think that that was unparliamentary language—but not from me. It is pleasing that other political parties have chosen to take part. On this matter, the Conservative party has set itself against the whole of British industry and commerce, which, whatever their views, want to make practical preparations so that we are in a position to make a choice. The Conservative party is trying to deny the British people a realistic and fair choice.
  Mr. Robert Sheldon: Of course my right hon. Friend is absolutely right to undertake these preparations, but the negotiations will obviously be very difficult and complex. Will he confirm that it is his intention to achieve a competitive level for the pound? I ask him for no more details than that because of the difficulties of these negotiations; but will he confirm that, in the interests of manufacturing industry, he will try to achieve that competitive level of the pound?
  Mr. Brown: Our policy is for exchange rate stability, and that is the policy that matters as far as the euro is concerned. As for British industry, I think my right hon. Friend, who has taken a strong interest in manufacturing industry for a long time, will agree that manufacturers throughout the country are worried about the fact that a political party in the House wants to stand aside from the preparations that are necessary in the national interest.
  I read this morning that the shadow Chancellor is to lead national demonstrations to the House of Commons, including anti-Europeans, Europeans and Euro-sceptics. I believe that people will find it ironic that the man who signed the Maastricht treaty is now leading demonstrations against that treaty.
  Mr. Alan Clark: The Chancellor just mentioned exchange rate stability, but, as he knows, the value of the euro has steadily deteriorated since its launch. He may or may not agree with his distinguished predecessor, Lord Healey, that at this rate it will be out of sight completely in five years. But what message does he have for savers, for those on fixed incomes and for those with building society accounts, who already, over the past two months, have seen a deterioration that amounts almost to one year's complete income?
  Mr. Brown: What worries savers most is the idea of a return to the boom-bust policies of the Conservative Government. The country will not forget that inflation went as high as 21 per cent. in the 1980s. Inflation is now about 2½ per cent. That is our target, and we shall stick to it. This party—and this Government—is the low-inflation party in this country.
  Mr. Bill Rammell: Does the Chancellor share my puzzlement that the statement that we just heard is the first call in the Chamber that I can remember for higher interest rates? Does he agree that the Prime Minister's statement on the national changeover plan has been warmly welcomed throughout the country? Did he notice the MORI opinion poll in The Times last week, showing for the first time a majority of people in favour of, not opposed to, British entry to the single currency; and does that not emphasise the reasons why we are hearing the shrill voices from the Conservatives today—the shrill voices of desperation, as they realise that public opinion is leaving them behind?
  Mr. Brown: I believe that, whatever people in this country feel about the euro, they feel that a Government should make practical preparations to give the people a realistic choice; and they will find it very strange indeed that the Conservative party has so marginalised itself that it will not even participate in the discussions about preparations. The Conservatives are now the rump of a sect of a faction of a once-national party.
  Mr. Francis Maude: What estimate have the Government made of the conversion costs either to business or to the taxpayer of Britain joining the euro? Why was no such estimate included in the national changeover plan published last week? Why, in the time scale for membership set out in that plan, was there no mention of when the most important event of all would take place—the act of monetary union, the irrevocable locking of exchange rates?
  Mr. Brown: If the right hon. Member would send his representatives along to the committee, they would consider those very issues. The point of the outline changeover plan is that it is a consultative exercise; it is for business and Government to share their insights and ideas about the necessary arrangements that would have to be made for a changeover. However, the Conservative party wants to deprive the country of the realistic option of making a choice.
  Mr. Maude: That just will not do. The Government appear to be so sure that membership of the single currency will be in Britain's interests that they are ready to commit large sums—tens of millions of pounds, the Prime Minister said—of taxpayers' money now, and to ask business to do the same, on the arrogant assumption that the British people will want to join it. How can they possibly be so sure when they have not even bothered to estimate the costs, let alone the benefits?

  1197
  Is not the Chancellor's untypical coyness on the timing of the exchange rate locking explained by the fact that, if it was to be early in the time scale, he would have to tell the Bank of England to shadow the euro before the general election, contrary to what the Prime Minister said last week; and, if it was to be later, there is no possible reason for anyone to spend money on it now? Does not his reticence on the subject give the game away? The plan is about edging Britain ever closer to membership, in an attempt to close off the option of Britain prospering outside.
  Mr. Brown: The whole point of the national changeover plan is to have a discussion of the implications for business and others of the option to join the euro. The whole point of the Conservative opposition to that is to deny us a realistic choice in the next Parliament.
  With regard to preparations, business—to which the right hon. Gentleman's question supposedly relates—is joining us in examining those issues. On dates, we have made it absolutely clear that the issue is whether we meet the economic tests. We have not set a date. We have set tests that must be met, and we shall evaluate them in the next Parliament.
  The problem for the Conservative party is that there are two realistic positions—to be in favour of the euro in principle or to be against in principle. The right hon. Gentleman and those on the Back Benches are against. The Leader of the Opposition says that he would rule out joining for 10 years. The shadow Chancellor is now ruling out preparations for 10 years. The party is split asunder by the issue of Europe.
  Mr. Harry Barnes: The House understands the practical preparations that are to take place in terms of economic measures, and the provisions for a referendum. What measures are to be taken on a European scale in respect of the democracy of the European Union, in order to make it a fit body to run the euro?
  Mr. Brown: We have made our proposals for economic and political reform in Europe, and we shall continue to pursue them. We have made proposals on jobs, capital markets and competition policy. We have made proposals about other issues relating to the operation of the European Parliament, and we shall continue to push the agenda that is right for Britain in Europe.

  Royal National Lifeboat Institution
  Mr. Bob Russell: If he will amend the VAT regulations to give a nil rating for maintenance work to Royal National Lifeboat Institution boathouses. [72414]
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mrs. Barbara Roche): I am sure that the whole House will join me in congratulating the Royal National Lifeboat Institution on its 175th anniversary. The RNLI has a wide range of reliefs for goods and some services relating to lifeboats. The United Kingdom can apply zero rates to a specified range of goods under a provision of the sixth
  1198
  VAT directive. Under that provision, the UK cannot be forced to give up any of its existing zero rates, but cannot introduce any new ones.
  Mr. Russell: I join the Minister in congratulating the RNLI. It is a happy coincidence that today is that anniversary. May I suggest to the Minister that it is unfair to put VAT on saving lives at sea? For every person saved in the past year, the VAT cost was £110. That may be a drop in the ocean in terms of the Chancellor's expenditure, but perhaps that money could be better spent. After all, it comes from voluntary donations from the public. The VAT that the Chancellor collects is the equivalent of the cost of 13 new inshore lifeboats. Will the Minister consider introducing a nil rate for organisations engaged in saving life? If she wanted to, she could find a way through the red tape.
  Mrs. Roche: I hope that the hon. Gentleman was listening to my earlier reply. I remind him that the RNLI is already given a great deal of help. VAT zero rate relief is available for new boathouses, new lifeboats, and tractors and other equipment for launching and recovering lifeboats. The repair and maintenance of lifeboat equipment are also approved.
  The Government take charities and giving to charities seriously. That is why the Government give charities almost £2 billion each year, including some £200 million VAT relief. That is a record of which we are extremely proud.
  Mr. Alan Simpson: The Minister will know that the sixth VAT directive also allows the variation of VAT rates in relation to social housing projects. Will she look again at the relief that has been given so far on home insulation products—
  Madam Speaker: Order. This question relates directly to the RNLI.
  Mr. Charles Wardle: Why should British people who want to maximise their support for the RNLI or, for example, church repairs, be thwarted simply because European Commission officials want a neat and tidy common VAT regime and oppose selective zero rating? Which comes first: the wishes of British people doing good work in their communities, or Brussels?
  Mrs. Roche: I am amazed by the hon. Gentleman, but experience should perhaps teach me not to be. That comes as something of a cheek from a member of the previous Government, who broke their election promise by putting VAT on fuel when they said they would not, leaving this Government to cut it. We have kept our promises; they did not. Clearly, he does not understand the sixth directive either.
  Mr. Michael Clapham: When my hon. Friend considers the RNLI's VAT position, will she also consider education action zones and ensure that they are put on the same footing—
  Madam Speaker: Order. I am not having hon. Members abuse questions in that way.

  Taxation (Married Couples)
  Mr. Tim Loughton: What estimate he has made of the tax levels paid by the average married couple on (a) 1 March and (b) 1 May 1997. [72415]
  The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Alan Milburn): The amount of tax paid by a married couple depends on several factors, including the age of the partners and the way their income is split between them.
  Mr. Loughton: That was very informative. It is a shame that the Minister did not follow the Prime Minister's example yesterday and admit that the tax burden under Labour has risen and is continuing to rise. Will he come clean too and admit that married people with mortgages are paying considerably more income tax, let alone stealth taxes, to this Government than they did to the previous one?
  Mr. Milburn: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. The cuts in interest rates in recent months have benefited mortgage holders, and mortgage rates are at a 30-year low. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would welcome that.
  Kali Mountford: When my right hon. Friend considers the taxation of married couples, will he recognise that children are at the heart of marriage and therefore take full account of the report on child benefit taxation published today by the Select Committee on Social Security? Will he ensure that the Government fully consider the role of children within the family and fully support the lowest-paid families with children?
  Mr. Milburn: Of course we shall carefully consider the Select Committee's report, which was published an hour or so ago. However, from April this year, 6 million people are set to benefit from a record rise in child benefit rates. Our policy has been to increase child benefit rates; the Conservative party's policy was to freeze them.
  Mr. Edward Davey: Will the Chief Secretary confirm research by the House of Commons Library showing that, under this Government, the number of tax rates in the tax system has increased from the eight that they inherited to 54? Will he try to square that fact with the Chancellor's assertion in opposition and in government that Labour would simplify the tax system and remove loopholes?
  Mr. Milburn: If I were the hon. Gentleman, given the Liberal Democrats' tax policy, I would be extremely cautious about lecturing the Government. They seem to think that a penny on income tax will increase spending on the NHS, education, transport, schools, hospitals, social security and welfare benefits. The Government have cut taxes. We have cut corporation tax and national insurance contributions, and the lesson that I draw from that is that people are better off with Labour.
  Yvette Cooper: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is a curious position to hold to express concern about the tax paid by families and at the same time oppose the working families tax credit,
  1200
  which will make low-income families better off, thereby effectively calling for a tax hike of £17 on a family earning £220 a week?
  Mr. Milburn: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Opposition are addicted to tax hikes. If they had their way, they would abolish the working families tax credit. That would affect 1 million of the poorest families in the land and leave them facing a tax hike of £17 a week. It is this Government who are committed to supporting families through supporting children. The Opposition's record does not bear scrutiny.
  Mr. Francis Maude: Will the Chief Secretary go away and work out that there is a difference between income tax and interest rates? He was asked about income tax. Why will he not admit that a typical married couple with a mortgage are paying more than £200 a year more, in income tax alone, as a result of Labour's stealth tax increases? Income tax rates may be the same, but what most taxpayers pay in income tax has risen. Why, for once in his life, will he not come clean and admit that his stealth tax increases have hit precisely the ordinary married families that the Prime Minister promised to protect?
  Mr. Milburn: I tell the right hon. Gentleman three things. First, when he was a Treasury Minister, the then Tory Government cut the rate of the married couples allowance. Secondly, married couples are set to benefit this year from our increase in child benefit rates, which his party opposes. One final thing: the dividing line between us and them on tax is that we keep our promises and they break theirs.

  Capital Gains Tax (Farmers)
  Mr. Chris Mullin: What plans he has to review the exemption for farmers from capital gains tax on agricultural land sold for development; and if he will make a statement. [72416]
  The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo): There is no exemption for farmers from capital gains tax on agricultural land sold for development.
  Mr. Mullin: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply and for the letter that she sent me, which arrived this morning, but I am not at all convinced. This looks like a scam, and one that benefits speculators rather than farmers. It also seems to be utterly at odds with our policy of discouraging development of green-field sites. Will she have another look at that measure?
  Dawn Primarolo: I am delighted that my hon. Friend is at least receiving my letters, even if I am chided a little for their timing. On his serious point, he believes, to use his own words, that there is a scam in respect of capital gains roll-over relief. I have told him before that we have no evidence of that, and that it is not possible for the situation that he describes to occur; but, given his insistence, and if he has information that we, as the tax authorities, do not have, I am happy to meet him to pursue this issue.
  Mr. William Ross: Will the Minister take it from me that the real problem for farmers

  1201
  in recent years has not been exemptions, or anything else of the kind, but the impossibly low incomes that they currently enjoy?
  Dawn Primarolo: With regard to capital gains tax and the impact on farmers when they pay it, the legislation makes clear what happens. I assume that the hon. Gentleman welcomes the capital gains tax reforms undertaken last year by the Government to assist entrepreneurs and to make the system simpler.
  Mr. Robert Maclennan: Does the Minister recognise, however, that, because of the collapse in agricultural incomes, which are charted by the Government's own figures, it would be wholly inappropriate to pursue environmental ends—which can be better achieved by planning regulation—by tinkering with the tax system, depriving those farmers who might have legitimately sold land for development, with all the necessary approvals?
  Dawn Primarolo: The capital gains tax regulations are quite clear, as is their impact on the issue that the right hon. Gentleman describes. I shall take his further comments about capital gains tax as a late Budget submission.
  Mr. Christopher Gill: While considering the question of farmers' taxation, will the Minister consider a question of which she has already been given notice? Will she make it possible for farmers who trade in their private capacity, and not as limited companies, to enjoy the benefits in respect of offsetting losses against profits that they would enjoy if they were subject to corporation tax?
  Dawn Primarolo: I say again that the way in which the capital gains tax system impinges on farmers is clear. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has heard the comments about future reform.

  Taxation
  Mr. Robert N. Wareing: If he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy towards the balance between direct and indirect taxation. [72417]
  The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Alan Milburn): The Government are building a tax system that is fair and that supports work, enterprise and families. That is why we pledged not to increase the basic or top rates of income tax, and not to extend VAT to food, children's clothes, books and newspapers and public transport fares. We stand by those pledges.
  Mr. Wareing: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. In 1978–79, at the end of the last Labour Government, taxes on products and production were 3.9 per cent. of total taxation. By 1997–98, that figure had risen to 39.1 per cent. Could the Chancellor consider, as an alternative to a 10p rate of income tax, reducing
  1202
  regressive indirect taxation and shifting the balance further towards direct taxation, which is more progressive and more equitable?
  Mr. Milburn: We judge tax proposals according to a number of criteria, one of which is fairness. We have made it clear repeatedly that, when we are able to do so and when we judge that the time is right—
  Madam Speaker: Order. I cannot hear the Minister. He will please address the House.
  Mr. Milburn: We want to introduce a 10p tax rate when the time is right. Some of the other measures that we have introduced, such as cuts in VAT on fuel and changes to the national insurance contributions rates, are major steps towards a fairer tax system. That is the Government's approach, and we shall continue to advocate and implement it.
  Mr. Stephen Dorrell: On Tuesday, we were told that the Prime Minister was lecturing his socialist colleagues in Europe on the lessons that Europe could learn from what he described as the extraordinary capacity of the United States to create wealth and work. Yesterday, the Prime Minister was forced to admit that, far from emulating the American example, it was the Government's plan to increase both the direct and indirect tax burden on the British economy. When will the Chancellor of the Exchequer stop undermining the Prime Minister?
  Mr. Milburn: I am not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman is making a late bid for a Front-Bench job, but he knows fine well that last year's pre-Budget report set out the position very clearly indeed. The tax burden under this Government is projected to be less than that for which the Tories had planned.
  The Tories increased taxes before the general election; they had planned to continue to do so if, heaven forbid, they had won that election; and, if they had their way now, they would continue to increase the tax burden, most notably by getting rid of the working families tax credit. I should be interested to know the right hon. Gentleman and his Front-Bench colleagues' views on VAT on fuel, because the last Tory Chancellor of the Exchequer pledged to increase it to 17.5 per cent.
  Mr. Peter L. Pike: When considering direct taxes and duties, should we not take into account the amount of beer and cigarettes that are daily brought across the channel for sale in this country to avoid tax and duties? That puts our people out of work. It is appropriate to discuss that issue in a week when the Stena line is organising trips for people to go across the channel to buy cars, which will have implications for our motor industry.
  Mr. Milburn: As my hon. Friend knows, those matters are rightly for my right hon. Friend's Budget, which will be announced next Tuesday.
  Mr. Nick Gibb: Which of the following does the Chief Secretary regret the most: promising before the election not to raise taxes, the fact that the Government have broken that promise by

  1203
  raising taxes by £40.7 billion, or the fact that they have been caught out raising taxes by the Prime Minister's gaffe in the House of Commons yesterday?
  Mr. Milburn: What I regret is that the hon. Gentleman has not learned the lessons of history. It was the Tories who broke their promises on tax. In 1979, they promised not to increase VAT, but at their first Budget they increased it—indeed, they doubled it. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman does not want to listen, but I remind him of what the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), said on 27 March 1992:
  "We have no need and no plans to extend the scope of VAT."
  Within a year, the Tory Government had increased VAT and had extended it to fuel. If it had not been for the Labour party and this Parliament, they would have continued to increase it.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Barry Sheerman: What new steps he is taking to promote small businesses. [72418]
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): In the last Budget, we announced a range of measures to help small businesses to invest for the future, including the cut in the small companies' rate of corporation tax to 20p from April, enhanced first-year capital allowances at 40 per cent. extended to July this year and a new capital gains tax taper for individuals, reducing the effective rate for those investing in business assets to 10 per cent. after 10 years. Small businesses benefit most of all from a move from the boom-bust economy to an economy based on stability.
  Mr. Sheerman: Has my right hon. Friend seen the findings of recent research, which suggest that a high percentage of small businesses not only have no information technology systems, but do not possess a computer? Is it not about time that we gave small businesses real incentives to move into the computer age, even if that means introducing a tax scale of some kind—or, indeed, giving universities a role in the improvement of the systems available to small businesses, and in the education of those businesses?
  Mr. Brown: I thank my hon. Friend for his question, and for chairing, this morning, the first meeting of the parliamentary committee on the euro.
  My hon. Friend's point about small businesses is well taken. A third of a million small businesses have access to the internet and to electronic commerce. We intend to raise that figure substantially, and, working with business, we shall do what we can to achieve our aim.
  Mr. John Townend: When I listen to Ministers, I sometimes wonder whether they have any idea of the problems involved in running a small business. I know of those problems from personal experience.
  Does the Chancellor appreciate that the small tax reductions that he has mentioned will not help businesses on the borderline, some of which have been driven into losses by the burdens imposed on small business? Those burdens have increased dramatically since the Government came to power. Paternity rights, the social
  1204
  chapter, the working time directive, the hygiene regulations and the minimum wage will all cause more and more small businesses to go before industrial tribunals, where they will face a maximum penalty of not £12,000 but £50,000, which could put many of them out of business.
  Mr. Brown: We will take no lectures from a Conservative party that unilaterally imposed statutory sick pay on every employer in the country. As for the climate for business, the hon. Gentleman, who was an MP at the time, will remember that, in the early 1990s, inflation rose above 10 per cent. and interest rates rose to 15 per cent. for a year and remained above 10 per cent. for four years, and 1 million small businesses went under as a result.
  What businesses want most of all is the stability that is being provided by a Labour Government. Contrary to what the hon. Gentleman has said, small businesses welcome the cut in tax from 23p to 20p. We have yet to hear whether the Conservative party would rescind that cut, along with working families tax credit.

  Tax Demands (Self-employed)
  Mr. Paul Truswell: What plans he has to improve the accuracy of tax demands sent to self-employed people. [72419]
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mrs. Barbara Roche): To help self-employed people to manage their tax affairs within the new self-assessment system, the Inland Revenue sends taxpayers statements of account which detail the current tax position. The Inland Revenue is constantly looking at ways of improving its service to taxpayers, and has recently improved the format of self-assessment statements.
  Mr. Truswell: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Is she aware that, as well as overtaxing the incomes of 800,000 self-employed people, the Inland Revenue has added insult to injury by enclosing with its letter of apology a guide that would have overtaxed the intellect of the average genius, let alone Members of Parliament? Has she any plans to introduce a numeracy and literacy strategy, so that, next year, we can have plain English, plain dealing and plain sailing?
  Mrs. Roche: I am well aware of the problems identified by my hon. Friend, and I take to heart his comment about plain English. I shall certainly undertake to ensure that his remarks are passed on.
  Of course the Inland Revenue regrets the problems caused by the statement error. It decided to send all the statements, despite the fault in some, because taxpayers needed to know what to pay by 31 January. The fault was put right before statements were issued in February. Work is in hand to ensure that such faults do not slip through in future. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept those reassurances.
  Miss Anne McIntosh: Will the Minister join me in calling on the Inland Revenue to impose the same penalties on itself for overcharging self-employed people in their tax assessment, and to repay

  1205
  interest on the amounts overpaid? Stiff penalties could be imposed on the Inland Revenue, so that the tax assessment might be more correct in the first instance.
  Mrs. Roche: It is very unlikely that the situation that the hon. Lady describes will arise because of the late notification, which this was all about, but I am interested that the hon. Lady, for whom I have some regard—[HON. MEMBERS: "Some regard?"] There are limits beyond which even I will not go. I am grateful to her for raising the question of interest on late payment. Perhaps she might consider her party paying interest on broken promises.
  Mr. Bill O'Brien: May I join my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Mr. Truswell) in asking the Minister to prevail on the Inland Revenue to be more efficient and to show greater efficiency in its dealings with the self-taxation system? Because of the Inland Revenue's lack of efficiency, returns are being sent to constituents and demands are being made for interest payments on unpaid tax when the tax has been paid. However, because of lack of efficiency, the Inland Revenue is not prepared to accept its mistakes. I understand that many constituents are paying interest by default. I ask the Minister to take the matter up and to demand greater efficiency in the Inland Revenue.
  Mrs. Roche: I say openly that, if my hon. Friend has some examples and cases to put to me, I will look into them as quickly as possible. If mistakes are made, we will always be happy to take responsibility and to look into them, but the Inland Revenue is constantly looking at its service, through consultation, and improvements are made all the time.

  Single Currency
  Dr. Julian Lewis: If he will list the constitutional issues which he assessed as not creating a bar to United Kingdom membership of the single currency. [72420]
  The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Ms Patricia Hewitt): In his statement to the House of Commons on 27 October 1997, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer set out clearly the Government's view of the constitutional implications of joining the single currency. Sharing a common monetary policy would represent a major pooling of economic sovereignty, so the constitutional issue is a factor in the decision, but it is not an overriding one. Rather, what it means is that, for monetary union to be right for the UK, the economic benefits should be clear and unambiguous, and the final decision should be made by the British people in a referendum.
  Dr. Lewis: Is it not clear that the Minister has just dodged the whole point of the question? It was not about the pooling of economic sovereignty, but about the loss of democratic sovereignty and democratic accountability.
  Given that continental politicians have repeatedly admitted that one of the main purposes of economic and monetary union is to create a political entity—a single state in Europe—will the Minister now confirm the logical implication of the Government's position, which is that, if the five economic, and they are only economic,
  1206
  tests that the Government have set are fulfilled, there is no amount of loss of political and democratic sovereignty and accountability that they would not be content to put up with?
  Ms Hewitt: The hon. Gentleman has made it clear why the Conservative party is completely marginalised on one of the most important questions that faces this country. Again, he has made it clear that the Conservative party—the anti-European Conservative party—is saying that, even if joining a single currency were good for Britain, for the economy and for jobs, it would be against it and against it for ever. The Labour party is the party that speaks for the British interest.
  Mr. Denis MacShane: There are constitutional issues at stake involving parliamentary democracy. In the past 24 hours, we have seen two major developments. An all-party committee set up in good faith to allow Parliament to help business to prepare for the single currency has been boycotted by the Tory party, and boycotting is a 19th-century weapon. Also, has not the shadow Chancellor said that he is so indifferent to the House that he proposes to lead the Tory party on to the streets of this country? It has become the party of Trotskyists on European issues. We have "Militant Maude and the Tory Trots against Europe".
  Ms Hewitt: I am sure that you will be as grateful as the rest of the House, Madam Speaker, for the fact that my hon. Friend asked that question in English. He is absolutely right. When the Conservative party was in government, it opted out of the social chapter which would have given the British people fair standards at work. It has now opted out of the cross-party group on preparations for the euro and out of defending the national interest. It is wholly marginalised in the debate.
  Mr. Nick Hawkins: Will the Minister recognise that my constituents and businesses—particularly small businesses—throughout the country think that the most important constitutional issue is that of the Government spending taxpayers' money before they have any democratic mandate to do so? Will she admit that the words "changeover plan" are seen by people and businesses as a handover plan, handing over British democratic sovereignty without any mandate to do so? If she and her friends in the Government were honest, they would have a referendum now. They have no mandate to spend a penny piece of taxpayers' money without a referendum—they know that they would lose it, so they dare not hold it now.
  Ms Hewitt: Let me stress once again that we have made it clear that the final decision on whether to join a successful single currency will be made by the British people in a referendum. Businesses want economic stability, low interest rates, low inflation and practical support to ensure that they can take advantage of the opportunities created by the euro. The Government are giving them that support. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will speak to those on his Front Bench and urge them to join the cross-party group that we have set up to ensure that there is parliamentary involvement in the preparations for the possible decision to join.
  Mr. Kevin McNamara: Does my hon. Friend agree that, if the Conservative party were logical

  1207
  on the question of democratic accountability, it would be seeking more powers for the European Parliament so as to be able properly to control the Council of Ministers and demanding less secrecy in that Council? It would also be insisting that the second and third pillars on the operation of powers, created by their Government, should become answerable to democratically elected Parliaments and not dealt with in secret by Ministers of Justice. There might then be a degree of sincerity in the Conservatives' words.
  Ms Hewitt: My hon. Friend is right in his criticism of the official Opposition. It is impossible for them to have any intelligent view on the matters to which he refers when they are now so clearly the anti-European party. The Government will continue to ensure that British interests are defended by our policy of constructive engagement in the European Union.

  Tax Harmonisation
  Mr. Owen Paterson: If he will make a statement on the impact on the United Kingdom economy of proposed European tax harmonisation measures. [72421]
  The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo): The Government will continue to judge every tax proposal according to the United Kingdom national interest. We will not support any action at a European level that will threaten the competitive position of British business or harm investment and jobs in Britain.
  Mr. Paterson: Does the Minister fully understand that, thanks to the fact that the total tax burden in the United Kingdom is 20 to 25 per cent. lower than that in the euro zone, in the past six years the United Kingdom has created 2.5 million more jobs than the whole of the euro zone countries put together? Therefore—as she has just said that it is a matter of vital national interest—will she promise to the House and to the United Kingdom that the Government will use the national veto to prevent any tax harmonisation upwards, as was recently demanded by Mr. Günter Verheugen, the German Minister for Europe?
  Dawn Primarolo: That was a very interesting intervention. I thank the hon. Gentleman for confirming that we are a low-tax Government.
  Ms Sally Keeble: Does my hon. Friend agree that some of the pressures from the Germans for tax harmonisation are based on pressures from their own financial institutions, and that there is concern about those pressures in our own financial sector? Does she agree also that the strong constructive role played by our Government is the best way of countering those pressures, and that use of the types of tactic employed by Conservative Members—with all their prevarications, splits, U-turns and muddles—would leave our financial institutions and economy very much exposed?
  Dawn Primarolo: I am happy to confirm to my hon. Friend, and other hon. Members, that the Government believe that tax harmonisation is not the way forward for Europe. Our European partners agree with us that Europe's priority is the promotion of employment reform
  1208
  sand competitive markets, to achieve higher levels of employment and prosperity. That is the Government's policy, and we shall continue to pursue it.
  Mr. John Whittingdale: The hon. Lady has stated on a number occasions that the Government are opposed to the proposed European withholding tax and to further European tax harmonisation. Will she therefore take this opportunity to condemn Mrs. Pauline Green, leader of the European socialist group, and other British Labour Members of the European Parliament who voted for the 20 per cent. withholding tax and for further extension of tax harmonisation to cover capital gains tax?
  Dawn Primarolo: The Government's position on the draft directive on taxation of savings, which is under discussion, is very clear. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have made it very clear that we shall not agree to anything that damages competitive markets. Moreover, he is in no position to say anything about disagreements within parties on any subject, particularly Europe.
  Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: Is not the issue of European tax harmonisation one that could be raised in the new House of Commons euro committee, which the Tories are boycotting? Will my hon. Friend tell me who will represent Conservative opinion in my constituency in favour of the euro? Tories in my constituency who are in favour of the euro would like their voice to be heard in the Westminster committee. Perhaps my hon. Friend will comment on that.
  Dawn Primarolo: I am sure that Conservative voters in my hon. Friend's constituency will make up their own minds, as they did at the previous general election, and decide that their interests are best served by voting Labour—which is there, defending their interests.

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Mr. Steve Webb: What assessment he has made of the transfer of funds from women to men which will occur as a result of the implementation of the working families tax credit. [72422]
  The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo): The Government are clear that there is no compulsory transfer of funds from women to men because of implementation of the working families tax credit.
  Mr. Webb: I am disappointed that, even with two weeks' notice, the hon. Lady could not answer my question. Does she accept that £900 million in family credit is paid to women in couples in which men are the principal breadwinner? Does she accept also that the Inland Revenue is assuming that two thirds of employees receiving the tax credit will receive it in their pay packet? Will she therefore confirm that, on that basis, several hundred million pounds will go from women to men as a direct result of Government policy? Does she think that that is in the interests of the children?
  Dawn Primarolo: The hon. Gentleman continues to misunderstand the figures. The facts are that 50 per cent. of those who receive family credit, and who will

  1209
  receive working families tax credit, are lone parents; that, in 23 per cent. of couples, women are the main or sole earner; and that a good proportion of the 300,000 people he mentioned already have their money paid into a joint account. As he well knows, we have made it clear that, when there is a dispute about to whom the working families tax credit should be paid, the Inland Revenue will pay directly to the parent with care. The proposition that he has put forward is not true.
  Mr. Geraint Davies: Does my hon. Friend agree that the combination of our employment relations legislation, which will give enormous rights to women who work part-time, and the working families tax credit is likely to bring about a significant shift in economic power from men to women?
  Dawn Primarolo: I should like to add to that list the benefit to women from the substantial increase in child benefit that we have introduced. The Conservative party froze child benefit. The hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) has not yet complimented us on that increase.

  Married Couples Allowance
  Mr. David Amess: What recent representations he has received about the future of the married couples allowance. [72423]
  The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Ms Patricia Hewitt): Treasury Ministers have received many representations on that issue.
  Mr. Amess: Given that there is no boom in the economy in Southend, West, but plenty of bust, that the public had to work 147 days last year just to pay their taxes and that the style of the Government is to leak policy outside the House before reporting it here, are we supposed to feel better when the married couples allowance is not abolished next week? How will the Government continue to deliver their election promises while supposedly not raising taxes?
  Ms Hewitt: The hon. Gentleman's constituents and mine will welcome the fact that the Government have cut VAT on fuel, cut national insurance contributions for employers, cut corporation tax, cut small business tax rates and cut capital gains tax. We have also introduced the biggest-ever increase in child benefit. Is he telling us that the Conservative party would not only repeal the working families tax credit, but reverse the increase in child benefit?

  Pensioners
  Helen Jackson: What plans he has to review the taxation liabilities of pensioners. [72424]
  The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Ms Patricia Hewitt): The Government have announced a £2.5 billion package of support for pensioners. That will include a minimum tax guarantee, so that no elderly person will pay income tax unless his or her income rises
  1210
  above a specified level. As the pre-Budget report confirmed, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor might have more to say on that in next week's Budget.
  Helen Jackson: I thank my hon. Friend for her reply and look forward to the Budget statement next week. Does she recognise that, although falling interest rates are excellent for manufacturing, mortgage payers and many others, they result in a drop in income for pensioners above the benefit level who depend partly on interest from their savings? Does she recognise the importance of what they have gained from the reductions in VAT on fuel and what they stand to gain from the free eye tests that will be introduced in April? Does she also accept that plans to enable that worthy group to benefit further from a Labour Government should be a priority?
  Ms Hewitt: My hon. Friend is right to draw the attention of the House to the many measures that the Government have introduced to help elderly people. I am sure that she agrees that one of the greatest threats to the living standards of elderly people is inflation rates at the levels that we had during the boom and bust years of the Conservative Government. Low inflation is good for elderly people, but, to help them further with their savings, we are introducing the new individual savings accounts from April.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Tim Boswell: What recent consultations he has held with representatives of small businesses on the levels of business taxation. [72425]
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mrs. Barbara Roche): The Chancellor believes in the importance of consultation and has encouraged businesses to provide their views. He, his Ministers and his officials have met a great number of representatives of small businesses on a variety of occasions.
  Mr. Boswell: As a former Minister with responsibility for small firms, the Financial Secretary will accept the importance of the small firms sector in encouraging entrepreneurialism and creating jobs—the stated objectives—as no doubt the Chancellor will as well. Will she concede that those small businesses are paying at least their fair share of the £5 billion a year extra tax burden imposed on British business, as estimated by the Confederation of British Industry? In addition, they are probably paying a disproportionate share of the regulatory burden of the additional requirements imposed by the Government. Will she take those factors properly into account when giving advice to her colleagues during the formulation of the Budget next week?
  Mrs. Roche: Let me agree with the hon. Gentleman on one point—the importance of small businesses, which are the lifeblood of our economy. However, he is absolutely wrong. Small businesses have benefited enormously from the tax cuts introduced by the Government. That is why we have the best regime for businesses in Europe.

  1211
  On deregulation, we will take no lessons from the Conservatives who, when in government, imposed regulation after regulation. It was interesting that the Government in which the hon. Gentleman was a Minister
  1212
  established a deregulation task force. That task force, on which the Shadow Chancellor sat when he was out of Parliament, contained more Tory ex-Members of Parliament than small businesses—quite contrary to ours.

Iraq
12.32 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on changes to the rules of engagement in relation to military action over Iraq.
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Robertson): Madam Speaker, our aircrew, carrying out the vital humanitarian task of enforcing the no-fly zones over northern and southern Iraq, face almost daily attempts by Saddam Hussein to kill them. He is making every effort to shoot down UK and US aircraft—even offering bounties to air defence units.
Since the end of Operation Desert Fox, there have been more than 100 violations of the no-fly zones. Coalition aircraft have been fired on by Iraqi surface-to-air missiles and anti-aircraft artillery, and have been otherwise threatened more than 50 times. Typically endangering the safety of his own people, Saddam is even using heavy surface-to-surface rockets as improvised anti-aircraft weapons.
Let us be clear that there is still a pressing need to maintain these patrols and the no-fly zones. Saddam's brutal repression of his people is well documented—including by the UN. That is, of course, why the no-fly zones were established in the north in April 1991 and in the south in August 1992. His internal security organisations continue to persecute all opponents of the regime on the ground. Without our continued presence, he would be free to do so in the air as well. We are not prepared to countenance that.
Saddam's latest campaign against coalition aircrew is sustained and direct, and leaves us with a stark choice: to give up, and let him do his worst to the Iraqi Kurds in the north and the Shias in the south, or to act to protect those flying these legitimate humanitarian patrols. We cannot simply ignore these attacks.
We have, therefore, tailored the rules of engagement to reflect the escalation by the Iraqis of their systematic attacks and threats to our aircraft. I hope that the House will understand that I am not prepared to go into detail, as neither we nor the US would wish to provide Iraq with information that could be used to increase the threat to our people.
I can assure the House that this adaptation of the rules of engagement in no way represents a change to either our policy towards maintaining the no-fly zones or the purpose of our long-standing patrols. The tailoring of the rules of engagement merely reinforces our position, which we have made clear all along—that we will take robust and appropriate defensive measures to prevent Saddam from endangering the lives of our brave aircrew.
Of course Saddam's propaganda machine is quick to exaggerate the effects of coalition action on the Iraqi people. I can assure the House that the only targets attacked are legitimate military ones. They include the communications facilities targeted by the United States over the weekend, which now appear also to have carried part of the Iraq-Turkey oil pipeline control network. Damage to the oil pipeline control system is regrettable, but the pipeline itself was not damaged and we understand that the oil flow resumed in less than three days.
1214
Furthermore, there was no interruption to the export of oil because significant stocks are held at the Turkish end of the pipeline.
We have limited ourselves strictly to proportionate responses to threats against coalition aircraft, using precision-guided weapons to minimise casualties. Of course such action is regrettable, but Saddam's attacks leave no alternative, other than to abandon our patrols, with all that that would mean for the Iraqi Kurds and the Marsh Arabs. If he stops attacking our aircraft, we will stop acting against him in response.
Just as in Operation Desert Fox, the responsibility for the military action lies firmly at Saddam Hussein's door.
Mr. Dalyell: Where is all this to end? Is it not a fact that more ordnance has rained down on Iraq since Desert Fox than during it, and that more bombs and missiles were used during Desert Fox than in the whole of the Gulf war? How can the rules of engagement be changed to that extent without a declaration of war? In the absence of such a declaration, what would be the position of a pilot, British or American, who had to bale out of an aircraft that was hit or had malfunctioned?
How does my right hon. Friend respond to President Demirel of Turkey, whose statement was that the strikes against the pipeline were "unacceptable"?
My right hon. Friend refers to the Shia. Those of us who visited Basra and the marshes in 1994 cannot conceive that bombs will do anything but strengthen the position of the regime, rather than weakening it. The Foreign Minister of Iraq is himself a Shia. Reference may be made to the brutal murder in Najaf of Ayatollah Muhammad al-Sadr, but there are grave doubts about whether the regime was in any way responsible for something that would have been against its own interests.
Is the so-called threat against the Shia, the Marsh Arabs and indeed the Iraqi Kurds—the Health Minister, Dr. Mubarak, is a Kurd—such as to justify the traumatisation of children, old people and a whole society? Where is all this to end? Can we have a precise statement of the objective of bombing following the change in the rules of engagement?
Mr. Robertson: To answer my hon. Friend's clear question about where this will end: it will end when Saddam Hussein complies with the resolutions to which he signed up at the end of the Gulf war and stops being a threat to his neighbours and to the region. That is the simple answer. I understand my hon. Friend's attention to this subject, and I do not for a moment question his sincerity, but I find it extraordinary that he could make so lengthy a contribution without once mentioning the threat to our aircrew, who are patrolling the no-fly zones for purely humanitarian reasons and put their lives in danger every day they carry out the duty that we have placed on them.
I do not think that my hon. Friend is right to draw a comparison between Operation Desert Fox, which was a 72-hour campaign designed to diminish and degrade Saddam Hussein's military capability and his ability to threaten his neighbours, and the purely defensive operation which is involved in the no-fly zones in the north and south of Iraq today. We are engaged in defensive operations to ensure that Saddam Hussein's objective and ambition, which is to kill our pilots,

1215
is frustrated. I made that clear in what I said. We have only one option, which is to stay and protect the people whom the no-fly zones were put in place to protect.
My hon. Friend asked how we could make alterations to the rules of engagement without a declaration of war. We are not at war with Saddam Hussein or with the Iraqi regime. Our planes are acting strictly in accordance with international law and they are taking defensive steps to prevent them from being attacked by the Iraqis. My hon. Friend asked about the position of a pilot who might be downed over Iraq, and, indeed, bounties are being offered to anti-aircraft crew by Saddam Hussein to achieve that. The lack of a declaration of war in no way relieves the Iraqi regime of its obligations under the Geneva conventions to anybody who may be involved in a situation such as that which my hon. Friend describes.
My hon. Friend mentioned the comments yesterday by President Demirel about the attack on the communications centre beside the oil pipeline. I understand that President Demirel has now been briefed on the fact that that was in response to a precise attack on coalition aircraft and that the Turkish Government fully understand that the action was taken not against the pipeline, but against the control and communications centre, which appeared to have a dual-use function.
My hon. Friend seems to imply that the Arabs in the south of Iraq are safe and, without the coalition aircraft, they would come to no harm. He suggests that, because there is a Shia Muslim and a Kurdish Minister in the Government of Iraq—which is almost a contradiction in terms—that in some way protects the people of the south and north. It does not. The systematic, brutal attacks that took place in 1991 and 1992 have not left my memory, even if they have left my hon. Friend's. Those attacks would return if we were to cease maintaining the no-fly zones. I say to my hon. Friend that we will stop our responses if the Iraqis stop attacking our planes. Saddam Hussein is trying to kill our pilots, and we are acting in self-defence. At some point, he will have to wake up to the fact that he will have to comply with the will of the international community and the resolutions to which he has signed up. At that point, the violence can end.
Mr. Robert Key: I thank the Secretary of State for his full answer. Nothing that the Government or the Opposition say or do should hinder the operational effectiveness of our forces or the forces of our allies. That is why we understand the need for caution in pressing Defence Ministers to reveal the rules of engagement and to tell the House whether they have been varied. Parliament has learned in recent years that in military conflicts it is crucial that all allied forces operate with the same rules of engagement. We have heard and seen much of the Secretary of State on radio and television in the past 24 hours, but he should not be dragged to Parliament to account for his actions by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). We would like to hear more of him on the issue and have the opportunity to question him on it.
We agree that it is necessary to police the no-fly zones to help to protect the Shia Muslims and the Kurds from the excesses of Saddam Hussein. Will the Secretary of State tell us why there appears to be a divergence between United States objectives and those of the United
1216
Kingdom? The United States has made it clear that its policy objective is the removal of Saddam Hussein from office; that is also the Conservative position. Today, we have heard nothing about the long-term objectives of the UK Government. The Prime Minister has spoken of putting Saddam Hussein back in his cage. Does the Secretary of State understand that, if he is to retain public support, as well as the support of the whole House, he must develop, and share with us, a long-term strategy on Iraq?
The Opposition agree with the United States Government position, reported yesterday to the US Congress, that the objective should be to help Iraq resume its rightful place in the region, which can be achieved only under new Iraqi leadership. We know that Saddam Hussein is able to sell as much oil as he wants for food and medicine for his people, but that he will not do so. Yesterday, the Prime Minister told the House that the Government
"will not allow him to get round the sanctions and use that oil money to build up a weapons arsenal."—[Official Report, 3 March 1999; Vol. 326, c. 1074.]
Therefore, why does it appear that we are allowing the illicit export of oil from Iraq to Turkey through Kurdish areas, by road, with thousands of tankers trading in cash which appears to be helping to keep the Saddam regime afloat?
Today, the Secretary of State tells us that our aircrew are under renewed threat and are acting in self-defence. Will he assure the House that the forces that we are deploying over Iraq have enough equipment, ground support and medical services to sustain those brave men?
I have explained why we are cautious in pressing Ministers to share rules of military engagement with the House; that was the subject of the private notice question tabled by the hon. Member for Linlithgow. However, the House should be aware that, this morning, US sources have told me that the US rules of engagement are a matter of public record, and that, in the United States on 1 March, Defence Secretary Cohen announced a variation to those rules. If that is true, will the Secretary of State also publish the rules of engagement that our forces are following, which presumably are identical to those followed by America? If the rules of engagement for the United States and UK forces are the same at the tactical level, surely the time has come for our strategic objectives to be the same.
Mr. Robertson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for what I thought, at the beginning, was a supportive statement. I appreciate that the Government have received support from the Opposition on both the purpose and the method of operating the no-fly zones.
The hon. Gentleman contends that I have been dragged before Parliament and presses me to announce our rules of engagement, but I remind him that our rules of engagement abide strictly by international law. Rules of engagement are a routine and detailed operational matter; they are not normally discussed or published, so as to ensure the safety of our personnel. It has, therefore, been the practice of successive Governments never to notify Parliament of changes in the rules of engagement; nor is there a requirement to do so.
I do not stand at the Dispatch Box to explain a different situation. There has been a sustained and increased level of attacks on coalition aircraft. The attempts by Saddam

1217
Hussein to kill our aircrew continue and increase all the time; indeed, this morning, there were incursions into the southern no-fly zone and attacks on coalition aircraft. That situation continues. However, I refuse to give information of an operational nature that will allow the Iraqis better to target the aeroplanes of the Royal Air Force that are flying at the moment.
The hon. Gentleman asks whether there is a divergence on policy between the United States and Britain. There is not. I have regular communications with my opposite number, Defence Secretary Cohen, and we are absolutely together in our views on this mission, and on the rules of engagement that apply to both countries.
The hon. Gentleman asks why the Government do not state our long-term strategy for Iraq. The House has been informed as to that matter on many occasions. Although the private notice question is on the rules of engagement in the no-fly zones, let me point out that, ultimately, our objective is to ensure that Saddam is not a threat to his neighbours. Since the end of Desert Fox, he has threatened Kuwait and Saudi Arabia; and, only a few weeks ago, he sent Tariq Aziz to threaten the Turkish Government. We intend to ensure that he is not a danger to his own people as well.
As for illicit sanctions breaking, ships of the Royal Navy and the Armilla patrol are engaged in that operation. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said yesterday, we will, whenever we can, tighten the screws of the sanctions on that country.
I will agree with the hon. Gentleman on one point: Saddam is responsible for the miseries of the Iraqi people. He has in warehouses $275 million-worth of medicines and medical supplies which he refuses to distribute. Only 15 per cent. of the medical equipment purchased by the Iraqi Government has been distributed and only 2 to 3 per cent. has been installed. Although wheat and barley production has increased by 15 per cent. this year, Saddam Hussein has not given those crops to his people, but is selling them at cut-rate prices to Syria. Saddam has an obligation to comply with the United Nations Security Council resolutions and he is also responsible for the misery of the Iraqi people.
Mr. Tony Benn: Is the Secretary of State aware that—whatever words he may have used—he has, in effect, announced today a state of war against Iraq with the Americans to remove Saddam when there is absolutely no United Nations authority for that action? Is he aware also that we now know that the United States used the United Nations Special Commission to spy in order to identify current targets? Government policy towards Iraq over the years has failed absolutely, but, although the Government have announced a very important change today, Ministers have been reluctant to come to the House and allow us to debate the matter. This is a state of war, and British pilots are at risk because of the decisions taken by the American and British Governments, which, as I have said, have no legal authority.
Is the Secretary of State aware that, regardless of the statements that he makes in the House, the use of depleted-uranium bullets during the war with Iraq and the suffering in that country have engendered a legacy of hatred which will probably last for generations? We need a middle east peace conference that will address a clutch
1218
of issues, including the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, Turkey's invasion of northern Iraq and Cyprus, the Palestinian question and the position of the Kurds. That is the way forward. The Government demand ceasefires whenever wars break out elsewhere in the world, but they have renewed their attacks on Iraq when we should be looking at all the problems of the middle east—including the need to lift sanctions for humanitarian reasons. I beg the Secretary of State to ask his colleagues to allow the House to debate those issues in a manner that will allow more exchanges than are possible in the context of a private notice question.
Mr. Robertson: I refute absolutely my right hon. Friend's allegation that this amounts to a declaration of war. If Saddam Hussein stops threatening the lives of our aircrew, we will not need to respond—it is as simple as that. Saddam Hussein's forces are attacking our aircrew and our planes. They are seeking to kill pilots of the Royal Air Force and we are taking defensive action.
It is absurd for my right hon. Friend to suggest that this is in some way a declaration of war or that we are acting without United Nations authority. He will remember the attacks on the Kurds in the north—I saw him on the television standing in solidarity with some of those Kurds a few weeks ago—and what happened to the Marsh Arabs in the south of Iraq. The no-fly zones were put in place in response to those attacks, and they rightly remain today because the threat has not gone away.
Our pilots are at risk. They have a humanitarian mission: they willingly fly every day because they believe in international law and order. They should be applauded and congratulated on their efforts. When I visited them last month, I recognised their bravery and the risks that they are taking. I must remind my right hon. Friend—in all comradeliness—that, if we had listened to his advice in 1990, Kuwait would still be occupied by Saddam Hussein and the gross violations of human rights that we witnessed then would be continuing.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: I do not doubt the need to maintain the no-fly zones or the bravery of Royal Air Force aircrew and the risks that they run. However, does the Secretary of State understand that those of us who supported the use of force as a last resort to compel Saddam Hussein to comply with United Nations Security Council resolutions none the less feel unable to give the Secretary of State the blank cheque to which he alluded today? Is there not a substantial distinction to be drawn between a defensive response to the threat of attack and, as is now apparently taking place, the systematic destruction of Iraq's air defence system? Is that not an escalation that goes far beyond the mere tailoring of the rules of engagement, as the Secretary of State has suggested?
Mr. Robertson: No, it does not. I say bluntly to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that what we are doing is proportionate. It uses precision-guided weapons; it is directed only at military targets. There is no escalation that is not mirrored by the increased threat to coalition aircrew. The decision is taken with a heavy heart, and with regret. I take no pleasure in ordering young men—those on the ground who support them suffer the deprivation of being away from home, too—into battle in these circumstances, but we do it because the threat

1219
is increasing. Daily incursions have increased dramatically since the end of Operation Desert Fox. What we do is robust, but we are conscious at every stage of the fact that, under international law, it must be proportionate. There is no blank cheque. If attacks stop on planes that are policing the no-fly zones and protecting helpless people who have already been attacked, the responses will stop exactly at that point.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his comments today have the overwhelming support not only of the parliamentary Labour party but of the British people? Is he further aware that some of us greet with nausea the comments of apologists for Saddam Hussein, who seem to take no account whatever of the fact that all these actions derive from the annexation of Kuwait and the looting and murder of Kuwaiti people? All these actions arise from this man wanting to dominate the middle east with non-conventional poisonous weapons through persistent violations of United Nations Security Council resolutions, which, despite the inaccurate and illiterate niggling which has occurred, fully authorise the action that is being taken today—and previously.
There would be no need for military action or a no-fly zone if Saddam Hussein did not massacre his people, as he has again recently. The Government should continue with the action that they have bravely undertaken in collaboration with the United States Government. It can end only when Saddam Hussein either at long last complies with the Security Council resolutions or is turned out.
Mr. Robertson: I thank my right hon. Friend for his support, which has been consistent down the years, as has his support of the Iraqi people and his opposition to the regime that has visited so much misery on them and their neighbours. He is right to point to the annexation of Kuwait and the renewed threat in the past two months to the borders of Kuwait.
I keep hoping—perhaps it is a vain and naive hope—to hear some of my right hon. and hon. Friends plead with the Iraqis to release the prisoners of war, the disappeared, who were taken from Kuwait following the Gulf war and have not been heard of since. I am glad that the UN Security Council has set up three panels—one on disarmament, the second on the humanitarian needs of Iraq and the third on the Kuwaiti disappeared. It would be nice to hear some of those who express an interest in this subject, and who may even have back channels with the Iraqis, saying a little more about that. To reinforce my right hon. Friend's point about the regime, what kind of leader watches his children die and his hospitals operate without drugs, but keeps $275 million-worth of medicines and medical supplies locked up in a warehouse?
Mr. Christopher Gill: The Secretary of State has talked about the risks that RAF pilots are taking, and he has rightly drawn attention to the dedicated efforts that the RAF makes in the area. However, will he answer the specific question put by his hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), who asked what the status of
1220
RAF pilots would be if they were downed on Iraqi territory? Would they be prisoners of war, or would they come into another category?
Mr. Robertson: I answered the question, and I will answer it again. The obligations of the Geneva conventions apply to Iraq, whether there is a declaration of war or not. The mission of those pilots is humanitarian in its purpose. Iraq would have to, and would be, obliged to adhere to the Geneva conventions.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: A few moments ago, the Secretary of State spoke of his ordering British pilots into battle against Iraq. A few minutes before that, he said that there was no declaration of war against Iraq. Will he make absolutely clear the state of relations between Britain and Iraq? What are the long-term objectives of the bombing missions and the deployment of aircrew over Iraq? At what point would he be prepared to send in ground troops? Many people wish to know—not as apologists for Saddam Hussein, but as supporters of the Iraqi people—the exact long-term objectives of Britain and the United States in the region.
Mr. Robertson: The objectives are absolutely clear: to get Saddam Hussein to comply with the terms of the resolutions that were adopted by the United Nations after the Gulf war, to which Saddam Hussein subscribed, and to ensure that Saddam does not represent a continuing threat to his neighbours in the region and, through that, to international stability.
Mr. David Winnick: Is my right hon. Friend aware how sickening it is for the vast majority of us in the House to listen literally day by day to those who echo the views of the murderous regime in Baghdad, who use every opportunity in the House of Commons—an opportunity that people in Iraq do not have—to express the views of Saddam Hussein? As my right hon. Friend said, the people who opposed the liberation of Kuwait nine years ago are the ones who now echo the views regarding the no-fly zones.
Has my right hon. Friend noticed one difference, however, in the contribution from the critics today? Has he noticed that whereas, previously, they said, "All that is happening is due to President Clinton trying to save his job," they do not say that today? No doubt, however, other smears and innuendo will be used to try to prevent the humanitarian work which my right hon. Friend has described, and which is undoubtedly supported by a large majority of people in this country.
Mr. Robertson: My hon. Friend is right. I believe that what we are doing is not only right but supported by the vast majority of people in this country. When, at times, I feel intemperate and feel that this man's threat to the countries of the Gulf that I visited last month should be better appreciated by more people in the House and throughout the world, I reflect on the fact that this is a democratic House—that this is a Parliament in which people are allowed to say what they want, however repugnant it may be, however unfashionable it may be, but at the end of the day the people will decide. In Iraq, no one has any such liberty. Anyone who does not agree with Saddam, even on details, is unlikely to stay alive for long.
Mr. John Cryer: I wonder whether I can press my right hon. Friend on the exact objectives. He said that one of the objectives was to bring Saddam Hussein to the point at which he was no longer a threat to other countries in the region. At what point do we judge that that point has been reached? After all, Saddam Hussein is a butchering psychopath who slaughtered his own people; at what point does he cease to be a threat to the other countries of the region? Does what my right hon. Friend said imply that an objective of policy is to remove Saddam Hussein from office?
I should have thought that most hon. Members would agree that any influx of weapons into that volatile region would not be the best idea. I wonder whether my right hon. Friend will tell us why, in those circumstances, Britain recently gifted—not sold—missiles to Saudi Arabia.
Mr. Robertson: My hon. Friend asks what we mean by "when Saddam Hussein is no longer a threat". The resolutions passed following the Gulf war clearly set out the terms that he was expected to adhere to. The disarmament that is laid out there is the matter that has been the source of so much controversy. UNSCOM was the means by which the United Nations sought to find out what weapons Saddam had, especially weapons of mass destruction, and to destroy them. UNSCOM found out an immense amount and destroyed a lot of the weapons, but the United Nations believes that he still has those capabilities and some of those weapons of war. Compliance is the standard set for Saddam.
It is not part of our policy to remove Saddam Hussein from office. That will be done by the Iraqi people in their good time. What we can do is point out to them through every available channel that he is, as my hon. Friend rightly says, a butcher, and a butchering dictator.
My hon. Friend says that we should not sell weapons, apparently, to the region. However, the Gulf countries are friendly countries, they are allies of ours, and they have every right to self-protection, especially as they live in the close neighbourhood of the Iraqi regime. My hon. Friend mentions a specific gift, which is a technical description, of some precision-guided weapons. Those have been given to Saudi Arabia to replace the JP233, which we previously sold to Saudi Arabia, but is not compliant with the Ottawa convention which we have signed. The weapons are simply a substitute for weapons that that country bought. That seems to be in the interests of Saudi Arabian self-defence and our commitment to abolishing all forms of anti-personnel land mines.
Mr. Harry Barnes: I have no problem condemning Saddam Hussein or associating myself with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Cryer) that Saddam is a "butchering psychopath", nor do I have any difficulty calling for the release of the disappeared, although I do not have any avenue of expression into Iraq, other than views expressed in the House. However, is it not one thing to engage in bombing and economic sanctions, and another to imply that that is problem free and that no moral difficulties attach to it with regard to the condition of the Iraqi people?
The major blame is with Saddam Hussein, and has been since the start of the Iran-Iraq war, but our response to that evil also creates adverse conditions for the Iraqi people. That should be seen by the Government as a problem. They should not treat the matter with glib answers and put all the blame on to Saddam Hussein all the time, as though our response to the situation did not create secondary problems.
Mr. Robertson: I do not know where my hon. Friend is directing his accusation of glib responses. My responses are far from glib. Foreign Office Ministers—the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), is present—and we at the Ministry of Defence spend a great deal of time considering precisely the problems that my hon. Friend outlines.
That is why the Government convened a humanitarian conference last year which was directed specifically at examining ways in which we might be able to help the people of Iraq, while making sure that the isolation of the regime continues. That is why this country is the second largest donor of humanitarian assistance to Iraq, and why we sponsored the resolution that doubled the amount of oil that could be sold for food.
That is also why I remind the House and the country that, at a time when Saddam Hussein says that his children are dying because there are no medical supplies, he has $275 million-worth of medicine and drugs locked up, which he will not distribute. He cannot skate away from his responsibilities by saying that sanctions have been imposed, because he will not comply. If he complies with the resolutions and the will of the international community, the sanctions will be removed and the Iraqi people will be allowed to get back to a life of normality. I doubt, however, whether there will be full normality until Saddam has gone.

Trade Sanctions (USA)
1.9 pm
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the unilateral trade sanctions imposed by the United States Administration against cashmere knitted garments and other products.
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Stephen Byers): The European Union and the United States have been engaged in a long-running dispute in the World Trade Organisation over the EU's banana regime. Following two adverse WTO rulings in 1997, an amended regime was agreed by the EU's Agriculture Council in June 1998.
The United States and other complainants maintain that this regime still does not comply with WTO procedures. In November 1998, the United States announced its intention to retaliate against the EU by imposing 100 per cent. import duties on selected products. The United States sought WTO authorisation for that in January. At the request of the EU, the level of damage that the United States was seeking in retaliation was referred to arbitration, to be decided on 2 March.
On Tuesday this week, the arbitrator, in an initial ruling, said that he needed more information to make a decision, and asked the parties to respond to a series of questions by 15 March. He would then return to the issue and come to a final ruling soon afterwards.
However, the United States yesterday announced that, with immediate effect, the United States customs service would begin "withholding liquidation" on imports of various EU products, including cashmere knitwear. We are firmly of the view that that prejudges the panel ruling and is contrary to the WTO dispute settlement rules.
The United States argues that it will not apply the duties until after the arbitrator has ruled, but the practical effect of the measures is the same as if they applied now, because exporters have to put up a bond to cover possible duties in the future.
I deplore the action which the United States has taken. It is completely unauthorised by any WTO procedures and wholly ignores the arbitrator's appeal for discussions to continue. Even now, it is not too late for the United States to reverse its decision. It should do so, in the interests not only of the EU-US relationship but to safeguard the whole framework of dispute resolution and settlement within the WTO. The United States action is irrational and unacceptable. I have summoned the United States ambassador and will make those points to him later this afternoon. We shall also support an urgent convening of the WTO General Council.
It is particularly regrettable that American action is directed against industries that have absolutely no connection with bananas or the issues in dispute. There can be no justification for inflicting, or seeking to inflict, serious damage on businesses and communities in pursuit of objectives that are utterly unrelated to the activities in which they are engaged. We are very conscious of the effect that even the threat of US action has been having over the past few months, especially in respect of the cashmere industry. This is a seasonal industry and it has
1224
been particularly affected. Cashmere orders are now being placed and dispatched to the United States for the autumn season.
I spoke this morning to George Pedan, chairman of the Scottish Cashmere Association, who stressed to me the damaging effect that the proposed US action would have. In the light of yesterday's action by the United States, the Government have decided to establish a scheme to guarantee the bonds in respect of the cashmere industry, and we will discuss with the industry, as a matter of urgency, the details of that scheme.
The United States action is unacceptable. We shall do all that we can to reverse it. I hope that the measures that I have announced today to support the cashmere industry will be welcomed on both sides of the House.
Mr. Kirkwood: I am deeply grateful to the Secretary of State for taking the opportunity to come to the House at such short notice, and so quickly, to deal with the damaging situation that the cashmere knitted industry faced last night. The anger and incomprehension felt in the Scottish borders at this completely gratuitous hostile and unilateral act at the hands of a so-called ally were palpable. The concern was that knitwear businesses would be driven to the wall and into financial insolvency if they had to carry financial bonds in addition to the other difficulties that the knitwear industry is suffering.
I am deeply grateful to the Secretary of State for making it clear that he has engaged, immediately, in talks with the Scottish Cashmere Association and associated bodies to achieve a scheme that will give confidence to the industry. He is absolutely right to say that this is a crucial time of year for securing contracts for cashmere delivery to the United States. It is the worst time of year for the problem to have arisen. If he can secure agreement with the trade representatives and get a scheme in place at the earliest possible opportunity, that will at least give us some short-term respite during which we can sort out this long-term dispute.
I congratulate the Government on what they have done, but I hope that the Secretary of State will redouble his efforts to resolve the fundamental underlying dispute between the EU and the US about bananas quickly, so that we can all put this deeply damaging and unfortunate incident behind us.
Mr. Byers: What can I say? I welcome the positive response from the hon. Gentleman, who modestly did not refer to the fact that, the other evening, he led a delegation to meet me and my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade to discuss precisely those matters. There are two issues at stake, the first of which is the steps that we need to take to ensure that certain industries—in this case, the cashmere industry—are not the innocent victims of the action taken by the United States. The measures that we are introducing and the scheme that we propose will achieve that.
There is a more fundamental issue—the dispute resolution mechanism within the World Trade Organisation. We will certainly do all we can to ensure that the United States recognises that it has a responsibility to comply with the procedures, even when it may appear to the United States that those procedures

1225
are not going in its direction. The acid test of any resolution procedure is all parties agreeing to abide by it, in good times as well as bad.
Mr. John Redwood: I, too, am grateful to the Secretary of State for his answer and I am glad that he can, at last and after so long, see the damage that US action can do to innocent industries in Britain. Will he promise to get the EU to settle this diplomatic trading dispute? He accepted in his statement that the EU has twice broken the rules and twice lost the case in the WTO. Will he promise us that he and Brussels now have a compliant regime? When does he intend to establish that regime to the satisfaction of the WTO?
Why did the Secretary of State or his predecessor not intervene a long time ago to achieve a proper, compliant agreement from Brussels so that we could have avoided this whole sorry mess? How much money will be made available to help the cashmere industry during its time of trouble? Does he now agree that the Government's appalling diplomacy, in Brussels and beyond, has made the banana row so much worse? Does that not show that the Secretary of State has no influence in Brussels, that he has failed to stand up for British industry and that he does not care about British manufacturing? First, he makes it too dear to make things in Britain; then, he fails to keep our markets open for those who are still struggling to succeed.
Will the Secretary of State now stand up for the UK cashmere manufacturers, stand up for the others and do whatever is necessary, through Brussels, to solve this dispute and to impose a compliant regime on Brussels?
Mr. Byers: First, I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman—it was fully 45 seconds before we got to the Brussels-bashing element of his speech, which is something of a record. Usually, he reaches it far more quickly.
This is a serious issue and it is unfortunate that the right hon. Gentleman has sought to use it in the way that he has. Whether the regime is compliant is a matter for the dispute resolution procedure to determine, which is exactly what it is in place to do. The regime is being challenged and it is for the dispute resolution procedure to determine that challenge. The matter is for the arbitrator and the panel to determine and they are in place to do precisely that.
We have taken action to ensure that we offer protection to the cashmere industry in these particularly difficult times and we have intervened in Brussels to promote, and to try to achieve, a settlement on this issue. I regret that that has not been possible, but we will ensure, in the days and weeks ahead, that we continue to do all we can to resolve the issue to the satisfaction of the cashmere industry and the other sectors that are also affected by the retaliation.
Mr. George Stevenson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that this US action is in pursuit of the singular interests of the multinational banana companies controlled by the United States which dominate production in central, north and south America? Does he also agree that, if its agenda of removing the European Union regime on quotas for Caribbean bananas is successful, it will result in the total destruction of the
1226
Caribbean banana industry? Given the siren calls that we have just heard from the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), does my right hon. Friend further accept that the European Union—particularly the United Kingdom—has a traditional and current responsibility to ensure that the interests of the Caribbean banana producers are protected under whatever regime is eventually negotiated?
Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend makes an important point. I am sure that many people will be asking why the United States, where no jobs are at stake because of the banana regime, is putting WTO procedures at risk over this issue. Its motives should be questioned and scrutinised in some detail. This is a crucial issue, and we shall do all that we can. There is a responsibility to countries in the Caribbean that depend on the regime that the EU has put in place. We do not intend to stand to one side and watch people in those countries becoming innocent victims; nor do we intend to stand to one side and watch what is happening to the cashmere industry.
Mr. Michael Moore: The Secretary of State will be aware that there have been thousands of job losses in the borders in the past couple of years. This deplorable unilateral action by the American Government threatens hundreds more jobs. As the Secretary of State has acknowledged, this action could not come at a worse time, because companies in the United States are at this very moment encouraging people to buy Scottish cashmere to put on their shelves for next season.
I welcome what the right hon. Gentleman said about the bond scheme, but will he tell us how quickly that scheme will be worked out? This morning, I spoke to a local manufacturer, who said that he is suddenly faced with a bill of £50,000. He must find that money this week to get his goods in America delivered on time for his customer. This is a serious matter, and I hope that the Government will ensure that their welcome initiative is speedily implemented.
Mr. Byers: I agree that time is of the essence and that we have to get the scheme in place as a matter of urgency. That is why I have already had a brief discussion with the chairman of the Scottish Cashmere Association about how the scheme should be formulated. I note the hon. Gentleman's points about the particular effect that this action will have on Scotland. I regret that no members of the Scottish National party are present in the House to address this matter of great concern to Scotland. This is a key issue for Scotland, and we shall do all we can to protect the cashmere industry in Scotland and in the rest of the United Kingdom.
Ms Diane Abbott: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the great concern in the Caribbean region, in the Caribbean community in this country and among friends of the Caribbean about the issue underlying this dispute, which is access to European markets for Caribbean bananas. As hon. Members have acknowledged, it is important that this dispute is resolved speedily, but I hope that my right hon. Friend will assure the House that there will not be a speedy resolution at the expense of hundreds of thousands

1227
of people in the eastern Caribbean, whose countries face economic collapse. A speedy resolution at their expense would mean that the bully-boy tactics of the US had won.
Mr. Byers: This is a novel occasion, because I am pleased to agree with my hon. Friend on the points that she made. We believe that the revised regime that the European Union has put in place meets the WTO's requirements and protects the countries and communities to which my hon. Friend referred.
Mr. Tony Baldry: The Secretary of State will be aware that this coming Tuesday is Commonwealth day. At least a quarter of the Commonwealth countries are in the Caribbean, and the economies of many of them largely depend on the banana industry. When the Secretary of State sees the American ambassador this afternoon, will he explain to him that many people in this country think that it is crazy that the United States should seek to undermine the economies of the Caribbean? It will pay the penalty through drug trafficking and money laundering, because not one job in the United States will be affected. This action is short-sighted, stupid and crazy.
Mr. Byers: I shall be pleased to pass on the hon. Gentleman's views to the American ambassador—and I am grateful for the fact that, when I speak to the ambassador this afternoon, I shall be able to speak on behalf of hon. Members on both sides of the House in adopting the robust approach that I intend to adopt.
Mr. Jim Cousins: I welcome what my right hon. Friend has said, the style with which he has said it and the action that he has taken. Does he accept, however, that there is a certain ironic contrast between the subject matter of his statement and that of the earlier statement? This is a very poor moment for the United States to declare war on British biscuits and pullovers. Does he further accept that this constitutes a dangerous lurch towards the crudest kind of protectionism, at a time when world markets are extremely fragile? Will he ensure that representations are made at the highest levels with the aim of reversing this crazy action, and will he assure the House that he will not lend his name or his hand to any equally crude reprisals that may occur in the European Union?
Mr. Byers: The European Union will obviously need to consider its response to the measures announced by the United States yesterday. However, I agree with my hon. Friend that it would be retrograde for us to impose sanctions as a response. The fact is that—particularly as the world economy is slowing—we need free trade and commerce. Protectionism anywhere is a threat to prosperity everywhere. We have a great tradition as a trading nation, and we need to ensure, through our efforts in the World Trade Organisation, that we can maintain that position.
Miss Anne McIntosh: I associate myself entirely with what has been said by hon. Members whose constituencies will be deeply affected by the cuts. I think that all who, like me, were born in Scotland are immensely proud of the cashmere industry, and proud to wear cashmere.
1228
I commend the negotiations conducted by Sir Leon Brittan, who has been zigzagging across the world in his attempts to prevent a trade war. It is in that connection that I want to question the Secretary of State, for a broader issue is at stake—an issue that goes beyond bananas and cashmere. The United States appears, by stealth, to be leaving behind its policy of free trade, and turning increasingly to protectionism. We have seen that especially in the context of bananas: it is dollar bananas versus Commonwealth bananas, Chiquita versus Geest. The economies of the Windward islands and other Commonwealth areas—and, indeed, those of European areas, such as the Canary islands—are being forgotten.
I wonder whether the Secretary of State can help us in another respect. Can he prevent a trade war from arising over Hushkit aircraft? That will be the next development. We are talking about noisy reconditioned aircraft that should be prevented from flying into the United Kingdom from 2002—
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady is a long way from bananas.
Miss McIntosh: May I leave the Secretary of State with a final thought? If we do not beat the United States on bananas, we shall have to take hormone-produced beef, which consumers in this country simply do not want.
Mr. Byers: A range of issues are relevant to the difficulties that we will face if this issue escalates into a wider trade dispute. As was suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins), it is important for us not to allow that to happen. Sanity must return to the situation. The steps taken by the United States yesterday were really for internal political consumption, rather than implying that the US was a player in a world organisation such as the WTO. That makes these developments particularly regrettable.
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: Will my right hon. Friend remind the American ambassador that there is a specific interest that the United States should take fully into account in deciding what to do? I refer to the whole question of regional political instability, which the US will provoke in an area that is very near its frontiers. He might well also remind the Americans of their policy on and concerns about Cuba, and the fact that they had to invade Grenada for reasons—in their interpretation—of instability. If they carry on with their policy, they might provoke such ferocity and instability that they find themselves having to intervene again. They are on a very silly course.
Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend makes some important points. I will ensure that the strength of feeling that he has expressed is relayed to the American ambassador this afternoon.
Mr. Owen Paterson: Any breach of free trade with the world's largest economy must be deplored. Has the Secretary of State considered the fact that, if this country had joined the North American Free Trade Agreement, there would have been mechanisms through which to resolve the dispute some time ago?
Mr. Byers: I have to admit that I have been concentrating more on trying to resolve the current issue and on the pressing problems that are affecting the cashmere industry, but I note the hon. Gentleman's point and I might give it some consideration, although perhaps not for too long.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I welcome my right hon. Friend's response to the point that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) about the plight of Caribbean banana producers. Can he be a bit more specific about what can be done to help banana producers in the eastern Caribbean, who face an immediate loss of orders, serious unemployment problems and the resulting collapse and implosion of their economies? I understand the point about arbitration, but any delay will be disastrous for the many small, hard-working farmers in those islands.
Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend raises significant points. The Government are already taking steps. The banana recovery plan is in place and offering help. There are opportunities to diversify from the banana industry, so that alternative forms of employment are provided for those communities. Therefore, we do not intend to walk away from our responsibilities to those countries. We will do all that we can to discharge our responsibilities to them.
Mr. Nigel Evans: I am a great supporter of the United States, but even I think that it has gone off beam with its decision. I welcome the support that the Government are giving to the cashmere industry. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give an equal commitment and support to Caribbean banana producers because, if they lose out, their economies will be totally devastated and we will have to give them an enormous amount of aid. Trade is far better than aid.
I am a bit perplexed because I thought that the Prime Minister was a great pal of the President of the United States. I cannot understand why he has not picked up the telephone, called Bill and asked him what support he can give to the cashmere industry in Scotland. After all, the Prime Minister was the human defence shield for the President when he had difficulties. Now that the cashmere industry in our country has difficulties, is it not about time that the Prime Minister started calling in a few favours? When will he pick up the telephone and say, "Dear Bill, give us your support"?
Mr. Byers: I am not party to the conversations that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister may or may not have had with President Clinton, but I do know that right is on our side. It should be a question not of calling in political favours, but of the United States abiding by agreed international procedures. That is the issue at stake. As a result of the action that it announced yesterday, it is failing to do that. That is unacceptable. It needs to comply with those procedures. That is what we need to ensure happens. We need the weight of international opinion to be brought to bear on the United States so that it recognises that, yesterday, it made a bad mistake. There is time to get it right and to change its approach.

Business of the House
1.34 pm
Sir Patrick Cormack: Will the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office be good enough to give us the business of the House for next week?
The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): The business will be as follows:
MONDAY 8 MARcH—Consideration of a Lords Message which may be received to the Road Traffic (NHS Charges) Bill.
As this is International Women's Day, there will be a debate entitled "Delivering for Women" on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Subject to the progress of negotiations, it is proposed that we should debate the Implementation Bodies (Northern Ireland) Order.
TUESDAY 9 MARCH—My right hon Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will open his Budget statement.
WEDNESDAY 10 MARCH—Until 2 o'clock, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Continuation of the Budget debate.
THURSDAY 11 MARCH—Continuation of the Budget debate.
FRIDAY 12 MARCH—Private Members' Bills.
The provisional business for the following week will be as follows:
MONDAY 15 MARCH—Conclusion of the Budget debate.
TUESDAY 16 MARCH—Remaining stages of the House of Lords Bill.
Motion on the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 (Continuance) Order.
WEDNESDAY 17 MARCH—Until 12.30 pm, debate on the 2nd report from the Environmental Audit Committee on the greening Government initiative, followed by a debate on the 6th report from the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee on the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, followed by debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Remaining stages of the Tax Credits Bill.
THURSDAY 18 MARCH—Opposition Day [7th Allotted Day].
There will be a debate on an Opposition motion, subject to be announced.
At 7 o'clock the House will be asked to agree the spring supplementary estimates, excess votes and defence votes A.
FRIDAY 19 MARCH—Private Members' Bills.
The House will wish to know that, on Tuesday 9 March, there will be a debate on end of life vehicles in European Standing Committee C.
On Wednesday 10 March, there will be a debate on transport infrastructure charging in European Standing Committee A.
On Wednesday 17 March, there will be a debate on the welfare of laying hens in European Standing Committee A. Details of the relevant documents will be given in the Official Report.

1231
[Tuesday 9 March:
European Standing Committee C—Relevant European Union document: 11034/97, Treatment of End of Life Vehicles; Relevant European Scrutiny Committee Reports: HC 34-iv, HC 34-vi and HC 34-ix and HC 34-xi (1998–99). Relevant European Legislation Committee Report: HC 155-vi (1997–98)
Wednesday 10 March 1999:
European Standing Committee A—Relevant European Union document: 10778/98, Transport Infrastructure Charging. Relevant European Legislation Committee Report: HC 155-xxxvii (1997–98).
Wednesday 17 March 1999:
European Standing Committee A—European Union document: 6985/98, Welfare of Laying Hens. Relevant European Scrutiny Committee Report: HC 34-vi (1998/99). Relevant European Legislation Committee Report: HC 155-xxviii (1997‒98).]
Sir Patrick Cormack: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his first business questions. I thank him for giving next week's business and the provisional business for the week after. I thank him, and through him the Leader of the House, for conceding that it would have been totally inappropriate to have the remaining stages of the House of Lords Bill just a couple of days after the conclusion of the Committee stage. We are grateful to the Government for that concession.
It is obviously appropriate that, on international women's day, there should be a debate on women, but I am not sure that "Delivering for Women" is the most felicitous title.
I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are still anxious to have a debate on the White Paper on the House of Lords. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and your colleagues have rightly insisted that the debate on the Bill should be tightly confined. We need to debate the Government's proposals for the future of the House of Lords. Can the hon. Gentleman assure us that there will be a debate on that soon?
May we also have a debate in the near future on the euro and the Government's changeover plan? It appears from certain items in the newspapers that the Prime Minister has his own hidden agenda on that. Could we have a debate, and could it be introduced by the Prime Minister?
May we have clarification next week from the hon. Gentleman or the Leader of the House on what is envisaged as the precise role for the Committee of the Regions? As the hon. Gentleman will know, at least one Select Committee Chairman—a Labour Member—has indicated that Select Committees have responsibility for certain subjects that would presumably devolve to such a Committee.
Could the hon. Gentleman give us some idea of when we can expect a debate on the Lawrence inquiry? The Home Secretary indicated that the Leader of the House had promised such a debate.
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that there is great concern about the future of the Good Friday agreement. May we have an assurance that, before the House rises for the Easter recess—in other words, before the first anniversary—there will be an opportunity for a full debate on that agreement?
1232
The hon. Gentleman will doubtless be aware that the Prime Minister has recently made statements casting certain doubt on the precise nature of the ministerial code. Will the hon. Gentleman therefore ask the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement next week on the ministerial code? In the debate this week on Sierra Leone, the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), offered an interpretation of the requirement of Ministers to give accurate and truthful information to Parliament which seems to be totally different from a reasonable interpretation. I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office agrees that we need clarification of the matter, and that the only person who can give it is the Prime Minister.
Very soon, the House will also have to debate two other subjects. The first is genetically modified food, about which there is concern across the country. The other is the millennium bug; we have not had our quarterly statement on the millennium bug. Is that because something has got into the works? Will we have it next week?
Mr. Paul Tyler: It has been genetically modified.
Sir Patrick Cormack: Perhaps, but we should have had it on 2 March. May we be assured that it will be given at least next week?
Mr. Tipping: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his opening comment.
The hon. Gentleman made a number of points, the first of which was on the House of Lords. I am delighted that we have been able to establish a good relationship in dealing with the matter, and that we have proceeded on it, so far, by agreement. I hope that we shall be able to continue doing so. I am also very conscious of the desire for a debate on the White Paper. As he will know, discussions are taking place on the matter through the usual channels, and I hope that we will soon be able to achieve something.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about the national changeover plan and the Prime Minister's intentions on that. The Prime Minister made his position perfectly clear, only last week, in a statement to the Commons. The hon. Gentleman will know that, next Tuesday, we shall start a four-day debate on the Budget. I do not think that it would test hon. Members' ingenuity too much to arrange for the issue to be raised in that debate.
The hon. Gentleman raised the important issue of regionalisation. One matter that draws hon. Members into the Chamber at business questions is the desire to raise issues affecting their locality and region. It is important that we should have opportunities to discuss regional matters, and the Modernisation Committee has considered the issue. I am making arrangements for the memorandum submitted to the Modernisation Committee to be placed in the Library, so that all hon. Members will be able to read the proposals. I suppose that we shall have to make haste rather slowly on the matter.
I agree entirely on the need for a debate on the Lawrence inquiry. The Home Secretary has made his intention on the matter very clear—he would like a debate soon. Although it is important that we should have an

1233
opportunity to study the inquiry before we have that debate, the hon. Gentleman may rest assured that there will be such a debate.
The hon. Gentleman asked for clarification of the ministerial code. It would be in everyone's interests if we all knew where we stood on the matter, and the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges is considering the issue. I am certain that the Government will take notice of the Committee's report.
The hon. Gentleman asked about GM food, which is a very lively issue. Agriculture Question Time will be held next Thursday, when I suspect that the issue will arise.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the millennium bug. I promise him that the quarterly statement will arrive in the not-too-distant future, computers permitting.
Mr. Tyler: I welcome the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office to his new position, and I welcome his positive remarks on the Lawrence inquiry report, which Liberal Democrat Members also are anxious urgently to debate.
May I ask the hon. Gentleman to respond also to the question on the Good Friday agreement? There is widespread concern in the House that we should have an opportunity to consider the situation.
Has the hon. Gentleman had any indication of when the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food expects to make a statement on the progress—or non-progress—of the current talks on the future of the common agricultural policy? This is an intensely important issue for the industry, which is already in a very delicate state. The continued uncertainty is damaging its confidence, even without further delay and indecision. Even if no final deal is reached, I hope that the Minister will come to the House to report on the lack of progress.
I should like a statement next week on the management of the passage through the House of the Greater London Authority Bill. A serious situation is arising, with the Government rewriting huge sections of the Bill in Committee without following the normal conventions of ensuring that all members of the Committee—Back Benchers as well as Front Benchers—have an opportunity to assess the importance of the changes and to write amendments. The problem is so great that I have had a memorandum produced, which I shall be happy to give the hon. Gentleman. One example arose a few days ago, when the Government substantially rewrote a clause on road user charging. They tabled 11 pages of replacement schedules on 2 March, in the expectation that they could be considered and appropriate amendments could be tabled in just 48 hours or so. That is intolerable, showing that the Government are not managing the Bill with the care and attention that it deserves. It is an arrogant insult to the House not to pay more attention to the needs of Back Benchers and Opposition parties.
Mr. Tipping: I am grateful again for the hon. Gentleman's request for a debate on the Lawrence inquiry. I am confident that there will be one in the not-too-distant future. The hon. Gentleman asked for a discussion on the Good Friday agreement. I am sorry that I neglected to mention it when responding to the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack). There is a case for taking stock a year on of what has been
1234
achieved—there have been achievements—and looking at the difficulties. I shall bear in mind what both hon. Gentlemen have said.
Like the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), I come from a rural area. He will know that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has written to every farmer asking for views on the way forward on CAP reform. We have talked about it for a long time. People know that change is inevitable. It is particularly important now, given the state of the industry, that we should be able to give reassurance and have a debate with producers so that they know the way forward. I shall ensure that my right hon. Friend hears the hon. Gentleman's points clearly.
I was aware of difficulties with the Greater London Authority Bill; I am conscious of the fact that there have been many amendments. It is a complex Bill. We may have to have further discussions to see whether we can help the Committee with its important work.
Mr. George Galloway: There has been a development in the past few hours at the Security Council in New York. It came too late to influence the private notice question that we had earlier, but it demands a statement from my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General. I should be grateful if my hon. Friend would pass that message on. China, in the chair of the Security Council, has declared that the no-fly zones about which the House heard earlier are illegal, and are not endorsed by any United Nations Security Council resolution. That requires a judicial review, because it calls into question the expenditure by the Ministry of Defence in support of the no-fly zones, and the status of pilots who might be involved in an accident or might be shot down while implementing a policy that the Security Council chair has decreed is illegal. It also calls into question the moral and ethical basis for the policy that has resulted in more bombs being dropped since the end of Operation Desert Fox than were dropped during it—a policy that the United Nations Security Council, in whose name it is supposedly being conducted, has declared illegal.
Mr. Tipping: I am not sure whether my hon. Friend was here earlier for the private notice question, but some of the points that he made—particularly about the safety of our airmen—were covered fairly extensively at that time. Iraq has been discussed in one way or another on every day this week in the House, and I suspect that hon. Members, such as my hon. Friend, will use opportunities to raise the issue further. I will draw his comments to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, but I believe that the will of the House is to safeguard the interest of innocent parties in Iraq. That must remain our course, and I have no doubt that my right hon. and hon. Friends will continue to pursue it with vigour.
Mr. Michael Fabricant: Will the Minister make time for a statement on the EU inspection of abattoirs which, as he will know, is a prerequisite to the lifting of the beef ban? Is he aware that the Prime Minister stated categorically last week:
"We have of course invited the inspectors"?—[Official Report, 24 February 1999; Vol. 326, c. 386.]

1235
It now transpires that the Government had not, and that an urgent invitation was sent out the following day. The House needs to know whether the Prime Minister was merely reckless in his statement to the House, or whether he set out to mislead.
Mr. Tipping: We all share the view that it is important to get the beef ban lifted as quickly as possible, and that abattoirs are inspected. Our current intention is to have the inspection around the end of March. An invitation has been issued—[HON. MEMBERS: "When?"] The matter was raised with the Prime Minister. The important thing is to ensure that we pass the inspection, and that we ensure that beef is once again exported from this country.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: When can we have a statement about vibration white finger payments and chronic bronchitis and emphysema payments to miners, retired miners and—in some cases—widows? We know that the Government have about £2 billion ring-fenced for the payments, but the truth is that we are beset by as many as 220 lawyers who have their fingers in the pie and are holding up payments which are badly needed by, in some cases, very aged people. Will he ensure that the appropriate statement is made shortly, so that these important compensation payments can be made and so that a minimal amount of money goes to the lawyers? Rumour has it that they are concentrating on getting as much as 10 to 15 per cent. commission payments from the fund. It is high time that the Government told the lawyers to get on with the job, get it settled and get the payments made.
Mr. Tipping: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the campaign that he has initiated and followed for a decade to ensure that former miners get compensation for vibration white finger and chronic bronchitis and emphysema. We are now nearly there, and a third of a million pounds was agreed in compensation to a small group of miners only last week in respect of VWF. That is the tip of the iceberg. I hear what my hon. Friend says about solicitors and their agents. I will draw his remarks to the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Industry who, as he knows, has taken a personal interest in the matter. He is working vigorously to ensure that money gets into the pockets of disabled mineworkers by the summer.
Mr. Peter Brooke: Further to the question asked by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) about the Greater London Authority Bill, may I make it clear that the problem is not so much with amendments, as with the reams of new clauses that effectively involve the rewriting of the Bill? The Committee has been good-natured, but, frankly, that good nature is being curdled by the fact that the Government give no reasons why that procedure has to be followed. The habit of having milestones in the Bill, especially when the amendments or new clauses crop up just before a milestone is reached, does not, in my view, assist the structure of discussion.
Mr. Tipping: I have heard clearly what the right hon. Gentleman has said on the matter. I gave an undertaking
1236
to investigate it. I will ensure that my colleagues are aware of the strength of feeling in the Committee and try to ensure that progress towards establishing a Greater London authority runs more smoothly than at present.
Mr. David Drew: Earlier today, I attended the launch of Ecotricity, a new joint venture company set up by the Renewable Energy Company, based in my constituency, and Thames Water. The launch was addressed by my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Industry, and the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), was present. Will my hon. Friend consider the possibility of an early debate on the importance of renewable energy and on the way in which it can contribute to the reduction of our carbon dioxide emissions, in line with our commitment to a 20 per cent. reduction by 2010?
Mr. Tipping: I know that my hon. Friend takes a close interest in this matter. If he looks carefully at the business statement, he will see that, on Wednesday 17 March, there is a debate concerning the Environmental Audit Committee, and it may be possible to raise the subject under that heading. There are a number of arrangements, such as Adjournment debates, whereby he could raise the matter.
Mr. Christopher Chope: Will the Minister be more precise about the timing of the millennium compliance quarterly report? Will it be on Monday and, if not, why not? Nothing could be more urgent, as the day of reckoning for the Government will by then be fewer than 300 days away.
May we have a debate on open government, by which I mean honest government, and, in particular, on the way in which the Prime Minister uses words loosely? Before the general election, he said that there would be no increase in taxes, but it has now been revealed that there will be £40 billion of tax increases.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) said, the Prime Minister said that of course the Government had sent a request for inspectors to the European Union, but it turns out that he was wrong in saying that. Most seriously of all, at the first opportunity that the Government had to put the record straight, when a question was tabled for answer the following Monday, they gave a holding answer. Quite contrary to the spirit of open government, holding answers are being used to cover up the Government's dirty work.
Mr. Tipping: We have been waiting for the millennium for a millennium. There are 300 days to go, as the hon. Gentleman says. I cannot promise a statement on Monday, but, if he is patient and waits a few more days, he will get his statement.
There will be plenty of opportunity to discuss taxation in the Budget debate.
Let me say plainly to the hon. Gentleman and to other hon. Members that the Prime Minister did not mislead the House. Discussions had been going on for several weeks with European Union partners about inspectors visiting at the end of March. The fax inviting them was not a new development, but merely confirmed the date.

1237
The important thing is to ensure that our abattoirs pass the test and that British beef can again be exported throughout the world.
Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: Will my hon. Friend make time for an early debate on the health service? St. David's day on Monday saw the start of the west London NHS Direct scheme, which serves my constituents. That scheme, together with the recent announcement by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister of some £780,000 to modernise the accident and emergency unit at Northwick Park hospital, represents probably the best three weeks for Harrow's health service in any of the past 20 years, and is in stark contrast to the 18 months before the general election, when my constituents had to suffer the loss of Mount Vernon A and E unit, closed by the Conservatives, and of Edgware general A and E unit, also closed—appropriately, on 1 April—by the Conservatives.
Mr. Tipping: I cannot promise my hon. Friend an early debate on the matter, even though I know that he has worked hard to bring better health and accident care resources to his area. He mentioned Northwick Park hospital, and I am delighted that substantial new money will be made available to that hospital and to A and E departments all over the country to help them to provide that valuable service better. I am also pleased that NHS Direct is proving to be such a successful service. My hon. Friend may know, but other hon. Members may not, that we have asked Sheffield university to examine the successes and to evaluate NHS Direct. I look forward to seeing the report. The provisional results show that 97 per cent. of callers are satisfied with the results of the new service.
Mr. Robert Walter: I am somewhat disappointed by the response that the Minister gave to the questions from my hon. Friends the Members for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) and for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) on the response that the Prime Minister gave me at Question Time last week. It is a fact that Mr. Horst Reichenbach, the Director-General of DG XXIV, the consumer affairs directorate in Brussels, produced the letter from the chief veterinary officer that was received on Thursday in Brussels and said that it was the first invitation that had been sent. There is, therefore, some confusion between the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Downing street and the Minister about the facts. Will the Prime Minister come to the House and explain to whom he issued the invitation?
Mr. Tipping: There is no confusion on my part. I remind the hon. Gentleman that, after years of bungling by his colleagues in the Conservative party, and their inaction and inability to discuss the issue with partners in Europe, we are now on the verge of having the ban lifted. Farmers in my area and his will welcome the positive action taken by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and his colleagues to make that happen.
Mr. Paul Flynn: When may we have a debate on the important subject of primary education, so that we can applaud the remarkable achievement by 29 schools in Newport in obtaining the quality mark for basic schools, which represents by far the largest group
1238
of schools in any area in England and Wales, and 10 per cent. of the marks awarded throughout the two countries? Is it not important that, in that debate, we emphasise that the award does not recognise a few high-flyers in the school, but means that every pupil in the school is given basic skills in literacy and numeracy? May we have that debate soon so that other areas, less favoured than Newport, can emulate the splendid achievements of Newport council?
Mr. Tipping: I am pleased that my hon. Friend has reminded the House that children are our future and that we need to invest in them, because that is in all our interests. I am pleased that so much has been achieved in Newport, but I cannot promise my hon. Friend the debate that he wants. The Prime Minister, as we speak, is visiting primary schools in Ealing—he may have opportunities to visit Wales at some time—to announce an extra £150 million to ensure the achievement of our pledge that all five, six and seven-year-olds should be taught in classes under 30. That is a substantial extra sum. We are on target to achieve our plans and another manifesto milestone has been reached, not only in Newport, but across the country.
Mr. Eric Forth: May I support the request of my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) for an urgent debate on the so-called national changeover plan in relation to the euro? I ask that because, as the matter is, mercifully, to be decided by the people of this country rather than by the Government, and as there is every indication that the people are likely to say no, we need to know more about the Government's plans in the event that we do not join the euro. It is grossly irresponsible for any Government who even pretend that the matter is still at issue not to prepare the country for the important eventuality—I hope it is a certainty—that we do not join the euro.
Mr. Tipping: The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point: the choice will be made by the people of this country through a referendum. I welcome that and I am sure that he welcomes that. Let us ensure that we—
Mr. John Bercow: Get on with it.
Mr. Tipping: Let us ensure that we do get on with it and that, if the time comes for us to join the euro, we are ready for it. Today, the first meeting takes place of the cross-party group to consider those arrangements. I am sad that there is still an empty space on that group for a Conservative Member.
Mr. Andrew Love: Has my hon. Friend read early-day motion 365, which deals with the licensing of medicines for children?
[That this House notes that 25 per cent. of all hospital treatments given to children are either unlicensed for this purpose or are not used in accordance with the instructions on the label; expresses concern that some of those treatments have resulted in death or injury to some of those children; recalls the comments made by the Health Committee in its report, The Specific Health Needs of Children and Young People, 10th February 1997, that 'the current situation in regard to the testing and licensing of medicines for use by children is unacceptable'; further notes that European Union

1239
guidance on this issue came into force in September 1997; but expresses concern that the Medicines Control Agency does not hold information on those products which are being developed in accordance with this guidance, and that the MCA does not keep a record of those companies which may be complying with the guidance; notes with interest that from April 1999 in the United States, pharmaceutical companies will be compelled to provide information about the effects of their drugs on children if such a use is likely; and urges the Government to take steps to strengthen the regulatory framework in the UK, and establish a satisfactory system for testing and licensing treatments for use on children.]
Recent research shows that 25 per cent. of treatments are either unlicensed for the purpose or not carried out according to the instructions on the label. Considerable concern has arisen about the possibility of accidents, and a number of cases of injury and death have been reported. In a recent report of the Health Committee, the situation was described as "unacceptable". The issue is extremely important and should be discussed by the House. Will my hon. Friend find time for that discussion in the near future?
Mr. Tipping: I had read the early-day motion, but have now had another opportunity to look at it. I regret that it will not be possible to arrange for the debate requested by my hon. Friend in the foreseeable future, but his early-day motion and the points that he has just made help to raise the profile of that important issue.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. A number of hon. Members are trying to catch my eye. If questions and answers are a little shorter, hopefully all those hon. Members who want to speak will do so.
Mr. Paul Burstow: I draw the Minister's attention to early-day motion 369.
[That this House supports Age Concern and the Royal College of Nursing in urging the Secretary of State for Health to issue urgent advice to health authorities and local authorities on their respective responsibilities following the judgement in R v North and East Devon Health Authority ex parte Coughlan which asserted that both general and specialist nursing care remain the sole responsibility of health authorities; and further urges the issuing of advice to those individuals who are currently in hospital assessed as needing nursing home care, or who are currently paying for nursing in nursing homes and who may now believe as a result of the judgement that nursing in nursing homes is free.]
It is gaining support from all sides of the House; it calls for the Government to issue urgent guidance to health authorities and local authorities in the wake of the Coughlan case, in which it was found that the national health service cannot shirk its responsibilities to pay for nursing care wherever it is provided. May we have an early debate, in Government time, to consider that matter in the context of the report of the royal commission on the long-term care of the elderly, so that we can end the uncertainty of many thousands of people who face the prospect of selling their homes to pay for their care, when we now know that they might not have to do so?
Mr. Tipping: The hon. Gentleman will recall that he spoke in the debate on the statement about the royal
1240
commission's report earlier this week. We need a debate and an exchange of ideas over a relatively short time, so that we can make progress on the report of the royal commission. I am aware of the court case to which he refers; he will know that my colleagues in the Department of Health are considering the matter, and I hope that there will soon be progress.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: When my hon. Friend told my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway) that he would secure a comment from the Attorney-General about the legality of the Iraq situation, he could not have known that the chair of the Security Council—China—has said that the Council believes the action is illegal. That creates a new situation. In light of that, could we have a response from the Attorney-General on Monday?
Mr. Tipping: I have nothing to add to what I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway). However, I will ensure that the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) are also drawn to the attention of the Attorney-General.
Mr. Desmond Swayne: Can the hon. Gentleman afford us a debate, or at least a statement, so that the Government may clarify their position in light of the interview given by the Foreign Office Parliamentary Private Secretary, the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane), to Le Monde, in which he stated that the Prime Minister had already made up his mind to abolish the pound? Could that debate be sufficiently elastic to allow us to consider the employment consequences of that move?
You may be aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that Andy Masters in West Bromwich lost his job as a consequence of having displayed a poster issued by The Sun—the same poster that appears on my gatepost. That debate could give us an opportunity to consider our own arrangements in the House. The poster gives a telephone number-0660 100721—that members of the public can ring to register their support for retaining the pound. I dialled that telephone number from the House and found that the House telephone system is configured to prevent hon. Members from making such a call.
Mr. Tipping: Here is another hon. Member who heeds what The Sun says. Perhaps The Sun has some knowledge of the hon. Member, as it is not prepared to listen to what he says. I am aware of the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane). He speaks from his position as a Back Bencher who represents the constituency of Rotherham.
Mr. George Stevenson: I refer my hon. Friend to early-day motion 371.
[That this House, observing the current unacceptable deterioration of human rights in China and Tibet, calls on the Government to support a resolution on China at the forthcoming 55th United Nations Commission for Human Rights in Geneva.]
It expresses concern about the serious deterioration in the human rights situation in China and Tibet, and refers to the forthcoming 55th session of the United Nations

1241
Commission on Human Rights. In view of the fact that the Commission will meet in the next few weeks and given that the United States Senate voted recently 96:0 to support a resolution at the Commission meeting condemning those abuses of human rights, will my hon. Friend find time for the Foreign Secretary to make a statement to the House in the next week identifying whether the United Kingdom Government support such a resolution and outlining their policy in this area?
Mr. Tipping: My hon. Friend has enough perception to note that the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), is sitting on the Front Bench. Discussions are under way with our European partners on this matter, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will liaise with my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson) in this regard.
Mr. Graham Brady: Can an early opportunity be found for the Prime Minister to come to the House to clear up the confusion caused by his remarks on various occasions? I refer to the Prime Minister's speech in Bristol a month ago in which he said that it was time to repeal some European directives that imposed costs on business. However, he now says that he has none in mind. I refer also to the Prime Minister's recent speech in which he said that Britain should follow United States labour practices. Those statements do not make any sense when the Government are driving the Employment Relations Bill through the House, which will pile new costs on business.
The director general of the Engineering Employers Federation has commented astutely that the Prime Minister appears to be saying one thing and doing another. Many of us believe that it is not the first time that that has happened. Given the confusion that the Prime Minister is causing in the business community, among trade unionists and for hon. Members on both sides of the House, I believe that he should be given the chance to come to this place and explain himself.
Mr. Tipping: The Prime Minister comes to the House every week to take questions. He believes in a strong and vigorous business sector. Debate on the Budget will begin next week and continue for four days, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will try to catch the Speaker's eye then.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Will my hon. Friend make time for a debate in the near future on Britain's relations with Turkey so that we may discuss the problems of human rights abuses, Turkish incursion into Iraq and the contracts apparently being considered—which have been supported by the Department of Trade and Industry—that involve British construction companies in the damming of the River Tigris? That project would cause considerable problems for people living in the Kurdish part of eastern Turkey.
Mr. Tipping: The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office is by my side and he has heard the points that my hon. Friend has raised. I remind my hon. Friend that it is not too long to wait until Foreign Office questions, when he may have an opportunity to raise this matter again.
Mr. Bercow: Further to the pertinent inquiry from my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West
1242
(Mr. Swayne), will the hon. Gentleman reconsider and provide for an early statement on the role and responsibilities of Parliamentary Private Secretaries to Ministers, about which confusion is prevalent within Government ranks? The hon. Gentleman told the House a moment ago that the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) had spoken in his capacity as a constituency Member of Parliament. Will the hon. Gentleman take account of the crucial fact that the hon. Member for Rotherham is not just any old Parliamentary Private Secretary: he is a Parliamentary Private Secretary at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office? Can the House be told whether the hon. Member for Rotherham was blurting out the Government's true intentions, and therefore will soon be promoted; or he was misrepresenting the Government's position, in which case he will presumably be either sacked or otherwise disciplined?
Mr. Tipping: I am pleased to hear the hon. Gentleman describe my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham as "not any old Member of Parliament".
Mr. Bercow: PPS.
Mr. Tipping: He is not any old PPS, for that matter. He is a man of many talents, some of them eccentric. I have made the position absolutely clear: my hon. Friend speaks for himself as the Member of Parliament for Rotherham.
Dr. Julian Lewis: I draw the attention of the House to the disturbing report that appears in today's edition of The Express newspaper about the background to the massacre in Uganda. New information has come to light since the Foreign Secretary made his statement on Tuesday. The report reveals that a Briton was abducted in the same area six months ago and has not been seen since. It suggests that the Foreign Office told the man's brother and family to say nothing about the incident, and points up the sharp contrast between the Foreign Office's failure to change its advice to travel companies and the actions of the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, which issued a very tough warning as a result of that incident. This is a very disturbing matter and I believe that time should be found to enable the Foreign Secretary to return to the House and explain why our Foreign Office did nothing, whereas the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade issued a dire warning about what might happen to tourists in that area.
Mr. Tipping: It is important that hon. Members do not believe everything they read in the newspapers—even if it is The Express. My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), has written to the newspaper pointing out that its story is wrong in many respects. I shall give two examples of its inaccuracy. The unfortunate person in this very difficult situation was in the Democratic Republic of Congo, and the Foreign Office gave very clear advice not to travel to that area. I also understand that there has been close contact between the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the gentleman's family.
Mr. Christopher Gill: In company with other hon. Members, I was scheduled this afternoon to

1243
meet the Minister of Agriculture to draw attention to the impending crisis in the small abattoir sector as a result of the colossal increase in charges that it will face from 1 April. I would like to think that the Leader of the House will recognise that that subject merits debate in the House so that I and other hon. Members who represent constituencies with small abattoirs can make the case for an urgent review of the current proposals. Typical of these cases is the abattoir in my constituency at Bishop's Castle, which will face an almost doubling of its meat inspection charges from 1 April. For every slaughterman, it will have one vet or meat inspector. Those small abattoirs are generally located in rural areas, and I think the House should have an opportunity to debate the effect on the rural economy, on employment in those areas, on animal welfare and on the niche marketing of specialist high-quality products if the abattoirs are forced to close. That is a likely prospect if the charges are introduced on 1 April. I seek the hon. Gentleman's assurance that he will grant that urgent debate.
Mr. Tipping: The hon. Gentleman has made several important points about the needs of rural communities and the countryside—many of which I agree with. He had the opportunity to raise such issues with the Prime Minister only yesterday. He raised the issue of beef on the bone, but could have extended his question to abattoirs. I am sorry that he is not meeting the Minister of Agriculture this afternoon, but I shall ensure that his comments are drawn to my right hon. Friend's attention. It will not be possible to have a statement on the issue, although there
1244
will be Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food questions next Thursday, when I expect that the issue may arise.
Mr. Owen Paterson: Last Wednesday, 2,000 road hauliers gave up a whole day's work to descend on London to stress to the Government that their vindictive policy will cause the loss of up to 50,000 jobs—more than the west midlands would lose if Longbridge were to close. The road hauliers were struck by the lamentable lack of interest among Labour Members of Parliament and the Government. They were astonished the following day, when my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) raised the issue in Department of Trade and Industry questions, that the Government did not appear to understand that 95 per cent. of British freight goes by road, and that, by penalising this strategic industry, every business in the country is made less competitive. Could we have an emergency debate on this vital strategic industry?
Mr. Tipping: I am aware of the problem; hon. Members on both sides of the House take an interest in the matter. Indeed, I have visited road hauliers in my constituency. There is an issue. Excise duties are high in this country, but certain concessions from which our road hauliers benefit are not available in other European countries.
Mr. Paterson: Not enough.
Mr. Tipping: It may not be enough, but difficult judgments must be made. I imagine that there will be an opportunity, not for a statement and debate on this issue, but to raise it in debates on the Budget, which start on Tuesday.

Orders of the Day

  House of Lords Bill
  Considered in Committee [Progress, 3 March].
  [MR. MICHAEL LORD in the Chair]

  New Clause 9
  SENIOR SALARIES REVIEW BOARD

  '(1) The Secretary of State shall ask the Senior Salaries Review Board:

  (a) to review the salaries and expenses paid to members of the House of Lords; and

  (b) to detail the costs of their recommendations.

  (2) The Secretary of State shall lay the final report of the Senior Salaries Review Board before each House of Parliament.'.—[Mr. Evans.]

  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Question proposed [3 March], That the clause be read a Second time.
  2.23 pm
  Question again proposed.
  The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Lord): I remind the Committee that, with this, we are discussing amendment No. 12, in the title, line 2, after 'about', insert
  'the salaries and expenses paid to members of the House of Lords and'.
  Mr. Eric Forth: To continue—Members of stage 1 of the upper House to play a full and active part in it. Underlying that matter is the effectiveness of the interim upper House, which, in turn, depends very much on its composition and the contribution that its Members will make.
  So far, we have rather taken for granted the unique contribution of hereditary peers, which stems not only from their independence of mind and expertise, but from the fact that, crucially in the context of the new clause, they have made their contribution without being paid. That raises the crucial issue of whether the interim House, as the Government envisage it, can survive and be as effective without the hereditary element, and without the payment of its Members. Will life peers not only continue to make their variable contributions, but fill the gap left by the disappearance of hereditary peers, without us seriously considering pay and allowances—hence the new clause's importance?
  I do not want to prejudge the matter. I have made my position very clear, for what that is worth. Ultimately—I hope sooner rather than later—I believe that we shall have a properly elected, accountable, small upper Chamber, which has equivalent powers to this place and whose Members are paid and supported appropriately by staff. It is much more difficult to envisage the operation of the interim House, composed as it will be mainly of life peers, with, perhaps, additional life peers appointed in some way about which we are not yet entirely clear, and to decide
  1246
  whether we think that they will be prepared and able to make an effective contribution, so that the interim House is effective as an upper Chamber, if they are not paid.
  We cannot proceed any further without providing a mechanism, as the new clause and the amendment do, to deal urgently with the matter; otherwise, we risk expecting an upper House of radically changed composition to play the role that it has up to now without any alteration in the support that we give to its Members.
  Mr. Oliver Letwin: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we are dealing with an historical hangover, because it was assumed that hereditary peers would have wealth, and that there is absolutely no reason for a similar assumption concerning life peers?
  Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, although I am sure that some of the hereditary peers that he and I know and love very greatly would say that the golden era in which they could be assumed to have wealth has, regrettably, long since gone. In fact, I would argue that, in some ways, the hereditary element is representative of society, because, regrettably, many hereditary peers are almost as impecunious as I am. Therefore, they could be said to represent a surprisingly large spectrum of society.
  Mr. Letwin rose
  —
  Mr. Forth: Perhaps my hon. Friend is going to tell the Committee how impecunious he is.
  Mr. Letwin: I shall resist that temptation. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the problem resides in the fact that many life peers are more impecunious than he is because they have no visible means of support?
  Mr. Forth: Yes. That takes us to the kernel of the matter. We cannot wait until stage 2, the final outcome, the culmination of the process, before we take a serious look at whether an interim upper House can be sustainable and credible if it is based on the acts of charity of its Members, on which we have relied for too long.
  Dr. Phyllis Starkey: As I understand it, the right hon. Gentleman is attempting to develop the argument that most hereditary peers are able to attend because they have some income. Given that only about 20 per cent. of hereditary peers attend, is there a relationship between the ones who attend and their wealth, compared with the ones who do not attend and their wealth? That would support his notion that attendance is related to one's other financial means.
  2.30 pm
  Mr. Forth: I am not sure whether the hon. Lady's figures are correct, but I will not fall out with her over that. I do not think that such on analysis has been made. I accept the relevance of her question. However, I believe that I am approaching the issue from a different direction.
  We cannot assume that hereditary peers are all wealthy in their own right; that era is long gone. We cannot assume that hereditary peers make no contribution to the upper House, because they make a distinct and valuable

  1247
  contribution. We cannot assume that life peers make an overwhelmingly positive contribution either, because it is a sad fact that very many life peers make little or no contribution to the upper House.
  This is where I differ from Labour Members. I am sure that the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) does not fall into this category, but some of her hon. Friends make the mistake of assuming that "hereditary" means useless and bad and that "life" means valuable and good, and that therefore we shall have a splendid upper House if we do away with the hereditaries.
  I challenge all those assumptions. Given the changes that will now take place—because the Government are willing them upon us—and given that, willy-nilly, the interim Chamber will consist overwhelmingly of life peers, we must seriously consider whether unpaid life peers will be able to sustain a credible upper House that will make a valuable contribution to the legislative process of holding the Government to account. That is the important question at issue as we debate the new clause.
  As ever, my hon. Friends have done Parliament a valuable service in bringing this matter to our attention and giving us the opportunity to set up a mechanism to conduct a review of salaries to run in parallel with the work of the royal commission. At least that provides the opportunity to have properly remunerated Members of the upper House.
  Mr. Michael Fallon: My right hon. Friend referred to the Members of the interim House being properly remunerated. That is the exact terminology that the Government use. In chapter 8 of their White Paper "Modernising Parliament—Reforming the House of Lords", they refer to the "proper salaries" and research costs that a fully elected House would command, and indeed deserve. Why should something that is proper for an elected House be improper for an interim House?
  Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend makes an important point. I said a moment ago—I may be coloured by my own prejudice—that in my view we should have, as quickly as possible, an elected, accountable Chamber, but a very small one. I have suggested that it should have 87 Members. I have said that because there are 87 European parliamentary constituencies, so we would have a ready-made electoral map for that small upper Chamber. In those circumstances, because of the nature of that Chamber, I should have thought that the Members could expect a rather substantial salary to reflect the role that they would play. The same analysis cannot apply to the interim House, which would still have several hundred Members.
  I support the new clause because I believe that we need an opportunity to consider the payment of the Members of the interim House, bearing in mind its size, composition and so on. Of course, we would then have to look beyond that at how the final upper House—in my view, elected and accountable—would operate, in view of the number of its Members.
  Mr. Desmond Swayne: The number 87, which my right hon. Friend has conjured up, strikes me as a useful number. He will have heard my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans),
  1248
  who opened the debate yesterday, speak of the conditions in which the present Members were accommodated—seven to a room. Does my right hon. Friend agree that such a number as 87 would fit very conveniently into that temple to the part-time Parliament which is being erected across the road from this place?
  Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend is trying to tempt me into speculating where my upper House of 87 Members would be accommodated. I can tell from the look on your face, Mr. Lord, that if I were to start to reply to him in even the briefest terms you would not allow me to do so, so I shall not, tempted as I am.
  Mr. Oliver Heald: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Forth: I hope that my hon. Friend will not tempt me further to explore the shape, size and accommodation of my preferred upper Chamber, although I hope that the day will come when I may explore those options fully.
  Mr. Heald: I certainly would not trespass on that dangerous ground.
  In reviewing the salaries and allowances, should not the Senior Salaries Review Body carefully consider what the functions of the upper House are and might be? In those circumstances, does my right hon. Friend feel that a wide-ranging review by the SSRB is needed, focusing on the allowance available for research and secretarial assistance? I suggest that, if Members of the upper House are to have enhanced functions, they will need considerably more back-up than they have had.
  Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend asks a vital question. Interestingly, it runs in parallel with the question that we, the House, shall have to consider concerning the pay and allowances paid to Members of the Scottish Parliament when that Parliament comes into being. After all, their function and role will have altered, will it not?
  We must confront the same question in relation to developments elsewhere in our constitutional arrangements. When we have a Scottish Parliament, with MSPs—as I believe that they will be called—fulfilling their functions, the relationship between such functions and pay will need to be explored.
  Mr. Letwin: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the problem to which he has so forcefully drawn the Committee's attention is greater than he has been describing if, as a result of yesterday's debates and the lamentable lack of any concession by the Government to our amendments, the interim Chamber lasts a very long time indeed?
  Mr. Forth: I hope that that reinforces my argument. In the context of our amendments, if the Government had told us that they could guarantee that the interim arrangements would last only two or three years, we might then have conceded that it would not be necessary or proper to consider pay and so on. However, my hon. Friend must be right in saying that, given that we have no such guarantee, and that we cannot be certain how long the interim arrangement will last, we must have a mechanism to consider the issue of functions as related to pay.

  1249
  All this argument now comes together in the new clause that my hon. Frienes have offered to the House. I hope that we shall receive a very positive response from the Minister about it because I fear that, if we do not, we shall be left even more uncertain, confused and unhappy than we were when we considered the matter yesterday.
  Dr. George Turner: There are considerable dangers in the use of simile or metaphor, but my views on the new clause are best communicated by some form of simile.
  Our current position is like that of a family with two cars, one of which has long been neglected, has been due for replacement for several decades, has not been maintained and is, in the family's general opinion, clapped-out or in a bad state of repair. Some members of the family argue that it is a vintage car, which should be protected, but the majority view is that it should be scrapped, and that that decision should be taken before the family argue about what should replace it. Some of the family may argue that the second car may not be appropriate to the modern age, and others may argue about the model of car that should be chosen.
  New clause 9 is rather like asking the family, once they have decided to scrap the car, to have a discussion about whether—at such a late stage, the day before it is scrapped—it should be taken in for an assessment and overhaul, and perhaps a respray. I believe that most family members would accept that the new car would have to be appropriately maintained and that it should probably be a new model. There may even be an argument about what type of car it should be.
  Whether or not we accept the need to discuss those issues, the relevant decision should be taken once we know what the new model of car is and, indeed, whether the family are intending to have a new car; after all, some of the family may have argued that, in the modern age, they should not buy one.
  That simile illustrates our current position. Sensibly, Conservative Members are asking that we ensure that the new model of car is appropriate to its new function. Perhaps we should be arguing about why we need the second car, what it should do, how big it should be and when it should be used. When we have determined that, we can discuss the maintenance schedule, how much we invest in it and what colour the seats should be. All those questions are appropriate at the right time, but now, at the death-bed of the House of Lords as we have known it, is not the time to discuss how we should improve it and maintain it, or to determine—
  Mr. Forth: To follow the hon. Gentleman's rather ghastly analogy, what we are discussing is whether we should put any petrol in the car.
  Dr. Turner: I accept that on the way to the scrap yard is not the time to fill the tank with petrol.
  Of course there is a serious point. When we debate a new form for the other place, we should make sure that it is appropriately equipped to do the job. We need to know whether its Members will be part-time or full-time, whether they will be seconded from industry for fixed periods to do a technical job, or whether they will be elected and will serve full-time, doing a different kind of job.
  Dr. Liam Fox: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that—using his analogy of scrapping the current model—what is being created by the Bill is an entirely new model? The interim House may not be a temporary measure; it may be a long-term measure. Therefore it makes perfect sense to consider terms and conditions and pay as part of the new package that the Government will introduce as a result of the Bill.
  Dr. Turner: I admitted at the outset that there were limitations to the use of simile and metaphor, but it has some merits. I accept that the Opposition fear that what is seen as a temporary situation may be longer lasting. However, the new clause looks as though it is designed for the long term. By the time the work load of the interim House has been properly examined and reported, and the recommendations implemented, many of my hon. Friends and I will want an entirely new House of Lords brought into existence by legislation.
  If the new clause is not mischievous, it is badly timed. We should indeed debate those topics, but at a later date.
  Mr. Swayne: It could, perhaps, be argued that there is some measure of profligacy on the Opposition's part. The taxpayer has undoubtedly been enjoying a bargain. If one measures productivity in terms of 2,000 amendments accepted per year, the rate currently paid out for the job is remarkably small. There is a strong argument that the taxpayer should continue to enjoy such a bargain, but that takes no account of the fact that the situation will have changed radically as a consequence of the Bill.
  That is where I depart from the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner). He is wrong in his simile about the car being scrapped. We are speaking of a different vehicle. The reduction in the hereditaries will remove a significant number of the working peers. That work load will devolve on to the remaining peers.
  Caroline Flint: Has the hon. Gentleman's party been asked to act as the trade union for the life peers? Have the life peers asked you to propose terms and conditions for them in the interim period?
  Mr. Swayne: I do not know whether you, Mr. Lord, have been asked any such question, but I certainly have not.
  The issue is the work load that will devolve on to the working peers. Unless support is provided for them, the work simply will not be done. There will be an insufficient number of peers to attend to it.
  Only last night the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department refused to give any indication of the period that the Government had in mind for the duration of the transitional arrangements. That makes it clear that it is entirely proper to consider the issues arising from the proposed changes.
  For the benefit of the Minister, I reiterate my suggestion that, when we consider how the even more productive peers are to be accommodated, we should remember that an almost purpose-built building is being erected, which surely could not be given up for the accommodation of members of a House who recently voted to give themselves a half-day on Thursday and an extra week's holiday in February.
  2.45 pm
  Mr. Andrew Miller: I shall be brief. I find the debate a little odd. I shall not be drawn into the analogy of cars, because everyone knows that all the best family saloons are made in my constituency by Vauxhall. I have no aspirations to go to the other place, so I shall not be drawn down that road.
  The Opposition frequently preach to us about their supposed business skills, yet the new clause negates all the principles that would usually be used to examine a business case for determining the pay and conditions of a group of workers. The Opposition keep telling us that we do not yet know what those people will do, how long they will do it and how many of them there will be, so the Senior Salaries Review Body would be faced with an impossible task if we followed the logic of the Opposition case. On that simple basis, I hope that the Committee will resist the motion.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: The hon. Gentleman misses the point entirely. We know that some time during this Parliament—if the Government have their way, at the end of this parliamentary Session—the House of Lords will lose a large percentage of its active membership. We also know that the House of Lords will continue to have to perform the functions that it currently performs. In other words, it will have to scrutinise legislation, and its Select Committees will have to examine deregulation, European Communities legislation and all the other things that they do at present.
  We know that, in fulfilling those functions, the House of Lords will be deprived of the services of a great many Members who regularly attend, man those Committees and carry out that scrutiny. We know that there is no proposal in the Bill to change the functions of the House of Lords.
  I find the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner) an endearing Member, but what he said was arrant nonsense. He had the chance to try to push things on yesterday, but he did not take that chance by voting for the appropriate amendment. We know that the Government have no idea how long the House of Lords will continue to sit in its present form, but deprived of the membership of some of its most active Members. It might be for one year or two years. Even on the Government's admissions from the Dispatch Box, through the mouths of several Ministers in this debate, we know that we are speaking of a new form of second Chamber coming into existence after the next general election, at the earliest.
  For a minimum of two years, but very likely for far longer than that—even if the Government win the election—
  Mr. Forth: Oh!
  Sir Patrick Cormack:—even if the Government win the election with a commanding majority—
  Mr. Forth: Oh!
  Sir Patrick Cormack:—both of which propositions I find highly improbable, as I am sure my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) would agree. Even if that happened, we are probably talking, on the Government's own admissions at the
  1252
  Dispatch Box, of a minimum period of about four years from now before any replacement second Chamber could be functioning effectively.
  Mr. Martin Linton: Will the hon. Gentleman assure us that he has no interest to declare, as what he describes is, effectively, a new deal for hereditary peers? We have often been told how many of these hereditary peers live in Conservative Members' constituencies. I dare say that many of the backwoodsmen live, literally, in the constituency of the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne). How many live in the hon. Gentleman's own constituency of South Staffordshire?
  Sir Patrick Cormack: None. Not only is that irrelevant, but the hon. Gentleman has failed to listen to and understand what we have been saying.
  We accept that the Government will get their way on the matter of the hereditary peers. That is not in dispute. We have accepted that time and again, although we do not necessarily think that the Government were right to make that a priority of their legislative programme. My hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) said only yesterday that we accept that the Government were elected with a large majority and that that was part of their manifesto, although I doubt whether many of those who voted for new Labour did so for that reason. Nevertheless, the Government are entitled to claim a mandate. That is not at issue. At the end of this Session, the Bill is likely to become an Act of Parliament and, as a result, there will be no hereditary peers.
  Not only is no Weatherill amendment incorporated in the Bill, but, when the House was offered the opportunity to vote for a similar amendment a couple of weeks ago, it rejected it. Therefore, we are talking of a House that will have a much smaller number of active peers than it has at the moment.
  Mr. David Winnick: The hon. Gentleman would make a passionate shop steward, but my experience over many years of trade unionism is that a group of people who want a pay rise put in for it first, before any other representation is made. I am not sure whether any such claim has been or is to be made. What purpose would there be in setting up any such review until we know the future make-up of the second Chamber? For example, if it is made up of largely indirectly elected Members from the regions—it may well be, but it may not be—how shall we to know what salaries such people are already receiving? It makes no sense at this stage to look at their salaries.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: I almost despair. We know the composition of the House of Lords for the foreseeable future. We also know what its work load will be. That is not in dispute between the two Front Benches or between anyone who has examined the matter. We know that there will be a House of Lords which, for the foreseeable future, will consist of those who are presently life peers, those who are presently there by virtue of the fact that they are among the 26 bishops of the established Church,

  1253
  and those who are there because they are Law Lords. The Government have said that. But the interim may be a long time.
  Dr. George Turner rose—
  Mr. Heald: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Sir Patrick Cormack: In a minute. I am trying to conduct a teach-in on the new House of Lords. Let my hon. Friend contain his patience for half a second.
  The House of Lords will consist of those three elements—the life peers, the bishops and the Law Lords. We also know that there may not be any of the 91 hereditary peers, because that is not in the Bill, and the attempt to put them there has been emphatically rejected by the House. We also know that, with the increase in business emanating from Europe, the work load will increase. Therefore, we know that a significant burden will be placed on the shoulders of a relatively few life peers. It is important to recognise that.
  The hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) was wrong when she intervened, because 40 per cent. of those who currently attend the House of Lords are hereditary peers, and 10 of those who are members of the 20-strong Committee—the most important Committee of all—examining European legislation, are hereditary Peers. They will go. According to the Bill, they will not be represented by any of their number.
  Dr. Starkey rose—
  Sir Patrick Cormack: Let me make a final point and then I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald), the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey)—chivalry demands that—and then to the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk.
  We have the work load, but we will not have the hereditary peers. All we are saying in this modest new clause is that the functions and composition of the House of Lords should be referred to the Senior Salaries Review Body so that it can assess whether it is desirable, sensible, prudent—whatever one likes to call it—that those sustaining the work load for that indefinite period should be adequately recompensed for so doing.
  Mr. Heald: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Prime Minister said last week that it would be wrong to abolish duty-free goods until a permanent successor regime was put in place? Yet he is prepared to go ahead without any permanent successor regime for the House of Lords. Is that not one of the difficulties that we face? Therefore, would it not be right for the Senior Salaries Review Body to look at not just the temporary arrangement, but a range of options for the future?
  Sir Patrick Cormack: The real difficulty that we face, as my hon. Friend knows, is that we have a Prime Minister who has perfected the art of dining à la carte, and who, therefore, picks and chooses what he wants, and who has no consistency, theme, rhythm or purpose behind his constitutional endeavours. The Prime Minister is perfectly happy to get up and talk about duty-free goods
  1254
  and to enunciate a principle which, if applied to this Bill, would have led to the acceptance of not only this new clause but most of the amendments hitherto debated.
  Dr. Starkey: I simply wanted to correct a mathematical point that the hon. Gentleman has just made. When I intervened, I said that only 20 per cent. of hereditary peers turn up and vote. That is entirely consistent with his alternative mathematical expression. That 20 per cent. may constitute 40 per cent. of the active peers. I simply wanted to make it clear that my point was correct and not altered by the hon. Gentleman's point.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: If, inadvertently, I made any allegation of innumeracy against the hon. Lady, I unreservedly withdraw it. But the fact remains that 40 per cent. of those who regularly attend, who bear the burden and heat of the day, are hereditary peers. That is why, if the hon. Member for North Norfolk, who is becoming agitated—a state to which he is thoroughly accustomed—had used the analogy of a bus with half its passengers missing rather than a car, it would have been a much more telling analogy.
  Dr. George Turner: The hon. Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Prior) sits on the Conservative Benches and I do not want to be associated with the Opposition. The hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormeck) seems entirely to ignore the point that change will begat change. It is said that the graveyard is full of the bones of indispensable men. Those who are doing the work now in the House of Lords will have volunteers to replace them. They are not indispensable, as the hon. Gentleman would have us believe. If not enough are forthcoming and willing to work, and if we are to go for the extended period, which the hon. Gentleman envisages—which I do not—there is the option of new blood. Shall we not be able to debate many such matters when the Bill returns from the other place?
  3 pm
  Sir Patrick Cormack: I remind the hon. Gentleman that all we are saying is that the Senior Salaries Review Body should have the opportunity to keep these matters under review. He is a man with a literary turn of mind, so perhaps he recalls that lovely—
  Dr. Turner: I am an engineer.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: The hon. Gentleman appears to have a literary turn of mind. I was giving him a reputation for couth and culture, which I would have thought that he would be delighted to revel in. Perhaps he knows that lovely poem by John Betjeman about the death of the golf club secretary. The final lines are:
  "It's strange that those we miss the most
  Are those we take for granted."
  We take those peers, and the work that they do, for granted. When they have gone, the work will remain and somebody will have to do it.
  One does not have to be a mathematician of the genius of the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West to be able to accept that more work will fall on fewer shoulders. Therefore, those people will not be able to attend their offices, the law courts and the other places where they are

  1255
  otherwise gainfully employed, in some cases, as often as they do at the moment. How often have we heard it said that the very removal of those peers—"Off with their heads"—will make the House of Lords better? If the Government want the new House of Lords to be better than the one it replaces, surely it is incumbent on them to take every logical and prudent step to ensure that those who bear that burden will be enabled to do so.
  Mr. Winnick: The Opposition amendments that we debated yesterday emphasised the need to make sure that the Government produce the second stage as quickly as possible, but the hon. Gentleman is asking for salaries, and the rest of it, for the interim, which is almost an incentive for that interim to remain permanent. He is contradicting what he said yesterday.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: On the contrary, Mr. Lord. How good it is to have someone of your name in the Chair when we are discussing these matters. If anyone is being inconsistent and contradictory, it is the hon. Gentleman. Yesterday, we said that we were deeply unhappy with the way in which the Government were handling this whole issue and that it would be sensible to put a terminal date on the existence of the so-called interim Chamber. I remind the House that, as I said yesterday, at no stage does the Bill refer to the interim Chamber.
  The Government were supported by the hon. Members for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) and for North-West Norfolk-1 am grateful for the correction of the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk, and I of course apologise to him, and to my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Prior)—who voted against those amendments, which were eliminated. The Government strenuously resisted any attempt to put a terminal date in the Bill, so—
  Mr. Winnick: That is correct.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: I am grateful for the gracious affirmation of the hon. Gentleman in that regard; I heard every word that he uttered. All we are saying is that there must be proper provision to ensure that those who have to do the work are enabled to do it.
  Among the life peers, on whom that work will fall, there may be some wealthy men and women, but an awful lot are not wealthy. Many extremely hard-working Labour peers will not be able to devote the extra time necessary. A number of them are friends of mine. I chair a large all-party Committee of both Houses of which a number of those peers and peeresses are members and I know very well that they would not be able to do that extra work without recompense and compensation for it. That is all we are saying.
  Mr. Bill Rammell: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that making a proposition without specifying the cost, so that people are aware of it, is not good politics in this House? If the new clause is successful and the issue goes to the Senior Salaries Review Body, will the Conservative party submit evidence to that body and argue for a bridging of the gap in financial support between this House and the other place? Yesterday, the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) implied that
  1256
  that would be the case. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, if the Conservative party argues that case, the cost would be £200 million a year? Is that the Conservative party's priority for any additional expenditure?
  Sir Patrick Cormack: Let me answer the hon. Gentleman's main question. We would give evidence to that body and the evidence would be based on a careful assessment of what was needed. We do not suggest in the new clause that Members of the other place should immediately be given parliamentary salaries equivalent to those received by Members of this House, who have constituents and other responsibilities. We are suggesting that a number of life peers, many of them Labour peers, would have to do more work although they have other jobs to do and would not—
  Mr. Rammell: Uncosted.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: Yes, the salaries are uncosted, which is why they should be put to a review body. That is a simple point.
  We are not saying that those people should receive X thousand pounds a year. All we are saying is that the review body should consider what they are doing, and what it is costing them, and decide whether it would be appropriate for them to receive more in secretarial and other allowances, although it would not necessarily be appropriate for them to do so.
  Mr. Rammell: I think that we are making progress. The Conservative party submission to the Senior Salaries Review Body would not argue for parity with this House in terms of financial support. What figure would the Conservative party put in its submission? The hon. Gentleman clearly wants the new clause to be accepted and wants the issue to go to the Senior Salaries Review Body. What detailed thought has the Conservative party given to the submission that it would make?
  Sir Patrick Cormack: The matter would be given to the review body. The hon. Gentleman should understand that we are not advocating any specific sum of money. The review body should be given the job and we hope that everybody—including Labour Members with friends in the other place—will give evidence.
  Some of those peers spend a prodigious amount of time scrutinising legislation and in Select Committees. Some can afford to give that time and some cannot. There are those who have received peerages, from the Labour party and from my party, who have nominally been Members of the other House for a considerable time—in some cases, a number of years—and have yet to make a maiden speech. I can think of two former Conservative Cabinet Ministers, who were ennobled during the past five or six years, who have yet to make a maiden speech.
  I am not suggesting that those people's honours are not fitting recognition of the work that they have done for this House and for the country, but they are not, by any stretch of the imagination, active peers. I can think of at least four Labour peers who fall into roughly the same category. I am not casting aspersions at them either, but I want to show that there is a finite body of men and women who have a valuable job to do. There is no point in saying that they can be augmented; of course they can. New peers

  1257
  can be appointed, but the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell), who is a reasonable man, will accept that we cannot create experience overnight.
  If the Government's objective is to be fulfilled and the successor House of Lords is to be at least as effective as the present House, it is crucial that those who work there should be able to work there. That may mean, in some cases, their receiving better recompense. All we are saying
  Mr. Gordon Prentice: Should it be performance related?
  Sir Patrick Cormack: If the Senior Salaries Review Body recommended that it should be performance related, I would have no qualms about that. What Members of the House of Lords receive now is performance related, because they receive an attendance allowance.
  Mr. Keith Bradley (Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household): When they turn up.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: The Deputy Chief Whip, who has obviously been pregnant with speech for hours and is desperate to intervene, says that they receive the allowance if they turn up. The Senior Salaries Review Body would be quite at liberty to say that any award that it recommended depended not only on turning up and signing a register, but on proper participation. The hon. Gentleman, as Deputy Chief Whip, knows that one or two people in this place merely turn up. He also knows that he sometimes offers them inducements not to turn up. The Deputy Chief Whip, as Deputy Patronage Secretary, is in no position to lecture me or any of his colleagues on that subject.
  The Senior Salaries Review Body would be able to adjudicate on all those issues and particulars. This is a modest new clause.
  Mr. Andrew Tyrie: I think that I have almost got to the bottom of this statistical problem. It is clear from the figures that hereditary peers contribute half the total activity. In the 1996–97 Session, 182 hereditary peers and 186 life peers attended more than half the sitting days. That is rather more than the 40 per cent. you were suggesting, and strengthens the point you were making about having to do something about the remainder.
  The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I was not making any suggestions.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: No, Mr. Lord, indeed you were not, but I was and I am grateful for the added weight that my hon. Friend's sage intervention gives to the argument that I have been trying to advance.
  The issue is simple: do we want the new Chamber—the existing Chamber deprived of the services of the hereditaries—to be an effective, functioning Chamber? If so, surely it is common sense to allow the body that we have already established to look at the rewards for public service to include in its remit the service rendered by those who will sit in the other place? I rest my case.
  Mr. Dominic Grieve: I intended to intervene briefly. Indeed, I had not originally intended to
  1258
  speak to this new clause, but it raises some important points that we would be wise to address at this stage of the Bill rather than to defer them. We are moving to some different form of second Chamber, which will have different functions and probably far fewer people to discharge them. On that basis alone, it is apparent that the cut-price second Chamber that we have had for a long time, whereby a large number of people give their services voluntarily, will not be feasible for the future.
  Listening to the debate on this issue yesterday and today, it struck me forcefully that many Labour Members have not focused their minds on this aspect. They seem to assume that, if we wave our magic wand, the second Chamber will be transformed and we will continue as before. Their contributions to the debate have reinforced my anxiety about stage 2, because they are quite incapable even of looking beyond stage 1. They continually repeat the mantra "get rid of hereditary peers" without any thought for the consequences, one of which will be financial.
  Mr. Heald: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is something rather sinister in increasing the work load of each individual peer without providing an adequate research allowance for the detailed back-up that they will need to do their job property? That may be because this arrogant Government do not want people saying, "We don't agree with you, and these are the reasons why."
  3.15 pm
  Mr. Grieve: One has only to examine the contents of the White Paper, which contains hidden suggestions that the future role of the House of Lords may be purely consultative because it will have no teeth, to realise that the Government's agenda gives rise to serious concern. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Tyrie: The Minister is nodding his head in agreement.
  Mr. Grieve: I shall give way to the Minister, so he can explain himself.
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): I was interested in the language of the debate, and the remark about hidden suggestions in the White Paper. They are either in the White Paper or they are hidden from the White Paper.
  Mr. Grieve: White Papers always make fascinating reading. I enjoy reading them, but we must look between the lines. The drift of the Government's message was entertaining. In the White Paper, the Government said that they would make no recommendations to the commission about what they wanted, but, if one read about what might come out of the commission or what issues might be addressed, one immediately began to discover the Government's agenda. It is not just this White Paper: every Government document published for consultation purposes contains the same nuances, which one can quickly pick up.
  I was fascinated to see in the White Paper the suggestion that, in future, there should be no blocking mechanism, even for one Session, that would allow the second Chamber to block legislation from this House, and

  1259
  that the other place should be merely a consultative Chamber. It is extraordinary that that suggestion was included and that it came from a Government who want to extend democracy and extend and improve scrutiny of legislation.
  Mr. Letwin: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Minister's assertion that there are no hidden suggestions in the White Paper is contradicted by the fact that, although the foreword says that the Government will move to long-term reform, paragraph 11 on page 29 tells us that they will do so only if there is consensus?
  Mr. Grieve: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Doubt about whether stage 2 will ever happen is a subject that has exercised us greatly during the debate. That is why the new clause and the amendment are desirable. We need pretty quickly to focus our minds on the matter of what facilities the other place, even in the interim, will require to discharge its functions properly.
  We complain that we have inadequate facilities in this House—we complain that our secretaries are 300 yd from where we work and there are often complaints about resources available to Members. Compared with the resources available to Members of the other place, we bask in the lap of luxury at the taxpayer's expense. Those facilities are necessary so that we can discharge our functions.
  I take the point that Members of the other place, not having constituents, do not have the same remit or the same responsibilities that we have. Nevertheless, they require support services, which they do not receive at present because it is, in effect, an amateur second Chamber. People contribute their expertise on a voluntary basis. It is my view that, even when the hereditary peers go, there will be a profound change in the ethos of the upper House and in the way in which it operates. Whether for the better or for the worse, the prevailing ethos in the upper House is that which has been created by the generations of hereditary peers who have attended. I picked that up from talking to life peers, who reinforced my view.
  Leaving aside the fact that it is only the hereditary peers who are going, the upper Chamber will change considerably. We shall have to decide whether the life peers who remain will require a better form of remuneration and support. That will be one of the essential building blocks, and we shall have to see how that works when we consider stage 2. The Government say that we cannot divorce stage 1 from stage 2 and that we must view them together, albeit that stage 1 must take place separately to clear away the logjam. The promise is, however, that stage 2 will follow.
  I shall be reassured that stage 2 will really take place when, even at this stage, we start to consider some of the issues that will be involved in that stage and can also be legitimately considered now. One of those issues must be the way in which Members of the upper House are remunerated. For that reason alone, I consider the new clause entirely innocuous. It does not interfere with the Government's main programme of getting rid of hereditary peers; it is sensible, for the Senior Salaries Review Body should have an opportunity to consider the matter; and, as a result, we shall be far better informed.
  1260
  I dare say that, when it reports in December, the Appointments Commission may wish to consider this among other issues. However, it will help the House of Commons to have the independent view of the review body, which will constitute compelling evidence. I am worried about what happens once we have dealt with the principles involved in stage 2. It is apparent again and again that the Government are not very interested in allowing the House, or any other forum, to consider these difficult issues.
  I am committed to an effective second Chamber that works. As I have said before, I believe that we shall end up with an elected second Chamber. I approve of that, but I think that it will prove rather more costly than what we have now. The sooner we get round to considering that, the better; otherwise, we shall remain in the cloud cuckoo land in which we are currently living and in which we are told, "Get rid of the hereditaries, cut off their heads, and we can forget about everything else." We cannot.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: My hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) moved the motion very eloquently last night. I remember what he said, and I hope that others do as well. He was extremely lucid. Other Conservative Members have also made a strong case for the acceptance of this straightforward and simple proposal by all reasonable people. I am sure that only reasonable hon. Members are present now!
  I do not often pray in aid the Lord Chancellor—save, of course, when I require a verdict on taste in wallpaper. For the benefit of those who do not already know, I should explain that it was I who found out what the Lord Chancellor was up to in that regard, and was able to acquaint the public with the facts. The Lord Chancellor described the other place as one of the busiest Chambers in the world, and my hon. Friends the Members for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) and for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) made the same point very forcefully. The other place is not a retirement home for faded politicians; it is an important working Chamber which does an enormously valuable job in scrutinising legislation, and is, I think, widely respected for doing that job. At a time when the House of Commons is, perhaps, not held in the highest public esteem, the other place is held in such esteem, not least because of the weighty advice that it gives and the experience that it brings to bear.
  Mr. Grieve: The other place is certainly not a retirement home; but is not one of the odd features of the removal of hereditary peers the fact that it will become a little more like a retirement home for ex-politicians? Although there are working peers, a large number of peers do not do very much.
  Mr. Howarth: Indeed; and it is possible that only those who are prepared to undertake to work for a certain number of hours a day—consistent with the working time directive, of course—will be eligible for nomination. The Patronage Secretary and her deputy—who has now left the Chamber—will have an important role to play: they will decide the composition of the other place. It is clear that, following the removal of the hereditary peers and the contribution that they can make, the advancement of people to the upper House will be possible only if they can undertake not to accept the post as a sinecure, but to slave away and do the work.

  1261
  As we consider the burdens that will rest on those who remain in the upper House, and how those people should be remunerated, we should also consider what is involved in terms of the commitment that they give. I understand that the House of Lords sits for 143 days a year, for seven hours a day, and that in the last Session it achieved an all-time record of 228 days, or 1,604 hours, with 102 sittings after 10 pm. Having taken a short break, which I was invited to take by my former constituents, I can say that I notice how rarely this House sits after 10 pm. The fact that the other place has sat after 10 pm 102 times demonstrates the volume of activity there. If the hereditary peers are indeed to be removed, 759 potential contributors to the work of the upper House will be removed, and the full burden will descend on the 484 life peers, the Law Lords and the bishops—to the extent that they participate.
  Not only will the burden increase on those who remain, but the upper House will be deprived of a huge amount of experience and knowledge. In due course, the House of Commons will consider weighty matters, not least whether we are to join the single currency. If the other House is neutered, and not enough people with the expertise to consider such matters in detail are prepared to give their time, we shall, in effect, have a unicameral arrangement. The House of Commons will be the sole source of scrutiny—and we know how much scrutiny is given by many Labour Members: we know that 100 are sent away every week so that they cannot clog up this place.
  Mr. Letwin: Have not the Government an opportunity this evening to prove, by accepting the new clause, that they do not intend to neuter the House of Lords?
  Mr. Howarth: Indeed. It behoves the Government to respond seriously to the new clause. I do not think that they have been entirely frank with the British people about the practical consequences of their proposals. Unless a review body is established to examine the salaries, or rather the compensation, for those of our fellow citizens who are to give up their time to scrutinise legislation in the other place, how on earth are we to persuade people to do the job?
  Mr. James Gray rose—
  Caroline Flint rose—
  Mr. Howarth: If my hon. Friend will forgive me, courtesy and chivalry instruct me to give way to the hon. Lady.
  Caroline Flint: Will the hon. Gentleman comment on the proposition of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) that the second Chamber could exist with only 87 members, given his own suggestion that some 500 people could not cope with the work involved in the transitional period?
  Mr. Howarth: Although I have been here for most the debate, I did not hear my right hon. Friend's suggestion. [Interruption.] I am advised that it was the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) who made that suggestion. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) makes an outstanding
  1262
  contribution to the development of all sorts of fascinating ideas. He is an original thinker. He is not merely a time-server; he makes a valuable and stimulating contribution.
  3.30 pm
  Sir Patrick Cormack: I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend's panegyric, but my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) was talking not about the interim Chamber, but about a pipe-dream that he had of some future Chamber. Frankly, it is an absurd proposition—I have told him that already. He was not talking about the Chamber that we are debating at the moment. That is the point.
  Mr. Howarth: As ever, I am most grateful to my hon. Friend, a former neighbour. Of course, we are debarred from addressing how the next House should be constituted. You would therefore rule me out of order, Mr. Lord, if I were to go further down that line, but the views of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst show that there is no shortage of ideas among Conservative Members. We merely have a temporary shortage of votes.
  Mr.—Sir Alan; I was pausing merely to enable you to take your seat comfortably. I was referring to the work that has been done in the other place and the need, under the new arrangements, for adequate compensation to be awarded to those who will assume the responsibility of scrutiny in the other House. You were not in the Chair when I gave some statistics on the work that is carried out in the other House, but I conclude this section of my remarks—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, no."] I am sorry. I have much more to impart to the Committee. I conclude my remarks on the section by pointing out that hereditary peers do almost half the key work of deputy speakers and form half the membership of Committees in the other place.
  As I have said, some of the Committees of the other House—for example, those that deal with matters such as technology—enjoy a substantial reputation well beyond the walls of the palace of Westminster. Those Committees are made up largely of hereditary peers. If they are stripped, removed and booted out, the burden of responsibility for dealing with those important matters will rest on the remaining hereditaries. Who is to say that they will be able to assume that burden?
  If the remaining hereditaries are not able to do so, and there is no proposal in the Bill to supplement them by any elected means in reinforcing that House, the only other source of expertise will be supplied by the patronage of the most patronage-conscious of Prime Ministers we have had since the second world war—the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair).
  Dr. Starkey: The hon. Gentleman has praised the work of the Select Committees of the House of Lords. He will know that one of the Select Committees with the greatest reputation is the Science and Technology Committee. Although it is true that some hereditary peers are members of that Select Committee, does he agree that its reputation rests largely on the fact that it has life peers who have pursued eminent scientific and engineering careers and bring technical and professional eminence to the Committee? There is no reason to suppose that other life

  1263
  peers with equal scientific and engineering expertise will not easily fill the gaps in that Select Committee and add lustre to it.
  Mr. Howarth: I was not seeking to make the point that life peers do not make a contribution. By definition, they do. Many are appointed to the other place because they are eminent in their field of expertise, but there is perhaps a difference of view between Labour Members and Conservative Members. Although, in our view, the hereditaries are a repository of expertise, that is not given proper acknowledgment by Labour Members.
  I was talking about the burden of responsibility that will rest on the new interim Chamber, whatever we call it, following the changes that are introduced by the Bill, and the effect that that will have on scrutiny of important legislation which will come before Parliament. That legislation will be decided in the House of Commons, which is overwhelmingly dominated by one party and uses every opportunity to maximise its patronage. A neutered Chamber at the other end of the building will simply not have the capacity to examine that complex legislation, which will affect the future of this country and our people.
  That is a grave charge against the Government. The new clause, modest as it is, at least seeks to address, in a way that we have found very difficult in respect of the Bill, the democratic deficit—what I like to call the scrutiny deficit—that will arise as a result of the passing of the Bill.
  My hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire said that we had been extremely fortunate to have the upper House on the cheap. Last night, my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley spelled out graphically the difference in cost between that House and the House of Commons.
  For the sake of those who were not here last night—I think that the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Moms) was not, so he will benefit from it—I remind hon. Members that the total cost of the House of Lords in the previous Session was £39.4 million, whereas the House of Commons cost £241 million and the European Parliament, understandably, an excessive and outrageous £607 million. [Interruption.] I thought that the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) would like that. However, the average cost—it is important and particularly germane to the new clause—of a Member of Parliament is £366,000 and the cost of a peer is a mere £37,000; that is 10 per cent. of the cost of a Member of the House of Commons.
  It comes back to the question: will we be able to run the other Chamber on the cheap without having a new clause that deals with that issue?
  Mr. Linton rose—
  Mr. Rammell rose—
  Mr. Howarth: If the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell) will forgive me, the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) sits on the Select Committee on Home Affairs with me, and I may need his help in future, so I will give way to him.
  Mr. Linton: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there is a price to be paid for that cheap second Chamber, in
  1264
  that the debates in the other place are even more dull to listen to than the debate here in the past two days? I speak as someone who has personal experience of listening to days' worth of House of Lords debates in my former capacity as parliamentary editor of a national newspaper. Although I have sat through many incredibly dull debates, yesterday's was perhaps a connoisseur's choice.
  There are many dull debates in the House of Commons, but nothing would prepare hon. Members for the boredom of the other place. One of the Press Association reporters who used to cover the House of Lords regularly—I am forbidden by the rules of the House from seeing whether she is sitting in her customary place in the Press gallery—claimed for a boredom bonus because of the boredom factor in the House of Lords.
  Mr. Howarth: Was that not spoken like a true journalist and, particularly as the hon. Gentleman came from the Grauniad newspaper, completely understandable? He is absolutely right. The House of Lords is far too boring for our modern times. It deals with matters of substance, not all the trivia with which we have to deal too often in the House of Commons. Those are people who are serious. They have made a serious, eminent and, in many cases, outstanding contribution to our national life, and that lot wish them to be booted out of our Parliament.
  The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The substance of the amendment is not boredom, or otherwise, but remuneration, so I would not want the hon. Gentleman to be headed off by the intervention that he invited. I might add while I am on my feet that he must also presume that every Member in the Committee has digested all that has been said in the earlier part of the debate.
  Mr. Howarth: I am always more than happy to be guided by your excellent wisdom, Sir Alan, and I will not seek to pursue that argument. However, with your permission, I will just say that, when listening to "Yesterday in Parliament", I have often been hugely impressed by the quality of debate in the other place. It may sometimes be rather boring, but, to be perfectly candid, every hon. Member knows that, when we are scrutinising legislation, it is often rather more boring than we would like it to be and it seldom catches the headlines. If, as parliamentarians of either House, we try simply to catch headlines, rather than deal with the substance of the issues, the people will not be served properly.
  The new clause tries to address how we will remunerate those on whose shoulders will rest the burden of scrutiny in the changed—I will not use the word "reformed", because I believe this process to be a profoundly undesirable change—composition of the other place.
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Pretending for a moment that the hon. Gentleman is making a serious case, I shall just point out that there is a difference in the running of the two Houses, because Members of this House have considerable constituency responsibilities, which is not the case for the other place. My mother used to say that the difference in the quality of the post was noticeable because people were polite to Members of the other place. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will remember that that is a radical difference.

  1265
  If we are to pursue the absurdity of this case, I hope that he will accept that there is no logical reason for the House of Lords. It happens to work and, as soon as we start interfering with it, we will get ourselves into the sort of muddle that he outlines.
  Mr. Howarth: That is an extremely valid point, and I am disappointed to say that I do not disagree with the hon. Lady. I am a Conservative and I do not believe in change unless—
  Mrs. Dunwoody: I know that.
  Mr. Howarth: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for saying that she knows that I am a Conservative—just in case anyone was in any doubt.
  I believe that we should make change only where it needs to be made. I believe that the hon. Lady shares with me a concern that our Parliament is losing a great deal of its ability to hold the Executive to account, and I know that we agree that it does net matter which party is in government. There are enough parliamentarians around who believe in this place and will continue to make that point.
  When considering how we will deal with the other place and the 484 life peers on whose shoulders the burden will rest, it is important to consider—this point has been made by a number of hon. Members—that life peers will not all have the same time to devote to proceedings in the other place as some of the hereditaries have had in the past, for one reason or another. The Government have appointed business men, leaders of the arts and so on to the other place. Such people are already leading busy lives and, if we were to rely on them, the place would grind to a halt. It is the hereditaries who are holding the fort and doing so much of the nitty-gritty, day-to-day work.
  I am not against the appointment of such people, just as I was not against the appointment by previous Conservative Prime Ministers of business men with burdensome outside activities. I believe that, on the big occasions when the other place is dealing with important measures, those people should be able to come from their boardrooms and factories to provide up-to-the-minute evidence.
  The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying too far from the substance of the new clause. I heard the same arguments deployed during the first debate on the first day in Committee. That would have been the appropriate time for him to make his remarks. He must confine his comments to the question of remuneration in the terms of the new clause.
  Mr. Heald rose—
  Mr. Howarth: I will give way to my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Heald: Does my hon. Friend agree that, as many of those individuals have a relatively small amount of time available, in order to make full use of their time at the House they will require substantial allowances for research? The increased burdens which will be placed on those busy people are such that, if there is not the proper research to enable them to make good-quality speeches and so on, the quality of our democracy will be damaged.
  3.45 pm
  Mr. Howarth: I agree with my hon. Friend. If those people are to assume additional responsibilities, they will have to have the means to carry them out; unless the Government intend to neuter the other place so that it is powerless to scrutinise legislation. If that is the case, the House could work its wicked way without any interference from the other place. It is right and proper to consider how best to equip those who remain in the other place with the tools necessary to carry out the scrutiny of legislation that the Government say—they pay lip service—they want them to do. If not, the Government should come clean and say, "We do not want anybody to interfere in our work. We are booting out one lot and we do not want to remunerate properly those who remain."
  Caroline Flint: We have discussed the absence of so many hereditary peers and some life peers in the work of the other place. That has not happened overnight, but has been going on over generations. A minority of those who can take part in the proceedings in the other place actually do so. In the 18 years of Tory government, why did the Conservatives not propose a scheme to look at better attendance fees and allowances for those who work in the other place? Why has that matter arisen now? Is it just about trampling on the first stage of the abolition of the House of Lords and the hereditary principle?
  Mr. Howarth: If the hon. Lady does not understand why I am raising this issue now, she does not understand the massive changes that those on her Front Bench propose. When we were in government, there was no reason to do anything other than what we did. Throughout the life of the previous Conservative Government, we reviewed the arrangements for the remuneration of Members of the upper House. Now, the hon. Lady and her party want to remove nearly 760 Members of that place, to leave 484. All those people are to be turfed out. If the Government—and the hon. Lady—believe that the current degree of scrutiny should continue, those who remain will have to shoulder the burden. That is why we think that it is right and proper that the question of remuneration, or at least a mechanism by which it can be properly reviewed, must be written into the Bill.
  It is fair to say that the House has confidence in the pay review bodies which have been established for particular groups of professionals such as the armed forces, the police and nurses. We believe that, because they are professional and have a good track record, they could do a professional job in dealing with the requirements of those who will remain in the other place to scrutinise the legislation that will originate from the Government.
  I should like to single out the case of one Member of the other place. I do not intend to criticise him, so I have not warned him that I intend to mention his name. Lord Simpson, a Labour peer whom I know only vaguely, is the chairman of GEC and has made a great contribution to our industrial life. In his case, a salary review body may not be required, because he is paid even more than the Lord Chancellor. I doubt that he was paid as much as the Lord Chancellor earned in private practice, but not many people in this country are. He was, of course, the ultimate fat cat.
  Lord Simpson—who makes a very big contribution to our national life—may indeed not require so much secretarial support in, or compensation for, contributing

  1267
  to the other place. Nevertheless, I tell the Minister that it is on the likes of Lord Simpson and other captains of industry that he and other hon. Members will have to rely to scrutinise legislation proposed by the Government. If we are to ask people like that to play a bigger part in scrutinising, we shall have to deal with how they are remunerated.
  Some companies may say, "We cannot afford to lose our chairman for the required hours. Therefore, we shall cut his pay." That chairman may say, "Thank you very much, but I shall not attend. I cannot give up the time." The review body would be properly charged to consider such issues.
  In the Committee's proceedings yesterday, the right hon. Member for Berwick—upon—Tweed (Mr. Beith) made an interesting, but disappointingly short, speech. He made the point that some of those in the other place were already sufficiently wealthy and would not need even £37,000 in support. As I was not able to tell him last night, I shall tell him now that those people could follow the example of Cabinet Ministers—with the exclusion, of course, of the Lord Chancellor, who does not apply; he takes his full salary—by forgoing some of their salary.
  Simply because we are proposing that there should be a review body to deal with and to make recommendations on remuneration, no remaining life peer should feel required to accept all the money proposed as salary or compensation. Such people could forgo some of it, as Cabinet Ministers do.
  Mr. Gray: Throughout my hon. Friend's speech, I have been reflecting on the irony of the situation. In town councils, county councils and district councils across the land, the Labour party—ably assisted by their friends, the Liberal Democrats—spends its entire time arguing that councillors are so badly remunerated that they must increase their allowances by attending as many committees as possible. Now, the Government are proposing reforming local government so that many councillors are wholly salaried. Although they propose making those changes across the country, they propose that people in the other place should not be remunerated properly. Is that not ironic?
  Mr. Howarth: There is some irony in it.
  Mr. A. J. Beith: It cuts both ways.
  Mr. Howarth: I cannot deny that; one has to be straightforward about the situation. However, I know that you would not wish me to go down the route of examining the issue of local government remuneration, Sir Alan, as I would be straying from the subject of the new clause and the amendment.
  I have attempted to make a relatively short contribution to our proceedings—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson) should not shake his head. We are debating very serious matters. He sat there and said absolutely nothing. Some of us believe that the legislation is profoundly unacceptable, profoundly wrong and profoundly damaging to our country. The Bill would put nothing in the place of the current upper House.
  1268
  If the hon. Gentleman does not like my speech, let him stand up and say so, rather than sitting there like a silent so-and-so. Does he have something to say? Would he like to intervene? No. Is that not significant? We are debating an issue on which the future government of our country depends, but the hon. Gentleman can only sit there, shake his head and say absolutely nothing.
  Mr. Rammell: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that Conservative Members' tactics and lengthy speeches are an attempt to filibuster, so that, ultimately, the Government will be forced to impose a guillotine—so that he can cry shame and say that the Government have done something that they should not have done? Is it not simply a naked tactic and an abuse of parliamentary procedure?
  The Chairman: Order. I have heard enough of that exchange. Let us get back to the substance.
  Mr. Howarth: Thank you very much, Sir Alan. All I should say is that, were I filibustering, I would be ruled out of order. I am not seeking to filibuster. Labour Members who know me will know that I feel passionately about the issue. If I have spent some time on it, it was merely to try to explain to hon. Members the consequences that would flow from the legislation.
  The Committee is considering a new clause and an amendment. I feel passionately about this matter, and have sought to argue, with as much humour as I can command, that the measures would add to the Bill. I therefore hope that the Government will consider very carefully the arguments made in the debate by my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire, by other Conservative Members and, perhaps, even by me. I hope that the Committee will take those arguments into account, and perhaps even respond sympathetically to them.
  Mr. Heald: One of the arguments that the Government seem to be making is that it is premature for us to discuss salary arrangements for the House of Lords. They seem to be saying, "In the interim House, the Lords will be doing the same job that they are doing now. It is too early to say what the future arrangements should be, because the royal commission hasn't yet reported." It has occurred to me during the debate that that is a typically jobsworth approach.
  Earlier in the debate, hon. Members mentioned an American President who was unable to walk down the sidewalk and chew gum at the same time. All too often in the United Kingdom, we take a similar approach—in not doing two things at once. Why cannot the royal commission and the Senior Salaries Review Body work simultaneously, each examining one of the two issues that will have to be decided for the future? One of them—the commission—could consider composition of the House of Lords, and the other could consider what pay and allowances Members of the other place should receive if any of the running options for the other place were to be taken.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) suggested the option of creating a senate comprised of about 87 members. If we opted for such a scheme, the senators would require very substantial allowances if they were to do their job properly. Anyone

  1269
  who has been to the American Senate will know that Senators work across such large geographical and policy areas that they require very large staff. When one goes to a meeting with an American Senator, one spends half an hour with a chief staff officer who is in charge of a specific policy issue before spending only 10 minutes with the Senator to discuss broad policy issues. The detail is dealt with by a Senator's staff.
  Mr. Forth: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Heald: Yes, of course I shall.
  Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who can have 10 minutes with me any time he likes. Does he agree that the issue we are debating cannot be examined in a static environment? Does he agree that both the commission and the review body will have to examine the issue in the context of a Scottish Parliament and possibly—as I should prefer—an English Parliament? Would not an examination within that context put a different complexion not only on a new upper Chamber, but on the role of this place? All those matters would have to be taken into account as the situation developed.
  Mr. Heald: My right hon. Friend makes a very important point. Many of the duties currently undertaken by Scottish Members will be dealt with by Members of the Scottish Parliament. Therefore, we should examine whether, in future, English Members—who will be performing both sets of duties in this place—and Scottish Members require the same staff and other back-up. The matter will have to be examined. I am not saying that we will necessarily conclude that Members of the Scottish Parliament should not have a very substantial allowance. I am saying that there would be no harm in asking the Senior Salaries Review Body to conduct a very wide-ranging inquiry not only into the situation in Scotland and Wales but, more importantly, in the House of Lords. In parallel with the deliberations of the royal commission, the SSRB should consider the options, including a senate and the proposed interim Chamber, and produce a range of recommendations for the salary and allowance packages in each case.
  4 pm
  It is wrong for the Government to dismiss the issue. Hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber—particularly Labour Members—voted enthusiastically to increase our office costs allowance to ensure that we had proper research back-up. Is it right to expect the other place to go on as now? The Government cannot have it both ways. If they want a serious House of Lords that has been reformed or changed for the better, they must accept that reducing the number of people engaged in the other place will result in an increasing work load for those who are left. That may mean that more research back-up is needed.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) talked about busy men who make a living outside the other place and go there to make contributions to debates in the evenings. They will need much more research back-up to be able to continue doing the job properly with an increased work load.
  The Government pretend to be keen on Parliament and to want a decent Parliament doing a decent job, although their actions do not necessarily correspond with that. Is it
  1270
  not sinister for them to reduce the numbers in the other place, increase their work load and refuse to give them proper research facilities? Do they want a hobbled House of Lords? There is a strong suspicion that we shall never get to the second stage. We have been pressing hard for it to avoid ending up with a hobbled House of Lords.
  Mr. Miller: I should like to be clear about which part of the Conservative argument the hon. Gentleman is following. His analogy with the American Senate, made up of 100 people, loosely follows the argument of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), which was described by the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) as absurd. Dividing £39 million among the 87 Senators proposed by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst would leave a budget per head of about £450,000. Would that not be enough? Which argument is the hon. Gentleman following?
  Mr. Heald: The real problem is that, although the Prime Minister said that the duty-free regime should not be replaced until a permanent successor regime had been established, he is prepared to abolish the hereditary peers in the House of Lords with no clear idea of where he is going.
  The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): I am unwillingly drawn to intervene on the hon. Gentleman. This is the umpteenth time that I have heard that argument, among the many other ludicrous arguments from the Conservatives. Of all the ludicrous points that I have heard, comparing the replacement of the duty-free regime, which has been under discussion for four or five years, with a debate that has been taking place for most of the century is the worst.
  Mr. Heald: The right hon. Lady makes my point. How ludicrous that on duty free—an issue of much less importance—the Government say that there has to be a permanent successor regime before the existing one is replaced, but, on the future of Parliament, which is critical to parliamentary democracy and the life of this country, they do not. They just take a pig in a poke and kick the issue into the long grass, waiting to see what the royal commission says. That laughable proposition has put us in this difficulty. I do not know what the royal commission is going to come up with, because I am not on it and it has not yet started its deliberations.
  The Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): Yes, it has; it has had one meeting.
  Mr. Heald: I am glad that progress is being made. The only way to speed matters up—which is important—is for the Senior Salaries Review Body, which will have to consider the issue at some stage, to start now rather than waiting for four years, or however long it takes to get the royal commission report. Let us start the work now so that we can make some progress. People in this place should not have to work on the basis that it is a privilege to be here; neither should those at the other end of the Corridor. That is the effect of not giving a proper allowance for decent research facilities in the other place.

  1271
  The new clause is well conceived. After a good debate in which many important points have been made, I hope that the Government will not come back with the contentious attitude that we have just heard from the Leader of the House.
  Mr. Tipping: Some serious points have been made during the debate, particularly by the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), who introduced it last night. I understand why he is not here this afternoon. He returned to an issue that was discussed on Second Reading—the value of the hereditary and life peers in the other place. Several hon. Members have challenged me and my hon. Friends to support that argument. I have no hesitation in doing so. My colleagues at the other end of the building do a good job. They work hard and we should respect and value what they have achieved over many centuries. However, that does not justify the existing system. There is an acceptance across the House that the system has to change.
  We get good value from the Lords. It is important to set the record straight. Life peers and hereditary peers work hard. I should like to give some figures. Some 40 per cent. of life peers attend two thirds of the sessions and 34 per cent. of them attend less than one third. Of the hereditary peers, only 20 per cent. attend two thirds of the sessions and 67 per cent. attend less than one third of the time. I am not criticising anybody. Those are the facts. There are 200 hereditary peers who have never attended.
  Mr. Grieve: I find it difficult to do the calculations immediately, but I am sure that the Minister can clarify whether those statistics show that the preponderance of day-to-day participation in numerical terms is by hereditary peers. We have tried to address the serious point that a substantial voluntary contribution from hereditary peers has provided the dominating ethos of attendance in the other place.
  Mr. Tipping: That may be the case. I shall do the sums. However, if the House and the other place pass the Bill, we shall still have a second Chamber with more than 500 Members. That is large in international terms. Those who have spoken in the debate have argued that 500 is not enough to do the important business at the other end of the building. I do not agree. The average daily attendance in the other place is around 400. I have tried to find Divisions involving more than 300 Members in the other place, and that happens most infrequently. The real work load and delivery of the vote are carried by fewer than 300 people.
  A number of right hon. and hon. Members have said that all the peers have a bad time and are not well regarded or well treated. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) referred last night to peers' poor accommodation. I have some sympathy with that view, and I believe that accommodation in this House could also be better. We need to work on that, but these are matters for the relevant House authorities—they are not within my gift, or that of the Government.
  The hon. Member for Ribble Valley talked last night about the rates of pay—in real terms, the expenses that peers receive. He quoted the figures. I will not argue with
  1272
  the thrust of what he said, but he quoted the last set of figures, rather than the current set. However, it makes no real difference. The attendance allowance and expenses are meagre, and I suspect that they will need to be looked at.
  Despite the shortage of good accommodation, and despite the rates of pay, there appears to be no problem in attracting candidates. I will remind the Committee of the words of the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), on Second Reading. The right hon. Gentleman indulged in patronage and appointed life peers. He made it clear that his acceleration rate was not as high as that of some others.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: It was a deceleration rate.
  Mr. Tipping: I am sure that that was the point, and that the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup was proud of his achievements. On Second Reading, he said:
  "Every time I created one, nine people turned up saying that it should have been them."—[Official Report, 2 February 1999; Vol. 324, c. 759.]
  There speaks a man who has done the job. I have listened carefully to the debate, and I have not heard it advanced that we cannot find high-quality peers to do the job that we require.
  Lying behind the new clause is an assumption that has been made throughout our consideration of the Bill—that the transitional House will be our end goal, and that there will not be a second or final phase. I wish to reinforce a point that has been made perfectly clear—that that is not our intention. We need to deliver and finish the job, and the White Paper indicates the timetable. Some argue that the timetable is too short, while others argue that it is too long. I am not sure of the view of the Opposition, which seems to vary.
  Mr. Winnick: If the Conservatives believe their own propaganda—and I have some doubts—why should they believe that, if we are willing, as I am, to accept an interim arrangement in which 93 hereditaries remain, that should be permanent? We want all hereditary peers to be removed. Stage 2 is as important to us as it is—so they say—to them.
  Mr. Tipping: Our manifesto made it clear—as my hon. Friend has reinforced—that we want to see the end of hereditary peers. If an amendment to that effect were tabled in another place, we would oppose it at the moment. However, if that eventually came to pass, it would be a trigger for us to make haste more quickly. The Committee must be clear that we will complete the process.
  It has been suggested that a reformed House of Lords will cost more than the present House. I do not deny that costs are important, but the issue was highlighted in the White Paper. We have specifically drawn the attention of the royal commission to costs. In considering the various possible options for the long-term composition of the fully reformed House, it is important to take into account the public expenditure implications. Some will cost more than others—that is a fact. At this stage, we have made no assessment of the additional costs and of whether the House will provide good value for money.

  1273
  4.15 pm
  As the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) pointed out last night, the time will come to review costs. That time should be at the end of the long-term review, after the royal commission, when we are clear on the functions and composition of the newly reformed second Chamber. At that stage, it might be appropriate to invite the Prime Minister to invite the SSRB to look at the salaries and expenses of Members of the fully reformed House. That issue would fall properly within the body's remit, and I hope that, at that point, there will be such an examination.
  This is not the time to adopt the approach advocated in the new clause. We must be clear where we are going in the long term. We need to ensure that the second Chamber plays a valuable role and that its functions and composition are resolved via the royal commission and the Joint Committee, and via a consensus that we hope we can build up. That would be the point at which to look at salaries. Given that, I hope that the Committee will reject the new clause.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: The Minister is a reasonable man who tries to show that he has listened to the argument, and tries to respond constructively when points are put to him. For that, we all honour him. Quite honestly, however, he has not responded to the debate at all. Let me put it simply and in words as clear I can muster—if the Bill is enacted, we will have a House of Lords, as from the end of this Session, which will consist of the present life peers.
  Incidentally, I must correct the Minister. The Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), never created or recommended a single hereditary peer.
  Mr. Tipping: I did not say that.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: If the Minister consults Hansard tomorrow, he will see that, inadvertently, he did.
  Mr. Tipping: If that is the case, let me correct the record now. That was certainly not my intention.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: I fully accept that.
  We shall have life peers, perhaps augmented as a result of the Weatherill amendment. On the Minister's own admission, they have a heavy work load. I am glad that he paid tribute to the work done in the other place by hereditary and life peers. He said that before—it was gracious of him—and he said it again today.
  On the Minister's own admission, there are rarely more than 300 peers in Divisions; upon that 300, the burden descends. He has admitted that roughly half that 300 are hereditary peers—so upon 150 life peers, the burden of scrutiny and manning Committees will descend. We believe that it is wrong to place that large burden on that small number of people without asking the Senior Salaries Review Body to consider their remuneration.
  The Minister made half a concession when he readily admitted that there would be a time when it would be appropriate to refer the matter, but he must acknowledge that we have ahead of us at least four years with the so-called interim House, and he has himself said that the
  1274
  creation of a new House will depend to a large extent on consensus—he certainly conceded that the speed at which it is created will depend on consensus—so that burden will be placed on those 150 people for an indeterminate and possibly considerable time.
  I hope that the Government will reflect on what has been said. Serious and sensible points have been made about the burden and the remuneration for it. I hope that, building on the Minister's half-concession, the Government will consider adding a provision, before the Bill goes to the other place, to enable the review body to be involved.
  Mrs. Beckett: No chance.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: The right hon. Lady's interjection is in churlish contrast to the Minister's emollient words. I would prefer to accept the sweet reasonableness of Nottingham rather than the intransigence of Derby. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
  The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman cannot do that, because he did not move it.
  Question put and negatived.

New Clause 14

  WRIT OF ACCELERATION
  '( ) Nothing in this Act shall prevent the operation of a writ of acceleration other than preventing the recipient from becoming a member of the House of Lords.'.—[Sir Patrick Cormack.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  The Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss new clause 51—Claims of peerage and precedence—
  '— Nothing in this Act shall question the right of the Committee for Privileges of the House of Lords to consider claims of peerage and of precedence.'.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: I do not want to detain the Committee long on these new clauses, because those that follow are of even greater importance. The new clauses concern the hereditary peerage, but we do not seek through them in any way to revisit—to use the awful American jargon—the argument whether hereditary peers should sit in the other place.
  When the Bill becomes law—because of the Government's majority, it will inevitably do so—we shall still have an hereditary monarchy, which the Government defend and accept, and an hereditary peerage. Nothing in the Bill does anything about the hereditary peerage as such and the Bill contains nothing antagonistic to the hereditary principle in itself. Not many hon. Members seriously disagree with the hereditary principle. You, Sir Alan, are an hereditary Haselhurst, and you have taken over from an hereditary Lord. We are all, in our individual capacities, part of that great pageant.
  Many people take great delight in the hereditary principle as exemplified in the hereditary peerage, and many life peers take delight in the one hereditary element

  1275
  that they have: the choice of a coat of arms. I have had many interesting conversations with Labour life peers about their armorial achievements and how glad they are to have them and to be able to pass them on to their descendants. That is an entirely reasonable sentiment.
  I need make no apology for saying that many people in this country take delight in a bit of pomp and pageantry, regarding colour as one of the better attributes of public life. Colour is best exemplified in some of our state pageantry: the state opening of Parliament, trooping the colour and all the rest of it.
  New clause 14 deals with the rather arcane procedure of the writ of acceleration. Through it, we seek an assurance from the Government that the procedure will continue. We are not talking about the person who is accelerated to the title sitting in the House of Lords. That is not the issue.
  New clause 51 is concerned with disputes over peerages. As we know, there are occasionally disputed peerages, just as there are disputed wills. There was a colourful example only a few months ago when a former Member of Parliament, Colin Moynihan, became Lord Moynihan as the result of an exceptionally colourful legal case. We expect the procedure to continue and the responsibility to remain with the House of Lords.
  The new clauses are essentially of a probing nature. I do not believe that the Government intend to change the law in this respect, but we seek an assurance from the Minister.
  Mr. Peter Temple-Morris: After many years of knowing you, Sir Alan, I suddenly realise that I am addressing the hereditary Haselhurst. I never knew that a name amounted to a title, but I am charmed by the colourful description given by the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack), who is no doubt overcome by the romance of the upper House. I am most grateful to him, and to the Opposition generally, because today, amid all the awful lot of talking that we have been engaged in, wonderful creatures about which one had long forgotten have galloped back on to the contemporary horizon.
  Even the Scottish peerage looms in amendments that we have not discussed. That is very nice, and I am sure that many people in Ireland are getting terribly excited at the prospect of the Opposition finding a way in an amendment—albeit one that is unlikely to be successful—of reviving their hopes of a title after all these years.
  Suddenly, this writ of acceleration has appeared. It just so happened that, through accident rather than erudition, I was one of the few hon. Members who had some vague idea before we started these discussions of what a writ of acceleration was. When, last night, I intimated to my Front-Bench team that I had such a vague idea, I became an instant expert in the eyes of others who were, perhaps, as ignorant as I was before I found out a little about the matter.
  I went to the Library to have a word with those who advise and carry out research for us. One approaches such people with some humility. I said to the gentleman concerned, "I want to ask you about a writ of acceleration. I know what it is, but I want to find out more." I expected him then to inform me in great detail about that historical operation, but his face fell and he seemed overcome with
  1276
  the fact that he had no idea what I was talking about. He said, "I'm glad you know what it is, Mr. Temple-Morris, because I haven't the first idea. Please tell me."
  The new clause should not be taking up our time, but it provides for some interesting historical discussion. I am sure that the Opposition are itching to get on to the next group of new clauses. Having sat and listened to them for so long on the previous group, I feel that, had they reined in their remarks a little on that group, they might have deserved to get on to the next. As they do not quite deserve that, I shall continue to explore the writ of acceleration, and I hope that many other hon. Members will find the subject most interesting.
  The new clause is bogus.
  Mr. Tipping: I wonder whether the time has now come for my hon. Friend to give other people a tutorial.
  4.30 pm
  Mr. Temple-Morris: I shall do my best, but I do not wish to speak for longer than the occasion demands. The new clause would provide that the writ of acceleration should continue, but the reason for it will not continue. It therefore becomes contemporary nonsense and an historical perversion of the concept.
  A writ of acceleration is the use of a junior family title to bring the son, or occasionally grandson, into the Lords, when the father who is the holder of the senior title is already sitting there. That was usually done because the king thought that the son would be handy to have in the Lords, and that could be for reasons of state or reasons of court. Such sons were brought into the House of Lords while their fathers were sitting there. Because such families tended to bristle with various titles as they ascended through the peerage—they also assimilated titles through marriage—the king often deemed it a waste of time to create a new peerage for the son, and he therefore took one of the courtesy titles belonging to the family. He was then accelerated into the service of the state.
  The device has been seldom used over the years. Before the time of Henry VIII, it was quite popular, but, as mediaeval times passed, it was used less. Lord Cranborne—who is in a position to do some contemporary good, although his previous track record on Lords reform is not all that it might be—decided, for his own reasons, that he could do without a life peerage. I had no clue what a writ of acceleration was until Lord Cranborne decided to enter the House of Lords, having left this place after two Parliaments, and to take one of the Cecil family's old hereditary titles—Baron Cecil of Essendon, which was created in about 1601. He sits in the House of Lords in splendid anonymity as Lord Cranborne, which is a courtesy title in its own right.
  I do not know which of my former hon. Friends has trawled round to dig this concept up, but the new clause is utterly pointless. No one can be accelerated anywhere if there is nowhere to accelerate them to. The new clause would merely create, for no reason, more than one active peerage in a family when there would be nothing to be active about. The families to which the new clause would

  1277
  apply are in the upper echelons of the peerage, as the hon. Member for South Staffordshire knows perfectly well, and they are all bristling with courtesy titles anyway.
  Mr. Grieve rose—
  Mr. Temple-Morris: I cannot resist giving way.
  Mr. Grieve: The hon. Gentleman is the very embodiment of the hereditary principle, because he has a double-barrelled surname, which suggests that somebody had a hereditary interest at some point in his forebears' past. There is one possible application of the writ of acceleration in future—if the eldest son of an existing hereditary peer were to be made a life peer. He would not be able to use one of the courtesy titles of his family when sitting in the House of Lords. The retention of the writ of acceleration would allow him to use a family title even though the hereditary peerage no longer existed.
  Mr. Temple-Morris: The hon. Gentleman is a friend, if no longer an hon. Friend and, with all respect, he must realise that this is 1999 and we are working on the abolition of the House of Lords as it stands at present, which many of us have advocated for a long time. We do not know what we will end up with, but the membership of the House of Lords, and the whole concept of the peerage, will be dramatically changed. The last thing we want, with all respect to Lord Cranborne, is to have a lot of accelerated people wandering around among those who may be in part appointed and in the main elected. We are dealing with two different worlds, but so much of the comment from the Opposition belongs firmly to the world that is past. Having said that, it is enjoyable to talk about it.
  The loss of the concept of writs of acceleration is nothing to be upset about. The families involved do not need to be accelerated anywhere, and the senior ranks of the peerage already have below them two ranks of courtesy titles for their sons and grandsons. That will go on, because nobody will disturb it, but it will no longer be related by automatic right to the legislature and these Houses of Parliament. That reform is long overdue.
  New clause 51 deals with the right of the Committee for Privileges of the House of Lords to consider claims of peerage and precedence. It is totally unnecessary, because the Bill—which is an interim Bill, anyway—will have no effect in that area. The new clause is pointless in relation to the Bill, but it will be relevant to phase 2. I am grateful to the Opposition because so much of what they have said will be relevant to phase 2, although they have raised it during phase 1. The structure of the Committee for Privileges is a good example of what will have to be dealt with in phase 2 of the reform of the House of Lords. Obviously, the new upper House will have a Privileges Committee, but it will no longer consider issues to do with the hereditary peerage and matters of precedence. Those issues will have to be considered elsewhere, along with many other appendages of the House of Lords that will no longer be relevant.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: That is true, but the hon. Gentleman must remember that we are dealing with an interim stage of indeterminate length. The hon. Gentleman has had a good run and said some interesting and amusing
  1278
  things, but we have tabled the new clauses to try to obtain some assurances from the Government about the interim period.
  Mr. Temple-Morris: The hon. Gentleman is asking for something that depends on something that is not in the Bill. The Government have included nothing in the interim Bill that means that the hon. Gentleman's question needs to be asked. The new clauses are, therefore, completely unnecessary. In the House of Lords of the future, the issues of privilege and peerage will be separated. The Committee for Privileges will have to be reconstituted, because at present, it is a mixture of life and hereditary peers, including any four of the Law Lords. That will need to be addressed when the upper House becomes a more political, reformed and, in no small part, elected House. It has still to be decided whether the Law Lords will remain.
  I have enjoyed this little contribution, Sir Alan. I gather that not only are you now hereditary, but I am also, and that has provided a bond between us that we have never quite had before. I did not realise that having a double-barrelled name raised me to that status. I am flattered, but now that the House of Lords is to be abolished, I am too late informed that I might have some hope of inheriting a role in it. It is very sad that the word has come too late.
  Mr. Forth: The unease I expressed earlier has now increased. The hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris), who is obviously a close confidant of the Government, appears to know a lot more about stage 2 than any member of the Opposition, and possibly more than any member of the Government. Having said that, I have some sympathy for his remarks.
  I want to raise the question of what lies behind new clause 51. It is the new clause that attracted my attention more than any of the others, because it appears to highlight some of the confusion that will undoubtedly face us during stage 1, let alone beyond stage 1. New clause 51 refers to:
  "the Committee for Privileges of the House of Lords"
  in the context of
  "claims of peerage and of precedence."
  I accept the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the role of the Committee for Privileges in another place, which is analogous to the role of the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges in this place. One may assume that such a Committee would have to continue in another place, regardless of its structure and even of its function or its composition. In the same way that this place needs a Privileges and Standards Committee because of its unique role, so would any other legislative Chamber. That much is fairly safe common ground.
  However, when one comes to matters of peerage and precedence, the picture becomes more complicated, because we are contemplating the role of a Committee involved in matters of peerage and precedence at a time when the structure and nature of peerages are being changed. We are to have different sorts of peerage; some peers—we believe, we are led to believe, we think, we imagine—will remain in the interim House, while others will be outside; therefore, some will be legislative peers, while others will be non-legislative, in rather the same way as baronets have titles, but no legislative role. I think

  1279
  that I am right in saying, although I stand to be corrected, that, at some time in the dim and very distant past, baronets had a legislative role—but no matter, they have no such role now and we do not contemplate giving them one, unless the Minister is about to inform us that that is to be part of stage 2.
  In the context of new clause 51, it might be helpful if the Minister told us more about how he envisages the relationship between the different sorts of peerage that are going to result from the Government's reforms; and about the role that the Committee for Privileges in the upper House will have in that environment of change. Does he believe that that Committee will be secure in its continuing role, or that it might need to change to take account of the different sorts of peerages that will arise? That point is detailed and rather technical, but such are the issues that the Government have to consider seriously. The value of the amendments and new clauses tabled by my hon. Friends is to enable us to look as far ahead as possible.
  I shall give a different example, if the Committee will bear with me. I have been allowed to mention in passing, Sir Alan, my preference for a wholly elected upper House. In that context, I accept that we would need a body analogous to the Supreme Court of the United States, because the judicial function of the upper House, as we have always understood it, would have to disappear. That is an example of an extremely important institutional change that would have to take place consequent to changes in the upper House as a legislature. The new clause gives a different, more specific, but nevertheless important example of the sort of thinking that will be needed as we go through the process of change. The issue is important and deserves careful consideration, so I am grateful to my hon. Friends for having raised it in the form of new clause 51.
  4.45 pm
  Mr. James Clappison: I found the contribution of the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple—Morris) interesting and enjoyable. I hope that I do not speak as a half-forgotten creature galloping over the landscape, as he put it. Even though a Minister not currently sitting on the Treasury Bench described me the other day as a "young fogey", I do not feel like a young fogey, and I assure the Committee that I have no expectation of inheriting a title or anything like one.
  I accept the hon. Gentleman's analysis of the position of writs of acceleration, but I am somewhat perplexed by the conclusion at which he arrives after that analysis. His analysis was that our proposals were pointless, because, after the reforms, there would be nowhere to which anyone would be accelerated; therefore, reform was long overdue and it should all be done away with. That causes me some concern because, although I do not want to present myself as a defender of ancient rights and privileges of the aristocracy and their different titles, I am somewhat suspicious of those who want to modernise such matters. I have no strong feelings either way, but I know that many people derive great pleasure from the contemplation of our country's history, as represented by the hereditary principle and the panoply of titles that goes with it.
  1280
  The creation of many of the titles may well have been somewhat arbitrary: perhaps Edward III created the rank of duke only because it was convenient for creating the first Duke of Lancaster; and other monarchs created other titles for reasons of convenience and pragmatism. None the less, hereditary titles are part of our history, and I cannot see the point of getting excited about them and trying to root out the phenomenon wherever it occurs. If there is to be any change, I look to the Minister for a careful explanation of whether the Government's reforms will bring any other changes to the way in which the system of hereditary titles operates. If the Government are proposing any such changes, I want to know the reasons why.
  Angela Smith: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, for I have become confused by his argument. I think that he completely misunderstands the position of the Government and of Labour Members. No one has any particular objection to someone holding one, 20 or even 30 titles, if that is what that person wants; our objection is to the fact that a title can entitle a person to take part in the legislative process in the upper Chamber.
  Mr. Clappison: It is reasonable for the hon. Lady to make that point, but it is not the point that we are currently debating. The hon. Member for Leominster argued that the new clauses were meaningless in view of the changes that the hon. Lady wants; therefore, reform was long overdue and there was no reason not to do away with the whole system. If that is the Government's position, I want to know why they would want to do away with it, because there are many other features of our constitution and the fabric of our national life that might appear pointless and difficult to justify, but give some people a lot of pleasure and are regarded as part of our history.
  I do not sit up at night tearing through the pages of "Burkes Peerage" to read about the hereditary peers. If someone derives pleasure from being an hereditary peer, that is a matter for that person; I have no strong feelings either way. However, I know that many people enjoy the contemplation of this country's history, so if there are to be any changes other than those that are necessary to bring about reform of the legislature, I want to hear the Minister explain them.
  Mr. Grieve: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, as it will avoid my trying to catch your eye, Sir Alan. The key issue is whether the writ of acceleration allows somebody who would be entitled to an hereditary peerage to take one of his father's courtesy titles if he is appointed as a life peer to the House of Lords. As that has nothing whatever to do with getting rid of hereditary peers, my hon. Friend may agree that it would be wise for the Government to respond to that point at the close of the debate.
  Mr. Clappison: My hon. Friend makes an important point. I must admit that securing a courtesy title in that way is not something that I have contemplated personally, but it is an important issue for others. Therefore, I am sure that the Minister will want to address it.
  I want to move on to the important issues which we will discuss later of who will constitute the new legislature and how we will ensure that the second Chamber is robust and

  1281
  strong and does its job. However, I am not prepared to let hon. Members—I address my remarks slightly tongue in cheek to the hon. Member for Leominster—who wish to present themselves as being at the cutting edge of new Labour's modernisation to get away with claiming that they are achieving long-overdue reform by doing away with something that is pointless to them, but gives pleasure to others.
  Mr. Fallon: On new clause 14, the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) did the Committee a service by giving us a brief tutorial about the origins of the writ of acceleration. He certainly educated me: I always thought that a writ of acceleration was used when an elder son wished to serve in the House of Lords—because it was thought that he would serve some purpose by so doing—when his father was too old to serve or did not wish to do so. I did not know that writs were used to allow an elder son to serve alongside his father. I assumed that the writs were designed to enable an elder son who was due to assume his place in the House of Lords to do so slightly sooner because of particular family circumstances, and so on.
  Mr. Temple-Morris: I thought that I should respond as I have been referred to so many times—I just missed intervening on the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison). I hope that the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) was listening to my tutorial. My point was that, like the monarchy, peers take their places in the House of Lords for life. That situation will be reformed and changed for the upper House. The question is whether it is relevant for a subsidiary title within a family to be used to accelerate the accession of a son chosen by the king or the Government to the House of Lords. The new clause is totally unnecessary because, when the House of Lords is reformed, the writ of acceleration procedure will fall with it; it is completely irrelevant. I would have thought that any other issues are a matter for the College of Heralds.
  Mr. Fallon: As the writ of acceleration will fall in the new reformed Chamber, it is important that we understand what is being dispensed with. That is why this little debate on new clause 14 has done the Committee a service.
  Turning to new clause 51, the Minister will have to clarify exactly what will happen to the Committee for Privileges in terms of the handling of titles. The legislation abolishes not the hereditary peerage—as the hon. Member for Basildon (Angela Smith) pointed out—but the right of hereditary peers to sit in the House of Lords. Hereditary titles will continue, so claims to them will recur. There are constant squabbles and competing claims for titles within families. Such instances are not as unique as my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) might think—I cite the case of Lord Ampthill a few years ago. So long as titles exist, there will occasionally be disputes about who has the proper claim to them.
  The Government must explain exactly how those claims will be handled in future. Do the Government intend to allow that role to be performed outside Parliament? Is the Minister suggesting that it might be transferred to some other body, such as the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council or the Garter King of Arms and his team—who knows? At the very least,
  1282
  the tabling of this new clause has enabled the Committee to explore the issue and has reminded us all that, when we start tinkering with the upper House, a range of subsidiary questions emerge that prove that the Government have not thought the measure through.
  Mr. Tipping: This has been a short but interesting debate on the Bill's effect on the institution of the hereditary peerage. The new clauses in question deal with the specific issues of, first, writs of acceleration; and, secondly, claims to peerage. I take it from the way in which the clauses were introduced that they are of an inquiring and probing nature, and I hope to reassure the Committee in that regard.
  Before discussing the new clauses, I shall comment on the effect of the Bill on the institution of the peerage generally—an issue that concerned the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) and others.
  I should make it absolutely clear that the Bill will not affect the peerages in question. There will be no effects save concerning the House of Lords. The peers will continue to exist. The heraldry, the pomp, the circumstance will still exist. The tourist attraction will still exist. It will remain open to Her Majesty to create hereditary peers, but they will not carry the right to attend and vote in the House of Lords.
  The privileges of peerage that do not relate to membership of Parliament will remain. The precedence, ranks, titles, rights to armorial bearings and rules of succession will all remain. That may disappoint some of my hon. Friends, but others, certainly on the Opposition Benches, as well as many on the Government Benches, will celebrate the fact that the rich tapestry will remain.
  Mr. Edward Garnier: Will the Minister advise me on how the new clause would affect the preamble to future Bills? He will notice that they always begin:
  "Be it enacted by the Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal".
  Will that need to be changed? At the moment, Lords Temporal include hereditaries and life peers. Must new Acts of Parliament make it clear that the Queen has been advised only by some peers and not all Lords Temporal?
  Mr. Tipping: I do not envisage change, but I shall check the matter and write to the hon. and learned Gentleman.
  Mr. Grieve: As the preamble goes on to state that those temporal peers are those
  "in this present Parliament assembled",
  that is, presumably, already the defining category.
  Mr. Tipping: We will have to see. These are precise points, which link to the point about the need to consider the effect of the Bill on wider peerage issues. I am fairly confident that there will be no change in the preamble to Bills.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) answered on the issue of writs of acceleration, but I shall reinforce the message. New clause 14 misunderstands what "acceleration" means. It means the issue of a writ of summons to Parliament to the heir

  1283
  of a peer who has more than one peerage, to allow him to sit in the Lords. As my hon. Friend said, as there will no longer be an hereditary element, there is no need to accelerate to a destination that no longer exists.
  The only purpose of the writ is to confer membership of the House of Lords. It does not create a new title; it gives ownership of the title to the new recipient. Therefore, once hereditary peers are no longer eligible to receive writs of summons in the name of their hereditary peerage, there is no mechanism for issuing the writ. The issue of a writ of acceleration would be the issue of a writ by virtue of an hereditary peerage and, as such, is covered by the Bill.
  The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) asked whether a writ of acceleration could be used for a son if his father took a life peerage. Clearly, as the son is not receiving the writ of summons to go to the other place, the matter does not arise.
  Mr. Grieve: I am sorry to labour the point, but let us take the example of Lord Cranborne. If his right to sit as an hereditary peer were to go and, subsequently, he were made a life peer, he would presumably not be able to take, if he wished to do so, the title of the barony of Essendon. That could be granted only by acceleration—the very thing that will no longer be possible. Will the Minister confirm that that decorative little bit of our past will disappear?
  5 pm
  Mr. Tipping: I will have to take advice on the matter, although my view is different from the hon. Gentleman's. To put it commonly, as they might in Nottingham, Lord Cranborne's title is another gong that he wears, and he is entitled to retain that gong. The key point is that the writ of acceleration is the writ of summons, and if there is nowhere to be summoned to, there is no question of a writ of acceleration. I had hoped to avoid any reference to Lord Cranborne, who has been paid a great deal of attention in the context of this debate.
  I shall now discuss the question raised by new clause 51, which concerns the rights of the House of Lords in relation to claims of peerage and of precedence. A former colleague, now Lord Moynihan, was mentioned, among other examples.
  I shall try to reassure the House that nothing changes. Difficult cases of claims of peerage will still be referred to the House of Lords for consideration, in the way that claims of Irish peerage continue to be referred to the Lords long after anyone has been able to sit in the Lords by virtue of an Irish title.
  Although, under the Bill as it stands, no hereditary peers would be Members of the upper House, the accumulated wisdom of the House on the matter of peerage claims and precedents would still be available. I believe that the only requirement laid down in the Lords Standing Orders for hearing peerage claims is that three of the four Lords of Appeal need to be present. They will remain in the upper House because they will be members of a continuing Committee for Privileges, which will sit on the case.
  Mr. Fallon: How can the hon. Gentleman assure the House that that will happen? Presumably, it will be for
  1284
  the new House to decide on its own Committees and their functions. How can the Government be sure now that that new House will consider claims to titles that have nothing to do with itself?
  Mr. Tipping: We are talking of a long historic tradition; a House of Lords Committee for Privileges that has existed and will continue to exist. It may well be within the gift of the other place to change its Standing Orders, but the Bill will change nothing in that regard; that is already within its gift. We intend the Committee for Privileges to continue, with three of the four Lords of Appeal sitting on cases.
  As hon. Members know, these are technical and highly legal matters. There is no automatic qualification. The continuing Committee for Privileges will have to exercise its judgment. Given those reassurances on writs of acceleration and on the continuation of the House of Lords Committee for Privileges, I hope that the new clause will be withdrawn.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: I thank the hon. Gentleman for the manner in which he has responded to this brief debate. I also thank him for his unequivocal assurance on behalf of the Government about the continuation of the peerage and so many of the colourful things that go with it, which obviously mean as much to him as they mean to me and many others.
  The Minister may underestimate the difficulties that the Government will face as they move towards establishing their next Chamber, but for the immediate future we are grateful to him, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
  Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 24

  CRITERIA FOR CONFERMENT OF LIFE PEERAGE (No. 1)
  '(1) A person shall not be a member of the House of Lords by virtue of a peerage conferred under the Life Peerages Act 1958 unless he has first declared a willingness to serve as a member of the House of Lords.

  (2) The declaration shall indicate a willingness to participate in—

  (a) the consideration of Bills and draft statutory instruments,

  (b) the study of European Community obligations of the United Kingdom,

  (c) the scrutiny of Ministers of the Crown, and

  (d) the work of select committees.'.—[Dr. Fox.]

  Brought up, and read the First time.

  Dr. Fox: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  The Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 25—Criteria for conferment of life peerage (No. 2)—

  '(1) A person shall not be a member of the House of Lords by virtue of a peerage conferred under the Life Peerages Act 1958 unless he has first declared a willingness to serve as a member of the House of Lords.

  (2) Any such declaration shall be ineffective at the end of the Session of Parliament in which it is made.

  (3) Subsection (2) shall not prevent a further declaration being made at any time.

  1285

  (4) The declaration shall indicate a willingness to participate in—

  (a) the consideration of Bills and draft statutory instruments,

  (b) the study of European Community obligations of the United Kingdom,

  (c) the scrutiny of Ministers of the Crown, and

  (d) the work of select committees.'.

  New clause 26—Criteria for conferment of life peerage (No. 3)—

  '(1) A person shall not be a member of the House of Lords by virtue of a peerage conferred under the Life Peerages Act 1958 unless he has first declared a willingness to serve as a member of the House of Lords.

  (2) Any such declaration shall be ineffective at the end of the Parliament in which it is made.

  (3) Subsection (2) shall not prevent a further declaration being made at any time.

  (4) The declaration shall indicate a willingness to participate in—

  (a) the consideration of Bills and draft statutory instruments,

  (b) the study of European Community obligations of the United Kingdom,

  (c) the scrutiny of Ministers of the Crown, and

  (d) the work of select committees.'.

  Amendment No. 11, in the title, line 2, after 'about', insert
  'appointments to the House of Lords and'.
  Dr. Fox: The new clauses and the amendment have three purposes. The first purpose is to move the debate on to the territory on which I believe the Committee would have preferred it to be from the start of the Bill's consideration—discussion of the role of the interim Chamber and, by implication, the Chamber thereafter.
  It is extremely important that we consider the issue in the right order. We believe, as we have said from the outset of debate on the Bill, that first we must consider what Parliament as a whole should do, and what the relationship should be between Parliament and the Executive, the judiciary and Europe. When we have decided what the role of Parliament should be, we can decide what the balance between the two Chambers should be. When we have decided the balance between the two Chambers, and the relative powers and roles of the two Chambers, we can decide composition. That is a logical and sensible way to deal with our constitutional model.
  The Government continue with their obsession with composition. The White Paper states in chapter 8, paragraph 1 on page 43:
  "Central to the future House of Lords is its composition."
  The Government begin every argument with composition, rather than role. The purpose of the new clauses is to set out what we believe the role of the second Chamber should be and to put the debate on a firmer footing.
  Secondly, we want to reaffirm our commitment to a second Chamber—not one that is weakened and supine, which effectively leads to single-Chamber government, but a strong and virile second Chamber that will stand up to an ever more mighty Executive, which increasingly has the House of Commons in its grip. At present, the Commons is largely the Prime Minister and Parliament. We need a Chamber that is willing to tackle the Government and engage in serious scrutiny, without the fear of the retribution of the Whips, which is felt to a
  1286
  large extent in the House. That practice has existed for some time, but has worsened in recent years. It is an unhealthy development in a modern democracy.
  Along with our commitment to a strong second Chamber, those in that Chamber must have a commitment to the workings of Parliament. If the number of Members of the upper House is to be reduced by the Government's actions through the Bill, it is essential that Members of that House are willing to play a full role in the workings of the House and the duties that will accompany membership.
  I take the opportunity to pay tribute to all those who have played an active role in the upper House and who have been willing, for the meagre sums that were mentioned in previous debates, to become engaged in long and arduous debate on behalf of the people of this country—a contribution made not least by many hereditary peers. I wish that, during the many stages of the debate, the Government had been a little more generous in spirit about the fantastic contributions made by many hereditary peers to the process of government. That includes hereditary peers on both sides of the House and on the Cross Benches.
  We assume in the new clauses that, if the Weatherill amendment comes to pass, it will be via the Life Peerages Act 1958, and that is how any new life peers will be created. However, I am sure that I am wrong and that there is to be a new mechanism. No doubt the Government will want to clarify that as soon as possible.
  The three new clauses are somewhat different, and we shall seek to divide the House on new clause 26, which we believe to be preferable. What do the new clauses suggest that the House should do? Clearly, it should examine Bills, draft statutory instruments, study European Community obligations, undertake the scrutiny of Ministers of the Crown and carry out the work of Select Committees.
  I shall begin with Bills. We have had adequate reason in recent times to be grateful to the other place for its detailed scrutiny of legislation. That is a good signpost for the future. We will want Members of a reformed Chamber, whether the interim Chamber or beyond, who are willing to take an active interest in Bills and willing to send back to the House of Commons Bills that they believe to be mistaken and about which we should think again.
  Let me give three examples. The Education (Student Loans) Bill was sent back to the House of Commons by the House of Lords, which believed that there was no excuse for treating English students differently from Scottish students or students in other parts of the European Union in respect of tuition fees. It was perfectly legitimate for that to be sent back. We want to keep in the interim House people of that calibre who are willing to take an interest in such a subject.
  Peers were willing to send back the Crime and Disorder Bill, because they believed that the provisions on sexual offences contained insufficient protection for minors. The House of Commons thought about the matter again and dealt with it in a mature way. It was valuable to the process of politics in our country that the upper House was willing to do that.
  I know that some Labour Members—I can see one, at least—believe in unicameral government. We need a second Chamber to ask us to think again. Few people can

  1287
  believe that their wisdom is so great that no one else can ever have a better idea. In the White Paper, the Government say clearly that they are committed to a second Chamber, but that second Chamber must be worthwhile, not simply a roll-over-and-die second Chamber.
  Perhaps the best most recent example of proper scrutiny was in relation to the closed-list system for the European elections. The upper House, which the Government say has no democratic legitimacy, was willing to stand up for the rights of voters when they were being diminished to give more power to politicians. The number of times that that legislation was sent back to the House was a good example of how an upper House, which is not democratically elected, can have a far better feel for democracy than an Executive who are overcome with the intoxicating effect of their majority.
  Mr. Hoon: Can the hon. Gentleman give a single example of a Conservative Minister calling for a stronger second Chamber?
  Dr. Fox: It is always easy for one Government to ask why a previous Government did not do something when they were in power. It was never regarded as a priority. But many Conservative Members have, for many years, believed that there was strong case for reform. In 1968, the Conservative party was at the forefront of negotiations on the House of Lords, and it was the House of Commons that prevented that reform.
  I have two personal reasons for being in favour of the reform of both Houses of Parliament. As a Whip in the previous Government, I believed that the Whipping process was too strong. Through the Whips, the Executive had too much power. I still believe that to be true. Moreover, as a Minister in the Foreign Office, I never felt myself to be under great scrutiny by the House of Commons. There is a role, to which I shall come, for the greater scrutiny of Ministers.
  One of the advantages of being in opposition is that we have experience of being in government, as well as the rather unpalatable task of being the Opposition. For Ministers to say that, because we did not do something when we were in power it cannot be important, is naive and disingenuous.
  Mr. Fallon: Before my hon. Friend takes the process of personal self-flagellation too far, will he not totally ignore the role of previous Conservative Governments in strengthening the upper House? After all, it was a Conservative Government who introduced life peerages in the first place.
  Dr. Fox: There were also the Select Committees, which gave hon. Members a greater say, to which I shall come. Notwithstanding that—I hoped to tread the path between self-righteousness and self-flagellation rather more delicately than I obviously did—experience gives us a chance to consider how the system operates. Many ex-Ministers feel that Parliament does not provide sufficient scrutiny. I know that some feel that more would not be a good idea anyway and would be rather inconvenient for Ministers, but, as we are in an era when
  1288
  we seem to want to apply quality control to everyone else, it seems rather illogical to exempt Ministers of the Crown from the process. When any individual undergoes a period of scrutiny, it provides a better reason to perform well in any particular task.
  The second area that we want to consider concerns draft statutory instruments, and that brings us to the question of secondary legislation. Most of our legislation now is secondary legislation. There is a strong argument that the structure of both Houses of Parliament was designed primarily to consider primary legislation. In a system where most of our legislation is now secondary, we must ask whether Parliament fulfils its most basic task, which is the scrutiny of legislation that affects the British people. Serious questions must be asked about the current mechanism for doing so.
  There is a potentially dramatically increased role for an upper Chamber to consider secondary legislation. With the best will in the world, that growing volume of secondary legislation, not least that which comes from beyond our borders through the European Union, will require ever more scrutiny.
  With regard to the United Kingdom's EU obligations, it is well accepted—I hope that it is on both sides of the House—that the European Communities Committee in the other place is possibly the most effective seriously scrutinising body that we have in this area. In my view, it does its work better than we in this House do. It has the advantage of having less input from the Patronage Secretary and her troops. It will take on an increasingly important role after devolution, when we will undoubtedly be involved in disputes about which part of our parliamentary structure should scrutinise certain aspects of European obligations.
  5.15 pm
  A good example of that came in our debates on the Lords amendments to the Scotland Bill. We talked about quantitative distribution of international obligations and it became clear that the process of consultation between Westminster and the Scottish Parliament was rather unclear. Those European obligations will have to be scrutinised carefully in the upper House. The Government must take that into account as we move towards the interim Chamber, and the royal commission will have to take that seriously when it discusses a proper and fully operational stage 2.
  The third matter under consideration in the new clauses is the scrutiny of Ministers of the Crown. As long as members of the Executive sit in the legislature, and, therefore, as long as there are Ministers in the House of Lords, it is essential that they are scrutinised and questioned. That is especially important because Ministers in the other House are direct appointees of the Prime Minister, are not answerable to the electorate and have immense Executive power without ever being accountable to anyone but the Prime Minister.
  As hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber would agree, that is, effectively, presidential government via the legislature. It is essential, therefore, that Ministers are brought to account. The Minister for Trade and Competitiveness in Europe, Lord Simon, and the Minister for Science, Lord Sainsbury, are two good recent examples—I will not go into the politics of that because you would certainly rule me out of order, Sir Alan—

  1289
  of why we need proper scrutiny of Ministers in the upper House. Without that, we would be failing in our duty to hold the Government properly to account.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) mentioned the strengthening of the House by the Conservatives and identified the setting up of Select Committees as one of the ways in which previous Conservative Governments, when we had large majorities, set about making sure that there was a balance of power and that Parliament was able to have better control over the Executive. I pay handsome tribute to House of Lords Select Committees such as the Science and Technology Committee, which has already been mentioned by several hon. Members, and the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee. Those Committees do tremendous work, boosting the reputation of Parliament and improving its workings.
  Our Select Committees are one of the finest parts of the institutions of our Parliament, but there is a considerable way to go in strengthening them. There is an appetite in both Houses for Select Committees to be given more teeth to bring the Executive ever more to account. One of the more healthy trends in recent politics is that Select Committee Chairmen have been willing to bear their fangs a little more at the Executive, which is entirely understandable when they are treated with contempt by the Government. For example, the Government say that they will ignore any criticisms made of them by a Select Committee.
  For Select Committees to work, the culture governing them must be working properly and the culture of the Government must be governed by a willingness to accept criticism when it is valid.
  Mrs. Beckett: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not mean to mislead the House. I am sure, too, that he is aware of the doctrine on relationships between Ministers and Select Committees, as promulgated by the then Leader of the House, Lord Howe, in 1990. I do not have the words with me, but that doctrine makes it very plain that there is nothing out of the way in Ministers responding to criticism from Select Committees, whether in reports, comment from hon. Members or whatever. Indeed, that is part of the robust relationship between Ministers and Select Committees.
  Dr. Fox: I absolutely accept that. What I find rather bizarre is the concept that Ministers should criticise Select Committee reports before they are published and should say that, if there is any criticism of the Government, they will not accept it. That is either utter stupidity or utter arrogance. I tend to think that it is the latter.
  New clause 24 asks those who are Members of the House of Lords by virtue of a life peerage to make a declaration of willingness to scrutinise, once and for all. New clause 25 asks for that declaration at the beginning of every Session of Parliament and new clause 26 asks for a declaration once every Parliament. Of the three, new clause 26 strikes the better balance and its request is more reasonable.
  The Government are obsessed with composition. We should move the debate on to firmer territory. If we are to make progress, and if we are to get anything like the consensus that the Government say in the White Paper that they seek, we must move the debate on to territory
  1290
  on which we can make progress. We must get away from the Government's obsession with composition and deal with the role and functions of the other place. We are talking not about Mickey Mouse changes, but about a fundamental alteration to the way in which we are governed. The nation needs to know what those changes will be.
  The new clauses set out in more detail than anything the Government have produced what an interim Chamber should be doing. I ask my colleagues to support the new clause in the Lobby.
  Mr. Fallon: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his ingenuity in finally bringing the Committee round to the subject that should have occupied us from the beginning—the functions of the Chamber that we seek to reform. I compliment him on his further ingenuity in offering the Committee three variations of the new clause. Like him, I much prefer new clause 26, which is slightly less bureaucratic than new clause 24, and avoids some unnecessary form filling.
  It is essential that we begin with the assertion of exactly what the upper House is supposed to do. We would want to do that anyway if we sought to reform its composition, but we want to do it all the more because we see in the White Paper the first shadowy outline of the type of second Chamber that the Government would prefer. It is clear from chapter 7 of the White Paper that the Labour party would prefer a weaker House. The Government make that explicit. They talk about powers that might be used more frequently, but should be reduced. They suggest that the delaying power should be reduced, so that the power of the upper House to ask us to think again should not result in a Bill being delayed as long as it can be now. They even suggest that the ping-pong legislative procedure at the end of each Session should be curtailed, so that when the other place asks us to have second thoughts it will not have the leverage that it has at present when a Session of Parliament is expiring.
  The Chairman: Order. I must help the hon. Member and the Committee. The debate on the new clause cannot be widened into a general debate about the functions of the House of Lords. The issue must be referred to only in the context of the job specification for life peers in the terms of the new clause. The hon. Member has started to go outside that issue, so I ask him respectfully to come back within the narrow definition that I have given.
  Mr. Fallon: That guidance is extremely helpful to the Committee, Sir Alan. It is important that we ventilate this issue, because the role of the interim House will be significant when we eventually decide the role of the House after stage 2. There is no point inviting people to serve in the interim House unless we are clear about what they are there to do.
  You have rightly ruled out, Sir Alan, any further discussion of what Labour Members think those who will serve in the interim House should do, but I am sure that that does not preclude us from stating clearly in the statute what they will do. My hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) has laid out those functions very clearly. The new clause states that there should be
  "a willingness to participate in … the consideration of Bills".
  That will be enormously important in the interim stage, not least because, if the Government want a weaker House on stage 2, those who participate in the interim House will

  1291
  do so in the knowledge that only a small number of them will eventually graduate to membership of the House at stage 2. Unless we include in the Bill a clear definition of their role, they may feel cowed and unable to exercise even their present functions properly and without fear. Without such a definition, they may feel constrained: they may feel that they will miss out on the transition to stage 2.
  Mr. Forth: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that the wording
  "shall indicate a willingness to participate"
  is strong enough, and is likely to be effective enough? It strikes me that it would be possible to make such a declaration, and do precious little afterwards.
  Mr. Fallon: Later in my speech, I shall identify a number of respects in which I feel that the new clause is rather modest. As my right hon. Friend says, it is possible that the willingness indicated by the ticking of a box on a form at the beginning of a Session will be no guarantee of the number of sittings that the peer in question will attend. I know that, if there were a league table for attendance, my right hon. Friend would be in the premier division. He is an assiduous attender not just of this Committee, but of our sittings generally.
  The drafting of the new clause may need to be examined, but I am sure that, if it is accepted, my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring will deal with that on Report. Perhaps, when he winds up the debate, he will tell us how "willingness" might be defined.
  Let me return to the functions that we are discussing. Unless we reassure Members of the interim House that they have a proper role to play, they will inevitably be overwhelmed and cowed by the need to ensure that they survive to become Members of the stage 2 House. That applies regardless of whether they consider standing for election should all or even part of that House be elected. They will, of course, want to assure those who select them for election that they have been good boys, or good girls, in the interim House—that they have not been too aggressive towards the Executive. It will also apply if they wish to stand for membership of the nominated element of the stage 2 House. I believe that they will feel cowed by the knowledge that the Government want a weaker stage 2 House, and that they must not prejudice their membership of that House.
  Dr. Fox: There is, perhaps, a more pressing reason for the functions of an interim Chamber to be detailed. The interim Chamber may, in effect, be stage 2. Page 29 of the White Paper states:
  "If there is consensus, the Government will make every effort to ensure that the second stage of reform has been approved by Parliament before the next election."
  Given the difficulty that has been experienced during this century in securing any form of consensus on reform, there is a good chance that the interim Chamber will become at least a semi-permanent Chamber, and there is, therefore, all the more reason to detail what it will do.
  Mr. Fallon: That is another powerful argument in favour of the new clauses—so powerful, indeed, that I begin to puzzle why my hon. Friend did not include it in his speech.
  1292
  I have studied these matters for some time—ever since the publication of the Home report in 1978—and I have never believed that any interim House could become the stage 2 House. I think it was Freud who, when told that the Russian revolution would begin a period of chaos that would eventually lead to a paradise on earth, replied, "I half believe it." I half believe that the Government were originally serious about reforming the House of Lords; but, as the process has been unveiled, along with the peculiarly cack-handed way in which they have approached it, it has become apparent that we are likely to be stuck with an interim House for a long time.
  The Chairman: Order. Freud is dead, and I think that this part of the hon. Gentleman's speech should die with him, because it is well beyond the scope of the new clause.
  5.30 pm
  Mr. Fallon: I apologise, Sir Alan. I fear that my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring slightly misled me by drawing the Committee's attention again to paragraph 21 of the White Paper, where it is made clear that there is no binding commitment to legislation in the current Parliament. That is why it is important that the Committee should focus on the functions to be undertaken by the interim Chamber.
  Dr. Starkey: As I understood it, the argument that the hon. Gentleman was advancing before the previous intervention was that Members of the upper House would be incredibly cowed by their need to be selected for either election or nomination. Does that not apply to all Members of the upper House, at least half of whom will he selected by the Conservative party? They will not all be selected by the Government.
  Mr. Fallon: Those Members will be selected for the interim House, of course, but Members on both sides of the interim House will have to have an eye on their eventual selection for the stage 2 House. We all in the Committee anticipate that the Government will change at the next election, so exactly the same argument will apply to Members on each side of the interim House.
  Mr. Andrew Stunell: Did I understand the hon. Gentleman's argument? Does he feel that membership of the House of Lords should be permanent and not subject to review under any circumstances, with no elected component at any stage?
  Mr. Fallon: That is not a proposition that I have advanced either today or at any previous sitting of the Committee. What is important is that those whom we now invite to be Members of the interim House should be clear as to what their functions are. That is why those functions are spelled out in the new clauses.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring has hit the nail on the head. Consideration of Bills is obviously a primary function of the upper House. It is all the more necessary that it is exercised properly because of the number of Bills and the haste with which they are pushed through the House. The scrutiny process in the House of Commons has been curtailed by the use of timetable

  1293
  motions at the drop of a hat. Therefore, it is all the more important that the interim House takes that legislative function seriously.
  Mr. Graham Brady: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, not least because I notice that my parliamentary neighbour, the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell), has recently entered the Chamber. My hon. Friend's point is particularly relevant following an exchange at Prime Minister's Question Time yesterday, when the Prime Minister said that he did not believe in parliamentary scrutiny, and that he believed only in the mandate that his Government had to implement their business. That is precisely why the new clause is so important.
  Mr. Fallon: You would rule me out of order, Mr. Martin, if I repeated a section from my Second Reading speech, but it was Baroness Jay who let the cat out of the bag. She said that the Bill was all about "modernising government". It is not. The new clause is about ensuring that a reformed second Chamber—there are many arguments for reforming it—has a clear statement as to the functions that it is supposed to perform. Better consideration of Bills, particularly legislation that is rushed through the House of Commons, must surely be one of those primary functions.
  On the function in subsection (2)(b) of new clause 26, the study of European Community obligations, the ability of the House of Commons to consider properly the merits of those European Community obligations and the legislation that flows from them is restricted by the terms under which the original Select Committee was set up in 1973; that is why we had to revise our procedures and to set up the two new Standing Committees. Therefore, it is all the more important that we set out in statute the requirement that life peers should participate in the study of European Community obligations.
  The third function, the scrutiny of Ministers of the Crown, will be important work for the upper House. The Government have said that, in the second stage House, Ministers might not even have to be Members. They have said that it would be difficult if they were not, but they have not ruled it out. Perhaps there is some fancy continental proposal floating around that Ministers might not need to be a Member of either House. In fact, we have seen an example of that already—Lord Macdonald seems to have floated around in the Government over the past few months without being a Member of either House. Perhaps Ministers from Whitehall might only have to turn up and stand at the Bar of the other place. It is essential—
  Mr. Letwin: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a particular need to scrutinise the Ministers in the other place, given the extremely controversial nature of some of them at present?
  Mr. Fallon: My hon. Friend may be leading me on to political ground, which may be a little outside the scope of the Committee.
  What we can say about the Ministers who serve the Crown in another place is that they have not sought election or endorsement. Indeed, many of them have not stood for any sort of public office or even taken the trouble to be a member of the political party that has
  1294
  appointed them. It is all the more important that those unelected crony Ministers should be properly scrutinised. That is why I am delighted to see that function spelt out in subsection (2)(c).
  On subsection (2)(d), I am not the first member of the Committee to draw attention to the excellent work of the Select Committees of the Upper House, whether in scrutinising European legislation or scrutinising science and technology. By the way in which they have carried out their work, the noble Lords who serve on those Committees have built a strong reputation for them, both in Brussels and in Whitehall. Their reports are widely respected. It is part of the tradition of the House and we want to see the transfer of the knowledge and experience that have been built up.
  When I spoke on the previous group of amendments, I was told that the reason for keeping the Privileges Committee, even though it would be adjudicating on claims that have nothing to do with the current House, is that it has great tradition and has built up a great body of knowledge. That is to be kept for a function that it is no longer necessary for it to discharge, but the Government are happy to see that retained simply because the expertise built up is so great. If that applies to the handling of the Ampthill baby or the various Moynihan babies, it certainly applies to the handling of European legislation.
  I am delighted that my hon. Friends have tabled this new clause and enabled the Committee to focus for the first time on the functions that the reformed House will exercise. It has enabled us to bring out the threat to the second Chamber that lies in almost every paragraph of chapter 7 of the White Paper. If we accept the new clause, it will give some comfort to those whom we are inviting at very little cost—as we discovered under an earlier group of amendments—to serve us. I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the new clause.
  Mr. Garnier: I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) for introducing the new clause and for reminding the Committee of our party's support for the need for a discussion about the role of the interim Chamber and our commitment to a second Chamber. We all know that there is no certainty about the length of time that the second Chamber will last in its interim form. I believe that I am right in saying that, if there are members of the Committee who want a unicameral legislative system, they are to be found on the Labour Benches, not the Conservative Benches. It may well be that not many Labour Members desire a unicameral system.
  Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells).
  Mr. Garnier: I am corrected by the Leader of the House. I gather that my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford is in favour of a unicameral legislative system. Be that as it may, he is very much in the minority. As he is not in the Chamber, he should be able on another occasion to explain the reasons for his preference.
  I fully endorse the need for a second Chamber, and for a strongly equipped second Chamber that will perform all the functions stated in new clause 24. I shall deal with those duties in a moment. First, however, I have a couple of queries, with which my hon. Friends the Members for Woodspring and for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) or the Minister may be able to deal.

  1295
  We should examine the functions of the interim second Chamber in the light of the constitutional disposition that is shortly to come into effect. As my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring pointed out, a new Parliament in Scotland and Assemblies in Wales and in Northern Ireland have been established. The Committee would be far better employed working out the proper relationship of the constituent parts of the Union, their relationship to the United Kingdom Parliament and the governmental systems of the European Union that have some effect on our deliberations before we consider the composition of the membership of the second Chamber—which, as my hon. Friend quite correctly said, seems to be the Government's primary concern.
  The Government have yet to tell us what they believe is the proper relationship between the two Houses of Parliament, or the relationship of the Scottish Parliament, the Assembly of Wales, the Northern Ireland Assembly and both Houses of the United Kingdom Parliament. We have yet to hear from the Government what they believe is the proper place of the United Kingdom Parliament in the United Kingdom constitution.
  The Government have yet to tell us also what they want the second Chamber to do, in either its interim form or its final form, whenever that may come. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring that we need a strong second Chamber that is able to hold the Executive to account. Under our current constitutional arrangements, the Government may appoint Ministers from both Houses, and both Houses are able to question Ministers. Of course, whether they receive answers is another matter.
  The Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department and I have had our little disagreements about his ability to answer questions and to allow himself to be held to account. Perhaps, when attempts were made to hold the Government to account, he would be encouraged to answer questions more satisfactorily if he were not only available to be cross-questioned in this Chamber and in the Select Committees of the House but required occasionally to attend the second Chamber to answer questions. Perhaps future constitutional academics, and we politicians, will have to consider that matter.
  Equally, perhaps better scrutiny of Government could be achieved if Ministers who are appointed by the Prime Minister to the other place are available for scrutiny also in this place.
  Dr. Starkey: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman be making those points in a submission to the royal commission—which is considering precisely those issues on the role and functions of the second Chamber? Is he not pre-empting that consideration?
  5.45 pm
  Mr. Garnier: This is the House of Commons. One reason why I was sent to this place by my constituents was to discuss Government legislation. We are here to discuss the Bill, which, sadly—with some honourable exceptions—most Labour Back Benchers have not condescended to come and support with their words.
  Mr. Letwin: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that the comment of the hon. Member for Milton Keynes,
  1296
  South—West (Dr. Starkey) betrays the fundamental disposition of Labour Members to assume that they do not need to worry about the functions of the interim Chamber? They want to leave all that to the White Paper, but the long-term plans may never come about.
  Mr. Garnier: I was thinking in Committee yesterday evening that it seemed to many Labour Back Benchers that the White Paper, not the Bill, was the legislation.
  Mrs. Beckett: Has it not struck the hon. and learned Gentleman or the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) that perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) was smart enough to spot that the Government do not propose any change to the functions or power of the interim House?
  Mr. Garnier: If that is the case, more's the pity. The current second Chamber is diffident about using its powers to scrutinise and amend Government legislation. That has been the case under this Government and under the previous Conservative Administrations of my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) and my noble Friend Baroness Thatcher.
  Mr. Stunell: The hon. and learned Gentleman has made an interesting point. What is his evaluation of whether the upper House was more inclined to give serious scrutiny to Conservative legislation or to the legislation of the current Government?
  Mr. Garnier: I do not have the figures at my fingertips, but many Conservative Bills were given serious scrutiny by the House of Lords. The rights and remedies available to the House of Lords under the constitution and the precedents and traditions of our country are not sufficiently used for fear of offending the elected House. There is nothing wrong with that, because we are the elected Members and the Labour party has a majority in this House, by a huge chalk. It is permissible for the House of Lords to restrain itself. However, if we are revisiting the workings of our constitution, are we not entitled to invite the Committee to apply its mind to the proper functions of the second Chamber in its interim form and in its permanent form, if there is to be one? The proposals in the new clauses on the job specification of the Members of the second House are worthy of consideration.
  Mr. George Stevenson: I have listened with great interest to many speeches, particularly that of the hon. and learned Gentleman. The new clauses talk about a declaration of a willingness to serve. What criteria would he use to judge whether that willingness had been made a reality? Does he envisage a penalty being imposed on those who did not make such a declaration?
  Mr. Garnier: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman, who must have very good eyesight. That is the next point in my notes. I said at the start of my speech that I wanted to draw to the attention of my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring two points of concern about shortcomings in new clause 26, which I am otherwise happy to support.
  My first concern was the lack of sanctions for failure. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson) asked what sanctions or penalties would

  1297
  be available to the second Chamber if a Member of that House, having made a declaration to the effect that he was willing to serve under the terms of the new clause, failed to abide by that declaration. Would it be open to the second Chamber to expel him? Would it be open to the Government—or the Prime Minister who had recommended to Her Majesty that the Member be granted a life peerage to sit in the House—to withdraw the life peerage? Those matters need to be considered. It would have been useful for the Committee to hear more about the matter, but that does not vitiate the good sense of the thrust of the new clause.
  Mr. Stevenson: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman address the first question in my previous intervention? What criteria does he envisage being established to determine whether the call for a declaration of a willingness to serve has been made into a reality?
  Mr. Garnier: We are talking about a hypothetical situation.
  Mr. Stevenson: No, we are not.
  Mr. Garnier: If the hon. Gentleman will have the patience to listen to the answer to his fair question, he will see that we are talking about a hypothetical position, because the measure is not yet in effect. One would have to look at the new clause criteria and see whether any given Member of the second House had complied with the willingness declaration. Had he or she given sufficient attention to the workings of the second Chamber in relation to the consideration of Bills and draft statutory instruments? Had he or she given sufficient attention and time to the study of the European Community obligations of the UK, the scrutiny of Ministers of the Crown and the work of Select Committees? Many things are easier to recognise than to define and, in the event of a Member of the second Chamber failing to come up to scratch in relation to the declaration of willingness, the other place would find mechanisms for bringing him or her to book.
  My complaint is that those mechanisms are not spelled out in the new clause. Although the new clause in itself is not to be undermined on that basis, it would have been a better new clause if the details had been included.
  Mr. Brady: Does my hon. and learned Friend consider that, even without sanctions, the inclusion of the new clause would have the benefit of dealing with a problem raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon)—that there would be a premium on the silent Member of the interim Chamber who might wish to be appointed to a subsequent Chamber? The new clause would make it difficult for a Government to choose the Members who had done and said nothing to go on and serve in any ultimate Chamber.
  Mr. Garnier: I take my hon. Friend's point, which he made more eloquently than I might have.
  Mr. Andrew Love: The hon. and learned Gentleman said that he felt that the new clause had a problem, in that it failed to include any sanctions. Types of sanction have been suggested, but the hon. and learned
  1298
  Gentleman has not stated any view on them. Before you leave the issue, you should give your wisdom to the Chamber in terms of appropriate sanctions.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. I always deliver wisdom to the Chamber.
  Mr. Garnier: You have done so again, Mr. Martin.
  I find new clause 26 generally acceptable, but it has one or two deficiencies. There is an omission regarding the Law Lords—the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary—who at present are life peers and Members of the other place, and are entitled to vote and speak on matters outside their remit as judges of the highest court in the land. I am marginally concerned that the requirement to declare a willingness to be involved in the matters listed in subsection (4)(a), (b), (c) and (d) may in some way affect the independence of the judiciary.
  Mr. Letwin: My hon. and learned Friend is making a serious point. I hope that he will accept that it was no part of our intention to suggest that there should be any such prejudice to the Law Lords' neutrality. Of course, we assume that the Standing Orders would reflect that, in defining such participation by the Law Lords as neutral.
  Mr. Garnier: I am pleased to have that assurance. I am not surprised, because, if our party stands for anything, it stands for the independence of the judiciary.
  Mr. Rammell: I was fascinated to hear the hon. and learned Gentleman lauding the Conservative party's commitment to the independence of the judiciary. Is that his party's view on General's Pinochet's case, which is being adjudicated in the other place?
  Mr. Garnier: I will not answer that question. That was an unworthy intervention. In expecting me to answer, the hon. Gentleman seems to suggest that the Committee should have some role in influencing the Judicial Committee in reaching its decision in the extradition case. He will have to await the judgment of the other place. I am not prepared to express an opinion about that matter in this forum.
  There is an unmet need to define the relationship between the two Houses of Parliament and the new devolved bodies in Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland. I want to be sure that the Judicial Committee of the other place, or that body in its other guise as the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, will be entitled to carry out its work in arbitrating differences between, for example, the Scottish Parliament and the United Kingdom Parliament.
  We must anticipate that there will be constitutional tensions between the devolved bodies and the United Kingdom Parliament. Equally, there are already tensions between this place and the European Parliament and the constitutional arrangements of the European Union. There may also be tensions between us and London's new mayor and assembly, but I am not so worried about that.
  We need an arrangement that protects the ability of the Judicial Committee to arbitrate on such matters. A jurisdiction may grow up that provides a body of law; the independent judiciary and the constitutional court

  1299
  which may develop should be uninfluenced and uninhibited by the need for declarations such as those in the new clauses.
  Mr. Letwin: Given that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is specifically given the role of adjudicating devolution issues, we have taken it as axiomatic that, in serving on that Committee, their lordships would be acting not as Members of the House of Lords but as members of that Committee, and hence wholly neutral.
  6 pm
  Mr. Garnier: The only problem with that point is that they will in fact be Members of the House of Lords. We may need to give that aspect of the new clauses further consideration. It may be that we shall be assisted in that by the other place, when it considers this aspect of the Bill.
  It is important that we should carefully consider the current constitutional role of the other place and what we hope its future constitutional role will be in dealing with the legal matters to which I adverted. In the past, the House of Lords has performed a vital role as an arbitrator between the justice systems of the Commonwealth and the citizens of its states, and I hope that it will continue to perform that role in the United Kingdom.
  Mr. John M. Taylor: Under the previous Government, I undertook a mission on behalf of the Lord Chancellor's Department to visit several of the jurisdictions in the Caribbean.
  Mr. Forth: Lucky you.
  Mr. Taylor: It ill lies in the mouth of my right hon. Friend to begrudge me a trip to the Caribbean, which was non-stop hard work. I never had a moment's relaxation, as I visited all the jurisdictions in the eastern Caribbean—
  The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I have slackened the reins somewhat, and the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) has talked about the Law Lords, but we must get back to the new clauses, which are more narrow than the subject that the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) is addressing.
  Mr. Taylor: I apologise to the Committee, Mr. Martin, but I was provoked.
  The First Deputy Chairman: Order. If the hon. Gentleman is intervening, it is a rather long intervention, and I wish to see the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) back on his feet.
  Mr. Brady rose—
  Mr. Garnier: You want me back on my feet, Mr. Martin, and I shall obey you. Before very long, I shall get back to my seat, but I wish to express my genuine support for the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring. I do not yet have a firm view about which new clause is better, and whether the declaration should be of a sessional length, a
  1300
  parliamentary length or for life, but I accept the arguments of hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) about the need for declarations to be made. I trust that the Committee will guide me further on the length of time for which they should be made.
  I run the risk of crossing you, Mr. Martin, but, contrary to your ruling a moment ago, I think that the role of all Members of the interim House of Lords, in all their guises as legislators and judges, must be considered under new clause 26. On that basis, and having expressed some of my concerns in a gentle, acceptable and interesting way—
  Mr. Forth: Two out of three.
  Mr. Garnier: I am always so grateful to my right hon. Friend—I think. I shall resume my seat and invite other members of the Committee to comment on what I have said.
  Mr. Stevenson: I, too, have suffered provocation. I had not intended to contribute to the debate, but I feel that I must. I have listened to the contributions from Opposition Members and read the new clauses, and one might be tempted to think that they had some superficial attraction. The new clauses seek first to identify what the role of the interim Chamber might be. I repeat that, as I listened to Conservative Members, I felt a certain attraction towards that objective. The second objective is to try to ensure that, whoever might be the Members of the interim second Chamber, there is a written declaration that they are willing to participate in the activities set out in the new clauses.
  However, as the debate continued, that superficial attraction turned into a proverbial Irish mist. The activities referred to in the new clauses are important. How do we define them? What are they? Should we not take this opportunity to define them so that there is no risk of the interim second Chamber not knowing what it is about? I listened to the ingenious arguments put forward—indeed, the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) was congratulated by his hon. Friends on the ingenious way in which he had used the new clauses to introduce that important element of definition—but, on at least one occasion, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office intervened to point out that it is not the Government's intention to change the functions currently exercised in the second Chamber. I thought that that was pretty clear.
  Mr. Tyrie: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that, by changing the composition of the Chamber, he changes the effectiveness with which the Chamber may exercise those functions? That is the crucial element in the argument that seems to have eluded so many Labour Members, but is so clear to Conservative Members.
  Mr. Stevenson: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. Having attended most of the debates, I have listened to the arguments ad nauseam. By the way, I note the disappearance from the Chamber of the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth)—or is he the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood? No, he was kicked out of that seat.
  I acknowledge the argument about effectiveness, but these new clauses talk not about effectiveness, but about willingness; we are attempting to define the powers

  1301
  and responsibilities of the interim second Chamber. I acknowledge that there are arguments about how effectively those powers might be exercised in terms of what the interim second Chamber will be, and those arguments have been put forward by many right hon. and hon. Members. On the parts of the new clauses that attempt to identify those responsibilities, I am certain that that matter is important and equally certain that my hon. Friend the Minister directly answered the concerns that were expressed. I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will also refer to the matter.
  When I referred earlier to the declaration of willingness, I noticed that the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) nodded, so I assume that he supports that point. However, that aspect of the new clauses is flawed. In an intervention on the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier), I asked what criteria would be used to determine whether that willingness was a reality. He was unable to answer, but called in aid the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady), who gave a definition that I thought he had plucked out of the air. It is my assertion that, if we were to ask the 30 or 40 hon. Members in the Committee for a definition, we should hear 30 or 40 different definitions.
  The new clauses are fundamentally flawed. It is no good talking about hypotheses, as the hon. and learned Member for Harborough did in answer to my intervention. We are talking not about hypotheses, but about new clauses which, if accepted, would appear in the Bill.
  What would be a criterion for demonstrating willingness? Would it be a Member's attendance record? Perhaps a Member would be deemed to have shown willingness if he attended a Scrutiny Committee meeting and listened to the discussion. Sometimes one contributes as much by listening as by speaking—I would remind the hon. Member for Aldershot of that if he were present, but he is not. How would one judge those criteria? Would Members have to produce sick notes from their GPs? Would they have to provide explanations such as, "I'm sorry that I could not attend, but I was sick" and "I had a family crisis"? The whole area is a minefield.
  I respectfully suggest to the hon. Member for Woodspring that it would be impossible to employ criteria to determine whether a declaration of willingness was real. I challenge the hon. Member for West Dorset—if he intends to contribute again to the discussion—to spell out what those criteria would be. I shall listen with great interest as I contend that that is an impossible task.
  If it were possible to arrive at criteria, we would have to consider what penalties might be imposed if no willingness were indicated—as it says in new clause 26. It is not just a matter of willingness, but an indication of willingness. I do not know what that means. I understand what "willingness" and "indicate" mean, but I am not sure what indicative willingness is. I challenge Opposition Members to clarify that point. It is not a hypothetical matter: if the new clauses are passed, they will go into the Bill. We are dealing with reality.
  The new clauses seek to do two things to which I referred earlier. First, they seek to define the responsibilities of the other Chamber. My hon. Friend the Minister answered that point and said that there would be no changes. Therefore, that part of the new clauses is not required. Secondly, the new clauses seek to
  1302
  introduce a declaration or indication of willingness. That is simply impractical and impossible and would not stand up to even the slightest scrutiny. That point has not yet been clarified by the Opposition. They have not explained what criteria would be used to determine whether real willingness had been shown or what penalties might be imposed if it was not.
  New clauses that appeared to be superficially attractive have proved to be nothing but political posturing. I shall listen carefully to the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, but I hope that the Government will oppose the new clauses. If that is the Government's intention, I shall certainly pass through the Lobby with enthusiasm.
  Mr. Forth: I rather agree with the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson). I think that my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) will have quite a job to persuade me and, perhaps, other hon. Members of the viability of the new clauses. I do not question the importance of the subject that has been raised. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South is an experienced Committee Chairman and he knows that it is not always sufficient for the Government to criticise Opposition amendments for their technical content. It is possible for the Government, as a matter of good will, to say, "We accept the substance, but would like the amendment to be redrafted." In the ministerial response, I shall look for an indication of how Ministers believe that the substance of the new clauses can properly be addressed. Following the speech of the hon. Member for Stoke—on—Trent, South, I am worried about the ability to translate words such as "participate" into reality.
  6.15 pm
  By analogy, let us consider this House. Can we imagine setting out to judge Members on participation—to say nothing of penalties? It is a little easier to deal with the point about penalties. This House has a combination of party discipline and the Whips, the Government's power of patronage, the huge attraction of becoming an Opposition Front-Bench spokesman and the ultimate sanction of party selection and the electorate. None of those is available in the other place—at least until my objective of a wholly elected upper Chamber is realised. The point about participation will be rather difficult to get a grip of.
  Even if, under the terms of the new clauses, people said, "Yes, I will be a working peer"—I think that that is the general objective—and even if the declaration is made in good faith, how will a judgment be made on whether that declaration will be fulfilled? It does not matter which paragraph of the new clauses we consider. As the hon. Member for Stoke—on—Trent, South said, how are we to account for assiduous attendance in a debate such as this if one has not spoken? Would we have to bob up and down, intervening constantly, just to show that we had been present? Would a record be kept of those who sat on the Benches, as happens in the other place so that Members may qualify for their daily allowance? Let us consider the even more difficult question of participation in
  "the study of European Community obligations".
  It would be very difficult to get any definitive grip on such matters.

  1303
  Although I fully support the thrust of the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset, he has his work cut out if he is to persuade me—and, obviously, the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South—that the new clauses can work, and that we can find a way in which to measure and monitor such matters, especially participation. We would have to deal with penalties, too. If we found ways of judging, and Members were found wanting, what would happen? What would happen if I signed a declaration and were made a Member of an interim House, but was judged not to have participated adequately?
  Mr. Fallon: The following might be one test of participation. Would my right hon. Friend say that he had been participating in a debate on these new clauses if he were able to vote for them? Is he participating in this Committee to that extent?
  Mr. Forth: That raises a series of issues, which my hon. Friend is right to raise. Is the mere act of voting a sufficient indication of participation to satisfy the criteria?
  I do not want to labour the point; I wanted to reinforce the remarks of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South, which were worth reinforcing, so that my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset will—I hope—seek to satisfy the Committee on them before we vote. I hope that he can, because I want to support the new clause. However, I shall need further persuading before being able to do so.
  Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) opened the debate with an echo of our Second Reading debate in which, having accused the Government of wanting to kick the reform of stage 2 into the long grass, he came up with a long list of things that should have been considered before we did anything at all, which would probably have taken at least 10 years. In tonight's debate, he again said that he thought that this process should have begun with careful consideration, from first principles, of the role of Parliament. He then said that, having given the matter some such consideration, the Opposition strongly believed that there should indeed be a second Chamber.
  In that, as in several other matters, there is not much dispute between hon. Members on opposite sides of the Chamber. Much earlier in our debates on the subject, I understood an hon. Member—I shall have to rely on Hansard to bring his proper description—to say in an intervention that he was in principle a unicameralist.
  Mr. Garnier: I believe that it was my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells).
  Mrs. Beckett: The hon. and learned Gentleman may well be right, and I am grateful to him. Many Labour Members have said that they are unicameralists, but the Government are not making that case any more than the Opposition are doing so. We therefore begin with common ground in that all or most of us take the view that, to perform its role properly, Parliament needs not only this Chamber, but a second Chamber.
  1304
  It is slightly sad that we then entered more contentious territory, with the ritual—usually ill-founded—denunciations of the Government, based on dubious statistics or none. However, it would be wise not to detain the Committee on that subject, because it was not germane to the debate; I even wondered whether the denunciations had been put in to flesh out a not very long contribution.
  In the course of that ritual denunciation, the hon. Member for Woodspring asserted that the Government should have focused from the outset not on the composition of a second Chamber, but on its role and functions. On Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) pointed out that, throughout the decades-long history of discussions on reform of the House of Lords, when proposals were made to reform its role or powers, it was suggested that the composition should be reformed first—and when proposals were made to reform the composition, it was said that we should start with its role and functions, so it seems impossible to satisfy those who are nervous about all reform. We then moved on to the issue of the basic points made—or purported to be made—in the new clauses and the amendment, all of which, as the hon. Member for Woodspring identified, have the same theme, although in slightly different contexts.
  Most of us would not disagree with much of what has been said in the debate. The Government are as anxious as Conservative Members to have an effective transitional House and to have a second Chamber of genuine working peers, and I do not believe that anything that has been said from the Labour Benches in these debates or on any other occasion could in any way suggest that the Government do not want an effective second Chamber.
  I now make a confession to the Committee that I thought never to make, which may not fall very pleasantly on the ears of the hon. Member for Woodspring. For the first time in my life, I agreed with most of what the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) said. I hope that I do not hurt the right hon. Gentleman's feelings too much by saying so, but I entirely concur with his argument, which I fear is that, however unexceptionable may be some of the basic points made in the context of these new clauses, they are pointless because they are completely ineffectual.
  Dr. Fox: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for giving way. She speaks about an active second Chamber. As guidance to the Committee, can she say whether the Government believe that such a Chamber should be less powerful than the current one, as powerful as the current one, or have more powers than the current second Chamber?
  Mrs. Beckett: I think that I referred to an effective second Chamber—although the hon. Gentleman may be right, I may have used the word "active" as well. I do not quarrel with it.
  The current situation is anomalous in so many ways that it would take a tedious length of time to delineate them. The anomaly rests not only in the composition, but in the fact that the House of Lords, as it is constituted, has a panoply of powers, which it feels impelled to obey a self-denying ordinance not to exercise. All that seems potentially worthy of reform.
  The precise nature of those reforms, as the hon. Gentleman knows, is a matter for another day and for another stage of discussion of these matters. I do not

  1305
  propose to be diverted into them now, even if you allowed me to do so, Mr. Martin, and I am pretty confident that you would not.
  Mr. Tyrie: Does the right hon. Lady think that the interim House is more likely to be able to exercise the powers in respect of which she says that peers are exercising a self-denying ordinance, or less likely to exercise those powers than the present Chamber? Specifically, does she think that the introduction of more than 100 new Labour peers at four times the average annual rate of appointment this century is likely to lead that Chamber to be more effective in independent scrutiny of the Government, or less?
  Mrs. Beckett: Yet again, we have an example of the nonsense talked by Opposition Members about these matters, although the hon. Gentleman strays even further than most of the debate has done. I do not envisage the transitional Chamber behaving in any particularly different way from the way in which the second Chamber behaves now.
  The hon. Gentleman's second point is ludicrous. First, I am sure that as he has clearly spent some time studying these matters, he is extremely conscious of the fact that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has created a number of new peers, only half of whom were creations of our party. The rest were creations on behalf of other parties. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman must be equally aware that, if there were a proposal to make a large number of creations, it would be only in an attempt to remedy the gross imbalance created by decades of Conservative Prime Ministers creating twice as many peers from their own party as from our party, despite their enormous in-built majority among hereditary peers.
  Mr. Tyrie rose—
  Mrs. Beckett: I do not intend to stray much longer on this point, and I am not sure that you will let us do this, Mr. Martin, but I shall give way again.
  Mr. Tyrie: What the right hon. Lady says is factually incorrect. Since the introduction of life peers in 1958, no Prime Minister has ever appointed more than half from his own side. It has always been less than half. The present Prime Minister is the first Prime Minister ever to appoint more than half. The current rate is 53 per cent. Is that not a gross breach of all precedent in the appointment of life peers?
  Mrs. Beckett: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is well aware of the facts, and I do not know why he is twisting about to deny them. Of the creations that have been made, 40 to 48 per cent. were creations of his party, and about half that for our party, despite the fact that the Conservatives already have an enormous in-built majority among the hereditary peers.
  I am conscious of the demands on the Chamber and of the other brief points that I want to make. The provisions in the new clauses are not unworthy, but it would be pretty pointless to put them into effect as legislation because they are ineffectual and they raise as many questions as they answer.
  How is the willingness of a Member to serve to be defined? The hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) raised that matter. There is no mechanism to check
  1306
  whether the declaration is genuine or just a passport to membership. How would the required standard of involvement be judged on an objective basis? There is nothing in the new clause about that.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson) said in an intervention and in his remarks, there is in the new clause no sanction for failing to meet that standard, even if one could be devised. Although not unworthy, the clause adds nothing to the Bill.
  The key point that we are anxious always to bear in mind is that, with the removal of the hereditary peers, the House of Lords will become a more workmanlike place. That is right and proper. It is an aim that we all share. All the aspects of work singled out in the new clause are perfectly worthy in themselves. We recognised the importance of that work in our White Paper. Nothing in our proposals for the transitional House or for the longer term suggests that the Government envisage that those will not continue to be functions fit for the second Chamber to carry out.
  6.30 pm
  I remind both the hon. Member for Sevenoaks and the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) that the Government do not propose to change the way in which matters are handled. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst asked how we could reflect the substance of the new clause. With respect for the worthy motives that might have lain behind tabling it, we cannot reflect its substance because, to be honest, it does not have any.
  I am conscious of the fact that Conservative Members are strongly of the view that unnecessary material should not be put on the statute book. It is a view that I share, and that is why I advise the Committee, should the Opposition press the matter to a Division, to reject the new clause.
  Mr. Letwin: I assure the Leader of the House that we shall push new clause 26 to a vote in due course.
  The background to this debate, one of the best that we have had in Committee, is clear, and has become clearer during the Committee stage. First, the Bill creates a second Chamber that poses as interim. By denying Opposition amendments and new clauses, the Government have made it perfectly clear, and in confirming their refusal to produce a timetable made it clearer yet, that they have no idea how long that Chamber will last, and that, for all they know or care, it could be permanent.
  Secondly, it has become clear during our debates that there are no measures in the Bill and nothing in the Government's plans to increase the ability of the second House, which the Bill re-creates, to check the Executive, despite the fact that the Government have been wholly unable and unwilling to deny that the greatest problem of our constitution today is the Executive's overwhelming power.
  Thirdly, and most importantly, throughout our debates, we have made it ever more clear that, by removing half the working Members of the other place, the Bill goes a long way towards weakening rather than strengthening the second Chamber. It weakens not its official role, but its ability to fulfil that role in reality. It makes it consciously and intentionally a less effective Chamber.

  1307
  New clause 9 on salaries and expenses offered the Government another chance to do something to remedy the deficiency that they have brought about by enabling their lordships, reduced in numbers as they will be, to do something about the matter by attending the Chamber more frequently, but the Government rejected that too.
  Mrs. Beckett: One reason why none of those points was answered in the debate is that none was germane to the debate. The hon. Gentleman is winding up the previous debates that we have already had.
  Mr. Letwin: With respect to the right hon. Lady, they are highly germane because they form the background to the debate.
  The debate on new clause 24 and its accompanying new clauses was the Government's final test, which Ministers and Labour Members have fundamentally and utterly failed.
  Mr. Stevenson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Letwin: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I shall not, because I am conscious of the time. I shall give way later if I can.
  My hon. Friends, who have made many excellent contributions to the debate, have properly castigated their Front-Bench spokesmen for the weakness of the new clauses. They have pointed out that they are less than perfect. My hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon), perhaps most notably my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) have all asked why the new clauses did not have more teeth. I think that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson) made the same point.
  We accept that the new clauses are by no means as strong as they might have been, but it is extraordinary that the Leader of the House should argue that it is not proper to have this modest, slight addition to the Bill on the grounds that it is incomplete and imperfect. If incompleteness and imperfection were guarantees of not entering law, and a guarantee that the Government would not wish something to enter the law, the Bill would never have come anywhere near the House. The Government, pre-eminently in Britain's history, are engaged in constitutional reform which, on their own admission, is incomplete and imperfect.
  It is extraordinary that the right hon. Lady can summon up the gall to come to the Dispatch Box and argue that, with all the resources at her disposal, she is unable to improve on new clauses which she herself says—I fear that I must doubt the sincerity of her utterance—are unobjectionable in their aims. If they are unobjectionable in their aims, but imperfect in their results and effects, she could, perfectly easily, have introduced better versions. In the spirit of consensus, which the White Paper so magnificently offers, we would of course have accepted such additions to our proposals, but this afternoon and this evening—in particular, during the past hour and a half or two hours of this debate—the Government have not shown the slightest intention of establishing an interim Chamber that will work better than the current Chamber.
  1308
  We said on Second Reading that the Government's intention was to create a twin poodle. They have poodlised this House; they intend to have a second poodle across the way. If they did not so intend, the last thing that they would have done is reject out of hand modest new clauses that sought purely to create a token—a token that would ensure at least that people were not introduced to their lordships' House merely as a matter of honour.
  We sought solely an undertaking from the Government—and an undertaking from the people who will sit in the House of Lords—that the people whom they appoint will seek to fulfil a serious role in a serious Chamber, notwithstanding the fact that the number of working peers will have been halved without the slightest amendment to their conditions, which would have enabled them to go on fulfilling the role. That is a modest requirement. By rejecting it, the Government have amply demonstrated their bad faith in introducing a Bill that does nothing to increase the effective check on the Executive and much to belittle it.
  I hope that Conservative Members will come willingly into the Lobby to support those points, notwithstanding the fact that, if we or the Government had been so minded, the new clauses could have been greatly strengthened. In this instance, the best is very much the enemy of the good. We shall vote to support the good, because that is much better than what the Government have been able to produce.
  Dr. Fox: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
  Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 26

  CRITERIA FOR CONFERMENT OF LIFE PEERAGE (No. 3)
  '(1) A person shall not be a member of the House of Lords by virtue of a peerage conferred under the Life Peerages Act 1958 unless he has first declared a willingness to serve as a member of the House of Lords.

  (2) Any such declaration shall be ineffective at the end of the Parliament in which it is made.

  (3) Subsection (2) shall not prevent a further declaration being made at any time.

  (4) The declaration shall indicate a willingness to participate in—

  (a) the consideration of Bills and draft statutory instruments,

  (b) the study of European Community obligations of the United Kingdom,

  (c) the scrutiny of Ministers of the Crown, and

  (d) the work of select committees.'.—[Dr. Fox.]

  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 104, Noes 288.

  Division No. 90]

  [6.38 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Brady, Graham

  Amess, David

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Baldry, Tony

  Burns, Simon

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Butterfill, John

  Body, Sir Richard

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Boswell, Tim

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Chope, Christopher

  1309

  Clappison, James

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Loughton, Tim

  Collins, Tim

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Cran, James

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Day, Stephen

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Duncan, Alan

  Malins, Humfrey

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Faber, David

  Moss, Malcolm

  Fabricant, Michael

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Fallon, Michael

  Norman, Archie

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Ottaway, Richard

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Paterson, Owen

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Pickles, Eric

  Fraser, Christopher

  Prior, David

  Gale, Roger

  Randall, John

  Garnier, Edward

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Gibb, Nick

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Gill, Christopher

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Ruffley, David

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Gray, James

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Green, Damian

  Spring, Richard

  Greenway, John

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Grieve, Dominic

  Streeter, Gary

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Syms, Robert

  Hammond, Philip

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Horam, John

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Tredinnick, David

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Trend, Michael

  Hunter, Andrew

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Walter, Robert

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Wardle, Charles

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Waterson, Nigel

  Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Whittingdale, John

  Wilkinson, John

  Key, Robert

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Woodward, Shaun

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Leigh, Edward

  Mr. Oliver Heald and

  Letwin, Oliver

  Sir David Madel.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Blackman, Liz

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Ainger, Nick

  Blizzard, Bob

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Borrow, David

  Allan, Richard

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Burden, Richard

  Ashton, Joe

  Burstow, Paul

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Austin, John

  Caborn, Richard

  Ballard, Jackie

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Barnes, Harry

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Caplin, Ivor

  Beard, Nigel

  Casale, Roger

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Caton, Martin

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Cawsey, Ian

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Clapham, Michael

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Benton, Joe

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Berry, Roger

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Best, Harold

  Clelland, David

  Betts, Clive

  Coaker, Vernon

  1310

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Coleman, Iain

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Colman, Tony

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Connarty, Michael

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Cooper, Yvette

  Hurst, Alan

  Corbett, Robin

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Cousins, Jim

  Jamieson, David

  Cox, Tom

  Jenkins, Brian

  Cranston, Ross

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Crausby, David

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Cummings, John

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

  Dalyell, Tam

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Darvill, Keith

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Kidney, David

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Dawson, Hilton

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Denham, John

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Dismore, Andrew

  Lawrence, Ms Jackie

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Laxton, Bob

  Doran, Frank

  Lepper, David

  Dowd, Jim

  Leslie, Christopher

  Drew, David

  Levitt, Tom

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Livingstone, Ken

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Edwards, Huw

  Lock, David

  Efford, Clive

  Love, Andrew

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  McAllion, John

  Ennis, Jeff

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Etherington, Bill

  McCabe, Steve

  Fearn, Ronnie

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Flint, Caroline

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Flynn, Paul

  McIsaac, Shona

  Follett, Barbara

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  McNulty, Tony

  Galloway, George

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Gapes, Mike

  Mallaber, Judy

  Gardiner, Barry

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Gerrard, Neil

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Goggins, Paul

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Martlew, Eric

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Maxton, John

  Grocott, Bruce

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Grogan, John

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Miller, Andrew

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Moore, Michael

  Harvey, Nick

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Mountford, Kali

  Healey, John

  Mullin, Chris

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Hesford, Stephen

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Hill, Keith

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Hinchliffe, David

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Hoey, Kate

  Olner, Bill

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  O'Neill, Martin

  Hope, Phil

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Pearson, Ian

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Pendry, Tom

  1311

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Pickthall, Colin

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Pike, Peter L

  Stevenson, George

  Plaskitt, James

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Pond, Chris

  Stott, Roger

  Pope, Greg

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Stringer, Graham

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Stunell, Andrew

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Purchase, Ken

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Rammell, Bill

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Rapson, Syd

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Raynsford, Nick

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Reid Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Timms, Stephen

  Rendel, David

  Tipping, Paddy

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Todd, Mark

  Rooker, Jeff

  Touhig, Don

  Rooney, Terry

  Trickett, Jon

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Truswell, Paul

  Rowlands Ted

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Ruddock Joan

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Salter, Martin

  Walley, MS Joan

  Sawford, Phil

  Wareing, Robert N

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Watts, David

  Shaw, Jonathan

  White, Brian

  Sheerman, Barry

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Singh, Marsha

  Skinner, Dennis

  Willis, Phil

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Wills, Michael

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Winnick, David

  Wise, Audrey

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Woolas, Phil

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Snape, Peter

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Mr. Mike Hall and

  Spellar, John

  Mr. David Hanson.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Schedule agreed to.
  Bill reported, without amendment.
  Third Reading tomorrow.

  Points of Order
  6.53 pm
  Mr. Michael Howard: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Have you seen the reply of the Foreign Secretary to my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire), in which the Foreign Secretary admits that he was sent and saw the report on human rights of the Foreign Affairs Committee before it was published, and that a draft of the Committee's report on enlargement, which has still not been published, was sent to his office in January and seen by the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the right hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Ms Quin), but not by him because—I quote from his answer—it "was not controversial"?
  Should not the Foreign Secretary be summoned to the House to make a statement about that further astonishing example of his and the Government's contempt for Parliament? Will Madam Speaker widen the scope of her letter of 1 March to the Chairman of the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges to include those latest examples of the Foreign Secretary's ethical foreign policy?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. Those are matters for the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Howard rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The last thing that I need is for hon. Members to shout. I hope that the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) will not pursue this matter. I have ruled that the question of these leaks is a matter for the Foreign Affairs Committee. It is within that Committee's domain.
  Mr. Tom King: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When this matter arose on a previous occasion, I asked Madam Speaker to ensure that it would be looked into so that we could have a ruling about whether it is thought to be proper conduct for a Minister to receive, hold and not return, without apology, a Select Committee report. Madam Speaker gave a prompt answer, for which I am grateful, to say that this was—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
  Mr. King: May I complete this point?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Madam Speaker has already made clear her feelings on the matter. It is now before the Committee on Standards and Privileges. In answer to the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe, I have said that this is a matter for the Foreign Affairs Committee.
  Mr. Donald Anderson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It might be for the convenience of the House if I explain the decision that has just been taken in the Foreign Affairs Committee. As the House will know, there was a special report of that Committee which will, as I understand it, pass automatically to the Standards and Privileges Committee.

  1313
  It is that Committee's report which will ultimately be debatable in the Chamber. On the latest developments, the Foreign Affairs Committee has today started the procedure which is set out clearly on page 670 of "Erskine May". That procedure will now be under way and, as you have already ruled, the matter is still with the Foreign Affairs Committee.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I thank the hon. Gentleman. There is nothing more to add.
  Mr. Quentin Davies: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Surely a matter of the honourable or dishonourable conduct of Members of the House and the question of the integrity or otherwise of our Select Committee system must be matters of concern to the House.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The House has an established procedure for dealing with matters of this sort. I have described that procedure and I can say no more.
  I may have interrupted the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King). I will allow him to complete his point of order.
  Mr. King: My point was not specifically about the Foreign Affairs Committee, but deals with the wider issue of Select Committees. I have raised this matter with Madam Speaker and I simply want to reinforce a point. Madam Speaker has made it clear that she takes seriously the issue of Select Committee reports being given to Ministers who then retain and study them and do not return them to the House, and I believe that she intends to make a ruling. I am asking a simple question. The written answer indicates that two more Select Committee reports have been leaked, and I am simply asking that we follow the same procedure. May I ask you politely, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to refer this matter to Madam Speaker in the hope that she will include this in her ruling?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That will be done because the Foreign Affairs Committee and the Standards and Privileges Committee are looking at this matter.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
  That the Local Government Finance (England) Special Grant Report (No. 41) (HC 218), which was laid before this House on 4th February, be approved.—[Mr. Hill.]
  The House divided: Ayes 281, Noes 94.

  Division No. 91]

  [6.59 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Ainger, Nick

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Allan, Richard

  Austin, John

  1314

  Ballard, Jackie

  Ennis, Jeff

  Barnes, Harry

  Etherington, Bill

  Bayley, Hugh

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Beard, Nigel

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Flint, Caroline

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Flynn, Paul

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Follett, Barbara

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Benton, Joe

  Galloway, George

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Gapes, Mike

  Berry, Roger

  Gardiner, Barry

  Best, Harold

  Gerrard, Neil

  Betts, Clive

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Blackman, Liz

  Goggins, Paul

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Blizzard, Bob

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Borrow, David

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Grocott, Bruce

  Burden, Richard

  Grogan, John

  Burstow, Paul

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Harvey, Nick

  Caborn, Richard

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Healey, John

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Caplin, Ivor

  Hesford, Stephen

  Casale, Roger

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Caton, Martin

  Hill, Keith

  Cawsey, Ian

  Hinchliffe, David

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Clapham, Michael

  Hoey, Kate

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Hope, Phil

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Clelland, David

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Coaker, Vernon

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hurst, Alan

  Coleman, Iain

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Colman, Tony

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Connarty, Michael

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Cooper, Yvette

  Jamieson, David

  Corbett, Robin

  Jenkins, Brian

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Cousins, Jim

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Cox, Tom

  Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Cranston, Ross

  Crausby, David

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Cummings, John

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Kidney, David

  Dalyell, Tam

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Darvill, Keith

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Lawrence, Ms Jackie

  Dawson, Hilton

  Laxton, Bob

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Lepper, David

  Denham, John

  Leslie, Christopher

  Dismore, Andrew

  Levitt, Tom

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Doran, Frank

  Livingstone, Ken

  Drew, David

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Lock, David

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Love, Andrew

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  McAllion, John

  Edwards, Huw

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Efford, Clive

  McCabe, Steve

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  1315

  McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Salter, Martin

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Sawford, Phil

  McIsaac, Shona

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

  Sheerman, Barry

  McNamara, Kevin

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  McNulty, Tony

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Singh, Marsha

  Mallaber, Judy

  Skinner, Dennis

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Snape, Peter

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Martlew, Eric

  Spellar, John

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Stevenson, George

  Miller, Andrew

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Mountford, Kali

  Stott, Roger

  Mullin, Chris

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Stringer, Graham

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Stunell, Andrew

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Olner, Bill

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Pearson, Ian

  Timms, Stephen

  Pendry, Tom

  Tipping, Paddy

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Todd, Mark

  Pickthall, Colin

  Touhig, Don

  Pike, Peter L

  Trickett, Jon

  Plaskitt, James

  Truswell, Paul

  Pollard, Kerry

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Pond, Chris

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Pope, Greg

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Wareing, Robert N

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Watts, David

  Purchase, Ken

  White, Brian

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Rammell, Bill

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Rapson, Syd

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Willis, Phil

  Raynsford, Nick

  Wills, Michael

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Winnick, David

  Rendel, David

  Wise, Audrey

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Woolas, Phil

  Rooker, Jeff

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Rooney, Terry

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Ruddock, Joan

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Mr. Mike Hall and

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Mr. David Hanson.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Burns, Simon

  Amess, David

  Butterfill, John

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Chope, Christopher

  Boswell, Tim

  Clappison, James

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Brady, Graham

  Cran, James

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  1316

  Duncan, Alan

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Fabricant, Michael

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Fallon, Michael

  Malins, Humfrey

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Mates, Michael

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Fox, Dr Liam

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Fraser, Christopher

  Moss, Malcolm

  Gale, Roger

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Garnier, Edward

  Norman, Archie

  Gibb, Nick

  Ottaway, Richard

  Gill, Christopher

  Paterson, Owen

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Pickles, Eric

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair

  Prior, David

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Randall, John

  Gray, James

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Green, Damian

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Greenway, John

  Ruffley, David

  Grieve, Dominic

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Hammond, Philip

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Heald, Oliver

  Spring, Richard

  Horam, John

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Syms, Robert

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Hunter, Andrew

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Tredinnick, David

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Trend, Michael

  Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Walter, Robert

  Wardle, Charles

  Key, Robert

  Waterson, Nigel

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Whittingdale, John

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Wilkinson, John

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Letwin, Oliver

  Woodward, Shaun

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Mr. Stephen Day and

  Loughton, Tim

  Sir David Madel.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Last week in this Chamber, the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge), promised that I would receive a written response to my questions about whether the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 (Amendment) Regulations are legal under European Union law as far as they apply to au pairs. As the Government have not bothered to reply, should the House be considering the regulations now?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): That is not a point of order for the Chair. The issue is whether the House approves or disapproves the motion.

  TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
  That the draft National Minimum Wage Act 1998 (Amendment) Regulations 1999, which were laid before this House on 16th February, be approved.—[Mr. Jamieson.]
  The House divided: Ayes 277, Noes 73.

  Division No. 92]

  [7.12 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Denham, John

  Ainger, Nick

  Dismore, Andrew

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Allan, Richard

  Doran, Frank

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Drew, David

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Austin, John

  Edwards, Huw

  Ballard, Jackie

  Efford, Clive

  Barnes, Harry

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Bayley, Hugh

  Ennis, Jeff

  Beard, Nigel

  Etherington, Bill

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Flint, Caroline

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Flynn, Paul

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Follett, Barbara

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Benton, Joe

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Berry, Roger

  Galloway, George

  Best, Harold

  Gapes, Mike

  Betts, Clive

  Gardiner, Barry

  Blackman, Liz

  Gerrard, Neil

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Blizzard, Bob

  Goggins, Paul

  Borrow, David

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Burden, Richard

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Burstow, Paul

  Grocott, Bruce

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Grogan, John

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Caborn, Richard

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Harvey, Nick

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Caplin, Ivor

  Healey, John

  Casale, Roger

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Caton, Martin

  Hesford, Stephen

  Cawsey, Ian

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Hill, Keith

  Clapham, Michael

  Hinchliffe, David

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Hoey, Kate

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Hope, Phil

  Clelland, David

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Coaker, Vernon

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Coleman, Iain

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Colman, Tony

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Connarty, Michael

  Hurst, Alan

  Cooper, Yvette

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Corbett, Robin

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Jamieson, David

  Cousins, Jim

  Jenkins, Brian

  Cox, Tom

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Cranston, Ross

  Crausby, David

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Cummings, John

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Dalyell, Tam

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Darvill, Keith

  Kidney, David

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  1318

  Lawrence, Ms Jackie

  Rooney, Terry

  Laxton, Bob

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Lepper, David

  Rowlands, Ted

  Leslie, Christopher

  Ruddock, Joan

  Levitt, Tom

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Livingstone, Ken

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Salter, Martin

  Lock, David

  Sawford, Phil

  Love, Andrew

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McAllion, John

  Shaw, Jonathan

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Sheerman, Barry

  McCabe, Steve

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

  Singh, Marsha

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Skinner, Dennis

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Snape, Peter

  McNulty, Tony

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Spellar, John

  Mallaber, Judy

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Stevenson, George

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Stott, Roger

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Stringer, Graham

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Miller, Andrew

  Stunell, Andrew

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Mountford, Kali

  Mullin, Chris

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  O'Brien Mike (N Warks)

  Timms, Stephen

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Tipping, Paddy

  Olner, Bill

  Todd, Mark

  O'Neill, Martin

  Touhig, Don

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Trickett, Jon

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Truswell, Paul

  Pearson, Ian

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Pendry, Tom

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Pike, Peter L

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Plaskitt, James

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Pollard, Kerry

  Wareing, Robert N

  Pollard, Kerry

  Watts, David

  Pond, Chris

  White, Brian

  Pope, Greg

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Willis, Phil

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Wills, Michael

  Purchase, Ken

  Winnick, David

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Wise, Audrey

  Rammell, Bill

  Woolas, Phil

  Rapson, Syd

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Wright Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Rendel, David

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Mr. David Hanson and

  Rooker, Jeff

  Mr. Mike Hall.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Boswell, Tim

  Amess, David

  Brady, Graham

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Butterfill, John

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Chope, Christopher

  1319

  Clappison, James

  Loughton, Tim

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Cran, James

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Day, Stephen

  Malins, Humfrey

  Duncan, Alan

  Mates, Michael

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Fabricant, Michael

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Fallon, Michael

  Ottaway, Richard

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Paterson, Owen

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Pickles, Eric

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Prior, David

  Fraser, Christopher

  Randall, John

  Gale, Roger

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Garnier, Edward

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Gibb, Nick

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Gill, Christopher

  Spring, Richard

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Green, Damian

  Syms, Robert

  Greenway, John

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Hammond, Philip

  Tredinnick, David

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Trend, Michael

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Walter, Robert

  Hunter, Andrew

  Wardle, Charles

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Whittingdale, John

  Key, Robert

  Wilkinson, John

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Letwin, Oliver

  Woodward, Shaun

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Mr. Oliver Heald and

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Sir David Madel.

  Question accordingly agreed to.

  TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation,
  That the draft National Minimum Wage Regulations 1999, which were laid before this House on 16th February, be approved.—[Mr. Jamieson.]
  The House divided: Ayes 267, Noes 55.

  Division No. 93]

  [7.23 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Borrow, David

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Ainger, Nick

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Burden, Richard

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Burstow, Paul

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Caborn, Richard

  Austin, John

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Ballard, Jackie

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Barnes, Harry

  Caplin, Ivor

  Bayley, Hugh

  Casale, Roger

  Beard, Nigel

  Caton, Martin

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Cawsey, Ian

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Clapham, Michael

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Benton, Joe

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Berry, Roger

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Best, Harold

  Clelland, David

  Betts, Clive

  Coaker, Vernon

  Blackman, Liz

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Coleman, Iain

  Blizzard, Bob

  Colman, Tony

  1320

  Cooper, Yvette

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Corbett, Robin

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Cousins, Jim

  Cox, Tom

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Cranston, Ross

  Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

  Crausby, David

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Cummings, John

  Kidney, David

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Darvill, Keith

  Lawrence, Ms Jackie

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Laxton, Bob

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Lepper, David

  Dawson, Hilton

  Leslie, Christopher

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Levitt, Tom

  Denham, John

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Dismore, Andrew

  Livingstone, Ken

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Doran, Frank

  Lock, David

  Drew, David

  Love, Andrew

  Drown, Ms Julia

  McAllion, John

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  McCabe, Steve

  Edwards, Huw

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Efford, Clive

  McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Ennis, Jeff

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Etherington, Bill

  McIsaac, Shona

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

  Flint, Caroline

  McNamara, Kevin

  Flynn, Paul

  McNulty, Tony

  Follett, Barbara

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Galloway, George

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Gapes, Mike

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Gardiner, Barry

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Goggins, Paul

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Miller, Andrew

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Mountford, Kali

  Grocott, Bruce

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Grogan, John

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Harvey, Nick

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Healey, John

  Olner, Bill

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Hesford, Stephen

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Pearson, Ian

  Hill, Keith

  Pendry, Tom

  Hinchliffe, David

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Pickthall, Colin

  Hoey, Kate

  Pike, Peter L

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Plaskitt, James

  Hope, Phil

  Pollard, Kerry

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Pond, Chris

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Pope, Greg

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Hurst, Alan

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Purchase, Ken

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Jamieson, David

  Rammell, Bill

  Jenkins, Brian

  Rapson, Syd

  1321

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Rendel, David

  Stunell, Andrew

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Rooker, Jeff

  Rooney, Terry

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Ruddock, Joan

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Timms, Stephen

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Todd, Mark

  Salter, Martin

  Touhig, Don

  Sawford, Phil

  Trickett, Jon

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Truswell, Paul

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Singh Marsha

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Skinner Dennis

  Wareing, Robert N

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Watts, David

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  White, Brian

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Snape, Peter

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Spellar, John

  Wills, Michael

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Winnick, David

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Wise, Audrey

  Stevenson, George

  Woolas, Phil

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Stott, Roger

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Mr. David Hanson and

  Stringer, Graham

  Mr. Mike Hall.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Amess, David

  Key, Robert

  Boswell, Tim

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Brady, Graham

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Butterfill, John

  Loughton, Tim

  Chope, Christopher

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Clappison, James

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Cran, James

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Day, Stephen

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Fabricant, Michael

  Paterson, Owen

  Fallon, Michael

  Pickles, Eric

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Randall, John

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Ruffley, David

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Spring, Richard

  Fraser, Christopher

  Syms, Robert

  Gale, Roger

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Garnier, Edward

  Trend, Michael

  Gill, Christopher

  Wardle, Charles

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Wilkinson, John

  Green, Damian

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Hammond, Philip

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Mr. Oliver Heald and

  Hunter, Andrew

  Sir David Madel.

  Question accordingly agreed to.

  NORTHERN IRELAND
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
  That the draft Strategic Planning (Northern Ireland) Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 22nd February, be approved.—[Mr. Jamieson.]
  Question agreed to.

  NORTHERN IRELAND
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
  That the draft Energy Efficiency (Northern Ireland) Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 22nd February, be approved.—[Mr. Jamieson.]
  Question agreed to.

PETITION

  South Downs
  7.34 pm
  Mr. David Lepper: I am pleased to have the opportunity to present a petition initiated by Friends of the Earth, south-east office, which is based in my constituency. The petition has 21,000 signatures.
  The petition states:
  To the House of Commons.
  The Petition of Friends of the Earth (South East Office) and others
  Declares that they are concerned about the sustainable long-term future of the South Downs.
  The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons establish a democratically elected National Park style body to succeed the South Downs Conservation Board, with strong planning powers to protect the Downs from damaging new development and to control and manage the huge recreational pressures on the Downs.
  And the Petitioners remain, etc.
  To lie upon the Table.

Mr. Nicholas Duff
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jamieson.]
7.36 pm
Mr. Stephen Hesford: May I first say how pleased I am that my application for this debate was successful in the ballot? It is about my constituent, Mr. Nicholas Duff, who is aged 40. He is a registered disabled person who suffers from the disability of light-sensitive atopic eczema. This year, he has already spent three and a half weeks in hospital due to the condition, which is so severe that he takes nine different types of medication—either creams or internal medication—daily or weekly.
Typically, Nicholas Duff has to stay indoors during daylight hours due to his light-sensitive condition. If he comes into contact with any ultraviolet light that is commonly in daylight, his skin burns. The result appears to be severe sunburn, although such a description underplays the disability from which he suffers. For example, if he walked to his local shop—a matter of a few hundred yards—he would have to stay indoors for days to recover.
A local charity was kind enough to pay for a car that has specially tinted windows, which block out the damaging ultraviolet light. That enables Mr. Nicholas Duff to have a normal life and to get out and about in the daytime. Indeed, if he had to be admitted to hospital in an emergency, or needed to see his doctor at a moment's notice, he could make the journey in his car, since he is disabled, not from getting out and about, but from getting out in the daylight.
My constituent was granted disability living allowance at the higher mobility component rate in about 1990. He was re-examined for that benefit in 1993. In September 1993, the then adjudication officer gave this decision:
"I considered the evidence contained in Mr. Duff's claim form and letter. I also considered the letter from Professor Friedmann.
The evidence shows that Mr. Duff was able to walk but due to his condition was unable to walk outside in daylight without considerable discomfort and skin reaction. Having regard to the evidence before me I found that Mr. Duff therefore satisfied the higher rate mobility component".
In March 1997, Mr. Duff's case was reviewed by the Benefits Agency. At that review, the adjudication officer's decision was to withdraw his benefit. My constituent tells me that, in effect, that withdraws from him the money that enables him to use his car.
In reaching that decision, the adjudication officer said:
"This is because he is not suffering from physical disablement such that he is unable to walk or virtually unable to do so".
That refusal by the adjudication officer was not believed by the local social services or by Professor Friedmann, a leading authority on this disease who is now professor of dermatology at Southampton.
In April 1997, on hearing of the refusal, Professor Friedmann immediately wrote the following letter:
"I must protest in the strongest possible terms … this"
disablement is
"sufficiently severe that he has spent many weeks in hospitals and"
1324
requires
"toxic and even dangerous drugs to attempt to get"
his
"condition under control … This requires … the correct form of protective film applied to the windows to shut out the harmful wavelengths of the daylight. Mr. Duff is completely dependent upon the continued use of his car which is correctly equipped … There is, therefore, a … strong medical need for this man to have assistance that enables him to maintain his means of mobility. I therefore ask you to reverse this decision".
Mr. Duff applied to have the decision reviewed. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to examine the process that Mr. Duff then underwent between then and the present day, in early 1999. He had to go through a series of hoops which he should not have gone through, and which only exacerbated his situation.
Mr. Duff applied for a review; it took four months to come about, in September 1997. The refusal was confirmed by an adjudication officer. I became involved at or about that time, and it has taken an average of a month for the Benefits Agency to reply to any of my letters.
One of the delays in the case resulted from the fact that the Duff family were so desperate on refusal of their mobility component that they wrote to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister's Office wrote to the Department of Social Security, and the Department lost the correspondence. I have on file a letter from the then junior Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle), profusely apologising for that event.
Mr. Duff went for review towards the end of September 1997. The refusal read as follows:
"Medical opinion states there is no physical cause of any mobility difficulties. I can see no reason why Mr. Duff could not walk a reasonable distance outdoors using appropriate clothing and creams for protection … I do not accept that Mr. Duff's disability is physical."
Mr. Duff s family cannot understand how anyone could reach that conclusion having seen Mr. Duff in the unfortunate state in which he often is during the day.
I do not want to overplay the disappointment and distress that that refusal causes, but I draw to the attention of the House the fact that the official note of the adjudication officer's decision shows that he placed reliance on the Benefits Agency medical officer's note of his examination at that time. It was wholly inadequate; I shall explain why in a moment.
Not only did the adjudication officer rely on a wholly inadequate medical opinion, but there was no mention of Professor Friedmann's letter, to which I referred a few moments ago. I know that that letter was on file and was before the tribunal. I am at a loss to understand why the adjudication officer failed to refer to Professor Friedmann's letter of that time. It was one of the reasons why the original adjudicating officer granted the disability allowance in the first place.
On hearing that Mr. Duff had again been refused his disability allowance, Professor Friedmann wrote yet another letter, dated 14 October 1997. He stated:
"This letter is to express my concern at the utterly flippant tone and response in the letter declining to grant the mobility component of Disability Living Allowance to this man—my patient. … We do not normally ask for Disability Living Allowance for people with

1325
normal types of light sensitivity. In Mr. Duff's case the condition is much more severe than usual and in fact, little or no protective benefit is obtained from using sunblock creams"—
which were suggested by the medical examiner. The letter goes on to state that
"the use of powerful cytotoxic and immunosuppressive drugs"
is necessary in this case, together with frequent in-patient admissions. Professor Friedmann continues:
"This has probably only been successful because he"—
Mr. Duff—
"has managed to avoid exposure to sunlight… Rather short exposures to daylight can cause severe exacerbation of the skin disease which may take weeks to subside… For the adjudicating officer to make the comment 'why Mr. Duff could not walk a reasonable distance outdoors using the appropriate clothing and creams for protection' shows a complete misunderstanding of the nature of the condition."
Mr. Duff appealed that decision to the social security disability appeals tribunal. That brings me to another part of my complaint about the system. He lodged his appeal in December 1997, but it was not heard until November 1998—he had to wait almost a year. That is not satisfactory. I bring the matter to the attention of my hon. Friend.
The appeal tribunal confirmed the decisions refusing the benefit. On hearing of the new refusal, Professor Friedmann wrote a third letter, dated 30 November 1998. He wrote:
"I understand that his most recent appeal before the Tribunal was rejected on the grounds that 'he is able to walk'! I feel somehow that an almost wilful refusal to acknowledge the nature of the disability on behalf of people assessing this case has been demonstrated."
I ask my hon. Friend to reflect on that. I understand from speaking to other hon. Members that it is not uncommon for people with disabilities, on being examined, to be wholly dissatisfied with the way in which they are treated at tribunals. They cannot believe that the doctors are unable to understand their condition.
In Mr. Duff's case, the formula of words found by the doctor and repeated by the adjudication officer is inadequate in medical terms, but it is no surprise to Mr. Duff and his family that it refuses disability on the ground that the claimant "is able to walk".
Professor Friedmann's letter goes on:
"The whole point about Nick's case is that he can move about only if he is encased in a capsule that filters the sunlight to prevent the harmful ultra-violet rays reaching his skin. The genuineness of his case is exemplified by the fact that, even as I write, he is now in hospital with a severe relapse of his condition."
He concludes:
"I feel that Nick is one of the genuinely deserving cases."
My hon. Friend the Minister will understand that I do not speak only of Nick Duff's case. Not only did Mr. Duff's father write in desperation to the Prime Minister—my hon. Friend will understand that not just Mr. Duff junior is affected; the whole family is placed under tremendous strain when dealing with such cases—but he wrote to every hon. Member about the case. I am pleased that hon. Members have stayed tonight to show support. I know from seeing their replies that they gave that support to Mr. Duff, and knowing that the House is willing to listen to their complaint and the wider issues has been of tremendous value to the family.
1326
Nearly 50 hon. Members replied in a supportive way, and some took the trouble to mention like cases among their own constituents.
Mr. Duff senior wrote to me about an incident which occurred at the end of November, which encapsulates how the strain impinges on the family. Mr. Duff junior was again housebound and Mr. and Mrs. Duff, having been called round, found the carpet around his chair literally covered in skin. He could not stand the complaint and could not stop scratching. When the doctor saw the skin that had been cleaned up, he was amazed at how much had exfoliated. That shows the severity of the condition, if that needed underlining.
I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to reflect on whether the refusal was proper. Looking at some of the cases involved, there seems to be a potential confusion between section 73 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992, setting out the conditions for eligibility for the disability living allowance, and the regulation made thereunder—regulation 12 of the Social Security (Disability and Living Allowance) Regulations 1991. That sets out a slightly different approach for deciding whether a claimant is entitled to the mobility component of the disability living allowance. I do not ask for a definitive answer tonight, but I have told my hon. Friend where I see a potential difference. I do not intend to detain the House tonight by going through those regulations, but I do ask my hon. Friend to reflect on that and look again at the potential difference, particularly as it affects Mr. Duff s case, if not more generally.
7.53 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Hugh Bayley): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, West (Mr. Hesford) on securing this Adjournment debate on an important matter concerning his constituent. My hon. Friend has made a solid reputation for himself as a powerful advocate here for his constituency and his constituents, and his speech this evening will enhance his reputation. I am glad to have the opportunity to respond to his points.
I have read the files on Mr. Duff's applications for disability living allowance, including the letters submitted by his consultant dermatologist, Professor Friedmann. I recognise that he suffers from a severe condition and, naturally, I sympathise with the difficulties that that causes him and his family.
Before speaking about Mr. Duff's case, it would be helpful to the House if I explained the reasons why disability living allowance is awarded. It is not, and has never been, awarded as compensation for disability. Nor is it awarded because an individual has a particular disabling condition. The level of the award is determined by the effect of a person's condition on his daily life—the level of care that the person needs and the effect of the condition on his mobility.
DLA has two components. One is paid in relation to the need for help with personal care. The other, which concerns us in this case, is paid in relation to mobility needs. The mobility component is paid at two rates. The higher rate, which we are discussing, is paid when an individual is unable, or virtually unable, to walk; or has had both legs amputated at, or above, the ankle; or was born without legs or feet; or is deaf and blind; or is severely mentally impaired and has severe behavioural problems. The lower rate is paid when an individual can walk, but needs someone with him to do so.

1327
Decisions on awards are made by adjudication officers, who are statutory office holders and are required to make impartial decisions by applying the law to the facts of the individual case, based on the evidence before them. The primary source of evidence, in all cases, will always be the evidence provided by the claimant. However, evidence is collected from other sources such as the claimant's personal carer, a school, a physiotherapist or specialists and consultants involved in the claimant's care, as well as the claimant's general practitioner.
When adjudication officers consider an application for DLA, help and guidance are available from a variety of sources—for example, the "Disability Handbook", which is produced by doctors from my Department's medical policy group in close consultation with the Disability Living Allowance Advisory Board. It explains the effects of a wide range of medical conditions on a person's everyday life and often suggests where the best corroborative evidence could be sought.
All entitlement decisions carry the right of independent review—my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, West raised that point—and, under review, a claim can be looked at afresh by a second adjudication officer, who can request additional evidence if necessary. If, following a review decision, the claimant remains unhappy, he has the right of appeal to an independent appeal tribunal. As the name suggests, that tribunal is entirely independent of the Department of Social Security. It provides a means of redress for people who feel that their case has been decided incorrectly by the Department. The tribunals are independent of the Government, so it is not open to Ministers to interfere with their decisions.
To summarise the benefit generally, DLA is paid not as compensation, but in accordance with the law, which sets out detailed conditions for entitlement. Claimants are provided with every opportunity to support their claim and to challenge decisions that they believe to be incorrect.
Mr. Harry Barnes: On the general point, and before my hon. Friend the Minister moves on to Mr. Duff's case, he said that one category to which severe disability allowance automatically applies is double amputees; but it did not apply to double amputees a few years ago. I brought to the House the case of one of my constituents, which had many similarities to that of Mr. Duff. My constituent was in severe trouble and was a double amputee. A number of other cases were pressed by hon. Members and an adjustment was made to the law so that it applied to those cases. Mr. Duff may be in a category concerning an unusual area which has not been considered previously. There may need to be an adjustment in the law.
Mr. Bayley: My hon. Friend makes a useful intervention and, if I have time, I will refer to it later in my speech. The law states that the higher rate mobility component of DLA is paid to people who cannot or virtually cannot walk. Double amputees are covered for that reason.
I now turn to Mr. Duff's case. Mr. Duff had an award of disability living allowance higher rate mobility component, which was due to expire on 15 August 1997,
1328
and he asked for his claim to be renewed. Once the evidence had been studied, the adjudication officer determined that Mr. Duff was no longer entitled to DLA. From the information provided, it looks now as though a mistake was made when Mr. Duff was awarded DLA, and we had to correct that. I recognise that it has caused my hon. Friend's constituent considerable inconvenience and upset, and I apologise for that on behalf of my Department.
I appreciate that the withdrawal of Mr. Duff's DLA has been distressing for him and for his family. I also recognise my hon. Friend's very real concern that the decision in Mr. Duff's case was wrong. I have to say, however, that Mr. Duff's benefit was not withdrawn without proper consideration by the adjudication authorities.
Mr. Hesford: Will the Minister consider whether some of these adjudication officers are up to the job? Are they fully qualified to recognise what is in front of them?
Mr. Bayley: The adjudication officers are trained to work according to the law. They and the doctors employed by my Department often anger the people whose cases they consider, particularly when they turn down their applications for benefit. Sometimes, that is a natural reaction, but I accept that, on occasions, the way in which adjudication officers conduct their business, although strictly in accordance with the instructions they have been provided, gives rise to offence. My Department is seeking to improve the position. In consultation with bodies that represent disabled people, we are drawing up new programmes for further and additional training, so that those who deal with claims from disabled people are sensitive to the disability on which they are adjudicating.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: May I make a quick suggestion?
Mr. Bayley: I have only a few minutes left and, in fairness to our hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, West, who raised this case, I should reply to his points. If there is time later, I shall certainly give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).
Mr. Duff took full advantage of the system of review and appeal which I have just outlined. Two separate adjudication officers and an independent appeal tribunal have agreed that Mr. Duff is not entitled to the mobility component of DLA because he can walk.
There is case law from the Court of Appeal. In 1996, in the case of Diment and Hewitt—two individuals with serious skin conditions in which the ultraviolet rays in sunlight caused blistering, lesions and irritation—the Court of Appeal agreed that the conditions of entitlement relating to the higher rate of the DLA mobility component were not satisfied because the reaction to sunlight was not related to the act of walking. In addition, it found that entitlement arose only when the severe discomfort was as a result of the physical act of walking.
As to the eligibility criteria for DLA, it has long been accepted that the current tests of the need for help with care and mobility reflect the effect of a disability and the associated extra costs. The criteria are based on the findings of research undertaken by the Office for Population, Censuses and Surveys in the 1980s, which led to the development of DLA.

1329
My hon. Friend referred to a possible discrepancy between the 1992 Act and the regulations. I have looked into that, and I do not think that there is a discrepancy. However, he has asked me to review the matter, and I shall do so. I shall write to him on that point.
My hon. Friend expressed concern about the delay that claimants often face between appealing against a decision on benefit entitlement and getting that appeal heard. He is right to do so. Average waiting times are currently running at around seven months, which is clearly unacceptable. In fact, it is one of the main reasons for the Government's root-and-branch overhaul of the adjudication system, which is well on the way to implementation. The Social Security Act 1998 laid the foundations for a new system, and regulations implementing that will soon be presented to the House.
1330
My hon. Friend mentioned the loss of his constituent's letter to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I accept that that happened, and it should not have happened. I also accept that Mr. Duff s case has not been dealt with well by my Department. Mr. Duff has experienced both delay and mismanagement, and I apologise to him for that. I hope that my hon. Friend will pass on my apologies.
This is not the service that a member of the public is entitled to expect—
The motion having been made after Seven o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at six minutes past Eight o'clock.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Road Fuel Gases
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) HGV vehicles and (b) public transport vehicles have been converted to road fuel gases since January 1997. [72918]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland does not hold figures for HGV vehicles converted to road fuel gases. The public transport company "Translink" has indicated that none of their public transport vehicles has been converted to road fuel gases since January 1997.

  Exiles
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what estimate she has made of the number of people who have been exiled from Northern Ireland by paramilitary groups since the Good Friday agreement. [73354]

  Mr. Ingram
  Information is not collected by the Government in the form requested.

  Schizophrenia Psychoses
  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people with a main diagnosis of schizophrenia psychoses were discharged from mental illness hospitals in Northern Ireland in each of the last three years; and how many of them were taken into local authority residential care in the same year. [73359]

  Mr. McFall
  The information available is as follows:

  Year

  Deaths and discharges

  Discharges to statutory sector residential accommodation

  1993–94

  1,394

  57

  1994–95

  1,448

  50

  1995–96

  1,396

  37

  Statutory sector refers to facilities managed by Health and Social Services Boards and Trusts.

  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what research projects her Department is funding in the current year to test the effectiveness of community care for people suffering from schizophrenia psychoses; and if she will make a statement. [73364]

  Mr. McFall
  The Department of Health and Social Services is funding no such projects in the current year either directly or through the Research and Development Office (RDO). In general, in order to ensure that funded 822
  research projects are of high quality, the RDO does not attempt to cover all possible areas of concern, but does seek to facilitate the dissemination of research findings.

  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list the admissions by diagnosis and order of admission indicating the percentage changes over the previous year in numbers and rates per 100,000 population of patients suffering from schizophrenia psychoses in Northern Ireland in the last year for which figures are available. [73367]

  Mr. McFall
  The table shows admissions for schizophrenia at Northern Ireland Mental illness hospitals by first admission and total admissions in 1994–95:

  First admissions

  Total admissions

  Number

  254

  1,152

  Percentage change since 1993–94

  -8.3

  +9.2

  Rate per 100,000 population

  9.4

  4.3

  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people with a main diagnosis of schizophrenia psychoses were admitted for a hospital stay more than once during the last year in Northern Ireland. [73363]

  Mr. McFall
  In year ending 31 March 1996, 224 people with a primary diagnosis of schizophrenia were admitted to hospital more than once during the year with the same diagnosis.

  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many current occupants of National Health Service hospital and unit beds in Northern Ireland have a main diagnosis of schizophrenia psychoses; and what these occupied beds represent as a percentage of(a) mental and (b) all beds in Northern Ireland. [74269]

  Mr. McFall
  This information is not held centrally. Information on diagnosis for current bed occupants is not available as diagnosis is only given on discharge.

  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people discharged from mental illness hospitals in Northern Ireland in the last year after a main diagnosis of schizophrenia psychoses, having been proved vulnerable homeless, subsequently became voluntary homeless. [74272]

  Mr. McFall
  This information is not held centrally.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what official visits she, her Ministers or officials have made to Zimbabwe since May 1997; whom they met; and what was discussed. [73685]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  None.

  Single Currency
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland 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. [73585]
  823
  Mr. Paul Murphy
  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 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 Secretary of State for Northern Ireland 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. [73671]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  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 8 of the Treasury's Outline National Changeover Plan provides further information. Copies of the Plan are available in the House Library.

  Brit Awards
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list those ministers in her Department who were present at the recent Brit awards in an official capacity; and who or what organisation was acting as their sponsor or host. [73496]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  No Minister in my Department attended the Brit Awards in an official capacity. I attended the awards on the acceptance of a personal invitation from the British Phonographic Industry Limited.

  Wheelchair Service
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the total estimated cost, including(a) printing, (b) times and (c) staff, in the preparation of the booklet, "The Wheelchair Service", by the Southern Health and Social Services Council; which other area health boards and area health councils have already published documents on the Wheelchair Service; to what extent there is duplication amongst the documents; and if she will make a statement. [73572]

  Mr. McFall
  The total external cost of publishing the booklet "The Wheelchair Service—The Experiences and Perceptions of Users", is estimated at £4,800 shared equally between joint publishers, Southern Health and Social Services Board and Southern Health and Social Services Council. The project began in December 1997 and was completed in January 1999. Two members of staff from the Council and three board officers were involved in developing the booklet as part of their on-going responsibilities to commission and assess the service needs of their users. As an integral part of the Board's and Council's activities, the total staff time attributed to this project is estimated at 25 man-days over the 13 month period. A detailed breakdown of staff costs is not readily available.

  The Western and Northern Health and Social Services Boards have carried out reviews of their commissioning arrangements for wheelchair services within the past three years. Reports of these reviews, which were conducted
  824
  as an integral part of the Board's activities, were not formally published. Whilst these reviews may have covered some of the same ground, they were specific to their respective areas and therefore cannot be considered to constitute any duplication.

  The provision of wheelchairs appropriate to the needs of users and supplied by an efficient service is a key element in promoting the independence and mobility of people with disabilities. Their views are important in informing and shaping the services they use and this most recent survey has provided users, and their carers, with a vehicle for contributing to the improvement of a service upon which they greatly depend.

  Rates
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if district councils are obliged to set a rate in public; and if she will make a statement. [73570]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Section 23 of the Local Government Act (Northern Ireland) 1972 requires that every meeting of a district council shall be open to the public. A council may, by resolution, exclude the public from a council meeting whenever publicity would be prejudicial to the public interest, for example, in the case of meeting at which confidential business is to be transacted or for other special reasons defined by the council. There is, however, no specific legislation which obliges a district council to set a rate in public.

  Pensioners (Concessionary Travel)
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many persons in Northern Ireland are registered as pensioners; and how many(a) males over 65 years and (b) females over 60 years use concessionary fare schemes. [73985]

  Mr. McFall
  The latest available information shows that at 15 January 1999 there were 237,546 persons in receipt of State Retirement Pension. This total is comprised of 82,963 males and 154,583 females.

  The Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland does not hold figures for males over 65 years and females over 60 years who use concessionary fare schemes.

  Sewage Disposal
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) when the permitted level of expenditure per household for providing new sewage disposal provision was last determined; and what sum is used as the basis for determining the viability of a new project; [73982]

  (2) if she will increase the permitted level of expenditure per household for connection to mains sewage disposal; and if she will make a statement. [73983]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Water Service under its Chief Executive, Mr. H. R. F. Plester. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.
  825
  Letter from D. Carson to Mr. Roy Beggs, dated 2 March 1999:
  You recently asked the Secretary of State to answer two Parliamentary Questions about the permitted level of expenditure per household for connection to mains sewerage, when it was last determined and whether the level of expenditure will be increased. You also asked what sum is used as the basis for determining the viability of a new project.
  These questions have been forwarded to the Chief Executive of Water Service, Mr. HRF Plester, for reply. Mr. Plester is currently on leave and I am replying as the Service's Director of Finance.
  The Department of the Environment's statutory duty, under the Water and Sewerage Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1973, to provide sewerage facilities operates within the limitations that such provision must be both practicable, in engineering terms, and can be made at reasonable cost. Since 1973, therefore, reasonable cost allowances have been available for first time connections to the sewerage infrastructure. The maximum allowance is currently £2,300 per domestic property (or equivalent). This maximum was set in 1986. It is currently under review by the Department.
  The Water Service test of viability for any new sewerage extension project is the £2,300 maximum reasonable cost allowance multiplied by the number of properties to be served by the scheme.
  Perhaps I can clarify by giving a model example. If, for instance, the number of domestic properties to be served by a sewer extension scheme is ten then the total Departmental expenditure available for the work is the reasonable cost maximum multiplied by ten—10 x £2,300 = £23,000. If the actual cost of provision is at or below this level, and the work involved is practicable, then the Water Service can programme the project in its capital works planning, subject to overall priorities.
  If the cost of any scheme is estimated to be in excess of the maximum allowance calculated for the work then the applicant (or applicants) for the sewer extension may agree to pay the additional monies necessary to take the work ahead. The Water Service can then also programme the project in its capital works planning, subject to practicability and overall priorities.
  I hope this explains the position clearly for you. Mr. Plester is happy to arrange a meeting to go into the matter in greater depth if you should wish this on his return. His secretary Mrs. Lynda Boyd can make necessary diary arrangements if contacted at the telephone number given above.

  Beef Exports
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what has been the value of beef exports from Northern Ireland following the lifting of the ban; and if she will make a statement.[73751]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  There is only one company involved in the export of beef from Northern Ireland since the lifting of the ban. In the circumstances the requested information cannot be provided as it is commercial in confidence.

  CS Sprays
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if the Royal Ulster Constabulary has issued its police officers with CS sprays; how many police officers in Northern Ireland currently carry CS sprays; and for what reasons they were issued. [74266]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Royal Ulster Constabulary has not issued CS sprays to its officers.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if CS gas has been issued to the Royal Ulster Constabulary at any time since 1969. [74267]
  826
  Mr. Ingram
  CS Gas has not been on issue to officers of the Royal Ulster Constabulary since circa. 1970.

  Good Practice
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if the Equality Commission is modelling future good practice for the new Government departments in Northern Ireland by including those directly affected by its decisions in its consultations.[73737]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  [holding answer 2 March 1999]: The Equality Commission has not yet been established, however paragraph 4(3)(a) of Schedule 9 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 gives the Commission the authority to issue guidelines on the form and content of equality schemes.

  It will be for the Commission, when it is formed, to decide on the extent of any consultation on those guidelines. Equality schemes will include details of each public authority's arrangements for consulting on matters to which a duty under section 75 of the Act is likely to be relevant.

  Equality Commission Working Group
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list those who were invited to the 19 February consultative meeting of the Equality Commission Working Group, indicating those who attended. [73739]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  [holding answer 2 March 1999]: I have placed in the Library a list of those who were invited to the 19 February consultative meeting of the Equality Commission Working Group and have indicated those who attended.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will publish the list of those who were circulated with the consultative paper prepared by the Equality Commission Working Group. [73738]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  [holding answer 2 March 1999]: I have placed in the Library a list of those organisations and individuals to whom the Consultative Paper, prepared by the Equality Commission Working Group, was circulated.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many and which organisations, excluding the existing equality agencies, are represented on the Equality Commission Working Group. [73736]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  [holding answer 2 March 1999]: In addition to representatives of the existing equality bodies, the Working Group includes a representative of the trade unions to which the majority of staff in the existing bodies, belong and an independent Chairman, Dr, Joan Stringer. The views of other organisations are being taken into account through a consultation process.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will place in the Library copies of the working papers being considered by the Equality Commission Working Group.[73740]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  [holding answer 2 March 1999]: Copies of working papers on the Equality Commission Working Group are a matter for the Group and not my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
  827
  I have arranged for a copy of the Consultative Paper to be placed in the Library. The final report of the Working Group, which I expect to receive during the first half of March, will also be placed in the Library.

  Equality Commission
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proposals she has to ensure persons dealing with disability and racial discrimination in employment in the new Equality Commission will have similar expertise to that of their colleagues for the Fair Employment Commission and the Equal Opportunities Commission. [73741]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  [holding answer 3 March 1999]: This is a matter being considered by the Working Group and I await their proposals. The current resources in respect of disability and race will be made available to the Equality Commission and I expect there to be continuity of personnel dealing with both issues. Staff development will be a key consideration for the new Commission.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps she is taking to ensure that advice is given to employers and assistance to disabled complainants between the establishment of the Equality Commission and the introduction of the new disability enforcement powers. [73742]

  Mr. McFall
  [holding answer 3 March 1999]: During the period between the establishment of the Equality Commission and the introduction of the new disability enforcement powers the Labour Relations Agency will continue to help employers and individuals with information on the employment provisions of the legislation and assistance related to its effects on industrial relations practices and procedures. In addition the DDA Helpline will continue to provide good practice advice and signpost callers to appropriate organisations.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proposals she has to ensure that a complainant raising more than one type of discrimination receives appropriate advice and assistance. [73743]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  [holding answer 3 March 1999]: The single Equality Commission will help facilitate those complaints raising more than one type of discrimination. The Equality Commission Working Group is considering such matters as a staffing structure for the Commission to enable it to deliver services most effectively. I expect to receive the final report of the Group's recommendations in mid-March.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps she is taking to ensure the networking proposals of the draft legislation for a disability rights commission in Northern Ireland are implemented by the new Equality Commission. [73744]

  Mr. McFall
  [holding answer 3 March 1999]: The intention is that with regard to disability the Equality Commission will have a similar role and functions to the Disability Rights Commission in Great Britain. The timing of the necessary legislation will be a matter for the Northern Ireland Assembly.
  828
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if the sums granted to the Equality Commission to deal with disability discrimination in Northern Ireland will reflect the amount given for similar purposes in Great Britain with suitable adjustments for the higher rate of disability in Northern Ireland than Great Britain. [73745]

  Mr. McFall
  [holding answer 3 March 1999]: The Equality Commission will continue to have the resources available to the Northern Ireland Disability Council. The funding required by the Equality Commission to cover new responsibilities will be a matter for the Assembly. However, I expect that account will be taken of the amount given for similar purposes in Great Britain and of local circumstances.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if, following the dissolution of the Northern Ireland Disability Council, the new Equality Commission will take its place on the National Disability Council. [73746]

  Mr. McFall
  [holding answer 3 March 1999]: Following the dissolution of the Northern Ireland Disability Council arrangements will be put in place to facilitate a close working relationship between the National Disability Council and the Equality Commission.

  Lobbyists
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will make a statement on the role of professional lobbyists in formulating policy in her Department. [74362]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Any contacts with lobbyists by Ministers and civil servants in this Department are conducted in accordance with the "Ministerial Code" and "Guidance for Civil Servants: Contact with Lobbyists".

  Provisional Sinn Fein
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much public money will be given(a) this year and (b) next year to (i) Provisional Sinn Fein and (ii) FACT and FAIR. [70055]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The information for the Northern Ireland Office and the Northern Ireland Departments is as follows:

  (a)In 1998–99, Sinn Fein is expected to receive £42,000 as Party Allowance in carrying out Assembly duties; FAIR (Families Acting for Innocent Relatives) will receive £4,000 in financial support; FACT (Families Against Crime and Terrorism) will receive no public money.

  (b)No decisions have been taken on allocations for 1999–2000.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what amounts in her Department's budget for 1998–99 can be attributed to spending on disabled people; and what proportion this represents of total departmental spending.[71280]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Information in the form requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. However, an estimated £42.2 million has been identified as spending on specific measures to assist the disabled in 1998–99.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Arms Export Licences
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many applications for arms export licences were outstanding on 4 January. [71843]

  Dr. Howells
  The Export Control Organisation's computer databases have been interrogated and the following results were obtained. At the end of 4 January 1999, 778 applications for Standard Individual Export Licences (SIELs) and 114 applications for Open Individual Export Licences (OIELs) covering the export of goods subject to export control by being listed in Part III of Schedule 1 to the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994, the so-called Military List, received since 2 May 1997, were awaiting a decision. Some applications may have been received on which no determination had been made as to whether or not the goods were controlled under the Military List. Such applications are not included.

  This information should be considered in light of the answer given by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) to my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) on 30 October 1997, Official Report, columns 870–71.

  This information does not cover any applications for Media OIELs that may have been pending at this time. Media OIELs authorise the export to all destinations of protective clothing, mainly for the protection of aid agency workers and journalists, when working in areas of conflict.

  Departmental Responsibilities
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the issues covered by his Department's responsibilities with which(a) Lord Simon and (b) Lord Sainsbury do not deal. [72802]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 24 February 1999]: Lord Simon and Lord Sainsbury conform fully with the Ministerial Code in relation to all the DTI's responsibilities.

  Brit Awards
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list those Ministers in his Department who were present at the recent Brit awards in an official capacity; and who or what organisation was acting as their sponsor or host. [73349]

  Mr. Byers
  The Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs attended the Brit Awards in his official capacity as Minister responsible for copyright issues. He was the guest of British Music Rights.

  India (Trade Mission)
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the business men and women who took part in the recent trade mission to India. [73307]

  Mr. Byers
  Several British trade missions and exhibitor groups were associated with the recent Indian Engineering Trade Fair. UK Groups from Birmingham Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the Machine Tools Technologies 830
  Association, Leicestershire Chamber of Commerce and Industry, business Link Sandwell and business Link Sussex attended. A full list of companies participating is in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans his Department has made for him to lead a trade delegation to India since he took up his present office. [73692]

  Mr. Byers
  I hope to visit India later this year and will be accompanied by a business delegation.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations were received by his officials during the recent Indian trade mission about ministerial attendance on that mission. [73287]

  Mr. Byers
  No such representation was received by my officials during the recent India trade mission.

  Nuclear Tests
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry 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. [73977]

  Mr. Byers
  I refer the hon. Member to the statement made by the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), on 10 July 1998,Official Report, columns 687–88.

  Measurement Units (Harmonisation)
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the state of the negotiations concerning the end of the derogation established by Directive 89/617/EEC relating to the harmonisation of units of measurement. [73769]

  Dr. Howells
  I refer to the reply which I gave to the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) on 25 February 1999,Official Report, column 438.

  Road Haulage Firms
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many road haulage firms have gone into liquidation in each year from 1995 to 1998. [74305]

  Dr. Howells
  The following table shows company compulsory liquidations and individual bankruptcies for the road transport industry in England and Wales, 1995–98. The road transport industry includes road haulage, car hire, taxis, bus services and other road passenger transport. Detailed figures solely for road haulage are not available.

  Insolvencies: road transport industry England and Wales

  Year

  Company compulsory liquidations

  Individual bankruptcy orders

  1995

  204

  924

  1996

  197

  1,008

  1997

  174

  971

  19981

  130

  597

  1To quarter 3

  Source:

  DTI
  831
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many road haulage firms have transferred their head offices from the United Kingdom to mainland Europe in the last five years. [74306]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information is not available in this form. Companies are required to register an address for correspondence for various legal purposes including goods operator licensing. This need not be the head office address so transfers of head offices would not be recorded as such.

  BNFL
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the interim report by KPMG on the proposed privatisation of BNFL; when the final report will be made public; and if he will make a statement. [73538]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 2 March 1999]: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) on 15 December 1998, Official Report, column 455.

  Fireworks
  Mr. Sawford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what controls he proposes to introduce on the sale of fireworks. [74634]

  Dr. Howells
  The Fireworks (Safety) Regulations 1997 introduced comprehensive controls on the types and sizes of fireworks which can be supplied to the general public. I have no plans to introduce further controls on fireworks. However, I have asked DTI officials to explore ways in which the voluntary agreement on the selling period for fireworks in the run-up to Bonfire night can be strengthened and to consider the issue of sales in advance of the Millennium celebrations.

  FE Lecturers (Employment Right)
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the effects on the employment rights of further education lecturers of the judgment in Credit Suisse First Boston (Europe) Ltd.v. Lister by the Court of Appeal on 16 October 1998; and if he will make a statement. [74699]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The Court of Appeal's judgment in this case is consistent with established case law of the UK courts and of the European Court of Justice. Following a transfer of an undertaking within the meaning of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 and the EC Acquired Rights Directive of 1977 (which the Regulations implement in the UK), changes to the terms and conditions of affected employees are unlawful if they are for a reason connected to the transfer. There are no special considerations relating to further education lecturers.

  EU Patent Directorate
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of whether the EU Patent Directorate COM (95) 661 infringes the Convention on Biological Diversity. [74492]
  832
  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 3 March 1999]: The adopted text of Directive 98/44/EC on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions (EU Patent Directive) explicitly states that it is without prejudice to the obligations of the Member States with regard to international agreements, including the convention on Biological Diversity. Moreover, the Directive notes that as the Community is party to the Convention, Member States must have regard to those aspects of the convention which concern patent rights when implementing the terms of the Directive. More generally, the relationship between patent rights and the Convention will be one of the agenda items for discussion at international level Convention meetings later this year. The United Kingdom Government have, and will continue to play, an active role in these discussions.

  Mirror Group Newspapers
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if Lord Donoughue will be interviewed about his role in Mirror Group newspapers as part of the departmental investigation into its flotation. [74762]

  Dr. Howells
  The inspectors appointed under Companies Act powers to investigate and report on the flotation of Mirror Group Newspapers are independent of my Department. Their inquiries are conducted in private and it is not our policy to comment on who the inspectors decide to interview or not to interview during the course of their investigation.

  Rogue Directors Hotline
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will publish complaints made to the Rogue Directors Hotline. [74763]

  Dr. Howells
  Complaints made to the Rogue Directors Hotline are treated as confidential and accordingly details of individual cases cannot be given. The Insolvency Service will publish statistics relating to the Hotline in its next Annual Report for the year to 31 March 1999.

  Credit Unions
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proposals he has to review the Post Office's policy of imposing a charge on membership cards for members of credit unions.[73913]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  [holding answer 3 March 1999]: Charging arrangements relating to credit union transactions at post offices are an operational and commercial matter for the Post Office, which incurs costs in providing such a service.

  Mobile Phones
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations his Department has received from scientists concerning the use of mobile phones; and what discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues on this subject. [74529]

  Mr. Wills
  The Department has received no formal representations from scientists on this subject. Officials of the Department are in regular contact with scientists both in the UK and overseas, and in particular with the National Radiological Protection Board. I have not discussed this subject with ministerial colleagues.

  Power Station Emissions
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the effect on the likely fuel mix for electricity generators in the United Kingdom of the European Commission proposals due to be considered in March to introduce ceilings for emissions of acid rain gases; and if he will make a statement. [74373]

  Mr. Battle
  Proposals expected from the European Commission for a National Emissions Ceilings Directive under the EU Acidification Strategy will cover UK-wide emissions in the year 2010, not just those from power stations. Emissions of sulphur dioxide and oxides of nitrogen from new and existing large combustion plant, including power stations, are already limited under the Large Combustion Plants Directive (88/609/EEC).

  Although the levels of any proposed new emissions ceilings have not yet been finalised by the Commission, during the preparation of the 1998 White Paper on the Review of Energy Sources for Power Generation (Cmnd 4071) we were mindful of these and other, related proposals already endorsed in principle. Therefore, subject to the outcome of future negotiations, I expect that any agreed national emissions ceilings for the United Kingdom will be fully compatible with the Government's

  18–24 year old 6 month plus claimants of unemployed-related benefits

  (i) May 1997-April 1998

  (ii) April 1998-January 1999

  Total offlows from the claimant count

  222,011

  177,902

  Average monthly offlow from the claimant count

  20,183

  19,767

  Total change in stock of claimants

  50,129

  42,950

  Average monthly change in stock of claimants

  -4,557

  -4,772

  Total change in stock of claimants (per cent.)

  -30

  -36

  Monthly percentage point change in stock of claimants

  -2.7

  -4

  Note:

  All data are seasonally adjusted

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what(a) reviews, (b) task forces and (c) 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. [71522]

  Mr. Mudie
  Unfortunately the information asked for on "costs" is available only at disproportionate cost. Therefore, the reply is limited to the name of the body and refers to published reports only.

  Reviews

  Adventure Activities Licensing Scheme

  Bureaucratic Burdens on Teachers reported on 16 January 1998

  National Curriculum for the Year 2000

  Prior Options Review of the FEFC

  Prior Options Review of HEFCE

  Qualifications Appeals Systems reported in July 1998

  Quinquennial Review of Investors In People UK

  Quinquennial Review of the Teacher Training Agency

  834
  stated aim of ensuring secure, diverse and sustainable supplies of energy at competitive prices, as set out in the White Paper.

  Lobbyists
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the role of professional lobbyists in formulating policy in his Department. [74365]

  Mr. Byers
  Any contact with lobbyists by Ministers and civil servants in this Department are conducted in accordance with the "Ministerial Code" and "Guidance for Civil Servants: Contacts with Lobbyists".

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  New Deal
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many individuals in the target group of the New Deal for 18 to 24-year-olds have left unemployment (i) between May 1997 and the nationwide commencement of the New Deal and (ii) between the nationwide commencement of the New Deal and the latest available date. [71131]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The information is provided in the following table, based on the monthly count of people claiming Jobseeker's Allowance or National Insurance Credits:

  Scottish Fee Support Review Body ('Quigley Review')

  TECs (Review of The Role of)
  Review of the Threshold Exempting Employers with Fewer than 20 Employers from the Employment Provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 produced a report on 12 June 1998.

  Task Forces
  Careers Service Special Needs Task Force
  Disability Rights Task Force reported on the role and functions of a Disability Rights Commission on 12 June 1998.

  Standards Task Force

  New Deal Task Force has published 3 reports:
  Meeting The Needs Of The Disadvantaged—November 1998 Business Participation in Welfare-to-Work: lessons from the United States—January 1999
  Environment Task Force Advisory Group?Sub-Group Report On Linking Funding Sources—February 1999

  Numeracy Task Force published:
  Numeracy Matters—preliminary report published for consultation in January 1998
  The Implementation of the National Numeracy Strategy, final report in July 1998

  Skills Task Force published its first report in September 1998
  835
  Advisory Groups

  Adult and Community Learning Fund Advisory Group

  Advisory Committee for Disabled People in Employment and Training

  Bureaucracy Advisory Group

  Careers Education and Guidance Consultative Advisory Group

  Creative and Cultural Education National Advisory Committee

  Development of Individual Learning Accounts Advisory Group

  Education and the Teaching of Democracy published its final report titled "Education for citizenship and the teaching of democracy in schools" on 22 September 1998.

  Education Development Plans (EDPs) Advisory Group

  Further Education Student Support Advisory Group

  Gifted and Talented Children

  Independent/State School Partnerships published an Interim Report in May 1998, and a final report on 7 October 1998.

  National Year of Reading

  New Deal Task Force Advisory Group

  New Start Advisory Group

  Personal, Social And Health Education Advisory Group

  Post-16 Partnership Advisory Group

  Race Employment and Education Forum (Reef) Advisory Group

  Raising Ethnic Minority Pupil Achievement Advisory Group

  Skills Policy Action Team Advisory Group

  Special Educational Needs National Advisory Group

  University for Industry Design and Implementation Advisory Group.

  Early Education (Three-year-olds)
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to provide nursery provision for three-year-olds through the education SSA allocation; and if he will make a statement. [72058]

  Ms Hodge
  £390 million will be allocated to double the participation of three-year-olds in free early education places over the next three years. Local Education Authorities also continue to receive funding for under fives through SSA.

  In 1999–2000, some £40 million will be allocated as a specific grant to the 50 local authority areas with the greatest social need; in the following two years specific grant will be distributed across all authorities. The Early Years Development and Childcare Plans will show how new places will be secured in the maintained, private and voluntary sectors.

  Pre-School Learning Alliance
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what representations he has received from the Pre-School Learning Alliance; [73289]

  (2) if he will make a statement on future funding for the Pre-School Learning Alliance. [73688]

  Ms Hodge
  The Pre-School Learning Alliance (PLA) regularly contacts Ministers and officials in the Department about a wide range of issues, including grant funding for the Alliance, which—for 1999–2000—is under active consideration.
  836
  PLA members play an active part in the delivery of child care and early years education through early years development and child care partnerships and I believe they will play an important role in the expansion of child care and nursery education in the future.

  Further and Higher Education
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the level of the direct financial contribution to further and higher education made by industry for the last year for which figures are available; and if he will break down this amount by(a) in-company training, (b) other forms of vocational training and (c) non-vocational studies.[73976]

  Mr. Mudie
  The information requested is not identifiable separately in data collected currently.

  Physical Education Students
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate he has made of the level of discretionary awards for physical education students in(a) 1999–2000 and (b) 2000–01. [74232]

  Mr. Mudie
  [holding answer 2 March 1999]: From September 1999, LEA's existing powers to make discretionary awards will be replaced by the new student support arrangements introduced under the Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998. For most HE and FE students who would otherwise have been eligible for discretionary awards, support will centre on access funds which we have increased significantly. LEAs will be able to support existing discretionary award holders during the remainder of their courses and will also be able to make discretionary payments to new students under the provisions of the Schools Standards and Framework Act 1998, if they choose to do so. Separate estimates are not made for individual subjects.

  Pupil Referral Units
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many pupil referral units have been established. [74787]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  There are currently 319 Pupil Referral Units in England.

  National Homework Guidelines
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to evaluate the effect of introducing national homework guidelines. [74789]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Inspections of schools by the Office for Standards in Education (OFSTED) look at the effect of homework polices on the quality of education provided and the standards achieved by pupils. Inspection reports will therefore provide important evidence about the effect over time of introducing national guidelines. We are also considering other ways in which the guidelines might usefully be evaluated, once schools have had time to develop and implement their own homework polices in the light of them.
  837
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what representations he has received about the introduction of national homework guidelines. [74788]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  There were 379 written responses to the consultation on these guidelines, which ran from 21 April 1998 to 30 June 1998. Most of the responses were from primary schools. They raised a range of issues, many of which we addressed in the final version of the guidelines, published in November 1998. Since the guidelines were published we have received 81 letters from schools and members of the public.

  Lobbyists
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the role of professional lobbyists in formulating policy in his Department. [74351]

  Mr. Mudie
  Any contacts with lobbyists by Ministers and civil servants in this Department are conducted in accordance with the "Ministerial Code" and "Guidance for Civil Servants: Contact with Lobbyists".

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Genetically Modified Crops
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects the first trials of genetically modified crops to be completed; and what period of evaluation would be required thereafter before an application for commercial planting of a genetically modified crop could be considered. [69822]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 8 February 1999]: The first trials of genetically modified (GM) crops in the United Kingdom were completed in the late 1980s. Since then several hundred further trials of GM crops have been completed. Each series of trials is subject to a consent which requires a report of the trial itself and a post trial monitoring report to be completed and submitted to the regulatory authorities. This information is used as part of the assessment of subsequent applications for trials. Those carrying out the trials also evaluate their work and often publish the results in the open literature where the information is accessible to all.

  The recently announced farm-scale evaluations of three types of herbicide tolerant GM crops to evaluate their impact on farmland wildlife will begin in April 1999 (for spring-sown rape and maize) and autumn 1999 (for autumn-sown rape). These trials will each continue for four years. It is intended that progress reports will be prepared at the end of each growing season so early results can be considered as they become available. The progress of the trials will be overseen by a steering committee. The evaluation of the results from each growing season will enable the committee to influence how subsequent stages of the trials should be undertaken.

  Under the current legislation applications for commercial planting must be considered as soon as they are received by one of the European Competent
  838
  Authorities. Applications must contain the information laid down in the relevant directive (90/220/EEC) and an assessment of possible impacts on the environment. Once the Competent authority is satisfied that the required information has been provided, it must forward the dossier to the commission within 90 days of the application being made, with an opinion on whether or not approval should be granted. The dossier is then circulated to the other member states which must give an opinion to the EC within 60 days. If there is a qualified majority in favour of the product an EU wide marketing consent is granted.

  Once an EU wide consent has been granted under directive 90–220, commercial planting may commence, subject to any limitations and conditions set out in the consent and subject to the other necessary approvals having been granted, such as, the placing of the GM variety on the National List of Seeds or the EU Common Catalogue, approval under the Novel Foods Regulations and/or approval for the use of the relevant herbicide to be used on the new GM crop.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what transitional arrangements he plans to make in respect of staff employed by grant-maintained schools who serve as councillors on the local authority to which the school becomes accountable. [72568]

  Ms Armstrong
  [holding answer Monday 22 February 1999]: I do not intend to make any transitional arrangements. Teachers employed by grant-maintained schools who serve as councillors on the local authority to which the school becomes accountable will, therefore, be disqualified from holding office as a councillor on that authority from 1 September 1999.

  Biosafety Protocol
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will report progress in the Colombia negotiations on the Biosafety Protocol; and when he plans to make a statement on the final outcome.[72947]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Extraordinary Meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP) to the Convention on Biological Diversity, meeting in Cartagena, Colombia failed to reach agreement on a biosafety protocol which is intended to govern the transboundary movement of living modified organisms (LMOs). The UK worked tirelessly alongside our European partners to seek to achieve a text acceptable to all sides that would secure adequate protection for the environment while avoiding the creation of unnecessary barriers to trade. However, while the EU' s proposal for a compromise package received widespread support, there was not consensus.

  Among the key issues on which agreement could not be reached were how to deal with commodities intended for use as food or feed or for processing, the requirements for documentation or labelling of LMOs subject to transboundary movement and the relationship of the protocol to other international instruments.
  839
  It was agreed to suspend the session of the Extraordinary COP and to reconvene, no later than the fifth ordinary meeting of the Conference of the Parties which will be in May 2000, with a view to concluding the negotiations.

  The UK, together with its European partners, will continue to participate actively in the process, with a view to concluding the Biosafety Protocol as a cornerstone of the international framework for biosafety.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on implications for the United Kingdom of the breakdown in negotiations on the Biosafety protocol. [74148]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 2 March 1999]: The Government were disappointed that the Extraordinary Conference of the Parties that met in Cartagena last week was suspended and therefore not able to adopt the Biosafety Protocol. Among the key issues on which agreement could not be reached were how to deal with commodities intended for use as food or feed or for processing, the requirements for documentation or labelling of LMOs subject to transboundary movement and the relationship of the protocol to other international instruments.

  The Government consider it important to maintain the momentum gained in Cartagena towards the development of international rules and procedures covering the transboundary movement of living modified organisms (LMOs). The UK, together with its European partners, will continue to participate actively in the process, with a view to concluding the Biosafety Protocol as a cornerstone of the international framework for biosafety.

  There are no immediate implications for the UK of the breakdown since the European Community legislation already controls all releases and marketing of LMOs within the Community including imports into the Community. At the international level, the Government will continue to promote the use of the UNEP International Technical Guidelines for Safety in Biotechnology wherever possible since these are currently the mainstay of the international framework for biosafety.

  Private Toll Roads
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many private toll roads there are; and if he will list them. [73752]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  There are in the United Kingdom 3 public road crossings that are the subject of private finance concessions—at Dartford, Severn and Skye. There are also 8 privately owned tolled crossings linking public highways that were promoted by statute in the 18th and 19th centuries (and which must have their tolls approved by the Secretary of State). They are:

  The Aldwark Bridge, Yorkshire

  The Clifton Suspension Bridge, Bristol

  The Dunham Bridge, Lincolnshire

  The Rixton & Warburton Bridge, on the Manchester Ship Canal

  The Shrewsbury (Kingsland) Bridge

  The Swinford Bridge (Oxfordshire)

  The Whitchurch Bridge (Oxfordshire)

  The Whitney on Wye Bridge (Hereford & Worcester).

  840
  Also there are 2 toll roads that were established by Royal Charters of 1443 and 1619—respectively Roydon Road, Stanstead Abbots and College Road, Dulwich. They do not need to apply to the Secretary of State for approval of their tolls—and that is the case also where a toll is charged for the use of a private road. I do not have a complete list of private toll roads, but some examples are the roads of Kewstoke Woods, Weston-super-Mare, Kynance Cove, Cornwall, and Porlock, Devon.

  Domestic Air Conditioning
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will assess the Building Services Research and Information Association's work on the fitting of domestic air-conditioning systems; what assessment his Department has made of future trends in domestic air-conditioning; how such trends affect the Government's climate change policies; and if he will make a statement. [74036]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The project on small scale air conditioning completed by the Building Services Research and Information Association last year is a valuable study into the future market potential for small scale air conditioning in the UK.

  A preliminary assessment suggests that domestic emissions of carbon dioxide might increase by a number in the range 0.1 to 0.2 million tonnes of carbon in 2010 because of increased use of domestic air conditioning. This range is equivalent to between about 0.05 and 0.1% of UK CO2, emissions in 1990. We are considering this with a variety of other policy options in our analysis of responses to the recent climate change consultation paper.

  Housing (Wandsworth)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions he has had with the London Borough of Wandsworth on the number of council owned properties that are boarded up in various parts of the Borough of Wandsworth, waiting to be sold. [74295]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I have had no such discussions. Specific figures for the numbers of boarded up properties awaiting sale are not recorded as part of the Housing Investment Programme process.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions he has had with the Leader of Wandsworth Council on the Council's policy to develop low cost housing within the borough; and if he will make a statement. [74295]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Ministers have had no discussions with the Leader of Wandsworth Council about its policy of providing low cost housing. I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to his question on 5 June 1998,Official Report, column 373.

  I have no plans to make a statement.

  Departmental Websites
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions for what reason the cost of the Department's website is projected to rise to £550,000 in the year 2000–01. [74008]
  841
  Mr. Meacher
  DETR's Web site has grown rapidly in the past year: the number of hits per month is 16 times higher and the volume of information on the site has trebled. This is in line with the Government's policy of making as much information as possible available via electronic media.

  The projected rise in expenditure reflects continued anticipated growth in the provision of on-line information over the next two years. It also reflects the development of e-commerce platforms and more on-line searchable databases.

  Household Projections
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will publish the research commissioned by his Department on the disparity between the rate of household formation and the number of dwellings completed. [73919]

  Mr. Raynsford
  [holding answer 3 March 1999]: Research which has been commissioned by my Department to investigate the accuracy of certain housing data that are provided by local authorities has not yet been completed. The Department's policy is to publish research unless there are good reasons not to do so.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will publish revised household projections as a range of figures, and explain the assumptions made in so doing. [73916]

  Mr. Raynsford
  [holding answer 3 March 1999]: The Government agreed in their response to the report of the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee on Housing that suitable sensitivity analyses would be published alongside the next set of household projections (Cm 4080, para 125).

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what guidance he is offering to local authorities on the use of the predicted rates of household formations in drawing up local development plans. [73917]

  Mr. Raynsford
  [holding answer 3 March 1999]: Planning Policy Guidance note 11 "Regional Planning", a draft of which was published for consultation on 15 February, makes clear that regional planning bodies should work with Government Offices and other regional stakeholders to establish the level of housing required to meet the region's housing needs. In making this assessment, the Government's latest published household projections should be taken into account. Urban capacity studies should also be undertaken. Against this background of need and capacity, regional planning bodies are expected to take a realistic and responsible approach to future housing provision and should justify their views at the public examination of draft regional planning guidance. In preparing development plans (structure plans and UDPs) local authorities will be expected to reflect the housing figures set out in Regional Planning Guidance issued by the Secretary of State. Outside UDP areas, local plans are expected to be in conformity with the relevant structure plan.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he intends to publish new household projections. [73918]
  842
  Mr. Raynsford
  [holding answer Wednesday 3 March 1999]: The task of preparing the revised household projections has yet to be completed and a timetable for their publication has therefore still to be determined.

  Vehicle Registration Details
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will require a person selling a motor vehicle to provide the odometer mileage at the time of sale and for the information to be printed on the registration document for the vehicle. [74781]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Government are currently reviewing their policy on collection of mileage information. The Vehicle Crime Reduction Action Team, set up by the Home Office, is considering the options and will be making recommendations shortly.

  Brown-field Sites
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many hectares of brown-field sites have been developed for private residential accommodation since January 1998. [74686]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The information requested is not yet available. Latest figures, which relate to 1993, show the number of hectares of 'land previously developed for urban uses' (as defined by the Department's Land Use Change Statistics) that changed to residential use. These can be found in Annex A of the publication "Land Use Change in England No.13", a copy of which is in the House of Commons Library.

  The Land Use Change Statistics can provide more recent estimates for (a) the percentage of land changing to residential use that was previously developed, and (b) the percentage of new dwellings built on previously developed land. In 1996, the latest year for which a reliable estimate is available, 47 per cent. of land changing to residential use was previously developed, and 53 per cent. of new dwellings were built on previously developed land (56 per cent. including conversion of existing dwellings).

  We will be investigating the robustness of figures relating to hectares of land changing use to see if this will enable more timely provision of results.

  Acid Rain
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make it his policy to support the proposals due to be considered by the European Commission in March to impose national emission ceilings on acid rain gases; and if he will make a statement. [74372]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Government have supported the EC Acidification Strategy as a means of reducing ecosystem damage from acid emissions, and will continue to do so. It also supports the principle of a national emission ceilings directive. The Government will give careful consideration to the detail of the proposed directive once it has been
  843
  published by the European Commission. Both the Strategy and the proposed directive will take forward the large reductions the UK has already achieved and further reductions planned for sulphur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide emissions. Between 1990 and 1996 the UK reduced total sulphur dioxide emissions by 46% and nitrogen oxide emissions by 25%. Current policies are expected to deliver reductions of 74% and 58% respectively by 2010.

  English Partnerships
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the expected spend of English Partnerships for the current year for the(a) North West, (b) North East, (c) West Midlands, (d) East Midlands and (e) Yorkshire and Humberside Regions. [74672]

  Mr. Caborn
  Based on the latest estimates, the total expected spend for 1998–99 for these regions of English Partnerships is as follows:

  £million

  (a) North West

  92.0

  (b) North East

  47.0

  (c) West Midlands

  48.0

  (d) East Midlands

  26.5

  (e) Yorkshire and Humberside

  53.0

  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much of the funding available to English Partnerships for the year 1999–2000 is planned to be retained centrally; and what projects are currently being considered for this funding.[74670]

  Mr. Caborn
  The total land and property programme, excluding the coalfields portfolio, for 1999–2000 is projected to be £371.6m(based on DETR's receipts targets). It is currently proposed that EP will be allocated £46.6m to take forward the responsibilities identified on 23 June 1998, Official Report, column 438. These include the reclamation and development of the Greenwich site, the setting up and running of databases on brownfield sites, and managing the programme of Millennium Villages. EP will also be responsible for the land and property programme for London (£56.3m) for next year; and will manage the ring-fenced Coalfields Portfolio (£49.6m) on behalf of and in liaison with the RDAs.

  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is English Partnerships' current draft budget for the regional development agencies for the financial year 1999–2000 for the(a) North West, (b) North East, (c) Yorkshire and Humberside, (d) West Midlands and (e) East Midlands Regions. [74669]

  Mr. Caborn
  The land and property budgets for Regional Development Agencies will be set by the Department, not by English Partnerships, in consultation with the RDAs. The budgets have yet to be finalised.
  844
  The latest provisional budgets for these Regions, for the main land and property programmes, excluding administration and the coalfields portfolio, for 1999–2000 are as follows:

  Region

  £million

  North West

  73

  North East

  30

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  41

  West Midlands

  34.3

  East Midlands

  16

  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much additional funding to that made available by Government English Partnerships is expected to be generated from the public, private and voluntry sectors for the current year 1998–99 for the(a) North West, (b) North East, (c) Yorkshire and Humberside, (d) West Midlands, (e) East Midlands and Regions.[74671]

  Mr. Caborn
  The following amounts of additional funding are expected to be generated for projects in 1998–99:

  £million

  Region

  Other public

  Private

  North West

  18.71

  90.71

  North East

  25.89

  213.83

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  13.59

  65.14

  West Midlands

  23.75

  22.41

  East Midlands

  18.06

  27.89

  Note:

  1. The category "Other public" includes funding from voluntary sector organisations.

  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much additional funding has been generated for every £1 spent by Government through English Partnerships in the(a) North West, (b) North East, (c) West Midlands,(d) East Midlands and (e) Yorkshire and Humberside regions in each of the past five years. [74674]

  Mr. Caborn
  Until April 1998, English Partnerships did not collect data of this sort on a regional basis. It is therefore not possible to provide a full answer.

  English Partnerships publishes estimates of the value of private sector funding in its Annual Reports. The national totals have been as follows:

  Year

  £ million

  1994–95

  300

  1995–96

  580

  1996–97

  630

  1997–98

  767

  For 1998–99, the estimated additional private sector funding for these regions is expected to be as follows:

  Region

  £million

  North West

  90.71

  North East

  213.83

  West Midlands

  22.41

  East Midlands

  27.89

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  65.14

  845
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the total budget allocation for English Partnerships for(a) 1998–99and (b) 1999–2000, broken down by funding held centrally, funding allocated by regional offices and funding transferred to the regional development agencies. [74673]

  Mr. Caborn
  The budget allocations for the English Partnerships land and property programme spend for 1998–99 and 1999–2000 is as follows:

  £million

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Central

  72.0

  46.6

  Regional

  339.3

  56.3

  Transferred to RDAs

  —

  267.7

  Total

  411.3

  370.6

  Notes:

  1. Central spend excludes the ring-fenced funding for the Greenwich Millennium Project.

  2. Regional spend in 1999–00 by EP is for London

  3. The above figures do not include the funding for the coalfields portfolio (49.6 million) which is to be managed centrally by EP on behalf of and in liaison with the RDAs.

  Lobbyists
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if he will make a statement on the role of professional lobbyists in formulating policy in his Department; [74366]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the role of professional lobbyists in formulating policy in his Department. [74355]

  Mr. Meale
  Any contacts with lobbyists by Ministers and civil servants in this Department are conducted in accordance with the "Ministerial Code" and "Guidance for Civil Servants: Contacts with Lobbyists".

  Ministerial Visits
  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the visit of the Minister for London and Construction to Bromsgrove was first planned; and when the hon. Member for Bromsgrove was informed of the visit. [74561]

  Mr. Raynsford
  In January I agreed in principle to make a Labour Party campaign visit to the West Midlands on Friday 19 February. It was confirmed on Tuesday 16 February that I would visit Bromsgrove along with other West Midlands locations, and I wrote to the hon. Member at the House of Commons on Wednesday
  17 February.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Theatre and Museum Funding
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment he has made of the funding of theatres and museums by local authorities. [74235]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  [holding answer 2 March 1999]: In 1997–98 local authority funding for the arts is estimated to have been £194 million, and for museums £139 million.

  Children's Theatre
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what representations he has received concerning the future of children's theatre in London;[74233]

  (2) what discussions he has had with the Polka Theatre in Wimbledon about its funding; and if he will make a statement. [74238]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  [holding answer 2 March 1999]: My Department has recently received a substantial number of letters from members of the public expressing concern for the future of the Polka Theatre in Wimbledon. We have held no discussions with representatives of the Polka Theatre, as this is a matter for the London Arts Board, London Borough Grants and the London Borough of Merton. I understand also that the Unicorn Theatre is in the process of addressing the serious financial situation it faced earlier in this financial year.

  Museum Visits
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to collect information about the number of(a) primary and (b) secondary school visits to museums. [74237]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  [holding answer 2 March 1999]: Museums and galleries sponsored by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport all regularly collect data on school visits, and in most cases those by primary and secondary schools can be distinguished.

  The Museums and Galleries Commission hope to include a request for information on primary and secondary school visits in their DOMUS (Digest of Museum Statistics) general survey of Registered museums, questionnaires for which will be issued in the summer. This will furnish information for the wider sector.

  Funds have been allocated to allow free entry for children to currently charging national museums in England from April this year. Data on visits made by children will be collected on a regular basis so that the impact of this policy is carefully monitored. Most visits by organised school parties are already free.

  Millennium Dome
  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans the Government have for the Millennium Dome after 2000; and if he will make a statement. [75157]

  Janet Anderson
  The Government have today launched a competition to invite bids for alternative uses of the Dome on its present site after the Millennium Experience finishes at the end of December 2000. I have placed copies of the brochure for stage one of the process in the Libraries of the House. Decisions will be taken by the Government following appraisal of detailed bids, submitted at later stages, by the New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) and English Partnerships and consultation with the Millennium Commission.

  The Government's objective is to ensure a sustainable alternative use of the Dome which reflects its cultural significance and contributes fully to regeneration both of

  847
  the Greenwich Peninsula as a whole and more widely. The Government will wish to achieve good value for money from the disposal of the Dome and related land, and will have regard to whether the proposal would generate receipts which at least match those which could have been achieved if the site were clear and disposed of for ordinary commercial development. The Government will also pay close attention to the regeneration and cultural outputs likely to be delivered by any proposed use, and its compatibility with proposals for developing the rest of the peninsula and the wider Thames Gateway area.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Lobbyists
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the President of the Council if she will make a statement on the role of professional lobbyists in formulating policy in her Department. [74361]

  Mrs. Beckett
  Any contacts with lobbyists by Ministers and civil servants in this Department are conducted in accordance with the "Ministerial Code" and "Guidance for Civil Servants: Contact with Lobbyists".

  Web Sites (Parliamentary Privilege)
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the President of the Council if she will set up a Select Committee to consider what parliamentary privilege will apply to hon. Members' web sites; and if she will make a statement. [73678]

  Mrs. Beckett
  The Committee on Standards and Privileges is already able to examine any questions of privilege.

SCOTLAND

  Departmental Hospitality
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will estimate his Department's expenditure on hospitality and entertainment in(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99, (c) 1999–2000, (d) 2000–01 and (e) 2001–02; and if he will make a statement. [69254]

  Mr. Dewar
  [holding answer 4 February 1999]: Expenditure on official hospitality to the Scottish Office in the financial year 1997–98 was £62,596. Provision of £75,000 has been made for 1998–99. Budgets for the financial years 1999–2000 and 2000–01 have not yet been set.

  Nurses (Pay)
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which establishments in Scotland have paid a regular lead to nursing staff in each year since 1970; what was the annual value of the lead; what was its purpose; and if he will make a statement. [69055]

  Mr. Galbraith
  [holding answer 8 February 1999]: The exact information required is not available centrally.

  National terms and conditions for nursing staff include a range of leads and allowances paid under certain circumstances. Details of all such allowances were set out
  848
  in Annex 1 of the Health Departments' 1998 evidence to the Review Body for Nursing Staff, Midwives, Health Visitors and Professions Allied to Medicine, copies of which are held in the Library. This included information on the current national rate of payment and a brief description of conditions for payment. Information on the value of leads and allowances is only available from 1986 onwards and copies of the relevant circulars issued to the NHS in Scotland have been placed in the Library. All NHS bodies which employ nurses on national contracts pay these leads and allowances, if qualifying conditions are met. Since 1994 employers have had the flexibility to increase leads and allowances locally, which some NHS Trusts have done. In their sixteenth report for 1999, laid before Parliament by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, the Review Body recommended that on-call and stand-by allowances should be increased by 19% from 1 April 1999 and urged Trusts to increase relevant leads and allowances.

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

  Single Currency
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland 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. [73667]

  Mr. Dewar
  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 Scotland 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. [73656]

  Mr. Dewar
  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.

  Brit Awards
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list those Ministers in his Department who were present at the recent Brit awards in an official capacity; and who or what organisation was acting as their sponsor or host. [73490]

  Mr. Galbraith
  The Minister for Education, Scottish Office, attended the Brit awards ceremony as a guest of the British Phonographic Industry.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what official visits he, his Ministers or officials have paid to Zimbabwe since May 1997; whom they met; and what was discussed. [73458]

  Mr. Dewar
  No Scottish Office Minister has visited Zimbabwe in an official capacity since May 1997. The Chief Social Work Inspector attended the All Africa Conference on Community Service at Kadoma from 24 November to 2 December 1997 at the invitation of Prison Reform International to advise on the development of alternatives to prison. The Kadoma Declaration and Action Plan were subsequently endorsed by the UN Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice.

  Air Miles
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many Air Miles have been earned by him and each of his Ministers; and how he proposes to use them. [73331]

  Mr. Dewar
  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.

  Agriculture Business Improvement
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the approved six year budget for the agriculture business improvement scheme of 1994; what sums have been made available to the Highland agriculture industry; and what plans he has to vire part of the approved budget to other sectors. [73191]

  Mr. Dewar
  [holding answer 25 February 1999]: The Agriculture Business Improvement Scheme (ABIS) forms part of the Objective 1 Highlands and Islands Agricultural Programme (HIAP), along with the Marketing Scheme and the Crofting Township Development Scheme. There is no separate budget provision for the ABIS.

  The original budget provision for the HIAP was around £23 million, but due to the strength of sterling against the ecu, this figure is now nearer £20 million. To date, almost £14.6 million has been committed under HIAP, and all three Schemes remain open to applications from farmers and crofters in the Highlands and Islands.

  As a consequence of consistent underspending against the HIAP budget provision, it is possible that all of the resources allocated to the Programme will not now be required. The Government are reviewing the budgetary provision for HIAP, but no decision has been taken on the possible virement of resources. The Government are planning to announce improvements to the ABIS next month to help stimulate uptake of the available funds.

  Woodland Grant Scheme
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to change the rules of the Woodland Grant Scheme.[75416]
  850
  Mr. Macdonald
  We are making two changes to the rules of the Woodland Grant Scheme today.

  We are keen to improve value for money from the Woodland Grant Scheme and have concluded that the payments currently offered for creating new woodland do not reflect the economies of scale available when creating very large forests. Payments for these large forests significantly reduce the funds available for delivering our other forestry objectives.

  We have therefore decided that from today, fixed rate grants will no longer be available for applications to create new woodlands of 300 hectares or more. They will be replaced by a grant linked to the overall costs likely to be incurred by the applicant over the first ten years. Normally the grant will be 60 per cent. of the costs, which will be agreed in negotiation with the owners. However, where there are particularly important public benefits in relation to achieving Biodiversity Action Plan targets, or helping crofter or community-based forestry schemes, it may be possible to pay 80 per cent. of the agreed costs. These payments will not exceed the grant that would have been paid using the current fixed rate grants.

  The rules of the Woodland Grant Scheme have also been amended from today so that grants are no longer available for land where the landowner has terminated an agricultural tenancy by means of a contested notice to quit. This change, which follows a recommendation in the Scottish Land Reform Policy Group's Report, is intended to discourage landowners from terminating tenancies, against the wishes of their tenants, in order to convert the land to woodland.

  Both these changes will apply throughout Great Britain.

  More detailed information on these changes is available from the Forestry Commission.

  Student Hardship Funds
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the expenditure by Scottish universities on hardship funds in the latest year for which information is available; and if he will make a statement. [74559]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Government distribute resources to further and higher education institutions in the form of Access Funds to enable them to assist students whose access to, or continuance, in education may be inhibited by financial difficulties. Many institutions also have funds of their own which are used for a similar purpose.

  The Access Fund resources distributed to Universities and other higher education institutions in Scotland in respect of academic year 1998–99 amounted to £3.473 million.

  Lobbyists
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the role of professional lobbyists in formulating policy in his Department. [74363]

  Mr. Dewar
  Any contacts with lobbyists by Ministers and civil servants in this Department are conducted in accordance with the "Ministerial Code" and "Guidance for Civil Servants: Contact with Lobbyists".

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Immigration and Nationality Department
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for how long the Immigration and Nationality Department paper room, where files are stored, is planned to remain closed for access to casework files. [72860]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Immigration and Nationality Directorate Croydon paper store, which holds casework files on which there is no current action, is no longer closed.

  Ethnic Minorities (Crime)
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 2 February 1999,Official Report, columns 554–45,if he will list the submissions and briefing papers prepared by his officials on crime among ethnic minorities. [73625]

  Mr. Boateng
  I regard details of the frequency and substance of the advice I receive from officials as confidential. The incidence of crime amongst the general population is regarded as of importance, whatever the ethnic origins of the victims or alleged perpetrators, and I receive regular advice thereon.

  Police Contingent (Bosnia)
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last visited the British police contingent in Bosnia. [73499]

  Mr. Boateng
  I have not visited Bosnia. The then Minister of State at the Home Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), visited the British contingent in December 1997. 1 will be visiting Bosnia later this year. The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) hopes to visit at some point. A number of Chief Constables have visited as has a Home Office official.

  Women's Royal Voluntary Service
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much his Department has paid in each of the last three years to support the Women's Royal Voluntary Service; and how much of the money was in respect of that organisation's core activities. [74197]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Home Office has provided grant in aid to the Women's Royal Voluntary Service (WRVS) since its inception in 1938. The levels of grant for the years in question were as follows:

  £

  1996–97

  5,840,000

  1997–98

  5,548,000

  1998–99

  5,298,000

  All of the grant provided was in support of the organisation's core activities.

  Race Relations Act 1976
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will seek to strengthen the provisions of the Race Relations Act in relation to the restaurant and hotel trade. [74016]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The restaurant and hotel trade is subject to the provisions of the Race Relations Act 1976 in terms of both employment and the provision of goods and services. There are some exceptions which may apply for genuine occupational qualifications designed to protect racial authenticity—for example, in certain restaurants.

  The Commission for Racial Equality (CRE) has reviewed the Race Relations Act 1976 and put forward 57 recommendations for change including one to replace the genuine occupation qualifications for authenticity, which relate to working where food and drink are served in a particular setting. The Department has carried out a public consultation on the proposals which concluded on 18 December 1998.

  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced when he published the report of the Inquiry into the death of Stephen Lawrence that the Race Relations Act 1976 will be extended to cover the public services.

  The Government will bring forward proposals in due course, including a response to the CRE recommendations.

  CS Sprays
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many complaints about CS sprays have been submitted to the Police Complaints Authority since 31 March 1998. [74250]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Police Complaints Authority have provided the following information regarding complaints which they have received between 1 April 1998 and 1 March 1999.

  Force

  Cases about CS

  Complaints about CS

  Avon and Somerset

  10

  11

  Bedfordshire

  1

  1

  Cambridgeshire

  13

  13

  Cheshire

  8

  10

  Cleveland

  12

  14

  Cumbria

  7

  9

  Derbyshire

  5

  5

  Devon and Cornwall

  12

  12

  Dorset

  2

  2

  Durham

  5

  5

  Dyfed-Powys

  1

  1

  Essex

  8

  9

  Gloucestershire

  7

  7

  Greater Manchester

  33

  33

  Hampshire

  12

  15

  Hertfordshire

  1

  1

  Humberside

  8

  9

  Kent

  14

  15

  Lancashire

  3

  4

  Leicestershire

  10

  10

  Lincolnshire

  3

  3

  Merseyside

  56

  60

  Metropolitan Area 1

  2

  2

  Metropolitan Area 2

  1

  1

  Metropolitan Area 3

  7

  7

  853

  Force

  Cases about CS

  Complaints about CS

  Metropolitan Area 4

  2

  2

  Metropolitan Area 5

  6

  6

  Norfolk

  4

  4

  North Wales

  6

  7

  North Yorkshire

  1

  1

  Northumbria

  12

  12

  South Wales

  18

  19

  South Yorkshire

  3

  3

  Staffordshire

  9

  10

  Suffolk

  11

  14

  Surrey

  1

  1

  Sussex

  1

  1

  Warwickshire

  7

  8

  West Mercia

  16

  16

  West Midlands

  36

  37

  West Yorkshire

  15

  18

  Wiltshire

  1

  1

  Grand totals

  396

  425

  Note:

  A case may include more than one complaint. The first column indicates the number of cases and the second indicates the number of actual complaints.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers in England and Wales currently carry CS sprays. [74248]

  Mr. Boateng
  Decisions about equipping police officers with CS spray are the responsibility of chief officers of police. In this, they are governed and monitored by the Association of Chief Police Officers' (ACPO) self-defence, arrest and restraint sub-committee.

  ACPO have advised that details on the number of police officers trained in the use of CS spray are not held centrally. However, all but 3 police forces in England and Wales now issue CS spray to their officers. These are Northamptonshire, Sussex and Nottinghamshire.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if special constables are being trained to carry and use CS sprays. [74249]

  Mr. Boateng
  Special constables do carry and use CS spray. They use the same equipment and receive the same training as regular Police Constables in accordance with guidelines issued by the Association of Chief Police Officers.

  Firearms Act 1968
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what register of organisations authorised to hold devices under section 5 of the Firearms Act 1968 is compiled; if this register is available for inspection by members of the public; and where this register is held. [74251]

  Mr. Boateng
  Records of companies and individuals with the authority of the Secretary of State under section 5 of the Firearms Act 1968 (as amended) to purchase, acquire, possess, manufacture, sell or dispose of prohibited weapons are maintained by the Home Office for those in England and Wales and by the Scottish Office for those in Scotland. These records are not available for public inspection for reasons of security and commercial confidentiality.

  Kosovo Liberation Army
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on KLA fundraising activity in the United Kingdom, indicating what representations he has received on the issue. [74434]

  Mr. Straw
  I am not aware of any representations about fund raising by the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA or UCK).

  The Government attach great importance to countering terrorist fund raising. Under our Presidency of the G8, we hosted a conference on terrorist fund raising in London last December. In the same month, my Department published a consultation paper, "Legislation Against Terrorism" (CM 4178), which invited views on proposals for strengthening the law in this area.

  The police and Security Service attach a high priority to countering all forms of terrorist activity in the United Kingdom. Any credible information or intelligence is fully investigated.

  Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to publish the report from Mr. J. J. Rowe, QC on the operation in 1998 of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989. [75334]

  Mr. Straw
  I have today arranged for copies of Mr. Rowe's report to be placed in the Library. Mr. Rowe recommends that the legislation should be renewed for a further twelve months. A draft Order is being laid before the House today which continues in force most provisions of the Act for a further twelve months. This order is subject to affirmative Resolution in both Houses.

  Horseracing
  Mr. Cunliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the future of the Tote. [74662]

  Mr. George Howarth
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) on 25 February 1999,Official Report, column 395.

  Lobbyists
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the role of professional lobbyists in formulating policy in his Department. [74357]

  Mr. Straw
  Any contacts with lobbyists by Ministers and civil servants in his Department are conducted in accordance with the "Ministerial Code" and "Guidance for Civil Servants: Contact with Lobbyists".

  The Sunday Telegraph (Injunction)
  Sir Norman Fowler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he held with(a) the Prime Minister, (b) officials at No. 10 Downing Street and (c) other Ministers prior to seeking an injunction against The Sunday Telegraph; and if he will make a statement. [74663]
  855
  Mr. Straw
  As has already been made clear by the Prime Minister's Official Spokesman, the Prime Minister's office was informed about the action I was taking. The Minister of State, Home Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), was also informed. As I said to the House in my statement on 22 February 1999,Official Report, column 27,
  "This was a decision that I made, and for which I am personally responsible".

  Macpherson Report
  Sir Norman Fowler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the independent investigator appointed to inquire into the unauthorised publication of extracts from the Macpherson report will have the power to interview persons who have had access to the report outside direct Government employment; and if he will make a statement. [74664]

  Mr. Straw
  The conduct of the inquiry, including the question of who should be interviewed, is a matter for the investigator to determine.

  Sir Norman Fowler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if Ministers who had access to the Macpherson report prior to 21 February will be interviewed in the leak investigation, instituted by his Permanent Secretary; and if he will make a statement; [74666]

  (2) if (a) officials and (b) ministerial advisers who had access to the Macpherson report prior to 21 February will be interviewed by the leak investigation instituted by his Permanent Secretary; and if he will make a statement. [74668]

  Mr. Straw
  It would not be in the interests of the leak investigation now under way to give these details.

  Sir Norman Fowler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the terms of reference of the leaks investigation instituted by his Permanent Secretary into the unauthorised publication of extracts from the Macpherson report; and if he will make a statement. [74667]

  Mr. Straw
  The independent investigator has been asked by my Permanent Secretary to establish who was responsible for the leak and what lessons might be learned for the future.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Legal Aid Funding Council
  Mr. Burnett
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department what estimate he has made of the loss to the Legal Aid Funding Council from fraud in(a) 1994–95, (b) 1995–96, (c) 1996–97, (d) 1997–98 and (e) 1998–99. [74121]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Legal Aid Board is responsible for the administration of legal aid.

  An estimate of the amounts lost through fraud over the past five years cannot be provided as it is not possible to quantify accurately the amounts that have been fraudulently claimed. The claims will usually contain some element of bone fide work and the percentage
  856
  relating to false claiming cannot be accurately determined. However, the Legal Aid Board will seek to recover from solicitors any costs which were considered to be either wrongly or fraudulently claimed.

  The total amounts recovered from either negotiating repayment, recouping from further claims submitted or rejecting the claims as a result of the Legal Aid Board's investigations were:

  £

  1994–95

  524,276

  1995–96

  1,180,770

  1996–97

  807,706

  1997–98

  1,081,000

  1 April 1998 to 31 December 1998

  317,308

  The Legal Aid Board has an active approach to the prevention and detection of fraud or abuse of the legal aid scheme. Designated officers have been appointed in area offices to detect and investigate suspicious claims and take appropriate action at an early stage. It also has a Central Investigation section whose role is to undertake detailed investigations of suspected abuse or fraud referred to it. The Board's policy is to seek prosecution of individuals in all cases where there is substantial prima facie evidence of dishonesty.

  Jerome Charles
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will name the judge who took the decision at Aylesbury Crown Court in June 1998 to give bail to defendant, Jerome Charles. [74132]

  Mr. Hoon
  His Honour Judge Catlin granted bail on 26 June 1998.

  Censuses
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department what are the current annual storage and maintenance costs for the original enumerators' books for the 1841/51–1911 decennial population censuses for England and Wales; and how many visitors to the Public Record Office in the last five years were granted access to(a) the original 1841–1891 census enumerators' books and (b) micro-film or other copies of those books. [74018]

  Mr. Hoon
  The current storage and maintenance costs for the original enumerators' books for the 1841/51 to 1911 decennial censuses for England and Wales are estimated at £225,000 per annum.

  In the last five years, 150 visitors to the Public Record Office have been granted access to original returns from the 1841 to 1891 censuses. No precise record has been kept of the number of visitors who have been granted access to micro-film or other copies of those books; our best estimate based on the number of visitors to the Census Room at Chancery Lane and, from 1997, to the Family Records Centre in Islington is 77,000 in 1993–94; 79,000 in 1994–95; 74,000 in 1995–96; 82,000 in 1996–97; 138,000 in 1997–98.
  857
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list all instruments which have prescribed periods of extended retention of decennial census returns, under the provisions of the Public Records Act 1958.[74020]

  Mr. Hoon
  The following Lord Chancellor's Instruments under the provisions of the Public Records Act 1958 have prescribed periods of extended retention of decennial census returns by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys and its successor the Office for National Statistics:Lord Chancellor's Instrument (Retention of Public Records) No. 5, 1985: allowed retention of the 1921 and 1951 returns for 10 years; now expired
  Lord Chancellor's Instrument (Retention of Public Records) No. 23, 1992: allowed retention of the 1961 returns for 10 years
  Lord Chancellor's Instrument (Retention of Public Records) No. 38, 1996: allowed retention of the 1921 and 1951 returns for an additional 10 years.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department if the 1921, 1951 and 1961 census returns are closed to public inspection for 100 years. [74019]

  Mr. Hoon
  The census returns for 1921, 1951 and 1961 are closed to public inspection for 100 years.

  The closure period is intended to safeguard the confidentiality of the personal information collected in the census. Successive Governments have given an undertaking that the information would remain confidential. Protection of the credibility of the undertaking is crucial to maintaining the quality of the information collected.

  Departmental Records
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department how many applications were approved during the period 1993 to 1998, under the provisions of section 5(1) of the Public Records Act 1958, to reduce previously determined periods of closure on departmental records. [74017]

  Mr. Hoon
  During the period 1993–98 inclusive, 142,000 applications were approved, under the provisions of section 5(1) of the Public Records Act 1958, to reduce previously determined periods of closure on departmental records.

  Lobbyists
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on the role of professional lobbyists in formulating policy in his Department. [74358]

  Mr. Hoon
  Any contacts with lobbyists by Ministers and civil servants in this Department are conducted in accordance with the "Ministerial Code" and "Guidance for Civil Servants: Contact with Lobbyists".

  Aldershot Magistrates Court
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department what reports he has received on cases where there has been a failure to attend at Aldershot Magistrates Court in each of the last three years. [74665]
  858
  Mr. Hoon
  The Lord Chancellor's Department collects some data on the number of witnesses expected to attend but who do not turn up. The data are obtained from a small sample of cases included in the witness waiting times survey that is undertaken for two weeks every June and November. The first such survey was undertaken in November 1997. The survey is carried out at all petty sessional division level and the results for North East Hampshire include the Alton courthouse as well as Aldershot.

  The November 1998 survey showed that 26% of witnesses, from a sample of 61 expected witnesses, did not attend. The equivalent figure for June 1998 was 12% from a sample of 33 and for November 1997, 22% from a sample of 55. No similar data are collected for defendants and other parties to proceedings and such data could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

TREASURY

  10 Pence Starting Rate
  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the
  Chancellor of the Exchequer when he plans to introduce the 10 pence starting rate of income tax. [72426]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government will introduce a 10 pence starting rate of income tax when it is economically right to do so. The Chancellor made this clear in his statement on the pre-Budget report. The new rate will be incorporated in the income tax system in the way that best meets the Government's objectives of improving work incentives and promoting a fair and efficient tax system.

  Economic Policy
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the ways in which tax, spending and monetary policy are co-ordinated. [72427]

  Mr. Milburn
  Effective monetary and fiscal policy co-ordination is assured by setting out policy objectives in an open and transparent way and through the Treasury observer at MPC meetings. The success of the arrangements is demonstrated by the fact that inflation is close to target, the public finances are in sound order and long-term interest rates are around their lowest level for 40 years.

  Euro
  Sir Michael Spicer
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the Government's policy with respect to the exchange rate between sterling and the euro. [72428]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government's policy is for a stable and competitive sterling-euro exchange rate over the medium term, consistent with the objective of price stability.

  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on preparations for eventual British membership of the eurozone. [72441]
  859
  Ms Hewitt
  I refer my hon. Friend to the oral statement given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 23 February 1999,Official Report, columns 179–84.

  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he has taken to help business adjust to the introduction of the euro. [72442]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Treasury has run a major information and direct mail campaign for the 1.6 million small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) with a business telephone line. We have established twelve regional euro forums to take forward preparations at a local level. Firms can now also pay taxes, file accounts, issue and redenominate shares and receive certain grants in euro.

  The Government's business information campaign was highly successful and resulted in over 350,000 copies of the Treasury's business factsheets being requested by UK firms and intermediaries. In addition, three quarters of a million factsheet leaflets have been requested and there have been three and a half million "hits" on our euro website.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has had with(a) the EU Commission and (b) the Council of Ministers about how the rate of entry for sterling joining the euro will be fixed. [74130]

  Ms Hewitt
  The procedure for adopting the exchange rate at which sterling would be fixed irrevocably against the euro, should the UK decide to join the single currency, is set out in Article 109L(5) of the Treaty.

  Fuel Tax
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received from the transport and road haulage industry about tax on fuel. [72429]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government have received a number of representations from the Road Haulage industry about the tax on fuel. Representations have been received directly from the Freight Transport Association, the Road Haulage Association and the Automobile Association. In addition many haulage operators have written to their Members of Parliament who have passed the letters on to Government Ministers.

  All of the representations received will be carefully considered in the run up to the Budget on 9 March and it would be inappropriate for me to comment further at this stage.

  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the effect of the fuel tax escalator on the viability of the UK transport industry. [72433]

  Ms Hewitt
  The viability and competitiveness of the UK transport industry is taken into account when setting road fuel duty rates.

  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate of the revenue which the Exchequer will receive in 1998–99 from the taxation of motor fuels; and what were the figures for the previous three years. [72435]

  Ms Hewitt
  The latest forecast for the receipts from all hydrocarbon oil duties for 1998–99 is £21.8 billion.
  860
  As set out in Table K2 of the Customs and Excise Annual Report, receipts from duty on motor fuels for the previous three years were £15,436 million in 1995–96, £16,928 million in 1996–97 and £19,246 million in 1997–98.

  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from motoring organisations on his policy of increasing petrol and diesel prices each year. [72451]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government have received representations from the Automobile Association about the policy of increasing petrol and diesel prices each year.

  The representations will be carefully considered in the run up to the Budget on 9 March and it would be inappropriate for me to comment further at this stage.

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the number of low-income families in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) Scotland who will benefit from the working families tax credit. [72430]

  Dawn Primarolo
  We estimate that in the first full year, 1.3 million families in the UK will benefit from the help given by the Working Families Tax Credit and of these 130,000 of them will be families in Scotland.

  Beer Duty
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received regarding duties on beer. [72431]

  Mrs. Roche
  Treasury Ministers receive many representations about beer duty including letters from members of the public. In the run up to the Budget formal submissions have been received from the Brewers and Licensed Retailers Association, the Society of Independent Brewers and the Campaign for Real Ale.

  Exchequer Share of GDP
  Mr. Townend
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of GDP was represented by all taxes and national insurance in(a) 1996–97 and (b) 1997–98; and what is his forecast for 1998–99. [72434]

  Mr. Milburn
  The ratio of net taxes and social security contributions to GDP was 35.4 per cent. in 1996–97 and 36.4 per cent. in 1997–98. The new forecast for 1998–99 will be published on 9 March with the Budget.

  Inflation Target
  Mrs. Humble
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on progress made towards meeting his inflation target.[72436]

  Ms Hewitt
  The success of the new monetary framework is demonstrated by the fact that inflation is close to its target, long-term interest rates are around their lowest level for 40 years and inflation expectations have fallen.

  Public Investment
  Ms Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to increase public investment over the next three years. [72437]

  Mr. Milburn
  The Government intend to double net public investment by 2002.

  Mr. Laxton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received on his plans for increasing public investment over the next three years. [72446]

  Mr. Milburn
  My right hon. Friend receives representations from many organisations and individuals about public investment, which is set to rise over the next three years from £4.3 billion net in 1998–99 to £10.8 billion in 2001–02. This extra investment will help reverse the decline in net wealth and deliver improved public services in health and education.

  Money Purchase Pension Schemes
  Mr. Sawford
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will review the operation of money purchase pension schemes. [72438]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Treasury and DSS published a consultation document—"Helping to Deliver Stakeholder Pensions: Flexibility in Pension Investment"—on 3 February. It proposes a new financial instrument which will be suitable for all money purchase pension schemes including stakeholder pensions.

  Domestic Tourism (VAT)
  Mr. Quinn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the VAT regime as it is applied to the tourism and hospitality industry in the United Kingdom. [72444]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Most tourist services, including hotel and holiday accommodation, are subject to VAT at 17.5 per cent. However, no VAT is levied on public transport, printed matter and many items of food, and tourists also benefit from this. Additionally, many small businesses in the tourist industry are not VAT registered and thus charge no VAT at all to their customers.

  Business (Tax Burden)
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received regarding the tax burden on business. [R][72445]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Chancellor has received a number of representations on a variety of subjects, including tax.

  Building Societies
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what analysis the Government have made of the long-term advantages of a substantial mutual building society sector. [72447]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government are aware of a number of studies in this field.

  Credit Unions
  Mr. Fabian Hamilton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what support the Treasury is giving to local credit unions; and if he will make a statement. [72448]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Treasury does not provide direct support to credit unions, but is responsible for their legislative framework. The Treasury is currently consulting on proposals to remove some of the restrictions on their powers, and established a task force to consider how banks and building societies could assist credit unions. I also await the report of a policy action team which is looking at other ways to help their development.

  Savings Ratio
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what account he takes of the savings ratio in policy decisions. [72449]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government are aiming to promote economic stability and part of this strategy is to avoid large cyclical swings in the saving ratio such as those seen in the late 1980s and early 1990s.

  Road Haulage Taxes
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from the road haulage industry on the levels of vehicle excise duty and fuel tax. [72450]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government have received a number of representations from the road haulage industry about vehicle excise duty and fuel tax. Representations have been received directly from the Freight Transport Association, the Road Haulage Association and the Automobile Association. In addition Government Ministers have received letters from other Members of Parliament and from individual haulage operators.

  All of the representations received will be carefully considered in the run up to the Budget on 9 March and it would be inappropriate for me to comment further at this stage.

  Exports
  Mr. Day
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the value of the United Kingdom's exports in the last 12 months to countries that are currently in recession. [72452]

  Ms Hewitt
  A quarter of the world is in recession and no country is immune from the effects of the current instability in the world economy. For example, in the three months to January, the value of UK exports to Japan and South Korea were down 25 per cent. on a year earlier, and even larger falls have been seen in exports to various other crisis-bound economies in Asia and elsewhere. But as a result of the tough and decisive action the Government has taken, Britain is now better placed to steer a course of stability in an uncertain and unstable world.

  Census (2001)
  Ms Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Government's proposals for the 2001 Census of Population will be published; and if he will make a statement. [75406]
  863
  Ms Hewitt
  The Government have decided that, subject to appropriate legislative approval, a Census of Population should be taken throughout the United Kingdom in 2001; the proposed date is Sunday 29 April. Further details are published today in "The 2001 Census of Population" (Cm 4253), which I have presented to Parliament jointly with my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Northern Ireland.

  In April this year the Census Offices will conduct a Census Rehearsal with the aim of making sure that the procedures for delivery and collection of the census forms, and the systems for processing the data and producing outputs, will be effective. The Census Rehearsal will also be used as the final opportunity to assess public reaction to the proposed census questions.

  After evaluation of the 1999 Census Rehearsal results, the Government in Westminster will prepare a draft Order in Council with respect to the Census in England and Wales and will lay it before Parliament for approval in accordance with the Census Act 1920. As a result of devolution, it will be for the Scottish Parliament to make the necessary specific arrangements for the conduct of the Census in Scotland. In Northern Ireland, the arrangements for the Census there will be made by the local administration.

  Employee Transport
  Mr. Peter Bradley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will remove the tax burden on employers providing public transport for their work force; and if he will make a statement. [72439]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I have noted my hon. Friend's suggestions.

  Illegal Drugs (Devon and Cornwall)
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what amounts of illegal drugs have been seized by Customs and Excise in Devon and Cornwall over the last five years.[73651]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 1 March 1999]: Over the last five financial years (up to and including 24 February 1999), Customs and Excise has seized some 31,625 kgs of illegal drugs in Devon and Cornwall.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he plans to take to increase the level of Class B drug seizures by Customs and Excise in Devon and Cornwall over the next two years. [73654]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 1 March 1999]: Customs measure their effectiveness in the fight against drugs smuggling by concentrating on the drugs prevented from entering the UK and on the number of trafficking organisations disrupted and dismantled rather than on the level of seizures and the Department does not, therefore, plan on the basis of seizures made either nationally or locally.

  Drug Sniffer Dog Unit, Plymouth
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many dogs there were in the Drug Sniffer Dog Unit at Plymouth prior to its closure.[73652]
  864
  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 1 March 1999]: The Customs drugs dog unit at Plymouth comprises of three dogs. The unit is still operational. Customs managers in the south-west are currently reviewing the local deployment of anti-smuggling resources; closure is only one of a number of options currently being considered.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what official visits he, his Ministers or officials have paid to Zimbabwe since May 1997; whom they met; and what was discussed. [73465]

  Ms Hewitt
  No Treasury ministers have visited Zimbabwe on official business since May 1997. There are no central records of official travel by Treasury officials and the information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Debt Relief
  Miss Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of CAFOD's proposals for the relief of debt. [74265]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Chancellor took into account the views of CAFOD, among others, in his recent proposals to deliver faster, deeper and wider debt relief to heavily indebted poor countries.

DEFENCE

  Defence Secondary Care Agency
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people are currently employed by the Defence Secondary Care Agency; and what was the figure at the time of its establishment. [72795]

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

  Letter from Major General C. G. Callow to Mr. Mike Hancock, dated 4 March 1999:
  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about how many people are currently employed by the Defence Secondary Care Agency and what was the figure at the time of its establishment. This matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the DSCA.
  The Agency was launched on 30 April 1996, bringing together all the single Service elements of the Defence Medical Services. We do not have available a staffing total of sufficient accuracy for that day. However, our Annual Report for the year 1996/97 records the average total number of military and civilian personnel within the DSCA as 2,519.
  We now have a total of 2,504 personnel currently employed in the Agency.

  Army Aircraft Crashes
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what were the attributed causes of each Army aircraft crash in the last five years. [72934]

  Mr. Spellar
  There have been a total of 13 Army aircraft accidents during the period 1 January 1994 to 31 December 1998. A list of these accidents and attributable cause is shown in the table.
  865

  Date

  Aircraft

  Location

  Cause

  19 March 1994

  Lynx

  Crossmaglen

  NOR

  10 April 1994

  Lynx

  Portadown

  HF(A)

  23 July 1994

  Lynx

  Crossmaglen

  HF(A)

  22 September 1994

  Lynx

  Mendig Germany

  TF

  11 November 1994

  Gazelle

  Middle Wallop

  HF(A)

  20 August 1995

  Lynx

  Ploce Croatia

  HF(A)

  3 April 1996

  Lynx

  Crossmaglen

  HF(N)

  7 September 1996

  Lynx

  Stafford

  TF

  3 October 1996

  Gazelle

  Belize

  HF(N)

  14 March 1997

  Gazelle

  Middle Wallop

  HF(O)

  28 September 1997

  Gazelle

  Carlisle

  HF(A)

  12 March 1998

  Gazelle

  Nanyuki Kenya

  HF(A)

  22 December 1998

  Lynx

  Gornji Vakuf Bosnia

  1—

  1BOI not yet finalised

  Key:

  NOR Natural and Operating Risks

  HF(A) Human Factor—Aircrew

  HF(N) Human Factor—Non Aircrew

  HF/O Human Factor—Organisational Fault

  TF Technical Fault

  Defence Agencies
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he will set targets for the(a) Army Base Storage and Distribution Agency and (b) Army Personnel Centre for the year 1999–2000. [72804]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 24 February 1999]: I will publish targets for the Army Personnel Centre, APC, for the year 1999–2000 by the end of April 1999.

  The Army Base Storage and Distribution Agency will cease to exist after 31 March 1999. Following the Strategic Defence Review, a new, tri-Service Defence Storage and Distribution Agency will be established from 1 April 1999. The new Agency's Key Targets will also be published in April this year.

  Defence Analytical Services Agency
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which targets the Defence Analytical Services Agency did not meet in 1997–98; and what monitoring he has undertaken for those targets in 1998–99. [71903]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 25 February 1999]: The Defence Analytical Services Agency (DASA) met all its Key Targets in 1997–98. The performance of DASA is monitored by the Owner's Advisory Board which is chaired by the Owner—the department's Principal Finance Officer—and consists of customer representatives and external advisers. The Chief Executive of DASA has frequent formal and informal meetings with the Owner to report on progress during the year and submits periodic written reports on progress against targets. The Owner acts for the Secretary of State in overseeing the performance of the agency.

  Gun and Rocket Propellant
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish the Defence Scientific Advisory Committee's 1997 report on the manufacture of gun and rocket propellant in the UK. [73393]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 26 February 1999]: No. I am withholding publication under Exemptions 2 and 13 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Nuclear Tests (India and Pakistan)
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence 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. [73978]

  Mr. Spellar
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office on 2 March 1999,Official Report, column 685. In support of the policy set out there my Department has reviewed and strengthened its procedures to ensure that no defence-sponsored training is provided to Indian or Pakistani nationals that might contribute to the development of nuclear weapons or their means of delivery.

  Military Exercises
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what assessment he has made of the benefits of the combined maritime and air exercise in Malaysia carried out between 1 April 1997 and 31 March 1998; [72846]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the combined maritime and air exercise in Malaysia carried out between 1 April 1997 and 31 March 1998; [72837]

  (3) how many personnel were deployed on the combined maritime and air exercise in Malaysia carried out between 1 April 1997 and 31 March 1998; [72970]

  (4) if he will list those countries which had armed forces involved in the combined maritime and air exercises in Malaysia carried out between 1 April 1997 and 31 March 1998. [72974]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 1 March 1999]: The Royal Air Force (RAF) and the Royal Navy (RN) participated in Exercise FLYING FISH 97, which took place in Malaysia as part of the Five Power Defence Arrangements (FPDA), between 12–30 April 1997. The RAF deployed 450 personnel specifically to participate in this exercise. In addition, the RN had a number of ships in the area, taking part in Exercise OCEAN WAVE, from which approximately 1,900 personnel participated in Exercise FLYING FISH. The other armed forces participating were from New Zealand, Australia, Malaysia and Singapore. Exercise FLYING FISH was the first of a new series of multinational tri-service exercises conducted under the auspices of the FPDA. The UK made the largest contribution to the exercise and also provided the command platform from which the exercise was controlled. The exercise improved the operational capability of UK forces which might need in future to deploy to the Asia-Pacific region in support of the FPDA. It also demonstrated the UK's capability to operate and sustain a RAF and RN deployment over large distances from the UK, and our ability to co-operate effectively with our other FPDA partners.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many personnel were deployed on the two desert exercises in Jordan carried out between 1 April 1997 and 31 March 1998; [72826]

  (2) what was the cost of the two desert exercises in Jordan carried out between 1 April 1997 and 31 March 1998. [72827]

  867
  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 1 March 1999] Nine hundred and ninety seven UK servicemen were deployed on the two desert exercises conducted in Jordan in September and October 1997. The in-theatre cost of the exercises was £1.7 million, excluding the cost of ammunition and of spares consumed during the exercise which are not readily identifiable.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what assessment he has made of the benefits of the brigade exercise in Poland carried out between 1 April 1997 and 31 March 1998; [72832]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the brigade exercise in Poland carried out between 1 April 1997 and 31 March 1998; [72834]

  (3) what was the cost of the brigade exercise in Poland carried out between 1 April 1997 and 31 March 1998. [72973]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 1 March 1999]: Participation in Exercise ULAN EAGLE, which took place at the Drawko-Pomorskie training area in North East Poland in October 1997, was intended to give 20 Armoured Brigade training experience in warfighting at formation level, and to increase the readiness state of Brigade. The exercise is assessed to have achieved its aims. The cost of the exercise was £3.4 million, including movement costs to and from Poland but excluding the cost of ammunition and of spares consumed during the exercise.

  Press and Broadcasting Advisory Committee
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence to whom the Secretary of the Defence, Press and Broadcasting Advisory Committee is responsible. [74311]

  Mr. George Robertson
  The Secretary of the Defence, Press and Broadcasting Advisory Committee is responsible to the Committee as a whole; that is the Government Members and Press and Broadcasting Members alike. His accountability was included in Open Government Document No. 93/06, which was published when the old D Notices were replaced by the current Defence Advisory Notices on 1 August 1993. A copy of the OGD was placed in the House of Commons Library on 23 July 1993.

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence to what extent the Ministry of Defence Police Agency is answerable to him. [74310]

  Mr. George Robertson
  The MOD Police is an Agency of the Ministry of Defence and the Secretary of State for Defence has ultimate responsibility for determining the size, policy and resources framework within which the Agency operates, acting through the MOD Police Committee. The Chief Constable has, however, exclusive statutory authority for the professional direction and control of MOD Police officers and the Force is independent from political or Departmental influence in the maintenance and operation of the law.

  Gurkhas
  Mr. Burnett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to discuss with the Indian Government a review of pensions paid to retired Gurkhas who have served with the British and Indian armies. [74128]

  Mr. Spellar
  Gurkha pensions are paid in accordance with the 1947 Tri-Partite Agreement between the UK, India and Nepal and are linked to the Indian Army pension code. Last year a review took place, incorporating the 1996 Indian Government 5th Pay Commission, which resulted in substantial rises for all our 26,000 British Gurkha pensioners and their families. The pension increases resulting from this review have been backdated
  to 1 January 1996. We have no current plans to hold discussions with the Indian Government on the issue of Gurkha pensions.

  Jungle Training Exercise (Thailand)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which countries had armed forces involved in the jungle training exercise in Thailand carried out between 1 April 1997 and 31 March 1998. [72848]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 2 March 1999]: Thailand and the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the jungle training exercise in Thailand carried out between 1 April 1997 and 31 March 1998.[72851]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 2 March 1999]: This exercise, involving a company of Royal Marines, was intended to maintain and develop their capability to conduct operations in a jungle environment. It was assessed to have succeeded in its aim.

  Duke of York's Military School
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to set targets for the Duke of York's Military School for 1999–2000. [72986]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 2 March 1999]: I expect to set targets for the Duke of York's Military School by the end of April 1999.

  Alpine Avalanches
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assistance he has offered to the Austrian and French authorities following avalanche emergencies in the Alps in the last 12 months. [74136]

  Mr. George Robertson
  [holding answer 2 March 1999]: During the recent avalanche emergency in Austria, the Austrian authorities requested help from nations in the form of medium lift helicopters. This was the first request of its type in the last 12 months that we have received from either Austrian or French authorities. Our offer of a Puma helicopter was not required as lift from nations with nearer military bases was more readily available.

  Landmine Clearance
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many serving members of Her Majesty's armed forces qualified in landmine clearance are currently involved in mine clearance operations; where they are serving; and to whom they are on secondment. [74207]

  Mr. George Robertson
  [holding answer 2 March 1999]: In total 59 personnel are involved in, or training for, mine clearance operations, as follows:
  Geneva Centre for International Humanitarian Demining—One Officer as technical adviser;
  Bosnia Mine Action Centre (Mostar)—One Officer as technical adviser;
  UN Development Programme (New York)—One Officer on Training Study Team;
  UK Mine Information and Training Centre, Minley—Three personnel;
  Falklands Islands Explosive Ordnance Destruction detachment—Six personnel;
  Bosnia Stabilisation Force—46 personnel involved in co-ordination of mine clearance, emergency disposal of mines and unexploded ordnance, and mine awareness training;
  Kosovo—One officer in Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe Mine Action Cell.

  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to extend the use of serving members of Her Majesty's armed forces in landmine clearance work overseas. [74208]

  Mr. George Robertson
  [holding answer 2 March 1999]: As part of the programme to increase the Ministry of Defence's contribution to humanitarian de-mining, which I announced on 27 October 1997, Official Report, columns 609–20, we have offered up to five additional military personnel to the United Nations in support of de-mining projects overseas.

  Deployment
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current proportion of(a) the Army and (b) Land Command, (i) committed and (ii) warned to deploy for operations. [74058]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 2 March 1999] The information requested is as follows:

  percentage

  Committed to operations

  Warned to deploy on operations

  Army personnel

  35.6

  20.4

  Land Command personnel

  54.6

  31.3

  Ministry of Defence Police
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people are currently employed by the Ministry of Defence Police; and what was the figure ten years ago. [72991]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 3 March 1999]: This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Defence Police. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.
  870
  Letter from Walter Boreham to Mr. Mike Hancock, dated 4 March 1999:
  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the complement of the Ministry of Defence Police, both the current manning levels and those of ten years ago, as this falls into my area of responsibility as Chief Constable/Chief Executive of the Ministry of Defence Police Agency.
  The strength for the Ministry of Defence Police on 23rd February 1999 was 3,609 with 245 civilian support staff. The strength figure of 1st May 1989 was 4,613 and 92 civilian staff.

  Army District Organisations
  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the restructuring of the Army district organisation in the United Kingdom. [75407]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  I announced on 28 October 1998,Official Report, columns 360–67, that, subject to consultation with the Trades Unions, we planned to restructure the Army district organisation to produce a more effective and efficient framework for the administration of Army units in the United Kingdom. Following this consultation, I am now able to confirm that the restructuring will proceed as follows: the number of regional districts will reduce from six to three, covering Scotland and the North of England, Wales and the West of England and South-East England. Divisional headquarters for the higher administration of Army units in these regions will be at Craigiehall near Edinburgh, Shrewsbury and Aldershot. These reforms will also mean that the headquarters of the 3rdDivision, based at Bulford in Wiltshire, will be freed of its regional administrative responsibilities and able to concentrate on its operational role including the command of its deployable units throughout the country. In addition, the London District headquarters will reduce to the status of a brigade headquarters and the headquarters of 43 (Wessex) Brigade will be transferred from Exeter to Bulford.

  As I announced on 2 March 1999, Official Report, column 657, units of the Defence Vetting Agency which are currently widespread around the country will be collocated at Imphal Barracks, York, making use of space vacated by the headquarters 2ndDivision.

  Lobbyists
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the role of professional lobbyists in formulating policy in his Department. [74352]

  Mr. George Robertson
  Professional lobbyists have no role in formulating policy within the Ministry of Defence.

  Defence Diplomacy
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish the budget for defence diplomacy for 1999–2000. [74655]

  Mr. George Robertson
  The budget for centrally funded Defence Diplomacy activities for 1999–2000 will be found from within the Defence Military Assistance Fund (DMAF). The planned DMAF budget for the next financial year will be around £16 million. This represents an increase of some £5 million over 1998–99. The enhancement is specifically intended to fund additional Defence Diplomacy initiatives.
  871
  No decision has yet been taken on the final allocation of the DMAF for 1999–2000, but the majority will be utilised to fund Defence Diplomacy-related activities. The remainder will subsidise military assistance under the Support to Wider British Interests Mission.

  Top Level Budget Holders also fund activities undertaken as part of the Defence Diplomacy Mission. Figures for these activities are not identified separately.

  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence by what means his Department assesses the impact of defence diplomacy. [74654]

  Mr. George Robertson
  We are developing a range of Defence Diplomacy objectives that will be embedded in the Department's planning process. Performance against those objectives will be assessed for each of the management areas concerned. In addition, a Committee chaired by the Deputy Policy Director has been created to oversee the implementation of Defence Diplomacy activities.

  Chief of Defence Logistics
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the planned budget and total staff of the Chief of Defence Logistics after 1 April 2000. [74652]

  Mr. George Robertson
  The Defence Logistics Organisation (DLO), under the leadership of the Chief of Defence Logistics (CDL), will form on 1 April 1999. It will combine the three existing single-service logistics organisations, and headquarters logistic staff currently based in London, into a fully integrated logistics organisation. CDL will operate as a Top Level Budget Holder.

  Detailed budgetary allocations to individual budget holders in the Ministry of Defence are made only one year in advance. Details for 1999–2000 will appear in the forthcoming Supply Estimates for that year and in the supporting information published alongside the Government Expenditure Plans. But, in broad terms, our plans for the financial year 2000–2001 envisage cash expenditure of the order of £4.5 billion in CDL's area of responsibility. The detailed budget will be published next year in Supply Estimates for 2000–2001.

  Work continues to determine the structure of the unified DLO post 1 April 2000, however, initial staff numbers will be broadly comparable to the sum of the three Principal Administrative Officers' organisations which, as published in the UK Defence Statistics 1998, number some 41,400.

  Unified Defence Logistics Organisation
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what logistical responsibilities and budgets will be left to the individual services following the implementation of a unified defence logistics organisation after 1 April 2000. [74648]

  Mr. George Robertson
  Following the implementation of the unified defence logistics organisation, the individual services will retain responsibility (including the budgets) for logistics at the Front-line.

  Defence Strategic Plan
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he intends publishing his Department's annual Defence Strategic Plan. [74657]

  Mr. George Robertson
  The Defence Strategic Plan is a classified document and is therefore not published.

  Strategic Defence Review
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what arrangements are in place to enable the Defence Council to exercise collective ownership of the implementation of the Strategic Defence Review. [74656]

  Mr. George Robertson
  Implementation of the Strategic Defence Review is discussed regularly at meetings of the Defence Council.

  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the key milestones and timetables for deliverance of the Strategic Defence Review implementation. [74646]

  Mr. George Robertson
  Key targets for the Department and a timetable for achieving them, reflecting the outcome of the Strategic Defence Review, were set out in the Ministry of Defence's Public Service Agreement, published in December.

  A number of key milestones in the implementation of the Strategic Defence Review have already been achieved, including: decisions on the command structure, location and timetable for the establishment of a Joint Helicopter Command involving battlefield helicopters of all three Services, and a Joint RN/RAF Harrier force (Joint Force 2000); detailed decisions on the restructuring of the TA; the establishment of a Veterans Advice Unit and an inter-Departmental Services Families Task Force; plans for the reorganisation and enhancement of the Defence Medical Services; and the trialling of the principles of Smart Procurement through pilot Integrated Project Teams in the Procurement Executive and the logistics area.

  Over the coming weeks, I anticipate being able to announce further significant achievements in the implementation of SDR measures.

  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what practical measures he plans to take to ensure that the implementation of the Strategic Defence Review is an open and transparent process. [74658]

  Mr. George Robertson
  We have sought to ensure that the openness which characterised the conduct of the Strategic Defence Review continues in its implementation. We have consulted widely within the Department, with the Trades Unions and with affected local authorities on implementation of individual aspects, and will continue to do so. Where appropriate (for example, in taking forward the Smart Procurement initiative) we have involved defence industry. We consulted widely on the detailed implementation of TA restructuring and on the restructuring and enhancement of the Defence Medical Service before taking decisions. I held a seminar at RUSI on 22 October 1998 to discuss the Review with journalists, academics and other
  873
  interested parties. We have kept Parliament informed as implementation of individual aspects progresses and will report further in the Defence White Paper later in the year.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Sierra Leone Report
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) when and how he was made aware of certain key conclusions of the Foreign Affairs Committee on Sierra Leone; [73702]

  (2) by what means the copy of the draft report of the Foreign Affairs Committee Sierra Leone inquiry which was sent in the second week in January was delivered to his office; [73574]

  (3) when (a) he and (b) his Ministers first saw the copy of the draft report of the Foreign Affairs Committee Sierra Leone inquiry sent to his office during the second week of January; and what he did with the draft report; [73576]

  (4) what use was made by (a) him, (b)
  his Ministers, (c) his Department's PPSs, (d) advisers and (e) officials of the draft report of the Foreign Affairs Committee on Sierra Leone; [73704]

  (5) with whom, and when, he discussed the draft report of the Foreign Affairs Committee Sierra Leone inquiry which was sent in the second week in January; [73575]

  (6) when (a) the Minister who signed the written answer to the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) of 16 February 1999, Official Report,column 751, and (b) the officials who drafted the written answer first learnt of the fact that a copy of the draft report had been received in his Department; [73636]

  (7) how many copies were made of the leaked Foreign Affairs Committee documents relating to the committee's Sierra Leone inquiry; and to whom they were circulated; [73799]

  (8) who received the fax containing the leaked Foreign Affairs Committee document received in the second week of January; and if he will list the (a) officials and (b) Ministers who had sight of the document; [73939]

  (9) with which other members of the Government (a) he and (b) his Ministers discussed the existence of leaked Foreign Affairs Committee documents before the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd) agreed to the answer to the question from the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) of 23 February 1999, Official Report, columns 259–60; [73911]

  (10) in which office the fax machine that received the leaked Foreign Affairs Committee document relating to the committee's Sierra Leone Inquiry was located; [73936]

  (11) when (a) he, (b) any of his Ministers, (c) his officials, (d) his advisers and (e) his departmental parliamentary private secretaries first discussed leaked Foreign Affairs Committee documents relating to the Committee's Sierra Leone inquiry with the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross); [73897]

  874

  (12) if he will place in the Library the original fax of the leaked Foreign Affairs Committee document relating to the committee's Sierra Leone Inquiry; [73937]

  (13) when (a) he, (b) his Ministers, (c) his officials, (d) his advisers and (e) his departmental parliamentary private secretaries first knew that the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) was the source of the leaked documents relating to the Foreign Affairs Committee's Sierra Leone inquiry; [73896]

  (14) how many pages long the faxed document was containing the draft Foreign Affairs Committee report on the Sierra Leone inquiry which was received during the second week in January; [73938]

  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), his PPS, his advisers, or civil servants, had sight of or discussions about the Foreign Affairs Committee's Sierra Leone (i) report, (ii) draft report and (iii) amendments or selected details of the draft or final version before 8 am on Tuesday 9 February; [73699]

  (2) who was responsible for the leaks to him subsequent to the leak of the full draft of the Foreign Affairs Committee report on Sierra Leone; [73696]

  (3) what action he took to report to the House the leak of the key conclusions of the Foreign Affairs Committee on Sierra Leone referred to in his answer to the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan), 23 February 1999, Official Report, columns 259–60; [73701]

  (4) who in his office saw the leaked draft of the Foreign Affairs Committee's report on Sierra Leone; if it was discussed with him; and if it was discussed with or shown to other Ministers, PPSs, civil servants or special advisers; [73698]

  (5) what actions he took when he received the leaked draft report of the Foreign Affairs Committee on Sierra Leone in the second week of January; and what actions he took when he received subsequent leaks of the report's key conclusions; [73697]

  (6) what actions he took to report the leak of the draft report of the Foreign Affairs Committee on Sierra Leone to (a) the House and (b) the Committee. [73700]

  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if he will specify the dates and times of all the discussions he held with his Permanent Secretary about the draft report between its receipt in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the publication of the Committee's report; [74287]

  (2) if he will identify the Minister, official or special adviser whose office fax machine received the draft copy of the Foreign Affairs Committee's report on Sierra Leone from the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross); [74286]

  (3) when the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), informed the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee that (i) he and (ii) members of his official and political staff had received a copy of the draft report on Sierra Leone; [74290]

  875

  (4) when he first informed the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee that (i) he and (ii) members of his official and political staff had received a copy of the draft report on Sierra Leone. [74289]

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what action he took when he discovered that the Foreign Affairs Committee's draft report on Sierra Leone had been passed to his office in January; [73631]

  (2) when (a) he, (b) Ministers, (c) his Department's officials and (d) special advisers first saw a copy of the draft report from the Foreign Affairs Committee on Sierra Leone; [73635]

  (3) how long after receiving (a) the leaked draft and (b) the leaked key conclusions of the Foreign Affairs Committee report on Sierra Leone he informed the Permanent Secretary that these documents were in his possession; [74327]

  (4) how he indicated to the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) that he had received the leaked draft copy of the report by the Foreign Affairs Committee on Sierra Leone; [74330]

  (5) what account the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), took of the leak of the draft report of the Foreign Affairs Committee on Sierra Leone in answering the question from the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham on 16 February 1999, Official Report, column 751 (ref. 71829); [74334]

  (6) if any (a) special adviser, (b) Minister, (c) hon. Member, (d) official or (e) other person solicited a copy of the draft of the Foreign Affairs Committee report on Sierra Leone from the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross); [74329]

  (7) which special adviser at his Department received the leaked key conclusions of the report of the Foreign Affairs Committee on Sierra Leone; [74328]

  (8) if he will list all those (a) Ministers, (b) special advisers, (c) officials, (d) hon. Members and (e) others who were (i) told about and (ii) given copies of the leaked draft of the Foreign Affairs Committee report on Sierra Leone before 8 am on 9 February 1998; [74326]

  (9) what account he took of paragraph 1.1.(iii) of the Ministerial Code when approving the answer given by the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), to the question from the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham on 16 February 1999, Official Report, column 751(ref. 71829); [74336]

  (10) what account the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), took of paragraph 1.1.(iii) of the Ministerial Code when answering the question from the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham on 16 February 1999, Official Report, column 751(ref. 71829); [74335]

  (11) if he will list the (a) complete and (b) partial (i) copies and (ii) drafts of select committee reports, apart from the one relating to Sierra Leone from the Foreign Affairs Committee, which he has received before publication. [73577]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  [holding answers 26 February and 1 March 1999]: I refer the hon. Members to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham
  876
  (Mrs. Gillan) on 23 February 1999, Official Report, columns 259-60 and to my Statement to the House on 24 February 1999, Official Report, column 415.

  The draft report was seen by me, the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd) and a limited number of officials.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if(a) he, (b) his officials, (c) his special advisers and (d) his Ministers provided (i) assistance and (ii) advice to the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) in the drafting of amendments to the Foreign Affairs Committee draft report on Sierra Leone. [73633]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  [holding answer 26 February 1999]: No action was taken to publish or disclose any part of the Foreign Affairs Committee's Report on Sierra Leone, or to interfere in any way with their preparation or the Committee's deliberations on them. No advice or assistance was given to any Member of the Select Committee in the drafting of amendments.

  Leaked Documents
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if he will list all leaked Foreign Affairs Committee documents that reached(a) him, (b) his ministers, (c) his officials, (d) his advisers and (e) departmental parliamentary private secretaries during (i) 1998 and (ii) 1999 and the dates on which they were received; [73806]

  (2) if he will send to the Clerk of the Foreign Affairs Committee all leaked Committee documents and copies of them that are or have been in his or his Department's possession and that are rightfully the property of the committee, the House or hon. Members. [73902]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  [holding answer 1 March 1999]: I refer to my earlier answer to the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) on 23 February 1999, Official Report, columns 259-60, and to my statements in the House 24 February 1999, Official Report, column 415, and 2 March 1999, Official Report, column 894.

  My office received, shortly before its publication in December 1998, the command paper version of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee's Report on Human Rights. It was seen by myself and by a limited number of officials.

  My office received in January 1999 a copy of a draft version of the Foreign Affairs Committee's Report on enlargement. It was seen by the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Ms Quin), and by a limited number of officials. Reflecting the fact that the subject matter was not controversial, it was not shown to me.

  No action was taken to publish or disclose any part of these Reports, or to interfere in any way with their preparation or the Committee's deliberations on them. No advice or assistance was given to any Member of the Select Committee in the drafting of amendments.

  Sierra Leone
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the dates on
  877
  which he held meetings with (a) the Permanent Secretary and (b) Ministers to discuss (i) the Legg report and (ii) the Foreign Affairs Committee report on Sierra Leone (HC 116) of Session 1998–99. [73176]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  I have discussed the issued arising from Sandline International's activities in Sierra Leone on many occasions since May 1998 with both the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), and the Permanent Under-Secretary.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which officials drafted the answers to the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham of 16 February 1999,Official Report, column 751 (ref. 71829), and 23 February 1999, Official Report, columns 259–60(ref. 71836). [74333]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  [holding answer 2 March 1999]: The first answer was drafted by officials in the Parliamentary Relations Department of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and the second by officials in my office, after consultation with me.

  Foreign Affairs Committee
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish all his Department's correspondence with the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) since his appointment to the Foreign Affairs Committee. [73634]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  [holding answer 26 February 1999]: There is no correspondence which has any bearing on the Foreign Affairs Committee Report on Sierra Leone or otherwise on my hon. Friend's membership of the Select Committee.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the outcome of his recent meeting with the Foreign Minister of Spain. [72213]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 22 February 1999]: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary discussed a variety of issues concerning Gibraltar with his Spanish counterpart on 21 February. He pressed the Spanish Foreign Minister to reduce the present unacceptable delays at the border. He gave Sr. Matutes details of Gibraltar's record in transposing EU directives, on which the Spanish Ministry of Foreign Affairs had produced inaccurate public statements. He said that there were currently no problems over fishing in British waters around Gibraltar and that the outstanding charges against Spanish fishermen were a matter for the courts. He defended the validity of Gibraltar driving licences, and reaffirmed our and the Government of Gibraltar's willingness to look into any evidence of illegal activity concerning money laundering. The Ministers agreed on the importance of improving bilateral relations and overcoming differences between them. They agreed to meet again.

  Mr. Trend
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he raised the Spanish proposals for joint sovereignty of Gibraltar during his meeting with the Spanish Foreign Minister on 21 February; what was the 878
  result of the discussions on the issues of border delays and possible restrictions on commercial over-flights; and if he will make a statement. [73177]

  Ms Quin
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward) today at column 877. The meeting between the Foreign Secretary and the Spanish Foreign Minister on 21 February was not part of the Brussels Process. The Spanish proposals tabled at the last Brussels Process meeting were not discussed in detail. We have made clear we will respond to Sr Matutes' proposals at the next meeting of that process. The Foreign Secretary confirmed to Sr Matutes that we were happy to have such a meeting.

  At their meeting, the Foreign Secretary pressed his Spanish counterpart to reduce delays at the border and expressed concern at reports that Spain was considering introducing restrictions on overflights of Spain by aircraft to and from Gibraltar. The Ministers agreed to meet again.

  European Council (Cardiff)
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress achieved with a United Kingdom lead consequential to the joint letter of President Chirac and Chancellor Kohl to the Cardiff European Council. [74438]

  Ms Quin
  Since the Franco-German letter written to the Prime Minister before the Cardiff European Council, the UK has taken the lead in agreeing joint statements with Spain on economic reform and employment, Sweden on social inclusion, and Germany on tax, in advance of the Vienna European Council. In addition, we issued a joint statement on defence with France at the Anglo-French summit in St. Malo last December, and are vigorously pursuing this debate with partners in the run up to the Washington NATO Summit in April and the Cologne European Council in June. There has been a widespread welcome from our EU partners for our approach.

  EU Commission (Work Programme)
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Commission's 1999 work programme as set out in COM (98) 609, detailing each proposal listed. [74442]

  Ms Quin
  A copy of the Commission's Work Programme (COM (98) 604 and COM (98) 609) has been deposited in the Library of the House. This includes a full list of the new legislative initiatives proposed by the Commission. The Government's reaction to the Work Programme was made in explanatory memoranda Nos. 12841/98 and 12840/98, submitted on 8 December 1998.

  East Java
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received about the use of British-made water cannon against persons outside the Maspion electronics and plastics factory in Surabaya, East Java, on 17 February; and if he will make a statement. [74400]
  879
  Mr. Fatchett
  We understand that Tactica water cannon was used in Surabaya on 17 February. These water cannon were licensed under the previous Administration. No water cannon have been approved for export under our Government.

  Indonesia
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he intends to discuss the use of British Tactica water cannon with the Indonesian Government. [74371]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We have made clear to the Indonesian authorities that British-supplied equipment should not be used against civilians to prevent the exercise of their rights of free expression, assembly and association, or in violation of, other international human rights standards.

  Departmental Cash and Running Costs Limits
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what changes he proposes to make in his Department's cash limits and running costs limits for 1998–99. [75216]

  Mr. Fatchett
  Subject to Parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimates the following change will be made in addition to the changes I announced on 11 February 1999,Official Report, column 361.

  The cash limit for Class II, Vote 2 (Other External Relations) will be increased by £10,000,000 from £265,611,000 to £275,611,000. The additional provision is required to provide assistance to Sierra Leone. It will be used to provide additional practical support to ECOMOG, to help train and equip a democratically accountable Sierra Leone army, and to provide support for peace negotiations.

  The increase will be charged to the Reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Kosovo
  Mr. Leslie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place a copy of the draft interim agreement on Kosovo in the Library. [75217]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The draft Kosovo agreement is not a public document. I will, however, place a Foreign Office summary of the draft agreement in the Library of the House.

  NATO Enlargement
  Mr. McCabe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the Czech Republic, Poland and Hungary will join NATO. [75218]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The Czech Republic, Poland and Hungary will deposit their instruments of accession to the North Atlantic Treaty at a ceremony in Independence, Missouri on 12 March. The Government warmly welcome this, fourth, enlargement of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. It is another step towards overcoming the artificial divisions across our continent created during the Cold War and will help to spread security and stability for the benefit of all.

  Human Rights
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recommendations were made by the Human Rights Workshop in Jakarta. [74369]

  Mr. Fatchett
  Many concrete suggestions for follow-up action emerged from the four working groups of the Workshop (police and judiciary; women's and children's rights; human rights education, awareness and institution building; and labour rights). The two co-Chairmen of the Workshop, Marzuki Darusman of Indonesia National Human Rights Commission and Professor David Hams of the University of Nottingham, drew particular attention to a number of these recommendations in the communiqué issued at the conclusion of the Workshop.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what follow-up action the United Kingdom Government took after the Human Rights Workshop in Jakarta. [74370]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We are working closely with EU partners and Indonesian human rights groups to turn the proposals generated at the Workshop into concrete projects to enhance human rights in Indonesia.

  Lobbyists
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the role of professional lobbyists in formulating policy in his Department. [74354]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Any contacts with lobbyists by Ministers and civil servants in this Department are conducted in accordance with the Ministerial Code and Guidance for Civil Servants: Contact with Lobbyists.

  Public Consultations
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish his Department's collation and assessment of responses to its public consultations. [73960]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office follows the Cabinet Office guidance on how to conduct written consultation exercises. This includes publicising and making available the results of such exercises wherever practicable.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Pilot Projects
  Yvette Cooper
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security 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. [72639]

  Angela Eagle
  We are reforming the welfare system around our central aim of work for those that can, security for those that cannot. We have initiated a number of prototype and pilot project
  examining ways of getting people back into work and delivering more flexible, efficient00 services. A list of the main initiatives is provided in the table.
  881

  Pilot project

  Locations

  New Deal for Lone Parents

  Sheffield East, Cambridgeshire, North Cheshire, North Worcestershire, Cardiff and Vale, Clyde Valley, North Surrey and Warwickshire.

  New Deal for Disabled People: Personal Adviser Pilot. Tranche 1: 6 areas from September 1998

  Lanarkshire: Clyde Valley and Coatbridge (Hamilton, Motherwell, Coatbridge and Bellshill); Eastern Valleys (Aberdare, Blackwood, Caerphilly, Ebbw Vale, Merthry Tydfil); Sandwell (Smethwick, West Bromwich); Bolton; Central Sussex (Brighton, Hove); Bristol East and Bath.

  New Deal for Disabled People: Personal Adviser Pilot. Tranche 2: 6 areas from Spring 1999

  Newham (Plaistow, Stratford, Canning Town); South Tyneside (Gateshead, South Shields); Mercia East (Boston, King's Lynn, Skegness) South Devon (Plymouth, Saltash, Torbay, Tavistock, Totnes, Kingsbridge); Bedfordshire (Bedford, Luton); North Yorkshire (Harrogate, Scarborough, York, Northallerton).

  Incapacity to Work Pilot Measures (from April 1999)

  All 12 New Deal for Disabled People pilot areas; plus South-west Scotland (Ayr, Dumfries, Irvine, Kilmarnock, Stranraer); Grampian and Shetland (Aberdeen, Peterhead, Lerwick); and South-east Birmingham

  Single Work-Focused Gateway

  June 1999 The Basic Model; Essex, Warwickshire, Clyde Coast and Renfrew and Lea Roding.
  November 1999 Call Centres Model; Somerset, Buckinghamshire, Gwent Borders and Calderdale and Kirklees. November 1999 Private/Voluntary Sector Model; Suffolk, North Nottingham, Leeds and North Cheshire.

  Pensioner Take Up of Income Support Pilot

  Glasgow, York, Preston, Stroud, Lambeth, East Renfrewshire, Torbay, Torfaen and South Staffordshire.

  Better Government Strand of Active Modern Service for Pensioners Programme (from April 1999 to April 2000)

  Bolton, Rhondda Cynon Taff, Mid and East Devon, Harrow, Middlesbrough, Newcastle, Stirling and Wolverhampton.

  Adapt

  East London and Anglia, Yorkshire, West Country

  Lewisham Integrated Service Prototype

  London Borough of Lewisham

  Lone Parent Integrated Service Prototype

  Ealing, Acton, Euston, Highgate and London Borough of Camden

  Note:

  There are also a number of other small-scale prototypes and pilots that are on-going or planned.

  Single Currency
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security 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. [73674]

  Angela Eagle
  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 Social Security 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. [73582]

  Angela Eagle
  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 referendums. The Government will announce 882
  their conclusions on those recommendations when my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary publishes a White paper and draft Bill before the recess.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will initiate a take-up campaign for disability groups similar to the campaign directed at older people; and if he will make a statement. [74300]

  Mr. Bayley
  We are already working with the Disability Benefits Forum to identify ways of improving information and advice about disability benefits. We are determined to improve the administration of these benefits to ensure that decisions about entitlement are right at the outset and that they remain correct. These are necessary steps which must be taken before decisions can be made about the need for a take-up campaign.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of the financial savings to the social security budget arising from the reduction in incapacity benefit payments to disabled people will be used to improve the level of other services or support for disabled people. [74302]
  883
  Mr. Bayley
  The savings on Incapacity Benefit as a result of measures in the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill, rising to £700 million a year after ten years, will be more than offset by additional expenditure on benefits for sick and disabled people, as we meet increasing demand and seek to do more for those in the greatest need. In this Parliament alone expenditure will increase by £1 billion in real terms.

  Benefit Fraud
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many prosecutions for fraud there have been since 1 May 1997 where one of the accused has been an asylum seeker. [74005]

  Mr. Timms
  The information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what action his Department is taking as a result of the review of fraud in respect of social security benefits to minimise the risk of fraud and to make the social security system secure; and if he will make a statement. [74192]

  Mr. Timms
  We will publish shortly a document setting out our strategy for combating Social Security fraud and error in the light of the consultation on the Green Paper "Beating Fraud is Everyone's Business: securing the future".

  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 26 February 1999,Official Report, column 464–63, on benefit fraud, when the fraud strategy document will be published. [74751]

  Mr. Timms
  We will be publishing the strategy shortly.

  Learning Disabilities
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will increase the income support disregard from £15 to £30 a week for people with learning disabilities. [74301]

  Mr. Bayley
  Our welfare reform programme has focused on making work pay and providing new and innovative ways to help people on benefit make an early return to work. The Disabled Person's Tax Credit, to be introduced in October this year, will ensure that sick and disabled people, who are able to work for 16 hours or more per week, are better off in work. In addition, the New Deal for Disabled People is exploring ways of improving opportunities for those who want to move into or stay in work.

  Pensioners' Incomes
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioners have gross incomes of(a) above £50,000, (b) £30,000 to £49,999, (c) £20,000 to £29,999, (d) £10,000 to £19,999, (e) £5,000 to £9,999 and (f) up to £4,999. [74006]

  Mr. Timms
  The information is in the table.
  884

  Number of pensioners within given bands of gross income

  Thousand

  Annual income

  Single pensioners

  Pensioner couples

  Above £50,000

  10

  50

  £30,000 to £49,999

  20

  130

  £20,000 to £29,999

  70

  270

  £10,000 to £19,999

  520

  1,100

  £5,000 to £9,999

  2,380

  1,060

  Up to £4,999

  1,160

  20

  Total

  4,160

  2,630

  Notes:

  1. Estimates are rounded to the nearest 10,000 pensioners, although they are not necessarily accurate to that degree. Columns may not sum to totals due to rounding.

  2. Estimates of annual income assume no in-year variation in income.

  3. Estimates are not available for incomes of individuals within couples. Therefore estimates for couples relate to the combined income of both partners.

  4. Pensioners are defined as single people over State pension age (60 and over for women, 65 and over for men) and couples (married of cohabiting) where the head is over State pension age.

  Source:

  Family Resources Survey 1996–97

  Pensions
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proposals he has for the election of trustees by pension holders as part of the arrangements for the administration of stakeholder pensions; and if he will make a statement. [74201]

  Mr. Timms
  We expect that many trust-based stakeholder pension schemes will include trustees who are nominated or elected by members of the scheme. The precise requirements applying to the composition of the trustee board in stakeholder pension schemes have not yet been decided. We expect to consult further on this issue in drawing up the detailed regulations that will apply to stakeholder pension schemes.

  Mobility Allowance
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the cost of extending mobility allowance to persons of retirement age. [74010]

  Mr. Bayley
  The cost of extending both the higher and lower rates of the mobility component of Disability Living Allowance to people disabled after the age of 65, or who claim after the age of 65, is estimated to be approximately £2 billion.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Trickett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of how many people in Wakefield District will benefit from the changes in national insurance contributions to be introduced in April. [74041]

  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. The information is not available by district.

  Task Forces
  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish a list of (1) task forces and (2) policy reviews established by his Department since May 1997 which(a) had external members recruited by way of public advertisement, and details of any person so appointed and (b) engaged in public consultation exercises, and the form that these took. [74459]

  Mr. Timms
  Most task forces and reviews are short-term bodies established to give thorough consideration to important and difficult issues. External members are invited to sit on some reviews and task forces because they are able to contribute specific experience and expertise. In such cases, public advertising would be inappropriate and disproportionate.

  Since 1 October 1998, appointments to those task forces which qualify for classification as advisory non-departmental public bodies have come within the remit of the Commissioner for Public Appointments.

  Since May 1997, the Department has consulted publicly on proposals outlined in the following documents which have arisen from policy reviews:

  Pensions Review Consultation Document

  Stakeholder Pensions: a Consultation Document

  New Ambitions for Our Country: A new contract for welfare (Cm 3805)

  Children First: a new approach to child support (Cm 3992)

  Beating Fraud is Everyone's Business: securing the future (Cm 4012)

  A New Contract for Welfare: Support for Disabled People (Cm 4103)

  A New Contract for Welfare: Support in Bereavement (Cm 4104)

  Supporting People: a new policy and funding framework for support services

  A New Contract for Welfare: Partnership in Pensions (Cm 4179) Strengthening the Pensions framework: a Consultation Document.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what is the current level of debt owed to the Child Support Agency by absent parents; and of this, what proportion is deemed(a) collectable and (b) possibly uncollectable; [74342]

  (2) what is the current backlog of cases in the Child Support Agency, and how many of these are (a) more than six months old and (b) over one year old. [74343]

  Angela Eagle
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mrs. Faith Boardman. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Faith Boardman to Mr. lain Duncan Smith, dated 3 March 1999:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Questions to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the level of debt and backlog within the Child Support Agency.
  At 31 January 1999 the amount of child support full maintenance assessment debt was £507,794,866. This can be broken down further to £296,044,407 (58.3%) collectable debt, £197,532,203 (38.9%) possible uncollectable debt and £14,218,256 (2.8%) deferred debt. Deferred debt is where the Agency has deferred the debt indefinitely, provided non-resident parents meet certain conditions
  886
  on payment of regular maintenance and any remaining debt. Where appropriate the parent with care will be compensated for the loss of this money.
  To further increase the flow of maintenance and to help non-resident parents pay the arrears that they owe, wherever possible the Agency makes every effort to re-schedule debts; re-scheduled debts are those where the Agency has negotiated a closely monitored agreement with the non-resident parent to pay arrears by instalments. The amount of debt re-scheduled included in the £507,794,866 at 31 January 1999 was £395,578,470 (78%).
  I cannot provide precisely all the information that you have requested on the current backlog, but have provided as much as possible from the most recent information available.
  At 31 January 1999, there was a total of 278,518 maintenance applications outstanding.
  We normally refer to our maintenance assessment backlog as cases that are over 52 weeks old and have not yet been assessed.
  At any time, the Agency would expect to have a normal head of work of around 210,000 maintenance applications. The speed with which assessments can be cleared is constrained by the complexities of the current legislation which can require up to 104 separate pieces of information to be collected and verified before an assessment can be made, however the Agency is steadily reducing the time taken and is clearing the backlog of applications from the early years.
  Our original estimated volume of backlog cases outstanding in April 1997 was 225,000; by 31 January 1999 we had cleared 251,000, and in practice now expect to need to clear 300,000 cases. This is because as we have proceeded in clearing this work we identified more cases in the backlog than originally estimated. In June 1998 we introduced a major improvement of the Child Support Computer System (CSCS) which provided automated management information. To make full use of the automated information all of the existing cases on CSCS had to be checked to ensure their management information status was correct. This exercise involved validating 1.25 million cases, work was completed in December and means that we now have a reliable automated count of all work on hand.
  To clear these 300,000 cases by 31 March will require the Agency to clear around 50,000 cases in February and March. Although this is very challenging we cleared over 27,000 in January, and therefore expect to clear the 300,000 cases.
  We envisage that the extra resources which will be released as a result of clearing the maintenance assessment backlog will enable more resources to be concentrated on improving customer service and ensuring that parents meet their responsibility so that children receive the maintenance they are entitled to on a regular basis.
  I hope this is helpful.

  BASIS
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many arrests have been made in January by Benefits Agency Security Investigation Service Southern Command; [74345]

  (2) what is the current budget for Benefits Agency Security Investigation Service; and of this, what proportion is allocated to the (a) Northern and (b) Southern Commands; [74347]

  (3) how many arrests made by BASIS Southern Command have led to (a) prosecutions and (b) successful convictions since its establishment. [74346]

  Mr. Timms
  Questions on Benefits Agency operational matters are the responsibility of the Chief Executive, Peter Mathison. He will write to the hon. Member.
  887
  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. lain Duncan Smith, dated 3 March 1999:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions asking how many arrests have been made in January by BASIS Southern Command; what is the budget for BASIS; and of this, what proportion is allocated to Northern and Southern Commands respectively; how many arrests made by BASIS Southern Command have led to (a) prosecutions and (b) successful convictions since its establishment.
  During January 1999 the BASIS Southern Command made ten arrests.
  The budget for BASIS is managed centrally and not split into two commands. It covers not only the Investigation Staff but also Support Staff and Goods and Services. The budget for this financial year is £8.2 million of which £6.34 million has been spent to date.
  BASIS was formed in April 1998. Since that date the police have made 360 arrests based on information supplied by BASIS Command. One hundred and forty-eight of these have been submitted for prosecution of which ninety-four have to date been successful.
  I hope that this is helpful.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) under the new system of periodic review of disability living allowance, how often recipients of the benefit will have their situation reviewed; [74749]

  (2) what information will be required from the recipients of disability living allowance when their situation is reviewed under the new system of review. [74750]

  Mr. Bayley
  From April 1999, a new fairer system of periodic inquiry into benefit entitlement will commence for existing recipients of Disability Living Allowance (DLA). People selected for inquiry action will be asked to complete a detailed questionnaire, based on the current claim form for DLA. This will provide the Benefits Agency (BA) with an up to date picture of the need that the individual has help with personal care and mobility and allow the BA to determine whether a review of entitlement would be appropriate. This will enable awards to be increased or decreased in line with entitlement. Initially, cases will be selected on a proportional basis across the range of awards to be included in the inquiry process.

  Some disabling conditions, and the needs that they generate, change very little over time, whilst others can be very variable in effect and/or degenerative in nature. The BA is working to establish the proper frequency with which individuals should be asked about their current needs, so that, in the future, inquiries can be made at the most appropriate time and new claimants can be advised from the outset when inquiries are likely to be made in their case. This action does not affect the responsibility of all claimants to tell the BA about changes that may affect benefit entitlement.

  Child Benefit
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the estimated expenditure for child benefit for the current tax year. [74746]
  888
  Angela Eagle
  The estimated expenditure figure for Child Benefit for 1998–99 is £7.252 billion.
  Note:Figure is consistent with that contained in Pre-Budget Report of November 1998.

  Unemployment Statistics
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the number of people under retirement age who are not working and are not in receipt of state benefits for each of the past four years. [74160]

  Angela Eagle
  The information requested for four years is not available. Estimates for the last three years are in the table:

  Number of adults, under retirement age, not working and not in Not in receipt of any benefits

  Note in receipt of any benefit

  In receipt of Child Benefit or One Parent Benefit only

  1994–95

  2,240,000

  5,320,000

  1995–96

  2,180,000

  5,420,000

  1996–97

  2,180,000

  5,240,000

  Notes:

  1. The analysis was undertaken on adults (aged between 16 and 64, inclusive, for men and 16 and 59, inclusive, for women).

  2. Adults who were temporarily not working, on industrial action, were ILO unemployed, part time students, unoccupied, had temporary or long term sickness or undertaking unpaid family work were defined as not working.

  3. Estimates are subject to sampling error and to variability in non response.

  4. Estimates rounded to nearest 10,000.

  Source:

  Family Resources Survey (Great Britain).

  Lobbyists
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the role of professional lobbyists in formulating policy in his Department. [74364]

  Mr. Timms
  Any contacts with lobbyists by Ministers and civil servants in this Department are conducted in accordance with the "Ministerial Code" and "Guidance for Civil Servants: Contact with Lobbyists".

  Social Fund
  Mr. Hope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the changes to the Social Fund Budgeting Loan Scheme will be introduced; and when details of the Discretionary Social Fund Budget for 1999–2000 will be announced. [75417]

  Angela Eagle
  The changes to the Social Fund Budgeting Loan Scheme will be introduced on 5 April 1999. Applications for Social Fund budgeting loans will be decided according to a few simple set factual criteria, rather than the discretion of the officer deciding the application. This will mean that those on the lowest incomes who apply for a loan will no longer be asked detailed questions on what they intend to do with the money before a decision can be made. In keeping with the Government's aims for an active modern Social Security service, these changes will make the applications
  889
  process much simpler, and the decisions process quicker, fairer, less intrusive and easier to understand, while administration of the scheme will be more cost-effective. In connection with these changes, I am, today, placing in the House Library copies of the updated Social Fund Guide containing the revised Secretary of State Directions and Guidance to Social Fund officers on the new scheme.

  We can also announce today that the total discretionary Social Fund budget for 1999–2000 will be £535.2 million, representing an increase of £34 million over the corresponding budget for 1998–99. Of this total, £98 million will be allocated to Community care Grants, £436.7 million to loans and £0.5 million will be set aside as a contingency reserve. To further improve the fairness of the Social Fund scheme we shall be allocating the loans budget to each Benefits Agency district with a view to achieving greater consistency in the level of successful applications across districts. Full details of budget allocations to individual Benefits Agency districts will be placed in the House Library on 24 March.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Asbestos
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans she has to promote the establishment of an international framework for asbestos control in Third World countries. [73964]

  Clare Short
  We have no plans to promote the establishment of an international framework as such but we support the European Council Regulation on the export and import of dangerous chemicals and the Basle Convention DFID has assisted partner countries on the use and handling of asbestos in specific cases. Further details of DFID's role is contained in the answer to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) on 20 July 1998,Official Report, column 395.

  Aid (Kenya)
  Ms Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on UK(a) bilateral and (b) multilateral aid to Kenya. [74031]

  Clare Short
  Britain's development assistance strategy for Kenya is set out in the Kenya Country Strategy Paper published by my Department last year, copies of which are publicly available and will be sent to my hon. Friend.

  Task Forces
  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will publish a list of (1) task forces and (2) policy reviews established by her Department since May 1997 which(a) had external members recruited by way of public advertisement, and details of any person so appointed and (b) engaged in public consultation exercises, and the form that these took. [74463]

  Clare Short
  Since 1 May 1997 the Department for International Development (DFID) has undertaken a review of international development policy, and a review 890
  of DFID's relationship with Civil Society. Neither of these initiatives involved the recruitment of external members by public advertisement. Both reviews involved consultation with a wide variety of interested groups and individuals, who were invited to input in order to add their wide experience and knowledge to our work. A report on the consultation which DFID conducted with Civil Society, North and South, will be published shortly.

PRIME MINISTER

  Task Forces
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) how many reviews and task forces he has established since May 1997; and how many of them have reported, [71151]

  (2) if he will list the consultative and advisory committees set up by the Government since May 1997.
  [73345]

  The Prime Minister
  The Government are determined to deliver its Manifesto commitments. Reviews, task forces and advisory and consultative committees are helping to ensure that decisions are soundly based and representative of a wide range of views. The establishment and management of individual reviews, task forces, consultative and advisory committees is a matter for Ministers in the Department concerned.

WALES

  Child Care
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on after-school child care places and activities. [72032]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  Guidance to the Early Years Development and Childcare Partnerships in each local authority area in Wales was issued last month. The Partnerships are now preparing plans for the development of child care provision to meet the needs of their areas, including new out of school child care, which may be eligible for funding from the New Opportunities Fund.

  The New Opportunities Fund has allocated £14.3 million over the next three years for out of school child care in Wales, of which £1.3 million is to support integrated child care and education projects. In 1999–2000, the Training and Enterprise Councils in Wales will have funding of £0.9 million to provide infrastructure support (including training, business support and information) for out of school child care provision eligible for NOF funding.

  In addition funding of £1.5 million will be available in 1999–2000 for the Early Years Development and Childcare Partnerships to take forward the development of child care provision, including out of school provision, in their areas.

  The New Opportunities Fund has allocated £11.7 million specifically for out of school learning activities in Wales over the next three years. Funding is targeted at

  891
  disadvantaged areas and NOF plan that provision is available in at least one quarter of primary schools and a half of secondary schools and special schools.

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

  International Standard Swimming Pool
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement about proposals for an international standard 50 metre swimming pool for Wales. [73545]

  Mr. Michael
  In December last year the SPORTLOT National Panel invited bids from local authorities interested in developing a replacement facility for the Wales Empire Pool. The local authorities in Cardiff, Swansea and Torfaen have expressed their interest and have been given until 15 March to submit detailed plans. A special meeting of the SPORTLOT National Panel will then be held on 7 May to consider all the applications. As with all applications for Lottery funding, the Panel will take its decision independently of Government.

  Schizophrenia
  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people with a main diagnosis of schizophrenia psychoses were discharged from mental illness hospitals in Wales in each of the last three years; and how many of them were taken into local authority residential care in the same year. [73361]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  The following table gives, for NHS trusts in Wales, the number of deaths and discharges relating to patients whose main diagnosis was schizophrenia. The number discharged may include cases of the same patient being discharged more than once for separate periods of care. Reliable estimates of the number discharged to local authority care are not available.

  Year

  Number of deaths and discharges

  1996

  1,715

  1997

  1,815

  1998

  1,713

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

  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales 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. [73366]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  There are no research projects being funded into schizophrenia in the current year. The Welsh Office is funding a conference on "Effective Interventions in Schizophrenia" on 16 March following a two year research project which started in 1996–97. This project demonstrated clinical effectiveness in Schizophrenia and was undertaken by Llandough Hospital, Cardiff at a cost of £75,000.

  Following the transfer of functions, this issue will be a matter for the National Assembly.
  892
  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many of those convicted of crimes in Wales in the last year for which figures are available have ever been admitted to National Health Service mental illness hospitals and units with a main diagnosis of schizophrenia psychoses. [73356]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  I refer the right hon. Member to the reply given to him on 25 February 1999,Official Report, column 393. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has responsibility for this issue.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what official visits he, his Ministers or officials have paid to Zimbabwe since May 1997; whom they met; and what was discussed. [73555]

  Mr. Michael
  None

  National Assembly
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales which company or companies gave his Department professional advice(a) on the use of Crickhowell House as part of the National Assembly project and (b) when Crickhowell House was first let in 1991–92; and if he will make a statement. [73608]

  Mr. Michael
  Professional advice was given to my Department regarding the use of Crickhowell House as part of the National Assembly for Wales by PACE (Property Advisers to the Civil Estate), Symonds Group, Crown and Company and the Powell Dobson Partnership. An independent review of their work was undertaken by Gooch and Wagstaffe and the AYH Partnership.

  Negotiations in 1991–92 for the acquisition of Crickhowell House for the Welsh Health Commons Services Authority were undertaken by Gooch and Wagstaffe and Bevan Ashford.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will allow representatives of(a) Plaid Cymru, (b) Wales Liberal Democrats and (c) the Conservative Party to view, on a confidential basis, papers relating to
  (i) funding already allocated by his Department and
  (ii) contracts signed by his Department, for the period after 1 July relating to spending within the control of the National Assembly for Wales. [74297]

  Mr. Michael
  I announced on 14 December 1998 my Department's future budgets and expenditure plans, which will be inherited by the Assembly. Further details will be included in the Welsh Office's Departmental Report, which will be published in late March.

  I should also be happy for my Department to provide information on public expenditure in Wales in accordance with the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, in response to any request received.

  Autism
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what guidance he has given to local authority social services departments in Wales regarding the criteria to be employed under best value assessments for autism-specific services. [73627]
  893
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  The Local Government Bill, which includes best value provisions, is currently being considered by Parliament. The Bill makes provision for the National Assembly to be responsible for administering best value in Wales. The Bill provides a broad framework for best value and it will be for the Assembly to determine the more detailed aspects of the policy and how it will operate in Wales. The Assembly is likely to want to draw on the experience of all Welsh authorities involved in best value pilot studies. Once the Bill is enacted and the pilot studies have made further progress, the Assembly will wish to consider what guidance to issue to local authorities on best value.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many autism-specific places are currently provided by social services departments in Wales for individuals with autism-specific disorders within(a) residential services, (b) day services and (c) respite case services. [73628]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  While information on services for the disabled is collected centrally, this does not include information on the autism-specific places provided by social services departments in Wales.

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

  Employment
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his latest estimate of(a) new jobs announced and (b) jobs lost in the past 12 months; and if he will make a statement. [74182]

  Mr. Hain
  Records of individual job losses and gains are not held centrally. However, in the 12 months to September 1998, employee jobs in Wales rose by 15,000.

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

  Traffic Congestion (Woodbank Junction)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects measures to be put in place to alleviate traffic queues at the Woodbank Junction (English Border); and if he will make a statement. [74188]

  Mr. Hain
  This is a cross border scheme largely (almost entirely) situated in Cheshire. It is intended to relieve severe traffic congestion which occurs at the traffic signal controlled junction, particularly during the morning and evening peaks and at weekends. The scheme is the responsibility of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR); and it will be for them to carry out the route study proposed in the English roads review. DETR will be making an announcement on the timing of this, and other studies, in due course.

  Economy
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met the (1) Wales TUC and (2) Wales CBI to discuss the economy of Wales; and if he will make a statement. [74185]

  Mr. Michael
  I have met representatives of the CBI and TUC in a variety of settings including discussions about the Assembly. The most recent direct meeting was 894
  on 1 February when I met representatives of Wales CBI at a lunch to discuss ways in which the Assembly could carry out its statutory duty to consult business. Both CBI Wales and the Wales TUC are keenly interested on the way the Assembly will promote the economy of Wales and I shall be speaking about this to the annual conference of Wales TUC in April.

  Assisted Areas
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects to announce the new boundaries for assisted area status; and if he will make a statement. [74186]

  Mr. Hain
  The new assisted areas map comes into force on 1 January 2000. The new map must be agreed in time for this deadline. The Commission have asked Member States to submit their proposals by 31 March 1999.

  Welsh Arts Council
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 10 December 1998,Official Report, column 285, on the Welsh Arts Council, if he will make a statement on his latest plans on this matter; and when he expects to make an announcement on the appointment of a chairman. [74316]

  Mr. Michael
  I refer the right hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 25 February 1999,Official Report, column 437.

  Following the transfer of functions, such appointments will be a matter for the National Assembly in future.

  Dental Services
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much was spent on NHS general dental services in Wales, by health authority area, in each year since 1995–96. [74259]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  Details of expenditure on NHS general dental services in Wales including expenditure by the Dental Practice Board, are in the table.

  £000

  Health authority

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  Clwyd

  107

  —

  —

  Dyfed

  220

  —

  —

  Gwent

  143

  —

  —

  Gwynedd

  115

  —

  —

  Mid Glamorgan

  37

  —

  —

  Powys

  128

  —

  —

  South Glamorgan

  94

  —

  —

  West Glamorgan

  21

  —

  —

  Dental Practice Board

  50,262

  —

  —

  Total

  51,127

  —

  —

  Bro Taf

  —

  117

  116

  Dyfed Powys

  —

  358

  208

  Gwent

  —

  164

  119

  Morgannwg

  —

  34

  79

  North Wales

  —

  189

  287

  Dental Practice Board

  —

  52,903

  56,166

  Total

  —

  53,765

  56,975

  Source:

  Annual accounts of family health service authorities 1995–96 and annual accounts of health authorities 1996–97 and 1997–98
  895
  Following the transfer of functions, this issue will be a matter for the National Assembly.

CABINET OFFICE

  Ministerial Flights (Concorde)
  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office on how many occasions(a) ministers and (b) their staff have flown on Concorde since 1 May 1997; and how much the flights have cost. [68851]

  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  For information on the use of Concorde by Ministers, I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) on 1 March 1999,Official Report, column 527. Information on the occasions when civil servants within individual Departments have used Concorde is not held centrally.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what official visits he, his ministers or officials have paid to Zimbabwe since May 1997; whom they met; and what was discussed. [73459]

  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  Since 1 May 1997, neither I nor any other Minister in the Cabinet Office has visited Zimbabwe.

  Two officials of the Cabinet Office have visited the country in the last 21 months.

  The first official visited Zimbabwe between 19 and 30 May 1998 and provided keynote speeches at four conferences on performance management. The conferences were organised by the British Council in partnership with the Zimbabwe Institute of Public Administration and Management (ZIPAM).

  The second official visited between 20 and 23 May 1998, and held discussions with Government and non-Government organisations on current events in Zimbabwe and the region.

  Single Currency
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will list the subject areas within his Department which have relevance to an information campaign on Britain's membership of a single currency regime. [73750]

  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  HM 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 Changeover Plan provides further information. Copies of the Plan are available in the Libraries of the House.

  Lobbyists
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will make a statement on the role of professional lobbyists in formulating policy in his Department. [74368]
  896
  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  Any contacts with lobbyists by Ministers and civil servants in this Department are conducted in accordance with the "Ministerial Code" and "Guidance for Civil Servants: Contacts with Lobbyists".

  Archway Tower, London
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what has been(a) the total capital expenditure and (b) the income from lettings on Archway Tower, London N19 for (i) each of the last three years and (ii) the current year to date; and if he will make a statement. [74071]

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

  Letter from John Locke to Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, dated March 1999:
  The Parliamentary Secretary for the Cabinet Office, Peter Kilfoyle, has asked me as Chief Executive of Property Advisers to the Civil Estate (PACE) to respond to your Parliamentary Question about capital expenditure and income from lettings on Archway Tower.I believe you are already aware that Archway Tower forms part of the portfolio of vacant office buildings declared surplus by Other Government Departments and inherited by PACE on 1 April 1996.The state of repair of Archway Tower was in breach of the terms of the lease and left the building incapable of occupation. Following abortive surrender negotiations with the landlords, and in an effort to defray the costs of holding Archway Tower, a decision was taken in March 1998 to refurbish the building and bring it into a usable condition.Archway Tower has remain vacant since April 1995 and there have been no lettings since that date due to the condition of the building. Similarly, during the last 7 months of refurbishment work the building has been unoccupiable.Capital expenditure and income from lettings from when PACE assumed responsibility for Archway Tower is as follows:

  £million

  Date

  Capital expenditure

  Income

  1 April 1996–31 March 1997

  nil

  nil

  1 April 1997–31 March 1998

  nil

  nil

  1 April 1998-to date

  3.498

  nil

  Refurbishment work is expected to be complete by April 1999 and the Agency hopes to have tenants in place later in the year. With the likelihood of the grant of a rent free period to offset the fit out costs of a future occupier, I do not envisage any income from letting during the 1999–2000 Financial Year.

  Task Forces
  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will publish a list of (1) task forces and (2) policy reviews established by his Department since May 1997 which(a) had external members recruited by way of public advertisement, and details of any person so appointed and (b) engaged in public consultation exercises, and the form that these took. [74469]
  897
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  Most task forces and reviews are short-term bodies established to give thorough consideration to important and difficult issues. External members are invited to sit on some reviews and task forces because they are able to contribute specific experience and expertise. In such cases, public advertising would often be inappropriate and disproportionate.

  Since 1 October 1998, appointments to those task forces which qualify for classification as advisory non-departmental public bodies have come within the remit of the Commissioner for Public Appointments.

  Review

  Review of Quangos

  A consultation paper was published and the Government consulted widely on the proposals contained in that paper (for making 'quangos' more open, accountable and effective). Copies of the consultation paper were sent to all MPs, all local authorities and all 'quangos'—as well as to key academics and interested members of the public. The consultation paper was also published on the Internet and Internet users were able to e-mail comments direct to the review team. Responses to the consultation paper were published and copies placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Review of Existing Drugs Strategy

  Consultation was held with a wide range of key professionals, organisations and key population groups—eg Drug Action Teams, young people, teachers, parents, drug mis-users, via meetings, visits and conferences, correspondence and an Internet e-mail address. The strategy document was published as a White Paper "Tackling Drugs to build a Better Britain" (Cm 3945) on 27 April 1998.

  Review of the Women's National Commission

  Consultation was held with women's organisations through correspondence and meetings. Copies of the Review's Report were placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Review of the Charter Programme

  A consultation paper was issued on 16 September 1997 to wide range of organisations and individuals—also made available on the Internet. Responses to the consultation paper were published and copies placed in the Libraries of the House.

  The Review of Export Promotions

  Extensive consultation was held with members of the export community. Written and oral submissions were taken; meetings were held with individuals and groups.

HEALTH

  Gamma Hydroxy Butyrate
  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what regulations apply to the(a) use, (b) possession, (c) production and (d) supply of gamma hydroxy butyrate. [72901]

  Ms Jowell
  Gamma Hydroxy Butyrate is a medicinal product by virtue of Article 1 of European Commission Directive 65/65. Activities with this product carried on in the course of a business are regulated by the Medicines Act 1968 (as amended).

  It is a criminal offence to place on the market, produce, sell or supply this product other than in accordance with licences or registration required by this Act. Possession for personal use is not regulated by medicines legislation.

  Electro-convulsive-therapy Treatment
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the use of electro-convulsive-therapy treatment for mental health patients. [73003]

  Mr. Hutton
  Electro-convulsive therapy (ECT) can be used for a variety of conditions, including depression, mania and certain forms of schizophrenia. It has been shown to be of most benefit where other treatments have failed.
  898
  Of those established by my Department since 1 May 1997, the Better Regulation Task Force, has external members recruited by way of public advertisement. Members of this task force are unpaid and receive expenses only. The details of the persons appointed are as follows:
  Matti Alderson (Director General, Advertising Standards Authority)
  Deirdre Hutton (Chair of the Scottish Consumer Council).

  Public consultation exercises have been conducted by the following task forces and policy reviews:

  An expert group, chaired by Genevra Richardson, Professor of Law at Queen Mary and Westfield College, has been appointed to undertake a review of mental health legislation in England and Wales and to make recommendations on the scope of a new legislative framework by 1 July 1999. The group's report will include advice on appropriate safeguards which should apply to the use of Electro-Convulsive Therapy.

  Mental Health Beds
  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which health regions plan to increase the number of mental health beds; and by how many. [73225]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Mental Health Modernisation Fund will be used to increase the number of mental health beds in all eight health regions. £19 million has already been allocated to health authorities, part of which is being used to increase the number of 24 hour staffed beds. In addition health authorities have just been invited to apply for additional resources for secure beds. Details are set out in circular Health Service Circular/Local Authority Circular 1999–038, copies of which are available in the Library.

  It is not yet possible to provide a regional breakdown.

  Single Currency
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health 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. [73587]

  Ms Jowell
  Any plans by the Government to issue information during a referendum campaign on whether or not the United Kingdom 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.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health 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. [73669]

  Ms Jowell
  Her Majesty's 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 8 of the Treasury's Outline National Changeover Plan provides further information. Copies of the plan are available in the Library.

  Medicines (Classification)
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what appeal mechanism he will establish in respect of decisions by the Medicines Control Agency to classify foodstuffs as medicines. [73314]

  Ms Jowell
  We do not propose to give the Medicines Control Agency (MCA) the power to decide that a foodstuff is a medicine. The MCA has consulted on legislative proposals for classifying medicinal products, which include introducing a statutory right to a formal review of the agency's provisional decisions. The agency is now considering responses to the consultation exercise. We will decide in due course whether and what review arrangements we wish to put before Parliament.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if health foods and dietary supplements will have to satisfy the same licensing criteria as medicines when the remit of the Medicines Control Agency is extended; [73319]

  (2) what limitations he plans to place on the Medicine Control Agency's proposed new power to declare any food product to be a medicine. [73313]

  Ms Jowell
  The powers of the licensing authority, of which the Medicines Control Agency (MCA) is an executive arm, are set out in the Medicines Act 1968 and secondary legislation including the Medicines for Human Use (Marketing Authorisations Etc.) Regulations 1994. We have no proposals to extend the remit of the MCA to health foods and dietary supplements, which will continue to be subject to food law.
  900
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the number of health food products which could be reclassified as medicines. [73312]

  Ms Jowell
  We can make no such estimate since under European Commission law and United Kingdom law, health foods are not medicines.

  Chronic Pain Management
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if it is his policy to establish chronic pain management programmes in the NHS on the model of that at St. Thomas' Hospital in London. [73949]

  Mr. Hutton
  Research has shown pain management programmes, similar to the model at St. Thomas' Hospital, to be effective for selected patients whose chronic pain is not relieved by conventional treatments. Against that background, it is for health authorities and National Health Service trusts to plan local pain services, in consultation with health professionals, to meet local needs.

  National Institute for Clinical Excellence
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the terms of reference of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. [73957]

  Mr. Hutton
  The National Institute for Clinical Excellence will be not be operational until April this year, the officers and non-officer members have yet to be appointed and the terms of reference will be a matter for the Board of NICE to discuss at its first meetings.

  A discussion paper, Faster access to modern treatment, sets out its detailed proposals for how the National Institute for Clinical Excellence will carry out appraisals of clinical and cost effectiveness of individual health treatments. No firm decisions have been taken either on the topics to be referred to NICE, or on the precise methods of appraisal to be used.

  Schizophrenia
  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many patients with a primary diagnosis of schizophrenia psychoses were discharged from mental illness hospitals in each health district in the last year; and how many were admitted for a hospital stay more than once during the year; [74389]

  (2) how many people discharged from mental illness hospitals in each health district in England in the last year after a main diagnosis of schizophrenia psychoses, having been proved vulnerable homeless subsequently became voluntary homeless. [74275]

  Mr. Hutton
  The table shows the estimated number of discharges in England in 1997–98 after a main diagnosis of schizophrenia psychoses.

  Information on the number of patients admitted more than once during the year and on vulnerable homeless subsequently becoming voluntary homeless is not available centrally.
  901

  Estimated live discharges with a primary diagnosis schizophrenia psychoses, by health authority of treatment

  Number

  England

  31,020

  Northern and Yorkshire

  3,450

  Bradford

  210

  County Durham

  180

  East Riding

  70

  Gateshead and South Tyneside

  290

  Leeds

  600

  Newcastle and North Tyneside

  100

  North Cumbria

  280

  Northumberland

  180

  Sunderland

  100

  Tees

  420

  Wakefield

  230

  North Yorkshire

  510

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  280

  Trent

  1,670

  Barnsley

  120

  North Derbyshire

  200

  South Derbyshire

  30

  Doncaster

  180

  Leicestershire

  10

  Lincolnshire

  360

  North Nottinghamshire

  280

  Nottingham

  240

  Rotherham

  0

  Sheffield

  160

  South Humber

  100

  Anglia and Oxford

  2,410

  Bedfordshire

  280

  Berkshire

  470

  Buckinghamshire

  320

  Cambridge and Huntingdon

  350

  East Norfolk

  20

  Northamptonshire

  340

  North West Anglia

  170

  Oxfordshire

  190

  Suffolk

  270

  North Thames

  6,840

  Hillingdon

  170

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  920

  Enfield and Haringey

  480

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  630

  Barking and Havering

  320

  Brent and Harrow

  630

  Camden and Islington

  1,030

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  320

  East London and the City

  1,050

  North Essex

  510

  South Essex

  490

  East and North Hertfordshire

  190

  West Hertfordshire

  120

  South Thames

  3,270

  Bexley and Greenwich

  320

  Bromley

  620

  Croydon

  0

  East Kent

  250

  West Kent

  500

  Kingston and Richmond

  150

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  410

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  350

  East Surrey

  130

  West Surrey

  400

  East Sussex, Brighton and Hove

  500

  West Sussex

  120

  902

  Estimated live discharges with a primary diagnosis schizophrenia psychoses, by health authority of treatment

  Number

  South and West

  4,330

  North and Mid Hampshire

  200

  Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

  320

  Southampton and South West Hampshire

  290

  Isle of Wight

  110

  Somerset

  350

  South and West Devon

  290

  Wiltshire

  420

  Avon

  610

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  520

  Dorset

  440

  North East Devon

  490

  Gloucestershire

  300

  West Midlands

  3,000

  Birmingham

  600

  Coventry

  300

  Dudley

  230

  Herefordshire

  70

  Sandwell

  120

  Shropshire

  290

  Solihull

  80

  North Staffordshire

  360

  South Staffordshire

  260

  Walsall

  150

  Warwickshire

  250

  Wolverhampton

  140

  Worcestershire

  260

  North West

  5,600

  South Lancashire

  160

  Liverpool

  380

  Manchester

  650

  Morecambe Bay

  220

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  280

  Salford and Trafford

  430

  Sefton

  460

  Stockport

  180

  West Pennine

  320

  Bury and Rochdale

  330

  North Cheshire

  290

  South Cheshire

  280

  East Lancashire

  500

  North West Lancashire

  350

  Wigan and Bolton

  400

  Wirral

  390

  Not Known

  0

  Notes:

  1. The data have been rounded

  2. Figures for 1997–98 are provisional, no adjustments have yet been made for shortfalls in data (i.e. the data are ungrossed)

  Source:

  Hospital Episode Statistics

  NHS Translators
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the(a) average salary and (b) hourly rate for a translator employed by the NHS. [74170]

  Ms Jowell
  The information requested is not available centrally. National Health Service trusts have the power to set terms and conditions for all their staff, including translators.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the cost to the NHS in the latest year for which figures are available of providing(a) translators and (b) translation services for public information. [74169]
  903
  Ms Jowell
  The information requested is not available centrally. The decisions and working arrangements for translators and translation services are made at local level. The responsibility for employing translators, interpreters, linkworkers and advocates lies with health authorities and National Health Service trusts.

  Dentists
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of dental contract holders had an NHS list which (i) increased and (ii) decreased between March 1997 and March 1998 in each health authority area and in total in England. [74004]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 3 March 1999]: The percentage of dental contract holders for each health authority having a National Health Service list which increased or decreased between March 1997 and March 1998 is shown in the table.

  General Dental Service: dental contract holders with an increase and decrease in list size between March 1997 and 1998: by health authority—England

  Health authority

  Percentage with an increase

  Percentage with a decrease

  England

  31.4

  68.3

  Avon

  33.4

  66.3

  Barking and Havering

  34.0

  66.0

  Barnet

  33.8

  64.0

  Barnsley

  35.8

  64.2

  Bedfordshire

  35.6

  61.9

  Berkshire

  28.3

  71.3

  Bexley and Greenwich

  38.5

  61.5

  Birmingham

  30.2

  68.8

  Bradford

  26.3

  73.0

  Brent and Harrow

  29.0

  70.5

  Bromley

  30.6

  68.4

  Buckinghamshire

  21.8

  77.7

  Bury and Rochdale

  35.8

  63.3

  Calderdale and Kirlees

  34.5

  64.3

  Cambridge and Huntingdon

  25.5

  74.5

  Camden and Islington

  25.7

  73.7

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  30.8

  69.2

  County Durham

  39.6

  60.4

  Coventry

  26.0

  74.0

  Croydon

  30.8

  69.2

  Doncaster

  43.5

  56.5

  Dorset

  22.6

  76.9

  Dudley

  23.9

  76.1

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  27.4

  71.9

  East Kent

  31.3

  67.3

  East Lancashire

  32.9

  66.4

  East London and The City

  34.8

  64.6

  East Norfolk

  26.2

  73.8

  East Riding

  36.8

  63.2

  East Surrey

  27.3

  72.0

  East Sussex, Brighton and Hove

  31.1

  68.9

  East and North Hertfordshire

  37.6

  62.4

  Enfield and Haringey

  35.4

  64.1

  Gateshead and South Tyneside

  36.8

  63.2

  Gloucestershire

  26.7

  73.3

  Herefordshire

  35.1

  63.2

  Hillingdon

  25.0

  75.0

  Isle of Wight

  40.0

  60.0

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  29.6

  69.0

  Kingston and Richmond

  24.8

  75.2

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  29.6

  70.0

  Leeds

  39.1

  60.9

  Leicestershire

  31.3

  67.8

  Lincolnshire

  35.8

  64.2

  Liverpool

  34.8

  64.4

  904

  General Dental Service: dental contract holders with an increase and decrease in list size between March 1997 and 1998: by health authority—England

  Health authority

  Percentage with an increase

  Percentage with a decrease

  Manchester

  28.5

  70.9

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  27.3

  72.3

  Morecambe Bay

  38.3

  60.5

  Newcastle and North Tyneside

  34.3

  65.0

  North Cheshire

  35.4

  63.3

  North Cumbria

  44.8

  55.2

  North Derbyshire

  34.7

  65.3

  North Essex

  34.1

  65.0

  North Nottinghamshire

  45.5

  54.5

  North Staffordshire

  32.6

  65.2

  North West Anglia

  27.8

  72.2

  North West Lancashire

  35.5

  64.5

  North Yorkshire

  40.3

  59.2

  North and East Devon

  22.0

  78.0

  North and Mid Hampshire

  31.2

  68.8

  Northamptonshire

  35.4

  64.6

  Northumberland

  42.7

  57.3

  Nottingham

  27.3

  72.7

  Oxfordshire

  26.4

  72.0

  Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

  29.2

  70.8

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  28.8

  70.5

  Rotherham

  47.9

  47.9

  Salford and Trafford

  29.4

  70.6

  Sandwell

  28.4

  69.1

  Sefton

  31.6

  68.4

  Sheffield

  38.0

  62.0

  Shropshire

  27.3

  71.9

  Solihull

  42.4

  55.9

  Somerset

  24.6

  75.4

  South Cheshire

  31.6

  67.1

  South Derbyshire

  25.9

  72.8

  South Essex

  33.9

  65.0

  South Humber

  30.9

  67.6

  South Lancashire

  36.0

  62.9

  South Staffordshire

  34.0

  66.0

  South and West Devon

  27.3

  72.7

  Southampton and South West Hampshire

  31.4

  68.6

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  34.4

  65.6

  Stockport

  26.0

  74.0

  Suffolk

  27.0

  73.0

  Sunderland

  20.9

  79.1

  Tees

  38.8

  61.2

  Wakefield

  48.9

  51.1

  Walsall

  43.4

  56.6

  Warwickshire

  30.5

  69.5

  West Hertfordshire

  30.4

  69.1

  West Kent

  35.0

  64.6

  West Pennine

  30.8

  68.4

  West Surrey

  34.6

  65.4

  West Sussex

  26.8

  73.2

  Wigan and Bolton

  32.4

  67.1

  Wiltshire

  26.1

  73.9

  Wirral

  31.0

  68.0

  Wolverhampton

  22.0

  78.0

  Worcestershire

  22.8

  76.5

  Notes:

  1. Comparisons between March 1997 and March 1998 are affected by the reduction in the registration period to 15 months.

  2. Comparisons are for dentists with contracts at 31 March 1997 and 31 March 1998 and excludes dentists with no registrations on both dates.

  3. Dentists with contracts in several HAs are counted in each HA in which they have a contract but only once in the England total.

  4. The percentage increases and decreases may not equal a 100 per cent. because some dentists will have an unchanged list size.
  905
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what was the total revenue raised from patient charges in the salaried dentist scheme in (i) 1995 to 1996, (ii) 1996 to 1997 and (iii) 1997 to 1998; [74002]

  (2) what was the total spend on salaried dentists in England by health authority in (i) 1995 to 1996, (ii) 1996 to 1997 and (iii) 1997 to 1998; [74001]

  (3) how many (i) adults and (ii) children are registered with salaried dentists in each health authority; and how many salaried dentists there were in each health authority in (a) March 1996, (b) March 1997 and (c) March 1998. [74003]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 3 March 1999]: The information requested has been placed in the Library.

  Dissolved NHS Trusts
  Mrs. Humble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what financial arrangements are being made in respect of the 37 NHS trusts dissolved on 1 April 1998. [75335]

  Mr. Denham
  Pursuant to the dissolution of thirty-seven National Health Service trusts on 1 April 1998, and their reconfiguration through the establishment of eighteen new trusts on that date, we propose to create originating debt for the new trusts equal to the net assets transferred to them and therefore to remit the outstanding debt of the dissolved trusts.

  These operations involve no overall loss to the Exchequer. Her Majesty's Treasury has presented a minute to the House, on 2 March 1999, giving the particulars and circumstances of the proposed remission which it has approved in principle.

  Lobbyists
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the role of professional lobbyists in formulating policy in his Department. [74356]

  Ms Jowell
  Any contacts with lobbyists by Ministers and civil servants in this Department are conducted in accordance with the "Ministerial Code" and "Guidance for Civil Servants: Contact with Lobbyists".

  National Radiological Protection Board
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will establish the funding made available to the National Radiological Protection Board from(a) his Department, (b) other Government departments and (c) the telecommunications industry in each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement. [74710]

  Ms Jowell
  The information requested is in the table.

  £000

  1997–98

  1996–97

  1995–96

  Department of Health (Revenue grant)

  5,783

  5,893

  5,859

  Department of Health (Capital grant)

  520

  520

  1,249

  Other Government Departments

  2,070

  2,060

  2,140

  Telecommunications industry

  less than 20

  less than 20

  less than 20

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which of the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department have a statutory base; and which are subject to investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner. [69889]

  Mr. Morley
  The following executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by my Department have a statutory basis:

  Agricultural Wages Board for England and Wales

  Agricultural Wages Committees

  Apple and Pear Research Council

  British Potato Council

  Food from Britain Council

  Home Grown Cereals Authority

  Horticultural Development Council

  Meat and Livestock Commission

  Milk Development Council

  Regional Flood Defence Committees

  Royal Botanic Gardens Kew

  Sea Fish Industry Authority.

  Agricultural Wages Committees already come within the jurisdiction of the Parliamentary Commissioner. The following are due to be covered shortly by means of an Order in Council:

  Apple and Pear Research Council

  British Potato Council

  Food from Britain Council

  Home Grown Cereals Authority

  Horticultural Development Council

  Meat and Livestock Commission

  Milk Development Council

  Royal Botanic Gardens Kew

  Sea Fish Industry Authority

  United Kingdom Register of Organic Food Standards

  Wine Standards Board of the Vintners' Company.

  Regional Flood Defence Committees come within the jurisdiction of the Local Government Ombudsman.

  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which of the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department publish(a) the minutes of meetings, (b) the agendas of meetings and documents for those meetings and (c) a register of members' interests; and if in each case this is under a statutory requirement. [69953]

  Mr. Morley
  In answer to(a) and (b) there is no statutory requirement for any of my Department's Executive non-departmental public bodies to publish minutes, agendas or documents of their meetings. The following make minutes of meetings available on request:
  Agricultural Wages Board
  Agricultural Wages Committees (if no specific case is mentioned) Food from Britain
  United Kingdom Register of Organic Food Standards.

  The British Potato Council circulates the minutes of its meetings to interested organisations.
  907
  (c) In line with the commitment given in "Quangos: Opening the Doors", all of my Department's executive non-departmental bodies either have, or shortly will have, a register of interest in place.

  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which of the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department(a) admit members of the public to all board or committee meetings, (b) hold public meetings, (c) have lay or consumer representatives on their boards and (d) operate some form of appeal or complaints procedure; and if in each case this is under a statutory requirement. [69981]

  Mr. Morley
  There is no statutory requirement for any of the executive non-departmental public bodies to(a) admit members of the public to all board and committee meetings (b) hold public meetings or (d) operate a form of complaints procedure.

  (a) The British Potato Council invites the NFU and other bodies to committee meetings.

  Some meetings of Regional Flood Defence Committees are open to the public.

  The Horticultural Development Council admits the public to its AGM.

  (b) The following hold public meetings: British Potato Council

  Horticultural Development Council

  Meat and Livestock Commission

  Milk Development Council

  Sea Fish Industry Authority

  Regional Flood Defence Committees

  Horticulture Research International holds numerous open days and offer numerous events and activities.

  (c) There is a statutory requirement to have lay or consumer representation on:

  Apple and Pear Research Council

  British Potato Council

  Horticultural Development Council

  Meat and Livestock Commission

  Milk Development Council

  Sea Fish Industry Authority

  (d) The following operate a complaints procedure:

  Apple and Pear Research Council

  Food from Britain Council

  Home Grown Cereals Authority

  Horticultural Development Council

  Meat and Livestock Commission

  Milk Development Council

  Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew

  Sea Fish Industry Authority.

  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which of the advisory non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department publish(a) the minutes of meetings, (b) the agendas of meetings and documents for those meetings and (c) a register of members' interests; and whether in each case this is under a statutory requirement. [69840]
  908
  Mr. Morley
  In answer to(a) and (b) there is no statutory requirement for any of my Department's Advisory non-departmental public bodies to publish minutes, agendas or documents of their meetings. The following make minutes of meetings available on request:

  Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes

  Farm Animal Welfare Council

  Food Advisory Committee

  Consumer Panel

  Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee;

  publish summaries of their discussions and hold press briefings after committee meetings;

  Veterinary Products Committee;

  issues a summary of discussions as a press release.

  (c)In line with the commitment given in "Quangos: Opening the Doors", all of my Department's advisory non-departmental bodies either have, or shortly will have, a register of interests in place.

  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which of the advisory non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department(a) admit members of the public to all board or committee meetings, (b) hold public meetings and (c) have lay or consumer representatives on their boards; and if in each case this is under a statutory requirement. [69964]

  Mr. Morley
  There is no statutory requirement for any of my Department's advisory non-departmental public bodies to admit members of the public to all board or committee meetings or to hold public meetings. The Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes and the Food Advisory Committee have done both on occasions. The Veterinary Products Committee has held one public meeting. The Consumer Panel and the Farm Animal Welfare Council will both be holding an open meeting in 1999.

  The following advisory non-departmental public bodies have lay or consumer representatives on their boards:

  Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes

  Advisory Committee on Pesticides

  Consumer Panel

  Consumers Committee for Great Britain

  Food Advisory Committee

  Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee

  Veterinary Products Committee.

  This is not a statutory requirement.

  Agriculture Council
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the issues for discussion before the Agriculture Council on 22 and 23 February, indicating the position he proposes to take on each issue. [72747]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 24 February 1999]: Every six months, at the beginning of an EU Presidency, the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my right hon. Friend and the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Ms Quin) outlines to the House meetings expected during the Presidency. Every month, she gives the House details of the items expected at meetings of the Council of Ministers during the month.
  909
  After each meeting of the Agriculture Council, I report back to the European Scrutiny Committee on the business conducted at the Agriculture Council meeting. The Government have recently extended arrangements for scrutinising Council business to include the Second and Third Pillars of the Treaty on European Union, as well as the First Pillar. The Government will continue to promote the interests of the United Kingdom at all meetings of the Council of Ministers. However, it has not been the practice of successive Administrations to indicate the position that Ministers propose to take in advance of Council.

  Quarantine
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations his Department has received from current providers of quarantine facilities in the recent consultation exercise on quarantine reform. [70602]

  Mr. Rooker
  During the consultation exercise representations were received from the following providers of quarantine facilities:

  Aquithie Boarding and Quarantine Kennels and Cattery

  Dover and Folkestone Quarantine Kennels

  Firs International Quarantine

  Foredown Kennels and Cattery

  Four in Hand Kennels

  Galley Hill International Kennels and Cattery

  Knightwood Kennels

  Moonwinds Quarantine and Boarding Kennels and Cattery

  Oakenshaw Grange

  Par Air (Livestock) Ltd.

  St. Andrews Farm Kennels.

  Responses were also received from the Quarantine Association and Quarantine Kennels Owners Association U.K.

  The main view expressed in these representations was that the Government should provide compensation to quarantine kennels owners if the present arrangements are changed; some suggested that the quarantine period should be reduced rather than dispensed with altogether.

  Mr. Wood
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which organisations were contacted during the consultation process on changes to the quarantine regulations. [73470]

  Mr. Rooker
  A list has been placed in the Library of the organisations that were sent a consultation letter which was issued by this Department on 23 September 1998. Separate consultations were held by the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Bonemeal
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress he has made in authorising the production of saleable meat and bonemeal from rendering plants specifically dedicated to the by-product of pig abattoirs. [R] [73794]
  910
  Mr. Rooker
  The commercial market for meat and bone meal (MBM) has traditionally depended on its use in animal feed and in fertiliser. Because of the risk of transmission of BSE, the use of MBM in farm animal feed and agricultural fertiliser is currently prohibited.

  The Government will only consider relaxation of the rules prohibiting the inclusion of animal proteins in feedingstuffs and fertilisers, which are intended to prevent the transmission of BSE to cattle either directly or through cross examination, if SEAC advise that it is safe to do so. We would also wish to consult the EU Commission on any proposal to change the rules.

  The Meat and Livestock Commission (MLC) is currently producing an industry strategy paper for adding value to animal by-products, which includes restoration of the value of meat and bone meal from the rendering of porcine waste in dedicated plants through the incorporation of this material in poultry feed. Experience has shown that the effective enforcement of such selective controls is extremely difficult, and failure could prejudice the progress made so far in eradicating BSE and in restoring export markets. We are currently discussing with the MLC whether their paper should go to SEAC or whether further work should be done first to address the need for safeguards to avoid contamination of farm animal feed not intended for poultry.

  Farmers' Corporation Tax
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has had with Treasury Ministers about prohibiting putting farmers' corporation tax on the same basis as farmers' income tax in terms of offsetting trading losses against future profit; and what was the outcome of those discussions. [R] [73798]

  Mr. Rooker
  I have had no discussion with Treasury Ministers on this matter. While taxation is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I understand that trading losses, including trading losses of farmers, can already be carried forward against future profits from that trade for Corporation Tax just as they can be for Income Tax.

  Live Animal Exports
  Mr. Prosser
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proportion of the consignments of live sheep that pass through lairages in the Dover region prior to export are inspected by his veterinary officials to ensure that they are being transported in compliance with the Welfare of Animals (Transport) Order 1997; what steps his veterinary officials take to ensure that sheep which pass through lairages in the Dover region prior to export are given the rest periods required by the 1997 Order; what proportion of loadings prior to export of live sheep at lairages in the Dover region are inspected by his veterinary officials; and if he will make a statement. [74321]

  Mr. Morley
  The level of targeted spot checks carried out at the Dover lairages depends on the resources available, but at present the aim is to check one of the four lairages on each sailing day. Additionally, Local Authority enforcement officers carry out random checks
  911
  of vehicles en route, and of lairages. This supplements the arrangements under which all animals exported for further fattening or slaughter are checked at Dover
  port.

  Bovine TB
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures the Government have evaluated to deal with the problem of the spread of bovine TB outside those areas which are subject to the randomised badger cull. [73218]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 2 March 1999]Tuberculosis in cattle is a serious and multi-faceted problem in this country, and we consider that the only way to develop a sustainable control policy in the long term is to implement the wide ranging five point strategy, involving research and control, which I announced last August. That strategy reflects our evaluation of the Krebs Report, and of the ideas contained in several hundred letters commenting on it.

  We are willing to consider additional action which could usefully complement existing measures. Among the ideas being considered at present are more rapid responses to TB incidents, more comprehensive local testing, local badger culling outside the trial areas, and better advice to farmers on protecting the health status of cattle herds. We have not yet come to any conclusions. We are keeping an open mind while we discuss matters with interested parties. We will give serious consideration to any proposal which might help towards a solution.

  Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many confirmed transmissible spongiform encephalopathy cases there were by species in animals other than cattle in Great Britain at the latest available date. [73410]

  Mr. Rooker
  Scrapie, one of the family of transmissible spongiform encephalopathies, has been present in sheep for over 250 years. This disease has been notifiable since 1 January 1993 in response to the EC Directive governing trade in sheep and goats (91/68/EEC). The numbers of cases of scrapie in sheep and goats confirmed in Great Britain from 1 January 1993following:

  Number of cases

  Sheep

  2,281

  Goats

  8

  As regards other spongiform encephalopathies, the to 1 March 1999 are as follows table gives the number of cases confirmed in exotic animals and felines in Great Britain since 1986:

  Species

  Number of cases

  Ankole cow

  2

  Bison

  1

  Cheetah1

  5

  Domestic cat

  85

  Eland

  6

  Gemsbok

  1

  Kudu

  6

  Nyala

  1

  912

  Species

  Number of cases

  Ocelot

  2

  Oryx(Arabian)

  1

  Oryx (scimitar horned)

  1

  Puma

  3

  Tiger2

  2

  Lion

  1

  1Four litter mates also died in zoos abroad

  2Plus one inconclusive

  Note:

  Data as at 25 February 1999

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Chief crown Prosecutor
  Mr.Burnett
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will list the full range of salaries, other payments and benefits to be paid to or provided for Chief Crown Prosecutors. [74123]

  The Attorney-General
  The table lists the areas in which positions of Chief Crown Prosecutor are available together with the salary range into which each position is categorised. In addition, all permanent appointments are pensionable from the outset under the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme.

  Area

  Salary Range

  London

  £54,230–£90,400

  Greater Manchester

  £49,130–£
  80,400

  West Midlands

  West Yorkshire

  Hampshire

  £44,560–£
  71,470

  Lancashire

  Merseyside

  Northumbria

  South Wales

  Avon & Somerset

  £40,430–£
  63,490

  Cheshire

  Cleveland

  Derbyshire

  Devon & Cornwall

  Essex

  Humberside

  Kent

  Leicestershire

  Nottinghamshire

  South Yorkshire

  Staffordshire

  Sussex

  Thames Valley

  West Mercia

  Bedfordshire

  £33,456–£
  54,323

  Cambridgeshire

  Cumbria

  Dorset

  Durham

  Dyfed-Powys

  Gloucestershire

  Gwent

  Hertfordshire

  Lincolnshire

  Norfolk

  Northamptonshire

  North Wales

  North Yorkshire

  Suffolk

  Surrey

  Wiltshire

  Warwickshire

  913
  Mr. Burnett
  To ask the Attorney-General how many applicants there have been for the posts of Chief Crown Prosecutor; and how many such applicants have come from(a) the Crown Prosecution Service, (b) solicitors in private practice and (c) barristers in private practice. [74122]

  The Attorney-General
  The total number of applicants for the posts of Chief Crown Prosecutor was 209, of which:

  (a)148 were from the Crown Prosecution Service;

  (b)22 applicants were from solicitors in private practice;

  (c)13 applicants were from banisters in private practice.

  The remaining 26 applicants came from a variety of sources not included in the categories above.

  Lobbyists
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the role of professional lobbyists in formulating policy in his Department. [74360]

  The Attorney-General
  Any contacts with lobbyists by Ministers and civil servants in this Department are conducted in accordance with the "Ministerial Code" and "Guidance for Civil Servants:
  Contact with Lobbyists".

  Director of Public Prosecutions
  Mr. Burnett
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will list all salary and other payments and all benefits paid to and provided for the Director of Public Prosecutions in(a)1994–95, (b)1995–96, (c) 1996–97, (d)1997–98 and (e)estimated for 1998–99. [74125]
  914
  The Attorney-General
  The post of Director of Public Prosecutions attracts a salary which equates to that of a High Court Judge and is reviewed annually following recommendations by the Senior Salaries Review Body (SSRB). The salaries of High Court Judges are published in the SSRB's annual reports.

  From 21 April 1992 to 31 October 1998, the post of Director of Public Prosecutions was held by Dame Barbara Mills QC. Her appointment was pensionable from the outset under the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme (PCSPS). In addition, Dame Barbara was pensionable under a Supplementary Scheme, with benefits accruing at the same rate as under the PCSPS, in respect of that part of her pay exceeding the Inland Revenue earnings cap limits which are applied to the PCSPS.

  In departing from the post on 31 October 1998, she received a severance payment under the terms of the Civil Service Compensation Scheme.

  Mr. David Calvert-Smith QC was appointed Director of Public Prosecutions on 1 November 1998, with a starting salary, again equating to that of a High Court Judge, of £116,045 which rose to £117,752 on 1 December 1998. His appointment is pensionable under the PCSPS and the Civil Service Supplementary (Earnings Cap) Scheme. Pension and lump sum benefits will be provided through these schemes which have a value corresponding to those available to a High Court Judge under the Judicial Pension Scheme.

  In addition to salary and pension benefits, an official car and chauffeur are made available to the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Bristo.): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Student Debt
Lord Tope Lord Tope asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the current and future levels of student debt are having harmful effects on the health of university students.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, for new students we have introduced student loans with income-contingent repayments. Repayments will be fairer because they will be based on the graduate's income. They will be easier because for most graduates, they will be collected with income tax and national insurance contributions. The interest charged is linked to the rate of inflation, not to commercial rates. The sum repaid will be broadly the same in real terms as that borrowed. There is no reason for any borrower to he worried about the terms of these loans.
Lord Tope: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. It may well be that in years to come the situation will improve. Has the Minister studied the research recently published by Dr. Ron Roberts and others of the Department of Psychology at the University of Westminster and the Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine which established a very clear link between poor mental health and student debt? Does the Minister agree that the evidence that they produced was quite alarming? If she has not already done so, will she ask her department to take a close look at the current situation?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tope, for referring to the study by Dr. Roberts, which I have seen. Unfortunately, for a variety of different methodological reasons, one must be very careful about jumping to conclusions on this research. The sample was very small and the research was undertaken at only two universities. In some cases the conclusions are based upon a very small number of replies—as few as 13—and the comparisons made with the general population are not really valid because in many cases they go right back to 1987. I do not believe that the study adequately attributes stress and poor health to financial problems; it does not really make the links. However, that does not mean that the Government should not be very careful to look at the impact of the new arrangements. My department has asked for research based on a very large sample—2,000 full-time and 1,000 part-time students—to be undertaken this summer. We shall he reporting on that study next spring.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, does the department have any evidence of students who have
1792
student loans suffering disadvantage in getting a mortgage'? I have heard that sometimes banks refuse to give mortgages in those circumstances.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I have no evidence of that, but I would be concerned if the income of a student otherwise justified the grant of a mortgage. If the noble Lord can give me any information about that, I should be very happy to take it up.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, I am very interested in the reply that the Minister gave to my noble friend. Those of us who sat through the debates on the Teaching and Higher Education Bill asked for many assurances that the Government would keep an eye on what happened to students. It is obvious to many of us that there is increasing evidence that for students day-to-day living is becoming a problem. Can the Minister give the House further assurances that any research that the department carries out will he robust? Further, can she provide a timetable to indicate how that fits into any reviews or promises made during the passage of the Teaching and Higher Education Bill?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the survey is part of the commitment that I made when that Bill was passing through your Lordships' House. I said that the effects of the new arrangements would be monitored, and the student income and expenditure survey to be carried out this summer is part of that. It will certainly be robust and will look at all aspects of students' living costs, including the way in which they spend money. We shall certainly want to look at any health problems experienced by students.
Lord Annan: My Lords, does the noble Baroness understand that it is a great reassurance to hear that a really critical study of such evidence, as has been produced by the University of Westminster, has been carried out? Not all research that comes out of universities into these problems is necessarily trustworthy.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am very glad to be reminded by the noble Lord, Lord Annan, that not all research is valid and reliable.
Lord Hayhoe: My Lords, does the noble Baroness accept that a significant number of families in this country regard with repugnance getting into debt and that for many its avoidance is an old-fashioned virtue? Will she ensure that the current research takes that into account when the findings, to which we shall look forward, are published?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I shall certainly ensure that that is taken into account. I do not believe that there is any evidence that, since the Student Loans Scheme was introduced under the government of which the noble Lord was a member, there has been a fall-off in the number of students who apply to go to university. It is interesting that in the five years following the

1793
introduction of the loans scheme there was an increase in applications, in particular from students of low income backgrounds.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that the vulnerable time for students is as they come to the end of their first year, having had to borrow the whole of their maintenance and pay all or part of their tuition fees? They then have to borrow again for their second and third years. It is at that stage that they may consider that the level of debt is too great and therefore they should not continue with their studies. Will that be taken into account in any survey that is carried out?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the Government would be very concerned if any student gave up his or her studies because of financial problems. We shall be looking into the different points at which, during a student's experience at university or college of higher education, it appears that there is a greater likelihood of dropping out of courses. There are many different reasons why students drop out; financial problems is only one of them.

Pension Schemes: Reduction in Interest Rates
3.8 p.m.
Baroness Castle of Blackburn Baroness Castle of Blackburn asked Her Majesty's Government:
What will be the effect on the level of pensions available under money purchase funded pension schemes as a result of the recent reduction in interest rates from 7½ to 5½ per cent.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): My Lords, the overall impact on pension income of the recent reduction in interest rates over the period of retirement is difficult to assess. However, all pensioners and pension funds will benefit from a strong economy with consistently low inflation.
Baroness Castle of Blackburn: Is the Minister aware that we are all in favour of low interest rates and low inflation? However, did my noble friend read the leading article in the Observer of a fortnight ago which pointed out that the combination of economic benefits had drastic implications for pensions policy, particularly that based on encouraging money purchase schemes? Is my noble friend aware that the benefits to which she referred are little compensation to pensioners like the gentleman from Andover who wrote to me to point out that annuity rates had halved in the past 10 years and that his life's savings of £100,000 would today buy an annuity worth only £4,500? Will she not therefore agree with the Observer, which states that the whole
1794
assumption on which current pensions policy, which encourages money purchase funded schemes, is based, ought to be and will have to be rethought completely?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, my noble friend quotes a letter, which I have not seen, in which somebody states that annuity rates have halved in the past decade. A decade ago, inflation was at 14 per cent. and annuity rates were at 15 per cent. I believe that my noble friend underestimates the impact of inflation on pensioner savings. For example, during the entire period of the previous government, inflation was at 6.6 per cent. Under the present Government it is now 2.4 per cent. A £1,000 annuity under an inflation rate of 6.6 per cent. would halve in a decade and be worth just over £500. But if inflation is at 2.4 to 2.5 per cent., that £1,000 annuity would be worth £800 over a decade. That is what matters to pensioners.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is the Minister aware that with his £100,000 a person must buy an annuity, thereby committing his capital? He would be far better to rely on interest rates and trust to his judgment?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I accept that there is a dilemma for someone who is required to buy an annuity at a certain point in time. However, as the House will know, people are not required to turn a lump sum, or a pension pot, into an annuity until the age of 75. Therefore, they have between the ages of 65 and 75—in many cases 60 and 75—to decide when to turn the sum into an annuity. Given certain assumptions of growth—investment growth of, say, 7.5 per cent.—they can achieve a draw-down of income which will at least match the annuity rate without eating into the capital.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, while we all welcome a reduction in interest rates, there is a downside? Many older people have looked upon income from savings as a way of boosting inadequate pensions. Therefore, to tell such people that low inflation will provide them with some protection will not help them very much if they experience an immediate drop in their income, as is now the case. What will the Government do to encourage people to save in such circumstances, since, quite rightly, it is government policy to encourage people to save as much as possible?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the noble Baroness is right. However, I recall that about a decade ago, when inflation was at its highest level, people were least inclined to save and to opt for the older fashioned virtue of thrift because they saw the value of their savings being eaten away. Without trying to underestimate the significance of the issue, it is wise to put it into context. On average, occupational pensions represent about one-fifth of the average pensioner's income. Approximately 90 per cent. of people who have an occupational pension receive a final salary funded scheme and therefore benefit from low inflation rates.

1795
The number of pensioners whose pension is a substantial part of their income, is money purchase funded and therefore vulnerable to interest rates is a small proportion of the population.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I declare an interest as chairman of a company pension scheme, although not of the kind described in the Question. Is not the simple answer to the Question that interest rates will be less and the level will be lower? In particular, is it also not clear that, if retiring today, people are receiving substantially less than they expected a year ago? Therefore, is not the Green Paper about the government forecasts of people's pensions completely unrealistic? Is it not likely that such forecasts will he grossly misleading?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, we have no reason to think so. I agree that one cannot always read into the future what happened 15 years ago. However, on average, pensioners' incomes have more than kept pace with earnings. It is clear that when interest rates are high, which is usually a consequence of high inflation, overall, pensioners have lost out because there is a transfer of money from savers to borrowers; younger people buy houses and the like. Traditionally, pensioners do better in a low inflation/low interest rate economy. For future pensioners, their best hope and expectation of having a decent private pension as they reach retirement is to have secure, well-paid jobs in a sound economy based on investment. That is what we are determined to secure.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I accept much of what the Minister says, but does the noble Baroness agree that the real threat to the level of pensions came from the Government's decision last year to abolish the tax credit on the dividend income of pension funds?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, first, we believe that the best investment for a pension is a sound economy. We do not believe that that should depend on tax distortions in the pension system. Secondly, it is worth emphasising that the value of ACT when it was renewed was one-tenth of the difference between the best and the worst performing funds in any sector of the pensions industry. In other words, what matters is choosing your manager.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is the Minister aware that many people become anxious as they approach the age limit of 75? Will the Government consider raising that limit so that those who are terrified of being forced to take an annuity may wait longer?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I recognise the problem faced by those approaching the age of 75. The Government are considering that issue, but I cannot reassure the noble Baroness that any changes are in prospect.
Baroness Castle of Blackburn: Is it not a fact that the Government are actively discouraging final salary
1796
funded schemes and actively encouraging money purchase funded schemes, including those to be bound up in the stakeholder pension? Does this situation not mean, as the Observer points out, that you would have to accumulate life savings of some £200,000 to get a pension of £10,000 a year, not exactly an over-lavish sum? That is why the Observer calls for a complete rethinking of the basis of the Government's pensions policy.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I do not accept that the Government are actively encouraging money purchase funded schemes in the sense that the number of schemes which are money-purchase compared with final salary have not changed, slightly to my surprise, during the past two or three years. The number remains the same, although there has been a growth in hybrid schemes; a mixture of schemes.
As my noble friend will he aware, the stakeholder scheme is a money purchase funded scheme because it tries to meet the needs of those people for whom final salary occupational schemes do not make good sense. Such people are in and out of work; they may have had part-time employment or broken employment; they may be women who have had caring responsibilities; or be self-employed. Such people may stay in a job only two or three years and it would be absurd to expect them to take up a final salary funded scheme. However, the Government's stakeholder scheme, compared with the usual money purchase or personal pension scheme, will have low charges, assured basic standards of competence and a good return, making it possible for people for whom no suitable pension product has been available to enjoy a comfortable old age.

Captive Wild Animals: Protection
3.19 p.m.
Viscount Falkland Viscount Falkland asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether it is time to strengthen the law with regard to the use of wild animals trained for entertainment purposes.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, we presently believe that adequate legislation is in place. Wild animals trained for entertainment purposes are protected by the Protection of Animals Act 1911, the Performing Animals (Regulation) Act 1925 and, in certain circumstances, by the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976.
Viscount Falkland: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. Is he aware of the recent report of the circus working group of the RSPCA, to which many relevant bodies contributed, which shows that there is great cause for concern? Taken together with the quite deplorable case of the Chipperfield chimpanzees, if I may so describe it, is there not now serious concern that we are past the stage when wild animals, many of which come from species under threat, should be

1797
brought in and trained for entertainment purposes? That is against a background of falling attendances at circuses which further aggravate the financial pressures and which may well, in turn, affect the animals' welfare?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I have in fact read the report. The Associate Parliamentary Group for Animal Welfare intends to consider the report formally within a matter of weeks. The executive summary of the report states:
"There is unanimous agreement that further research would be a necessary pre-requisite of any legislative changes".
So it is not entirely clear-cut.
Lord Renton: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the present legislation does not prevent wild animals being confined in small cages, drugged and sometimes chastised in order to perform an unnatural kind of entertainment, all of which is surely cruel? Should we not now try to do something about that?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, any intentional infliction of harm to animals is against the criminal law. Reference has been made to the recent high profile case but, in fact, that was a successful prosecution. The law is there to protect against the infliction of harm and damage to domestic and captive animals.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, to carry the question of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, further, would it not be relatively simple to ban the use of wild animals for entertainment generally across the board?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, that would be a possibility. It is certainly something I imagine the associate group will want to consider. The Chief Whip reminds me that, in his view, the duty of training wild animals for entertainment purposes ought really to be with him, not me!
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, arising from the recent high profile case to which reference has been made, is it true that a loophole in the law allows a person who has been found guilty of mistreating an animal to have the animal returned to him after the case? I believe that that applies not only to wild animals but also to horses.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the law allows a court to deprive a convicted person of ownership of an animal for any period. It can order the disposal of an animal, appropriately, if the court is satisfied that to leave the animal with its owner would expose it to further cruelty. In respect of the particular chimp, Trudy, officials have checked today. She is now living at Monkey World in Dorset. She and her fellow chimps have 40 acres in which to wander. The leader of the
1798
group is called Rodney, aged 30. The adoptive mother is Peggy, aged 15. Plainly, the age of consent in that particular context is what the Commons are suggesting.
Baroness Trumpington: She is better off than me!
Lord Williams of Mostyn: It shows that if employment in this House passes, there may be alternatives available.

Local Authorities: Road Maintenance Budget
3.24 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, as indicated by a survey by the Refined Bitumen Association published on 1st March 1999, there is a £1.5 billion shortfall in this year's local authorities' road maintenance budget, and whether this shortfall has increased by 25 per cent. over the past year.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, while it is generally accepted that road maintenance has suffered from past underfunding, there is no agreed estimate of the size of the backlog of maintenance for local roads.
Local government in Great Britain has substantial discretion in setting expenditure priorities and full information on local highway condition is not available. But we are now committed to restore the cuts in maintenance of English principal roads.
After devolution the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly will be responsible for funding local authorities in Scotland and Wales to discharge their functions in respect of local roads.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer, but is he aware—of course, he will be—that particular reference is made in the White Paper to better maintained roads and increased resources, both locally and nationally? Therefore, what will the Government do about this growing shortfall in what is, after all, 95 per cent. of our roads; namely, local authority roads? The White Paper also proposes the transfer of some 40 per cent. of government trunk roads to local authorities. Can the Minister give the House an assurance that money for maintenance will also follow that transfer, and that that money will be ring-fenced so that it has to be spent on road maintenance and not used for other purposes?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, in answer to the first point, the Government have clearly shifted resources, as compared with the previous administration. We have allocated a further £276 million over the three-year period of the CSR. The capital settlement for local roads has been allocated a 34 per cent. increase for next year. Therefore, we are very substantially moving towards our

1799
commitment to restore spending on maintenance for local roads. As regards detrunking proposals, there will clearly have to be a financial arrangement between the Highways Agency and the local transport authorities. That will involve adequate financial resources, both on current maintenance and future capital spending on major road maintenance programmes.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, does a contractor who repairs a road have to guarantee that the road will remain in good condition under normal usage for a specific time? If the road fails to stay in good condition, does the contractor have to return and restore it to a satisfactory condition?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, within certain constraints, penalty clauses are involved in maintenance contracts. Many such contracts run for a number of years and are adjudged between the local authority, or indeed the highways authority, and the contractor. However, penalty clauses are involved.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, will the Minister accept that those of us who have been involved in this matter at a local level do not find surprising the figures referred to in the Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara? It has been said that there is no way of measuring the shortfall. Is the Minister aware that in many counties the life expectancy, if I may use that phrase, of the roads in the care of the counties has been steadily declining for at least 10 years? As far as I know, that trend has not changed; the figure is still decreasing.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Baroness is clearly correct. A substantial problem is involved here and the responsibility for that is quite clear. Indeed, the report to which the Question refers indicates that there was a substantial deterioration over the period of 10 years to 1998. That is because the previous administration froze current expenditure allocated to local authorities and dramatically cut the capital expenditure for local authorities. As I indicated in my previous answer, this Administration reversed that situation on both fronts and, over the period of the Comprehensive Spending Review, will be moving towards restoring it to the level which existed up until the early 1990s. There is a backlog, and we are tackling it.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, is the Minister aware that last year local authorities had to pay out £33 million as a result of successful claims for accidents or damage to vehicles caused as a result of the state of the structure of roads? Does he consider that the steps which the Government have taken are adequate to begin a trend of reducing that figure, which has shown steady growth now for a number of years?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as I have indicated, we are only beginning to reverse a serious decline in resources. However, I believe that local authorities have recognised their responsibility in that respect and are improving the
1800
maintenance of the roads not only for the convenience of traffic, but to avoid the kind of incidents to which the noble Lord refers.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, what is the purpose of, and justification for, detrunking?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the intention, which is welcomed by local government generally, is to ensure that Highways Agency roads provide the country's strategic network. Detrunked roads will henceforth be assessed in terms of regional and local priorities and will be managed, along with local roads, by local authorities as part of the overall local and regional transport system. They are, therefore, roads which are more important for local and regional purposes than for national purposes. Nevertheless, they will remain as principal roads. As I have already said, the financial arrangements made for them will reflect that status.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the Minister clarify a small budgeting point arising from his announcement? A number of statements have been made about the Government's projected expenditure for the next three years. When does a "year" commence and end? Are we talking about a complete fiscal year or about a running period of time whereby a "year" can commence at any point during the fiscal year?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as is the convention in such cases, the amounts allocated over the next three years relate to the financial year. The year therefore starts on 1st April.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, as the Government tell us every day that they are putting more money into something, does the Minister appreciate that if the Government continue to ring-fence the money that they give to local government, they take away the possibility of local government deciding its own priorities, which may well be roads? We heard this morning that many millions of pounds will he spent on reducing class sizes for children below the age of seven, but as that money is ring-fenced the local authorities cannot reduce class sizes in their own way but must do so precisely as instructed by the Secretary of State. That is not the way to improve the roads.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the subject of class sizes is slightly beyond the scope of this Question. However, the usual criticism about road maintenance is that we do not ring-fence enough. Indeed, the SSA does not statutorily require a local authority to spend that money on roads and it is generally assumed that local authorities underspend on road maintenance. In fact, the actual expenditure tends not to be severely different from the amount allocated. As I said earlier, local authorities have substantial discretion with regard to the current expenditure which is not ring-fenced.

Business
3.32 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, after the Second Reading debate on the Water Industry Bill, my noble friend Lord Sainsbury of Turville will, with the leave of the House, repeat in the form of a Statement an Answer to a Private Notice Question in another place on trade sanctions (USA).

European Parliamentary Elections (Gibraltar) Bill [H.L.]
Lord Bethell: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to provide for electors in Gibraltar to vote in elections to the European Parliament. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Bethell.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Health Bill [H.L.]
3.33 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hayman): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Hayman.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The PRINCIPAL DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 47 [Regulation of health care and associated professions]:
Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones moved Amendment No. 194:
Page 38, line 14, after ("Council") insert ("within the period of one year from the coming into force of this section").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, perhaps I may say first what a pleasure it is to debate parts of this Bill in daylight. I thank the usual channels for that. We have now come to one of the most crucial parts of the Bill and it is good to be considering it at a time that will allow a considerable number of members of professions relating to healthcare to watch our proceedings with interest.
The effect of the amendment would be to ensure that the considerable powers of Clause 47 will be exercisable for only a single year. We on these Benches said at Second Reading that this so-called Henry VIIIth clause went far too far. As Members of the Committee will know, we were supported in that view by the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation, which stated:
"Considerable concern has been expressed about the width of this power, and its effect on the principle of professional self-regulation. The Committee understands this concern. Orders may make changes to any aspect of professional regulation".
1802
That report was extremely balanced. It did not damn the whole of Clause 47. The Select Committee understood the need for flexibility but recognised that, as currently framed, the clause goes far too far. We have received representations on that point as, I am sure, have other Members of the Committee. Our amendment is designed to put a finite limit on the Government's ability to use the clause while it is of the breadth currently drafted.
At this stage, Amendment No. 194 is essentially a probing amendment to ascertain whether the Government will accede to the request of the professions and their regulatory bodies to build in the safeguards that we and they believe to be essential. Many of those safeguards are subject to the amendments which stand in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant—I refer to Amendments Nos. 202 to 204—and to our own later amendments. The protections are sought by all those professions which are currently regulated and include such important matters as provisions relating to lay representation; consent and proper consultation over rule changes; the transfer of functions to other bodies; the removal of Privy Council jurisdiction and, last but certainly not least, the whole question of protection of common titles.
We understand the desires of all parties to have a flexible framework, but that must not be at the expense of allowing self-regulation to give way to government regulation. The Minister said at Second Reading:
"This power is not about dismantling self-regulation. We share the common aspiration to strengthen, not weaken, that self-regulation".—[Official Report, 9/2/99; col. 1121
I very much hope that the Minister can indicate a certain flexibility in this clause. We very much look forward to her response. I beg to move.
Baroness Hayman: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for the way in which he moved the amendment and for making clear the fact that he is not totally wedded to a time frame of one year, but rather wanted to debate some of the more general issues. With the best will in the world, given the scale of the task in front of us and what needs to be done, allowing only one year for such an order-making power would be unrealistic. It is perhaps worth looking at why it would be unrealistic and considering the motivation for including an order-making power in the Bill in the first place. There were two reasons. First, there is an enormous backlog of desirable changes to be made to the legislation governing professional self-regulation. The replacement of legislation for the professions allied to medicine will require a substantial order of a similar size to the present Professions Supplementary to Medicine Act 1960. The professions have been pressing for that for some time, as the noble Lord and the Committee are aware.
We also want to replace the nurses, midwives and health visitors legislation and have recently published the review and the Government's response to it. Desirable changes for dentists, opticians and pharmacists are already well developed. There is also the challenge posed for us by professions which are not at present regulated by statute. The Government intend

1803
in time that the power can be used to introduce new regulatory schemes for such professional groups as psychologists or counsellors. A great number of professions linked to medicine are looking at ways of strengthening public protection through their systems of self-regulation.
There is a large quantum of work. What has also been clear from the debates in Committee is the desire that, in doing this work through secondary legislation, we should not curtail proper debate and discussion on these important issues. That means that we would not want to see anything rushed through without sufficient time to consult properly and fully with the professions concerned and with other interests. We shall come to specific amendments about them later. We want to work in partnership with the professions and thus ensure that we have enough time to develop the framework that is most appropriate for all the groups which might be affected or might wish to be considered. We must have time to ensure that the public is afforded the protection for which this clause is primarily designed.
Prior to the making of an order under Clause 47, we intend that there will be full consultation with the profession concerned and other interested groups; for example, patient groups, the Welsh and Northern Ireland Assemblies and the Scottish Parliament. We anticipate that the professional and regulatory bodies will wish to consult their members. Once an order has been drafted the draft must be published at least three months in advance of the draft order being laid before Parliament. Consultation on the draft order must be carried out. All this takes time.
Even if it were possible to clear just the current backlog of desirable proposals within the next few years, time-limiting the power would not be desirable. That is because this power is not designed as a quick fix to deal with problems built up over the past few years. The modernisation of the statutory regulatory bodies is an on-going process. Clause 47 and Schedule 3 provide a way of ensuring that the process of updating legislation can be more responsive to changing expectations of the professions and the public. For example, the GMC's proposals for revalidation, which, I believe, have been met with universal approval, will take at least two years to develop and implement. It may be some time before it is clear whether any changes to the law are necessary to underpin that.
I understand the motivation behind this amendment and assure the Committee that we have built in a system of appropriate checks and balances. I hope that we have taken into account the spirit of the comments of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee which undertook, as the noble Lord pointed out, particular consideration of this issue. The committee recognised that the problem was,
"striking the right balance to protect the interests of all concerned bodies",
rather than saying that an order-making power was not the appropriate way to tackle this task. That committee recognised that we had already built in a number of important procedural safeguards. It also suggested that the House consider two further safeguards: a requirement for the Minister, when laying a draft order,
1804
also to lay before Parliament a summary of representations received, showing in particular whether the professional body affected by the draft order had, first, been consulted, and what was the result of that consultation; secondly had agreed the provisions in the order; and, thirdly, if not, the reasons for making the order without the consent of the professions concerned. Its second recommendation was that the Bill might be amended to include a statement of the criteria against which the Minister could act in the absence of agreement with the professional body or bodies concerned—that is to say,
"for the protection of the public and for the better development of the profession".
The Government accept these recommendations in principle and will look to bring forward appropriate amendments.
I hope that the Committee will agree that to impose a cut-off point after which the order-making power could not be used would therefore severely damage its usefulness in allowing the professions to develop and in allowing the Government to discharge their duty of protecting the public. It is, I believe, significant that the delegated powers committee did not advise the House that the power was drawn inappropriately wide, or that it should be time-limited. In accepting the committee's recommendations, I believe that we have now struck the right balance in terms of procedural safeguards and I hope that the noble Lord is reassured and will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Skelmersdale: Before the noble Lord withdraws his amendment, I am absolutely delighted that the Government have taken cognisance of what was said by the committee on delegated powers. I am sure that the Committee will agree with that. I also go along with 99 per cent. of what the noble Baroness has just said. However, I understood her to say that the Bill gives power to regulate a profession for the first time by statutory instrument. Can she tell me where in the Bill that is to be found? I find that very undesirable indeed. For example, acupuncturists are in the queue for regulation. It is perfectly acceptable to alter the primary regulation by statutory instrument, with the safeguards that the noble Baroness has just agreed; but I do not find it acceptable to regulate in the first instance by a piece of legislation which cannot be amended by Parliament. I would be very firm on having the first regulation by the Bill.
Baroness Hayman: I am grateful to the noble Lord. As I understand it, Clause 47(3)(b) envisages the possibility of regulation for the first time. That would be in two possible circumstances. It might well be that a profession joins a successor body of the CPSM. At the moment it is possible, by secondary legislation, for a new profession to be regulated for the first time. It has been done with the art therapists recently. There are now three applications to the Privy Council including one from clinical scientists. It would not be a new provision for a profession to be regulated for the first time by secondary legislation. The noble Lord is right for it to be made transparent that it is inherent within the powers of the Bill, as drafted.
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Can the Minister say how Clause 47 and the Scottish legislation interact? She has the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, sitting beside her so he may be able to help. I hope that I am asking the question at the right moment. It is a little difficult for me to judge whether it would be more appropriate to do so in connection with another amendment. The British Medical Association is extremely anxious that the General Medical Council should remain a United Kingdom-wide body and that it should not have a separate entity for Scotland. This matter is causing great anxiety for that body.
The Scotland Act establishes that the regulation of the profession is included in Schedule 5 of that legislation. It states that it is a reserved matter to the United Kingdom Parliament. The regulation of the professions can only be changed by order agreed by both Houses of the Westminster Parliament. The BMA is anxious whether Clause 47 and Schedule 3, about which the noble Baroness has just been speaking, clash in any way with that provision or alter it. Can the noble Baroness say whether the GMC is secure in believing that its arrangements can only be altered by the Westminster Parliament? In other words, can the Scottish parliament separate the General Medical Council even if Westminster did not want to?
Baroness Hayman: Perhaps my noble friend will give further details on that when we deal with some of the Scottish issues. We have always made it clear that devolution will not undermine the principle of a UK-wide National Health Service and will ensure consistently high standards throughout the United Kingdom. The regulation of the health profession will remain, as now, a matter for the UK Parliament. It is not being devolved to either the Scottish Parliament or the National Assembly for Wales. As regards existing professions, there is no doubt and no uncertainty about that. It is a reserved matter.
I should perhaps flag-up to the House the fact that there is a complication as regards a new profession that might join those currently under the CPSM. Because the transfer of functions deals with the professions as regulated at the moment, in order to have UK-wide regulation for a new profession, not a medical profession such as those already regulated, there would have to he a specific decision by the Scottish Parliament so to do.
That is my understanding—I am sure I shall be corrected if I am wrong—about a new profession which is to be regulated for the first time, whose regulation is not already covered within the provisions of the Scotland Act. In relation to the basics of self-regulation for existing professionals, that is a reserved UK matter.
Baroness McFarlane of Llandaff: Perhaps I may return to the force of the order-making powers. Will the Minister give us an assurance that those bodies whose
1806
regulatory powers are established under an order will have the same protection of their regulatory function as those professions which appear on the face of the Bill?
Baroness Hayman: We shall deal with some of those issues at a later point. It is our intention, when we talk about replacement bodies for perhaps the CPSM, and nurses, midwives and health visitors and therefore the UKCC, that they should have the same protection.
Lord Clement-Jones: I thank the Minister for the generous spirit in which she accepted the recommendations of the deregulation committee. I take that as an appetising hors-d'oeuvre to our debate today, though we are looking perhaps for a three course meal in the course of this Committee stage. There are many other aspects to consider but that is an excellent start. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Morrisof Manchester moved Amendment No. 195:
Page 38, line 14, at end insert—
("(za)regulating and modifying the regulation of any profession to which subsection (IA) applies.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I will also be speaking to the other amendments standing in my name.
I have an interest to declare as President of the Society of Chiropodists & Podiatrists: not a financial interest, but one founded on my admiration of the society's undeviating commitment to high professional standards and its genuine respect for the founding principles of the NHS.
My noble friend will recall that, at Second Reading, I raised with her the society's concerns that the Bill makes no specific mention of protection of title or of any definition of the future regulatory regime. Hence my amendments. Their purpose is to seek firm assurances on the two issues, either in the Minister's reply to this debate or subsequently by letter, so that the society can decide whether to return to these important issues at the Report stage. The society speaks representatively of state registered chiropodists in wholeheartedly supporting the Government's stated aim of strengthening self-regulation to protect the public. Its principal concern is whether this legislation will achieve that end for chiropody.
At present, chiropodists are regulated by the Chiropodists Board, under the Professions Supplementary to Medicine Act 1960. The board's chairman and the majority of its members are state registered chiropodists elected by their peers. This is what the society means by self-regulation; namely, that a majority of the regulatory body's members are of the same profession. Doctors, dentists, pharmacists, nurses, osteopaths and chiropractors have this form of self-regulation and, under the Bill's proposals, it appears they will continue to do so.
Yet for the professions supplementary to medicine, including chiropodists, the Government appear to be proposing to abolish the individual boards and to create

1807
a generic council, on which each profession would have only one or two representatives. The individual professional boards appear set to be replaced by merely advisory bodies and the Society of Chiropodists and Podiatrists is concerned that self-regulation, properly so-called, would then cease to exist. In the society's view this would not provide the protection for the public to which the Government are committed and on which Parliament should insist.
The aims of my amendments are twofold. First, they would have the effect of separating chiropody from the other professions supplementary to medicine and aligning it with doctors, dentists, pharmacists, nurses, osteopaths and chiropractors, with the advantage, as it appears, of retaining for the profession a self-regulating board with a majority of state registered chiropodists. And secondly, the amendments would ensure protection of title for "chiropodists" and "podiatrists".
The society believes that both self-regulation and protection of title are essential safeguards in protecting the public. At present, the Chiropodists Board has the power to decide fitness to practise; to determine educational standards and entry to the profession; and to adjudicate all professional disciplinary matters. For the profession of chiropody/podiatry to lose that power would not be in the public interest and I trust we shall now be assured that it will retain that power.
State registered chiropodists have the right to diagnose and treat patients independently of medical practitioners. They are able to carry out invasive bone surgery, such as bunion surgery, and to use local anaesthetics and other prescription-only medicines. They also provide special clinics for diabetes, a condition which afflicts about 3 per cent. of the adult population. As many of your Lordships will know, preventive health care of this kind can avoid serious conditions which may result in amputation of a leg. Indeed some research carried out in Manchester, of which I heard recently when performing the official opening of Manchester's new Foot Hospital, showed that amputations increased by 50 per cent. in the absence of timely intervention and appropriate treatment. What could more starkly emphasise the crucial need, in the public interest, for professionals with such responsibilities to be effectively regulated?
It is important also, if the public are to be properly protected from malpractice, that the professional titles "chiropodist" and "podiatrist" are protected. At present, an individual who is unqualified can establish a private chiropody/podiatry practice; and in fact a registrant who is struck off the register can continue to practise and to use the titles "chiropodist" and "podiatrist". European Union regulations require those who treat horses' hooves to be properly qualified. Speaking as a former member for six years of the Council of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, representing the Privy Council, and now as an Honorary Associate of the British Veterinary Association, I rejoice that this is so. Surely the same regulations should, however, apply to those who care for human feet!
Some people in Whitehall seem to think that, because there is no evidence of negligence cases against non-state registered practitioners, the public is not at
1808
risk. But the reason for this is that there is no statutory regulation of the private sector and thus claims made against non-state registered practitioners are not in the public domain.
In this regard I have received a letter from Mrs. Sue Sharpe, the Director of Professional Standards of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain, who is held in high regard on both sides of your Lordships' House. She writes in support of my amendments on the grounds that there can be considerable danger to patients in using non-state registered chiropodists. She tells me of a notice circulated to members of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, advising them only to promote the services of state registered chiropodists. This provoked an outraged response from a non-state registered chiropodist who said that the Council for the Professions Supplementary to Medicine had no control over the private sector and no business to interfere. What some in the private sector clearly want is carte blanche: more and more deregulation which, in terms of the public interest, makes about as much sense as deregulating Big Ben.
Referring to the vital importance to diabetics of timely and appropriate treatment, Mrs. Sharpe states:
"This outraged reaction to our advice makes the case for your amendments when you consider the possible consequence of services for diabetics being provided by individuals who may have no insurance and no qualifications".
She goes on to say that effective regulation of the health professions is an important matter of public concern and, if the Government were to propose a fundamental change by transferring to others any of the core duties of regulating the principal professions from those presently charged by statute with these duties, then it should be a matter for primary legislation. With the order-making power conferred by the Bill in place, she argues, primary legislation need not be lengthy and detailed: a short Bill would suffice.
Mrs. Sharpe concludes:
"We are all at some stage dependent on the quality of services provided by the health professions and to ensure that those who regulate them properly represent our interests. That is why a change of such magnitude as transferring core functions to another body should be reserved to statute".
That is eloquent testimony to the need for the firm assurance I am seeking that there will be a minimum common legal qualification for a chiropodist/podiatrist and that the use of titles will be limited accordingly. The non-state registered sector could be integrated into regulation through a process of "grandfathering" and they would, I understand, support this move.
I welcome the Government's decision to deal with the need to reform legislation which was enacted nearly 40 years ago and is now thoroughly out of date. Some of your Lordships may recall that I introduced a Private Member's Bill in 1994 to provide effective regulation for chiropodists. My promotion of that Bill explains why I am anxious now to achieve total clarity about what is being proposed in terms both of protection of title and the future regulatory regime.
State registered chiropodists are not seeking aggrandisement for their profession. On the contrary their aim, for which I know your Lordships' House will

1809
honour them, is to protect professional standards and the public interest. I know my noble friend will want to reply to the amendments both positively and helpfully. I beg to move.
4 p.m.
Lord Astor of Hever: I rise to support Amendment No. 200. The Government's proposals for the future regulation of chiropodists and podiatrists and the other professions supplementary to medicine are not clear on the face of the Bill. What is clear is that the present Chiropodists' Board, set up under the Professions Supplementary to Medicines Act 1960, would be abolished. It appears that it would be replaced by a generic council of 42 members with a maximum of only two chiropodists as members. This would mean the end of self-regulation for the profession.
I support the aims of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester. I also believe that the chiropody profession should be grouped with doctors, dentists, pharmacists, nurses, osteopaths and chiropractors, who appear to be set to continue with self-regulating boards consisting of a majority of members from their own profession.
I also believe that protection of title for chiropodists and podiatrists is vital to ensure that patients are properly protected from unqualified practitioners. I want to be certain, as I am sure do all noble Lords, that those who treat our feet, including carrying out surgery, are properly qualified to do so.
Lord Clement-Jones: I very much support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, and my noble friend Lady Sharp of Guildford. The Chiropodists' Board under the existing CPSM is currently the effective regulatory body for chiropodists and podiatrists. It appears, however, that the Government are acting on the recommendations of the 1996 J M Consulting report which recommended the creation of a new umbrella council with stronger powers, but the abolition of those individual boards of the professions described in the Act as supplementary to medicine, though I know the professions would prefer to be known as the professions allied to medicine.
Looking at the original J. M. Consulting report, I believe that it was rather dismissive of the need for those individual separate boards. Most of the professions allied to medicine appear, however, to be able to live with that new regime. The chiropodists and podiatrists are not, and they do not see why they should have to be subsumed against their wishes, in a wider council when professions such as osteopaths and chiropractors do not. What makes their position so very different?
As the noble Lord, Lord Morris, and the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, have explained, chiropodists and podiatrists are unique. They have the right to do certain things that no other profession allied to medicine does.
We also support the protection of the titles of chiropodist and podiatrist, but we believe that there are issues here relating to a great many other professions
1810
allied to medicine. I shall keep my remarks on that particular matter to a later amendment. I urge the Committee to support these amendments.
Lord Milverton: I rise to support the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Morris. They are sound in principle in every way. I hope that the Government will be able to accept them.
Baroness Fookes: There was in my former constituency a school of podiatry and I had an opportunity to talk to the head of that school on many occasions. I was frankly amazed at the type of work that was undertaken by podiatrists, which went far beyond my superficial view that it was a matter of cutting toe-nails or hard skin from the feet of ladies who wore high heels. It is an extremely important profession and it deserves to be treated as a profession in its own right.
I am particularly concerned that there should be the ability to protect the title of chiropodist or podiatrist. I still have difficulties with "podiatrist", but I know that the profession itself prefers the term. Whichever title is used, it is very important that it should be protected. The work they do relating to foot problems is far too important to allow unqualified or insufficiently qualified people to tackle it.
Lord Colwyn: At an earlier stage my noble friend Lady Gardner explained the difference between dentists and dental surgeons. I wonder if the noble Lord, Lord Morris, could explain to me the difference between these two categories of people who look after feet.
Lord Morris of Manchester: Some people use the terms interchangeably. The society changed its name in order to make it clear that. whether people speak of "chiropodist" or "podiatrist" they are talking about fully qualified members of the same wider profession which the two titles describe.
To some extent any confusion is caused by people in the private sector who give the impression that there is something far more prestigious in describing themselves as one rather than the other. I hope the noble Lord will have no further difficulties.
The society, by changing its title, simply wanted to remove any doubt that whether the term "chiropodist" or "podiatrist" is used it both represents and speaks for them.
Lord Walton of Detchant: With respect to what the noble Lord, Lord Morris, has just said, is it not the case that training in chiropody is a primary qualification which allows a registered chiropodist to undertake relatively minor procedures but that those trained in podiatry undertake an extended period of training, often in collaboration with surgeons and medical practitioners, which enables them to carry out more extensive minor surgery on the feet under local anaesthesia?
Lord Morris of Manchester: Of course, I have great respect for my good and noble friend Lord Walton. It

1811
arises from our work together in the service of the Muscular Dystrophy Group of Great Britain. All of us respect his view.
As I explained to the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, the society wanted to make it absolutely clear that it comprises fully qualified members of the same wider profession which the two titles describe. I am sure everyone here is totally appalled at the prospect that an unqualified and uninsured practitioner could, in some circumstances, advise a diabetic. That must be a very serious matter. Quite clearly, it is not in the public interest.
Baroness Hayman: I am grateful to my noble friend for allowing the Committee to debate these issues and to recognise the important role in healthcare played by both chiropodists and podiatrists. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, I had some relationship with a school of podiatry. I, too, recognise how wide and highly skilled the role of qualified podiatrists is today and the areas of healthcare in which they make such an important contribution. However, I have to tell Members of the Committee that that is also true of some of the other professions allied to medicine who also take enormous responsibilities for patient care. That is part, perhaps, of the rejuggling of boundaries between professionals that has taken place as training has developed over the years.
On the issue regarding the protection of title for chiropodists and podiatrists to which we have returned several times, perhaps I should point out that that is equally strongly felt by physiotherapists, who also have the choice of title of physical therapist, which is the international title, and by other groups of professions allied to medicine. Indeed, one of the main reasons for the review of the Professions Supplementary to Medicine Act was the very strong recommendation that it does not give adequate protection of title for the professions supplementary to medicine; it is inadequate in that respect. We need new legislation which will give patients better protection. That is probably one of the strongest reasons for the review.
Some confusion has arisen as regards the different stages of the process in terms of debating the specific issues relating to chiropodists and how they might be treated under secondary legislation which may be brought forward after the order-making power in the Bill is enacted. We shall deal later with the protection of core functions to which my noble friend alluded. We have made it very clear that we want to protect those core functions of professional regulatory bodies.
What we are doing today in this Bill represents the first stage in quite a long process, as I suggested earlier. The order-making power will provide the mechanism by which changes can be made to legislation governing professional self-regulation, including that covering the professions supplementary to medicine. However, it does not deal in detail with the proposals regarding what those changes should be. I can quite understand that chiropodists will want to know how they will be affected by the changes that we wish to make to the Professions Supplementary to Medicine Act. That is why we have made it quite clear that we are committed
1812
to consulting the individual professions concerned in developing any proposals to replace the CPSM, as well as consulting them on the draft order itself.
I was pleased to have the opportunity to meet members of the Society of Chiropodists and Podiatrists last week in order to discuss the issues of importance to them. I look forward to further discussions with the society on the detailed proposals that come forward in due course. However, I am certain that the other professions supplementary to medicine equally have individual issues with which they are concerned, so I am not sure that it is appropriate to have that debate at this stage of the Bill's proceedings. The examples given during our short debate today are perhaps not totally apposite. Both the osteopaths and the chiropractors have their own boards because they have their own legislation. One of their reasons for pursuing individual legislation was that when they were looking for self-regulation they did not think that the PSM Act gave them sufficient protection. However, it is not that we are treating chiropodists differently from them; indeed, we are certainly not suggesting treating them differently from all the range of professions governed by the Act at present. These include dieticians, occupational therapists, physiotherapists, medical laboratory scientific officers, radiographers, and others. There is certainly no suggestion that we will be treating chiropodists less well than them. Nor, I have to say, are nurses totally separately regulated under the Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Act. The UKCC is a joint regulatory body for nurses, midwives and health visitors. Some of these issues about how individual professions within joint working are properly protected are common in that respect.
I understand the chiropodists' concerns about retaining professional independence. We recognise that they wish, correctly, to retain a distinctive voice in the regulation of their own profession. There is widespread agreement within that context that there are important benefits for patients and for the professions to be gained from reforming the PSM Act to create a better, multi-professional legislative framework, based on collaboration and common aims and values. That was one of the fundamental recommendations of the review of the Act. The review recommended a new and stronger council which would be able to influence and co-ordinate the regulation of individual professions.
A modernised and multi-professional structure for the professions supplementary to medicine will build on the traditions of many years of partnership working under the existing legislation. Benefits are obtained from common values and approaches and the formulation of cross-professional policies. A reformed body will provide a stronger voice for these professions—the chiropodists, podiatrists, dieticians, occupational therapists, orthoptists, physiotherapists, prosthetists and orthetists, arts therapists, medical laboratory scientific officers and radiographers. Some of those groups are very small professions for which, I suggest, separate and individual regulatory bodies would not be a sensible way forward. I have made it clear that

1813
it is our intention to repeal the PSM Act and replace it with new legislation to regulate these professions. That will be a priority for the use of the order-making power.
As I said, the details of the replacement framework are a matter for the future. However, I understand the concerns of chiropodists that the distinctive contribution of each profession, within a joint regulatory framework, should be properly acknowledged. The successor body to the CPSM will need to be sufficiently flexible to ensure that uni-professional input is preserved where appropriate. It will be one of our key aims in working with the professions to develop the proposals to ensure that future arrangements strike the right balance in that respect. I can assure my noble friend and others who have spoken that we will take into account the views that have been expressed in developing proposals upon which we shall be consulting. I believe it is possible to ensure that there are safeguards for the distinctive voices of all the individual professions. In some areas, such as fitness to practise it is absolutely appropriate that they should be in the majority when considering cases which come before them. I believe that within the new structure we can find an appropriate balance.
On the question of protection of title, I am in total agreement with my noble friend that the protection afforded at present is completely insufficient. As he said, the title currently protected is "state registered chiropodist". We can ensure within the health service that only state registered chiropodists are employed. However, we do that by direction. That is not the same as the powers that will be available for the professions themselves after new legislation is introduced for the professions supplementary to medicine. At the moment any individual can set up in practice and call himself a chiropodist. My noble friend is quite right to point out that that has dangers for the public. It is something we are anxious to change. I reassure him that the order-making power in the Bill will enable us to do that. Paragraph 1(d) of Schedule 3 to the Bill, referring to the,
"privileges of members admitted to practice",
is the relevant provision. It is rather sad that we did not make it clearer in the Explanatory Notes that this measure concerns protection of title, as I know that is an important issue for all the professions. The draftsmen assure me that this is the right way to deal with the matter. However, we could have pointed out in the Explanatory Notes that,
"privileges of members admitted to practice",
covers this important issue as it is fundamental to the protection of patients and it is one of the key reasons for going ahead with the plans that we have.
I suggest that a separate professional regulatory body for chiropodists alone is not a sensible way forward given the history of multi-professional co-operation within the ambit of the professions supplementary to medicine. I hope that when we bring forward proposals we can do so in a way that reassures chiropodists and podiatrists—and indeed the other professional groups within the ambit of these provisions—that they will have appropriate input into the areas which are of concern to
1814
them. I hope that in the light of those assurances my noble friend will not feel the need to press these amendments further.
Lord Clement-Jones: Without wishing to pre-empt the reply of the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, I hope that I may express a view to the Minister. I believe there will be considerable disappointment at her comments, but on the other hand strands of what she said may well be helpful. The Minister talked about the issue of safeguards and fitness to practise being kept firmly within a profession's ambit. Can she say a little more about the advisory boards as they are a considerable bone of contention, as she knows? In the J. M. Consulting report they were regarded as an optional extra. However, many professions, not just chiropodists and podiatrists, would regard them as being an important part of the new framework. Will the Minister elucidate further on that?
Baroness Hayman: I am not sure that I can because we do not have proposals to put forward at this time for an order to replace the current legislation. It has been said often during the course of our debates that we should listen to the professions on these issues. If I were to pre-empt that discussion by saying now what the rules of the advisory committees will be, I suggest that that would not be in the spirit of the consultation we are trying to take forward. We must ensure that the overall board—which is multi-professional, and can gain strength from that—recognises that there are some issues where the distinctive voice of an individual profession must be heard. We shall try to take that into account when framing proposals. However, I cannot tell the noble Lord what the proposals are because we have not framed them.
Lord Skelmersdale: In that case why does the Bill get rid of the 1960 Act at this moment? Why not make provisions by order so that we all know what is going on?
Baroness Hayman: One of the safeguards is that we cannot abolish a regulatory body except by primary legislation. That is one of the safeguards written into the Bill. We are in something of a Catch-22 situation here. If we did not take the relevant powers in this piece of primary legislation, we would leave professions supplementary to medicine in exactly the same difficulty as they are in now of having to queue up for primary legislation before any change can be made to them. Because the defects of the system are so well established the Government know that they want to repeal that piece of legislation. A review was published in 1996 along with the then government's response to it. Therefore we thought it appropriate to state on the face of the Bill that we intended to do that so that everyone was aware that that was the way we were going forward. However, that shall not be effective until replacement legislation—in this case, secondary legislation—has been brought forward. Therefore we ensure that we do not set the

1815
position in tablets of stone for those who are furthest advanced in needing change, and not allow them the benefit of the order-making power.
Lord Clement-Jones: I hope I may probe a little further. I fully understand that consultations are taking place. However, I had understood that consultations were taking place on the basis of the Government's view of the J. M. Consulting report of 1996. I had assumed that the Government had said they liked its broad outlines. Surely the consultations concern precisely that framework. My questions to the Minister were set in the context of that framework. I asked whether or not there was the possibility of the Government moving further in the light of representations which have been made on the Bill, and those made before the Bill was published.
Baroness Hayman: The previous government responded to the J. M. Consulting report. What I have tried to say this afternoon is that in framing any proposals that this Government bring forward for the content of a new order to replace the Act, I personally shall ensure that the comments of the Committee this afternoon and the issues that it has highlighted, particularly concerning individual professions, will be taken on board. However, this is a sequential issue. First, there is the repeal of the Act, and there is the order-making power. Then there will be proposals to be consulted on with the regulatory body, the individual professions and with the wider public. Then we have to have a draft order that is consulted on. We are not at the stage of having definitive proposals to put before the Committee.
Lord Morris of Manchester: As I indicated in moving the amendment my purpose today was to secure total clarity as to the Government's intentions in regard both to protection of title and definition of the future regulatory regime they envisage. Certainly what my noble friend has said about protection of title will be welcomed. I also sought firm assurances that would satisfy the Society of Chiropodists and Podiatrists that any change to current arrangements for self-regulation would be to strengthen rather than to weaken them. I shall be consulting the society urgently about the outcome of today's debate so that it can consider what further action it may wish to take in the interests both of its members and the public interest. It is on that basis that I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 196 and 197 not moved.]
4.30 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones moved Amendment No. 198:
Page 38, line 28, at end insert ("including specifically nursing auxiliaries as defined in subsection (6)").
The noble Lord said: This is a probing amendment. The amendment seeks to include within those professions related to health and medicine healthcare assistants and nursing auxiliaries. The amendment is a response to the fact that much of healthcare at ward level is in the hands of healthcare assistants or nursing
1816
auxiliaries. At present the profession is completely unregulated. Although it is very difficult to make comparisons between now and 10 years ago, it seems from the figures that in some regions there has been some growth in the use of nursing auxiliaries. There have been abuses and problems as a result of that profession being unregulated.
A recent J. M. Consulting report on the regulation of nurses, midwives and health visitors took a good deal of evidence on the issue of nursing and midwife discipline and also responded to the concerns being expressed about the lack of regulation of healthcare assistants. The report states:
"Those who responded to our consultation have expressed a deep concern about the threat to public protection posed by some unregulated support workers who, for example: obtain posts by deception or without adequate check on their suitability; or work unsupervised with vulnerable patient groups; or work in high-risk situations with no training".
It continues:
"We recommend that the government establishes a short review of this area with the aim of introducing a practical scheme of regulation".
In a recent Starred Question the Minister assured me that the matter was under review but the second half was, in a sense, missing. There was no undertaking that at the end of the process the idea was to introduce a practical scheme of regulation. It would be very helpful if the Minister could indicate her intentions at this stage.
The RCN has called over a number of years for the regulation of healthcare assistants and certainly did so in its response to that review of nurse and midwife discipline. A recent survey of nurses showed 94 per cent. of respondents calling for regulation. The most notorious case involving healthcare assistants was that of Yuen How Choy, which was reported in 1996. In that case a former mental health nurse and former rapist was struck off the nursing register but could still be employed as a care assistant in a hospital. That may be a hard case but it seems to demonstrate precisely why regulation is needed in these circumstances. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: I rise to support the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, in his amendment. The points he has made are very persuasive and ones with which I completely agree. He is right to draw attention to the issue, which is of considerable importance. If I have a small criticism it is of the wording of the amendment. I would have preferred to see specified "healthcare assistants" and not "nursing auxiliaries", but the substantive point is exactly the same.
As the noble Lord said, healthcare assistants or nursing auxiliaries play an increasingly important role in the delivery of patient care, both in hospitals and in the wider community. The registration of healthcare assistants would achieve two main purposes. It would offer a means of sifting out bad apples who presently move from one part of the country to another and repeat their misdemeanours undetected and often with impunity. It would also lift the standing of the profession by providing a means of self-advancement through a recognised system of professional

1817
qualifications. In addition, the Royal College of Nursing has referred to the desirability of matching the regulatory framework with the lines of accountability that operate in practice. Healthcare assistants are very often supervised by nurses and there is a good argument for shared and complementary codes of conduct and disciplinary systems.
There is an urgent need to address this matter quickly. I wonder how many members of the public are aware that healthcare assistants, in hospitals or the uniformed carers in an old people's home, are subject to no statutory regulation or minimum standard of proficiency. The increasing dependence of hospitals on their auxiliary staff and public concern over cases of abuse in homes make it all the more essential that we provide a means of raising standards of care across the board. It is part of the quality agenda and I hope that the Minister will be sympathetic, if not to the amendment then to the central point at issue.
Baroness McFarlane of Llandaff: I support the two amendments in this group, if only in intent because there is a question of terminology in terms of "healthcare assistants" being substituted for "nursing auxiliaries". Without wanting to enter into a sociological discussion of what is a profession, it could be questioned whether nursing auxiliaries are part of a profession.
The principle of these amendments is exceedingly important. Not only are healthcare assistants employed in hospitals where they are theoretically supervised by nurses, although often by default they are not, but they are also employed to give intimate care in patients' own homes without any direct supervision. These are important amendments.
Baroness Hayman: I hope that I will be able to respond, as the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane, has suggested, to the important substance behind the amendments. My understanding is that as currently drafted the order-making powers are quite wide enough to encompass any action needed to regulate these groups. Therefore, this specific amendment is not necessary to the Bill should that decision be taken. I respect the opportunity that has been taken to raise the issue of the role of nursing auxiliaries or healthcare assistants, however we use the terminology. I was particularly grateful for the way in which the noble Earl, Lord Howe, pointed out that this issue is concerned with lifting standards and respect for the profession as a whole as well as dealing with the particular problem of abuse, which occurs only in a minority of cases.
Nursing auxiliaries and healthcare assistants in the NHS play a very important role, which may not feature prominently in some of the coverage of the health service. They perform a significant number of tasks that in the past would have been considered specifically nursing tasks. They are intimately involved with patients and those who they care for, and the public are entitled to an assurance that only suitably trained and appropriate individuals are employed in positions where there is such contact with patients.
1818
I recognise the concerns that have been expressed about the development of the roles undertaken by nursing auxiliaries. These concerns have been raised in the past in the context of the need for regulation of support workers. As the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said, this issue was discussed in the review of the Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Act and the conclusion was reached that full-blown self-regulation was probably not the answer. The review recommended a short review of the position regarding support workers. It was recommended that the review should advise on codes of conduct for these workers, standards of training for those groups for which it is appropriate, the establishment of a list of suitably qualified support workers and the enforcement of those recommendations. We have announced our acceptance of that recommendation for such a review and we will go ahead with it.
I think the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, is again tempting me to pre-empt the results of the review by saying what its conclusions would be. I think we should approach matters in a straightforward way and undertake the review.
We have already announced our plans to regulate social care staff in the social services White Paper, Modernising Social Services, by setting up a statutory general social care council. The driving force behind the new council is to increase the protection of service users, their carers and the general public. Any review of support workers within the health service will have regard to the decisions that the Government have already taken in relation to care assistants in the social care field. There is a great blurring of the edges in terms of where people receive treatment. It is important that we make sure that there is proper regulation across the board.
On that basis, and with the reassurance that the powers included in paragraph 11(2)(b) of Schedule 3 would be wide enough to enable legislation to take place on the regulation of these groups should that be considered appropriate, I hope that the noble Lord will consider that the amendment is unnecessary and will feel able to withdraw it.
Lord Clement-Jones: I thank the Minister for that helpful reply. Before responding, perhaps I may put one further question to her. So far as professional or occupational regulation is concerned, there are many other considerations. Clearly, much is happening at the department. What is the timescale for the review that is currently taking place? Will it be completed in a short space of time? The Minister said that it could take two years to settle the current rules of the GMC. This matter is rather more urgent.
Baroness Hayman: I do not have my Civil Service lexicon to tell me whether I should say, "shortly", "soon", or "before too long", and how those expressions translate into weeks or months. Perhaps I may write to the noble Lord and give him details of the timescale currently envisaged.
Lord Clement-Jones: I always think that "presently" is a useful expression. I thank the Minister for that reply.

1819
I certainly did not mean to under-value the role of healthcare assistants. Indeed, I was one for a short period of time. I believe that they were then called orderlies. I am not sure what happened to that title. They perform valuable services. One of the roles of regulation is to enhance professional self-esteem, training and all the other good things about healthcare. One tends to believe that regulation performs as a yardstick for the worst cases. Again, I thank the Minister and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones moved Amendment No. 199:
Page 38, line 28, at end insert—
("( ) Orders under this section shall make provision for the regulation of the use of specific professional titles in relation to professions to which subsection (3)(a) above refers.").
The noble Lord said: We have had an interesting debate about protection of title. However, I wish to "ratchet up" the specificity of the Minister's reply.
Paragraph(1)(d) of Schedule 3 has been drawn to our attention. It relates to the privileges of members admitted to practice. It allows an order to be made which covers protection of title. But what protection of title are we talking about? Are we talking about protection of title as regards "registered nurse" or "registered physiotherapist"; or are we talking about protection of common title? Or are we talking about protecting the title "nurse", or "physiotherapist", so that the magic word "registered" does not have to be used in front of the title? This is important to a number of the professions. Perhaps the Minister will comment. We have heard of the Government's welcome intention to include in the orders the question of protection of title. That is very much the "quo" for the "quid" that the Government are proposing in terms of changing the regulatory structure. I beg to move.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Peston: It is difficult to know when to intervene in today's debates. I should declare an interest as an honorary member of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society—the word "honorary" being as it were, in italics, in the sense that no net benefits seem to flow from it in any form. I was not certain whether to intervene now or later in connection with the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Walton, which are inter-related.
The essential point is that protection of title is a restraint on trade. There is no avoiding that. Therefore, whether we are discussing nurses, doctors or anyone else, in the public interest it must be demonstrated that net benefits flow. Many of those supposed net benefits are set out in the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Walton, to which I shall speak.
I am convinced that there ought to be protection of title. In practice, the professions generate net benefits to our society despite the restraint on trade. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said (I do not know whether it is a "quid" for the "pro" or a "pro" for the "quid") there has to be a pay-off to society. That
1820
pay-off is concerned with the way in which the professions conduct themselves. I shall address that point in relation to the later amendments.
I hope that my noble friend the Minister will respond positively. I hope that she does not sell the pass and abandon the Government's responsibility for seeing in the final analysis that the public interest is protected. I stand second to no one in my support for the professions. But one of my main concerns is that they do not seem fully to recognise that there is a public interest here. The public cannot simply say, "Oh, yes, we trust you professionals from now to infinity and we do not need a reserve power." Whether my noble friend wishes to discuss the reserve power question now, which relates to the core function question, or whether she wishes to save it for her reply to the noble Lord, Lord Walton, is entirely a matter for her. I support the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, in the desirability of protecting title. It tells consumers what they receive for the title in a properly regulated profession. That is fundamental. However, I hope that in being to some extent supportive of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, we can also then talk more generally of what we expect from the professions and where the Government stand in representing the public interest. My remarks are a start; I shall not give up on the point when it comes to the later amendments.
Earl Howe: I wish to add my support for the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, is right to make the point about the need to show net benefits if there is to be protection of title. Presently, there is scope for considerable confusion in the minds of the general public, hence a risk to patients arising from the use of certain professional titles by unqualified individuals. That usage is perfectly legal. "Registered nurse" is a protected title. "Nurse" is not; "psychologist" is not; nor is "podiatrist". And "physiotherapist" is not protected. The Charted Society of Physiotherapy has pointed out to me that the common international title for the discipline, "physical therapist", is likewise unprotected. That represents a loophole in the law. Unless the ability exists to regulate the use of specific titles, vulnerable people will continue to be misled into thinking that they are being looked after by qualified professionals. I hope that the Minister will be receptive to the point.
Baroness McFarlane of Llandaff: I, too, support the amendment. There is considerable confusion in the mind of the public, particularly about the title "nurse". Very often healthcare assistants have the title "nurse" on their name badges. I have met members of the general public who are very confused about who is nursing them. They describe to me people in a chequer uniform and ask: "Are they registered nurses, or not?". For the general public it is very confusing.
Baroness Hayman: I am tempted to tell the noble Baroness of the male doctor who recently raised with me the issue of confusion in patients' minds. He said, "It was all so much easier in the past when all the men were doctors and all the women were nurses." Perhaps that is a road down which I should not be tempted.

1821
I agree with the importance that has been placed on the issue of the protection of the public which, after all, is the reason behind all that we are discussing with regard to self-regulation. Perhaps I may reassure my noble friend Lord Peston by saying that the reason why the Government wish to support and strengthen self-regulation is that we believe it is the most effective way of enhancing public protection, and not simply as an end in itself, if I can put it that way.
I can certainly understand the frustration, particularly of the professions supplementary to medicine, as the Act of 1960 does not protect specific professional titles or provide protection of function, which is another way of ensuring the protection that the public would wish. It is three years since a review of the Act recommended that that problem be addressed. That is one of the reasons for the impatience in getting on with this Bill and the order-making power.
We believe that the protection of common title or function is fundamental to the protection of patients. I wish to reassure the Committee that the Government fully intend to ensure that appropriate provision is made in the replacement legislation in this regard for each of the professions concerned. As has been pointed out, individual professions have particular interest in it and particular interest in what is the appropriate term, whether it is both "chiropodist" and "podiatrist", both "physiotherapist" and "physical therapist". Once you start protecting three or four different titles for the same professional group, there is a danger that public clarity and understanding will not be enhanced. We must approach this on a sensible basis. We shall consult the professions on the proposals in due course.
Again, I want to stress the way in which the order-making power in Clause 47 and the words,
"privileges of members admitted to practice",
in paragraph 1(d) of Schedule 3 are phrased. We believe that we have the legislative powers to do that.
On the issue of exactly which title is to be protected, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that we would certainly be looking to protect the common title for the professions allied to medicine. With regard to nurses, there has always been a difficulty in the past with the term "nurse", as the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane, will be aware. If you protect the common title of "nurse", how does one deal with nursery nurses and veterinary nurses? I am not sure that we have found a perfect answer to that one. The issue is most important in the areas of the professions allied to medicine and there the common title will be the one that we shall be seeking to protect.
Lord Clement-Jones: I thank the Minister for that reply. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, as a member of one of the most over-protected professions—I am a solicitor—I am conscious of the need to be aware that if there is protection it must be in the public interest. I believe in the case that we have made today. I am pleased by the Minister's reply, particularly as it applies
1822
to the professions allied to medicine. Her answer was quite specific about common title and not just requiring registration in every case.
I hope that the protection of the title "nurse" can be looked at further, perhaps in the context of the healthcare assistant agenda. It seems to me that the ideal time to regulate on the title "nurse" is when the occupation of healthcare assistant is regulated. That might be a useful break-point when the use of the word "nurse" could be clearly defined as someone belonging to the nursing profession. As a staging post, I welcome the Minister's comments and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdraw.
[Amendments Nos. 200 and 201 not moved.] Clause 47 agreed to.
5 p.m.
Schedule 3 [Regulation of health care and associated professions]:
Lord Walton of Detchant Lord Walton of Detchant moved Amendment No. 202:
Page 51, line 9, after ("may") insert (", subject to paragraphs 7 to 8A,").
The noble Lord said: In speaking to Amendment No. 202, tabled in my name and the names of my noble friend Lord Kilpatrick of Kincraig, the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane of Llandaff, and the noble Baroness, Lady Emerton, I also wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 203, 204, 206 to 211, 213, 215, 216 and 217 as they are all closely interlinked. I shall try to explain that interlinking in a moment.
In speaking to these matters I am not just concerned with the interests of the General Medical Council but with the interests of all the eight self-regulatory bodies listed in the Bill, including the General Dental Council, the General Optical Council and others. Each of them is concerned about the present provisions of the Bill. If one were to apply the principle of reductio ad absurdam, it would be possible under the Bill, as drafted, to replace the present self-regulatory body by a small, government-appointed professional body. It would be possible to replace the GMC by a professional body of, say, four chief medical officers with no lay members. That is clearly a ridiculous idea which no one would contemplate. Everyone will be greatly reassured by the comments of the Minister earlier today.
We are concerned that the self-regulatory bodies have striven over the years to move towards the greater protection of the public, an issue to which the noble Lord, Lord Peston, referred. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, has described professional self-regulation as one of the glories of a civilised society which nevertheless must take full account of lay opinion and lay concerns.
I became a member of the General Medical Council in 1971 and subsequently its president from 1982 to 1989. During that time the GMC moved rapidly towards bringing about a number of changes in its powers within the legislation, as it then allowed, in the greater interest and protection of the public. However, under the

1823
subsequent distinguished presidency of my successor, my noble friend Lord Kilpatrick, the number of lay members on the GMC concerned with the interests of the public was increased from II to 25, almost a quarter of the present membership of the council.
Even in my day, we began to recognise the crucial importance of the fact that the council had no powers over the issue of professional performance. It could deal effectively with doctors who were guilty of serious professional misconduct; it could deal effectively with doctors who were sick; but it had no powers to deal with doctors whose performance fell below a satisfactory level. In those days we began to look towards government to see if legislation could be introduced to deal with that particular issue. It took several years— I know that my noble friend Lord Kilpatrick will say more about this—before primary legislation under the Medical (Professional Performance) Act 1995 was introduced.
As the Committee will be aware and as the noble Baroness mentioned, quite recently the whole question of revalidation of professional performance of doctors in all disciplines, in all specialties and in all grades of work came under the ambit of the GMC. That will be a regular procedure together with the important point of the protection of the public, not least because of some concerns arising from recent notable cases that received a great deal of attention in the media.
The primary purpose of these amendments is to ensure that the order-making power under the Bill to modify regulation of the health professions is properly limited. As I say, the present regulatory bodies are all anxious to continue to develop effectively their ability to protect patients and to serve the public as well as they can within their power. Several of them had been waiting for amendments to the legislation concerning their powers for many years. To take but one example, the disciplinary legislation applying to pharmacists has been unchanged since 1954. The regulatory bodies and the professions recognise the substantial and arduous responsibilities conferred upon them. For many members of the public the quality of health services and of professional practice is among the most important of all issues affecting them. It is therefore of great importance that any proposal to change the responsibilities of bodies responsible for regulatory functions should be subject to the detailed scrutiny and debate of primary legislation. Fundamental change should not be implemented by secondary legislation.
The amendments which we have tabled ensure that the core functions of the present regulatory bodies may not he given to another body by an order made under Clause 47 of the Bill. Primary legislation would continue to be required, although such legislation could be very simple. Detailed provisions could be dealt with by order. We believe that this strikes the right balance between the use of primary legislation and secondary legislation.
In addition these amendments carry the intention that they will apply after the Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Act 1997 is repealed, as I understand is the Government's intention through the medium of the Bill.
The second main purpose of these amendments is to protect the role of the Privy Council. The Privy Council has a role in respect of all the professions, with the exception of the UKCC. That council's breadth of experience is valued by the professions as it provides a point for advice and informal consultation. As devolution progresses, a further benefit will become evident. The Privy Council will be able to ensure that proper weight is given to the views of the Scottish, Northern Irish and Welsh assemblies.
The Privy Council is to some extent removed from the political fray in which departments of state are inevitably immersed, and the professions attach great importance to that. They hold the Privy Council and its contribution to their work in high regard and want to ensure that existing links continue. If the links are to be broken, it must be by primary legislation.
The final purpose achieved by this group of amendments relates specifically to the professions regulated by the Professions Supplementary to Medicine Act 1960, about which we have already heard much this afternoon. At present there are nine such professions. They include the physiotherapists, occupational therapists, chiropodists and podiatrists, but there are many others, including psychologists, clinical scientists and speech and language therapists, who are seeking regulation in order to achieve protection of title—a point to which I shall return briefly—but above all to ensure that those practising in those professions are registered and properly qualified.
The amendments make appropriate provisions to ensure that when a successor body to the CPSM is established the regulatory functions are reserved to that successor body. They also ensure that where the use of certain titles is protected those titles will continue to have at least the same level of protection and that the new body will come under aegis of the Privy Council, as the CPSM urgently wishes. We look forward to seeing, and to being consulted on, details of the Government's proposals under the new order-making powers effected under the Bill relating to the successor to the Council for Professions Allied to Medicine.
The regulatory bodies are not asking for the status quo to be protected. They recognise that the order-making power could be very useful in modernising systems of self-regulation, and they welcome this. I should like to give examples. The GMC wishes to see the Medical Act 1983 amended to create a single system of registration for overseas doctors, a change which would now be possible only under primary legislation and one which would be greatly welcomed by the Commission for Racial Equality. It is also the wish of the General Dental Council to increase its lay membership and have powers over professional performance such as those now available to the GMC. These are all issues which readily could be, and we hope will be, dealt with by order. But fundamental change in the nature and functions of these bodies should be reserved to primary legislation for Parliament to decide.
I must now refer in detail to the purpose of the individual amendments. Amendment No. 202 is a purely technical amendment relating to others upon which it will be conditional.
Amendment No. 203 refers to the use of the term "professional body". The substance of this and other amendments is that there is no need for any reference to a "professional body" in the Bill since the order-making power should not be used to transfer functions away from existing regulatory bodies. Hence we propose the substitution of "regulatory" for "professional".
Amendment No. 204 is a little more detailed and complex. It adds to the protection specified in Amendment No. 210. It deletes the existing wording,
"An Order may not abolish the regulatory body of any profession",
and sets out other purposes for which an order-making power cannot be used. Heading (a) prevents the reduction by order of the proportion of professional members of a regulatory body.
Heading (b) preserves existing protections on the use of title or functions—in other words, non-dentists practising as denturists or non-state-registered practitioners calling themselves state-registered, which would be specifically precluded—and the penalties which might be imposed on those in breach. With regard to protection of title, I mention in passing that there is no law in this country to prevent anyone from practising medicine. One cannot practise as a dentist unless one is registered under the Dentists Act or unless one is a doctor acting in an emergency. One cannot practise as a veterinary surgeon unless one is registered. But the only protection in law for practising doctors is that it is illegal for anyone not registered under the Medical Act to call themselves a registered medical practitioner. That is the protected title in medicine.
Heading (c) protects the role of the Privy Council where it currently exists. The 25 lay members are nominated to the GMC by the Privy Council, which must approve the GMC's rules and its electoral scheme. Under the Medical Act 1983 default powers fall to the Privy Council. If the GMC is not discharging its statutory function, the Privy Council may notify the GMC and give instructions to it or exercise any power vested in the GMC; and in turn the GMC, or its education committee, may recommend to the Privy Council that a registration previously conferred by a training body, such as a medical school or university, should no longer be registered under the medical Acts. Any doctor who is struck off the register by the General Medical Council has the right of appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. These are issues about which all the professions feel strongly, and the same issues relate to each of the professions.
Heading (d) reintroduces the prohibition on abolition of a regulatory body by order.
I realise that these are extremely complex matters. Sub-paragraph (2) of the amendment allows an order-making power to be used to enable a regulatory body itself to make rules to reduce the proportion of its professional members. The General Dental Council, for example, would like to be able to increase its lay membership by a change in rules, and the order-making power would be useful in achieving that.
Amendment No. 207 refers back to Clause 47. The effect is to exclude consideration of the Council for Professions Supplementary to Medicine at this point.
In Amendment No. 208 the amendment to line 6 on page 52 is crucial. The substitution of "regulatory" for "professional" removes any function of a professional body as defined in paragraph 10 of the schedule.
Similarly, by specifying "that regulatory" body, Amendment No. 209 prohibits the transfer by order of any function by a person or body other than the regulatory body which currently exercises that function. Such a fundamental change should not be made by secondary legislation.
Amendment No. 210 relates to misconduct. At present the Bill appears to allow for the possibility of a regulatory body acting as an agency or secretariat to a third party that decided the outcome of cases, hence the addition of the words "and determining cases", which is within the authority of each of the self-regulatory authorities at the moment. Any change in the function of determining fitness to practise cases would be fundamental and so should be reserved to primary legislation.
Amendment No. 211 simply adds, in paragraph (e), the need to include continuing professional development and education for those on a register, and paragraph (f) preserves financial independence to set fees for registrants.
Amendment No. 213 is an important amendment to which reference was made earlier today. The amendment seeks to achieve the same protections for the successor body to the CPSM. The Health Bill repeals the Professions Supplementary to Medicine Act 1960. As currently drafted, the limits in Schedule 3 would apply to the existing CPSM but not its successor. This is a matter of concern to that body.
Amendment No. 215 is consequent upon the earlier amendments. There is no need to define a professional body if there is no prospect that the core functions of a regulatory body will he taken over by anyone other than that body as a result of the order-making power.
Finally, Amendment No. 216 includes in the definition of a professional body a reference to its committees. We were not clear what the department had in mind in drafting that particular provision. However, having just deleted "professional body" under these amendments we have added "committees" to the definition of "regulatory body" for tidiness because many of the existing regulatory bodies have committees with statutory functions. Amendment No. 217 is a purely technical matter that relates to the earlier amendments.
I appreciate that this is a series of complex amendments, but because they are interrelated it is important to speak to each of them and to the principles that underlie them. I seek to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Peston, and other Members of the Committee that all of the self-regulatory bodies referred to in the Bill and those to whom I have referred in moving this amendment, are deeply anxious to maintain and improve their role in regulating the professional activities in all respects in the interests of the public. I beg to move.
5.15 p.m.
Earl Howe: I rise to express emphatic support for this group of amendments. With Clause 47 and Schedule 3 we are considering a part of the Bill that grants to the Secretary of State powers to make fundamental changes to the primary legislation that governs professional self-regulation. These powers are sweeping and unprecedented. To appreciate their import fully they need to be seen not merely as a set of self-contained issues but as part of a much wider agenda, evidenced by other parts of the Bill, to tighten political control over the medical profession. That prospect fills those of us on these Benches with deep dismay.
As the noble Lord, Lord Walton, said, professional self-regulation has been the cornerstone on which public trust and confidence in the medical profession has been founded for the past 150 years. One of the main reasons for that is that the professionals themselves have confidence in the system. The regulatory function of the GMC works because doctors know that the standards of conduct and practice that they uphold can be determined and assessed in the final analysis only by their peers. The Minister said at Second Reading that self-regulation was part of the quality agenda. To subject the medical profession to direct government control, as this Bill would allow, would be deeply detrimental to the quality of patient care.
If the aim of the Government is greater consistency of care within the NHS, as the Minister has said a number of times, that can be achieved perfectly well without these powers. I do not oppose the order-making powers in Clause 47 of the Bill; indeed, there is every argument for having them to make quick and sensible improvements to the detail of the regulatory framework of the medical profession as the need arises. However, I oppose the completely open-ended and sweeping nature of the powers. Nor do I understand why such powers are needed if Ministers' pronouncements on this subject are to be believed. The Minister herself said at Second Reading:
"We do not wish to dismantle the framework of professional self-regulation".—[Official Report, 9/2/99; col. 186.]
If that is so, the Government must say straight away that they accept the thrust of these amendments. If not, the despondency and distrust that is now evident in the medical profession will be magnified out of recognition. The Minister must realise that good intentions on this issue are not enough. If these powers are incorporated into the Bill those good intentions need count for nothing under a different set of Ministers in a future government. Underlying this issue is the need to achieve partnership and co-operation instead of conflict with the medical profession.
I very much hope that the Minister's hitherto constructive approach to debates in Committee and her desire to listen to the arguments put forward will again be evident in her response to these amendments.
Lord Kilpatrick of Kincraig: It is almost three years since I spoke in this Chamber. The occasion was my maiden speech. I was acutely aware of a remark by Sir Winston Churchill about a fellow Member in the
1828
other place. He said of that other Member that he had missed a great opportunity to remain silent. Accordingly, as I am now on my feet, the Committee will realise just how strongly I feel about the provisions of the Bill and how totally supportive I am of the amendments that have been described in detail by my noble friend Lord Walton.
In 1992, when I had been President of the General Medical Council for three years, the GMC unanimously backed me to approach the then government through the Privy Council to widen the powers of the council to include performance. At that time its powers relating to fitness to practise were confined to misconduct and health. This was a fundamental change because it allowed the council to deal with a deficiency in the day-to-day pattern of professional practice. I believe that a pattern of behaviour of that kind is confined almost exclusively to the medical profession. That cannot be dealt with under the criminal law. Therefore, the proposal was very far-reaching.
That approach having been made in 1992, it was three years before legislative time was obtained. Even then it was on the basis that the council could use its persuasive powers to gain all-party support, which it did. At that time, the noble Baronesses, Lady Cumberlege and Lady Jay, and Lady Robson, (sadly no longer with us) supported the provision and the Act was amended. Having had that experience of extensive consultation and detailed scrutiny which goes into a piece of primary legislation, I am convinced that no fundamental change should be made to a regulatory body such as the General Medical Council, although there are others, except by primary legislation.
At the same time, I am very supportive of the suggestion of having order-making powers. The General Medical Council wishes it had had them a long time ago. I can give a good example of that. From 1978, the council was allowed to deal specifically with the ill-health of doctors. However, under that legislation, which was introduced in an amendment to the original Medical Act, we were unable to suspend a doctor on grounds of ill-health for longer than one year at a time. Having chaired the council's health committee for some years, I found that it had to bring doctors back year after year, building up a large clinic. Clearly, the council needed the ability to impose indefinite suspension for some chronic disorders. In fact, that ability was tacked on by an amendment to the Medical Act relating to performance. However, it would have been a good example of order making not to change a fundamental function but to improve a particular function.
I am struck by the Explanatory Notes which accompany the Bill because they refer frequently to professional regulation. That means the regulation of a profession. The words "professional self-regulation" do not appear in the Explanatory Notes. That is the regulation of a profession by a profession with significant lay input.
I was not able to attend the Second Reading of the Bill, but I know that the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, who I know very well because we come from the same part of the country, said that the professions and the press

1829
never put their house in order until they are under threat of legislation. That is just not so. It was the General Medical Council which initiated the suggestion relating to performance, and it had to wait three years before parliamentary time was found.
Furthermore, it is frequently said that doctors and the profession are always defensive, but the important question in relation to the Bill is what is to be defended. I can envisage the possibility that Parliament might abolish a regulatory body such as the General Medical Council, which is not possible under the Bill; or it might remove a fundamental function from the regulatory body, which is possible under the Bill. If either act occurred, the position in the United Kingdom would be the same as in the majority of countries of the world. Only a minority of countries have professional self-regulation. They include Australia, New Zealand, Canada, South Africa, the Republic of Ireland and the United States. But if the United Kingdom were to become like the majority, something would be lost. There is a close and significant correlation between high standards of medical practice and professional self-regulation.
I endorse totally what was said so eloquently by my noble friend Lord Walton concerning all the amendments. I urge upon the Minister our view that there should be no transfer of fundamental functions from the present regulatory bodies and that primary legislation and the order-making power should continue within the context of the present regulatory bodies and professional self-regulation under the present relationship with the Privy Council.
Lord Clement-Jones: I rise to add the strong support of these Benches for the amendments. We expressed our considerable concerns about Clause 47. The amendments, which are vastly superior to our Amendment No. 206, go to the core of addressing the concerns of the professions allied to medicine about the terms of the clause. The clear and authoritative exposition of the noble Lord, Lord Walton, was perhaps too modest in expressing the absolutely united view of all those professions about the amendments and about the absolute necessity of altering Clause 47 to incorporate the safeguards.
The huge volume of mail in my postbag, which is awesome to behold, indicates the way in which the professions have united behind the amendments. I believe that they are very much in the interests of the public. It is not a matter of professional self-protection but of public protection. It is quite clear that if self-regulation is to continue, a hard core of elements must remain. The noble Lord, Lord Walton, clearly expressed them as the Privy Council relationship; lay member composition; no transfer without consent; no abolition; the levels of penalties; and jurisdiction over fitness to practise. Those are absolutely essential elements. They are not contained in the primary legislation and they must be if self-regulation is to be protected.
1830
In an extremely authoritative contribution, the noble Lord, Lord Kilpatrick, made clear the argument about flexibility. Of course we need flexibility, but we must have in primary legislation that core element to safeguard self-regulation.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, made a strong point about the good will of the professions. In a time of change, we need that good will if we are to ensure that all the new elements are incorporated. The GMC—I single it out, but the point applies to other professions—has made massive strides, in particular with revalidation. Sir Donald Irvine has shaken up the way in which the medical profession is being regulated and we should welcome that. In return, we should provide those elements in order to ensure that the system, which is beginning to work much more effectively in rooting out incompetence, can work in a proper fashion. I urge the Committee to support the amendments.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Desai: I rise to express doubts about what is going on. The more the noble Lord, Lord Walton, spoke I became worried. Perhaps I may express my experience as a lay member of the Bar Council's committee of professional conduct. All that the Bar Council is worried about is that solicitors do not poach barristers' business. That is all it is interested in. Presumably, solicitors have the same worries about barristers.
It seems to me that self-regulation utterly failed in the City; we know that it failed. Before that, similar arguments were heard about how great self-regulation was. As a reader of newspapers, especially tabloids, I come across many scandals in the health service concerning the provision of medical care for patients. I do not know the technicalities. I am sure that everybody is very careful, and safeguards their professional standing. However, it does not seem that everything is all right in the way that doctors treat patients. I could make a similar comment about judges and barristers, but I shall not do so. However, we can no longer presume that the old regime will stay. Patients want to know more; they demand explanations; they are not satisfied by the way they are treated; apologies are late and appalling things happen.
As an economist I come from a non-regulated profession and I can do only limited harm to people. Anybody can practise as an economist. It is interesting how the debate has concentrated mainly on doctors and the General Medical Council. Of course, it is a most powerful profession, and it is difficult to do anything about doctors or lawyers in this country.
I welcome some of the provisions in Clause 47. The time has come when the public has to know that their interests are being looked after by somebody, and that somebody must be the Government. We can no longer take for granted that the public's interest is properly guarded by the professions. The noble Lord, Lord Kilpatrick, denied the fact that professions do not reform themselves until there are complaints. I believe that professions change only when there is a big row or a big scandal. Thank God that the press in this country

1831
makes a big row. There have been bad judgments from law courts, and mistakes have been made. I believe that self-regulation is very good, but, as my noble friend Lord Peston stated, we have paid a high price for barriers to entry in return, perhaps, for better quality. The Government must have power to give the public the assurance that if something goes wrong, they have one friend—the Government.
Baroness McFarlane of Llandaff: I rise to speak to the amendment tabled in the names of my noble friends Lord Walton of Detchant, Lord Kilpatrick of Kincraig, and Lady Emerton, who is, unfortunately, out of the country this week.
I do not want to reiterate all that my noble friend Lord Walton has said and take up the time of the Committee. As always, he has presented the arguments with cogency. However, I should like to say that all the healthcare professions to whom I have spoken have been in absolute agreement with the amendments. Not only the powerful medical profession, but also nursing, midwifery, health visiting, dentistry, pharmacy and many other professions recognise the importance of self-regulation for the interests of the public. We are at one in the wish to see self-regulation perpetuated.
However, as I talk to different professions, I believe that we are also at one in recognising the usefulness of orders for making quick and flexible changes. Therefore, I do not want to stand in the way of those who wish to use orders to see changes brought about in the profession, so long as such orders do not interfere with the fundamental roles of self-regulation.
As the report from the Committee so rightly states, and as the Minister quoted, striking the right balance between primary legislation and orders is the great conundrum ahead of us. Those of the nursing, midwifery and health visiting professions to whom I have spoken want to see many of the Government's proposals go forward so that there is flexibility, but they do not want to lose the right of self-regulation. That is why I asked the Minister for an assurance that there would be the same protection under orders. The Minister gave that assurance. I should like to probe a little as to how the noble Baroness can give the assurance that protection will be the same under orders as it would if written on the face of the Bill.
At Second Reading, the Minister indicated that the J. M. Consulting report had been published. The comments from the Department of Health, published the same day, indicated that the Government would seek to table an amendment to repeal the Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Act 1997 and that that, presumably, would be replaced by a body created by orders. Does that mean that nursing, midwifery and health visiting are entirely written out of the Bill and that their self-protecting powers and self-regulatory powers are entirely lost? I should like a reassurance that the protections we seek to build in by the amendments will be available in orders and that legislation will be put in place.
We are given so many reassurances. It sounds wonderful, and we think, "Yes, let's go forward with this". But, what happens? We are reassured that
1832
everything can be dealt with by an affirmative resolution. But what happens if an order is brought by an affirmative resolution and then negatived? Would we then have no powers to take forward what has been agreed? I should like reassurance about the mechanisms that will be available to us in orders, and exactly what is implied, particularly for the professions of nursing, midwifery and health visiting.
Lord Colwyn: I, too, should like to support the amendments. I only regret that I was a little slow and did not put my name down to be one of the main supporters. I apologise for that. I know that my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes, who was formerly an elected member of the General Dental Council, also supports the amendments. She has a prior engagement outside the Palace of Westminster and is unable to speak tonight.
The Committee will be aware that I am a practising dentist. As such, I know the value placed by my profession on maintaining the highest professional standards. Dentists provide care to their patients, whether under NHS or private contracts, from dental practices which they own and manage; practices which are predominantly in the high street, not hospitals and specialist centres. High standards and consumer satisfaction are what make dental practices thrive. Therefore, it is not surprising that the dental profession places a high value on professional regulation.
Under the leadership of Dame Margaret Seward, and with the support of the profession, the GDC has been focused on how better to protect the public. The Conservative Government promised to introduce much-needed reforms to the Dentists Act 1984. Those changes, which have become key issues, included recertification; a statutory obligation to provide evidence of continuing professional education on a five-yearly cycle, and the fact that current procedures, which deal with fitness to practise, focus only on misconduct and health matters and do not deal with poor performance.
The council, again with the approval of the profession, has been ready to introduce a statutory scheme to ensure that dentists whose clinical performance is a potential risk to the public are given the opportunity to relearn skills, with the ultimate sanction of their practice being restricted if they fail to demonstrate competence.
My purpose in highlighting these issues is to remind the Government that the council has sought legislative change and has been restricted by the nature of the current Dentists Act. The opportunity which this Bill provides to make the necessary changes by order, rather than through primary legislation, is welcome. However, as we have heard, the order-making power, as written into this legislation, does not contain the safeguards and limitations which the GDC and other regulated health professions feel are necessary to ensure a continuing independent role. The need for more lay members and the commitment to the principles of professional regulation exercised by dentists themselves are important issues.

1833
As currently drafted, the Bill does not protect the council's core functions. Education at both undergraduate and postgraduate levels, continuing professional development, recertification, and the monitoring of poor performance are key reforms in the public interest.
Finally, the GDC is unique among the health regulatory bodies in having statutory responsibility for hygienists and therapists who are important members of the dental team, a team that also includes dental nurses and dental technicians who also seek statutory registration. The Bill, as drafted, does not provide an opportunity for change which must be in the interests of the public and the profession. The Minister says that she wants to strengthen and modernise the systems of professional regulation. The amendment provides the necessary limitations and safeguards which the health professions seek.
Lord Rea: These amendments have been spoken to eloquently by two senior members of my profession and eminent members of the nursing and dental professions. They have expressed extremely clearly their concerns about the Bill with regard to professional regulation, and particularly self-regulation.
I know that my noble friend the Minister may not be able to accept the amendments as they stand, but I hope she will be able to say exactly why she cannot accept them. I hope also that she may have some suggestions about amendments that are acceptable both to her and to my former headmasters—if I may so describe them—the two former presidents of the General Medical Council, compared to whom I am only a schoolboy. I hope that my noble friend will take their concerns into account as they are widely shared not only by those in the medical profession but also by many of the other professions which are currently self-regulating. I daresay that when my noble friend is making up her mind on these amendments she will also take into account some of the remarks made by my noble friend Lord Desai.
Baroness Cumberlege: I intervene briefly and in a spirit of optimism. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that one of the great challenges in the NHS is trying to unite the professional tribes. I believe that at a stroke the Government have succeeded in doing that. However, it is a pity that the professions have united against these clauses. I believe that both parties—the Government and the regulatory bodies—want a resolution. Indeed, in January, the Minister's honourable friend said that he was seeking to achieve just that. I know that the Minister, having chaired a hospital trust, recognises the importance of keeping the professions on board in order to provide services of quality. There is room here for accommodation.
I very much accept what the Minister said earlier about the backlog of work that needs to be tackled. I accept that some of the issues dealt with by the regulatory bodies need a speedy resolution and that order-making powers are appropriate in such cases.
1834
The noble Lord, Lord Walton, said categorically—I know that he is right—that the medical profession is not seeking to maintain the status quo; it really wants to see some improvements to its regulatory powers. I know that that is true of the other professions also. Perhaps those who drafted the clauses did not have enough finesse or sensitivity to pick up all the nuances. I know that the Minister will have listened carefully to what has been said—she always does—but I hope that if she cannot accept these amendments, she will return to her department to work out provisions that are acceptable to all. I believe that resolution is not far away.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Peston: I start with two very cynical remarks. First, I was interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said about the mail that he has received. I, too, have received a lot of mail, but all of it from the professional bodies. I did not get a single letter from a patient or a group of patients saying, "We desperately need to support the professional bodies in our own interests." I should be interested to know exactly what mail the noble Lord received; mine was certainly not the same as his.
Secondly, my heart goes out to the noble Earl, Lord Howe. I think of the many years I spent on that Front Bench and wonder what sort of speech I would have made on this occasion. I conclude that I would have made a very similar speech, if not precisely the same one. I reflect ruefully, however, that I made many speeches against order-making powers and the damage they did, resulting in the end of this and the end of that, only for the government of which the noble Earl was a proud member to march their troops through the Lobbies and defeat me on every occasion. There was no question of weighing the balance; the government simply defeated us. That was because, not only that government, but all governments, want to get not only their Bills through but also their order-making powers. I do not criticise the noble Earl for that. Either I was right then and he was wrong—or perhaps this Government are now right and I was wrong then. In any case we all have our part to play in the great drama that is the House of Lords, and the part of the Opposition Front Bench is to talk about order-making powers and the threat that they pose to the future of our great nation.
Having said all that, perhaps I should add—I have said this previously—that I am a great supporter of self-regulation. Wearing my economist's hat, I believe that self-regulation is an efficient way of delivering what is wanted by the clients who, in this case, are the patients. It would be quite wrong to ignore general principles in relation to this Bill. This matter relates not only to doctors, but to all the professions. I am not one of those who say that all professionals are just a bunch of racketeers although some very distinguished economists do take that view. Indeed, some of the world's greatest economists argue that all the professions are an abomination and need to be abolished. They say that their legislative support should be removed and that they should have to compete in the free market because the free market would expose the good as opposed to the bad. That is not a view I hold,

1835
but I can tell the Committee that economists who are Nobel Prize winners do take that view. I do not; I do not go that far.
This is a serious matter. Professions have responsibilities if they have the power of self-regulation, and they must deliver the goods. In my experience, my noble friend Lord Desai is right. On the whole, the professions deliver when they are subject to pressure. I do not criticise them for that. I am not a professional in the same sense, but as a professor it never occurred to me that anything I did was ever other than perfect. I always felt that I was doing a proper, professional job. I always professed to be doing absolutely the best I could in the interests of my students. Occasionally, I was subject to professionals saying, "Would you prove that?", and I hated that, just as I am sure that all the leading medical professionals and all lawyers also hate it. That is why I do not greatly criticise the professions for saying, "Don't attack us too much because we'll move when we can." However, it is important also to view matters from the other side.
It had never occurred to me that the Government's position was that they favoured deregulation—perhaps my noble friend will comment on that—or that they intended to use the order-making power in any way other than as a last resort. Occasionally, of course, it may be used as a first resort when the professions themselves want change rapidly and do not want to sit in a very long queue awaiting primary legislation.
As I said earlier, when I was a member of the Council of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society there were matters to be considered including fitness to practise and so forth. One's heart sank when one was told that it would be years before something could be done. I certainly wish to see the order-making power used for that purpose. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will be able to state the Government's intention to reinforce the professions and to be supportive of them. I hope that it will be done in ways which the noble Lord, Lord Walton, and his fellow supporters of the amendment like. But an order-making power is required. That would be in the interests of the professions. It would be seen that their performance was good, not recognisably perfect, but getting better. I hope that my noble friend will speak as sympathetically as she can. However, I shall be a little taken aback if she felt she should accept the amendment.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Perhaps I may ask a quick and more detailed question as regards the inter-relationship between Clause 47 Schedule 3 and the Scottish Parliament. The Explanatory Notes state that Schedule 3, paragraph 5,
"will enable functions to be conferred on … Scottish Ministers [and that] an order could be made … setting up bodies for different parts of the United Kingdom to deal with matters in connection with professional regulation".
Can the Minister say whether it is conceivable that paragraph 5 of Schedule 3 could allow Scottish Ministers to set up bodies which conflicted with those protected from change under the Bill? I am trying to be helpful to the Government in this case. It may be that there is a clash between what is allowed under that
1836
paragraph and what the Minister told me about paragraph 2 as regards what an order may not do. It will be helpful and comforting to know the answer to that question, if it is possible.
Lord Christopher: I had not intended to speak in this debate until I noted that the president of the General Medical Council, under whom I served for some five and a half years, was speaking in it. I left the GMC after that time because the law said that I should at my age. I found that somewhat troublesome at the time because one of the matters being discussed was euthanasia.
The noble Lord, Lord Kilpatrick, earned my respect, as has his successor, Sir Donald Irvine. Having listened to some of my colleagues perhaps I may make a few remarks which may encourage the supporters of the amendment to reflect. I recognise that they will wish to hear what words of comfort may come from our own Front Bench.
A number of factors relating to the GMC do not justify the worries which the supporters of the amendment have. In my experience the medical profession can only be effectively regulated, under whatever umbrella, by doctors. I have served on the ethics and the disciplinary committees. It is perhaps worth mentioning in passing that the doctors were invariably tougher with those against whom allegations had been made than were the lay members. Now there is such a range of professions. There has been mention of a disease and there is a specialism for that. I do not myself see that doctors could ever be other than largely in a majority. I do not believe that a lay committee could effectively do what was required in majority terms.
The president of the General Medical Council is not a kind of union general secretary, but there are similarities. 1 recall a number of debates in which the noble Lord, Lord Kilpatrick, fought very hard to persuade members towards some change and received a good deal of opposition in the process. As the general secretary of a union in the past, I know how useful it was to have some sanction which enabled me to say to people, "If we do not perform in the way that the public expect we are under an earlier threat than we might have been otherwise under the regulations".
I cannot believe that the GMC is under any serious threat of becoming nationalised provided that it performs well. It is most likely to be able to do so by achieving quick change rather than in a three-year cycle, which I remember very well. Parliamentary time stood in the way of change and it will stand in the way of other change in future, the nature of which we cannot judge. I say to my noble friend Lord Peston that most of the doctors I came across who had gone down the market road were struck off. Therefore, there is not a serious threat in that direction. 1 believe that, subject to what the Minister has to say, it will be good to give some thought to this area. I do not believe that the fears expressed are fully justified although I understand them.
Baroness Hayman: We have had an extremely useful debate about an area of this legislation which is of great importance to all who have considered the issues concerning professional self-regulation. At the

1837
beginning I assure the noble Lord, Lord Kilpatrick of Kincraig, that there is no sinister motive surrounding "the regulation of the professions" as set out in the Explanatory Notes rather than professional self-regulation. I hope that I have made it absolutely clear on a number of occasions that the primary purpose of the Government is the protection of the public. As has been eloquently expressed this afternoon, we believe that with these professions the public has been in the past, and will continue to be, best protected by effective self-regulation of the professions.
The purpose of bringing forward these proposals is not in any way either to dismantle professional self-regulation or undermine it. I feel a little bruised occasionally. The point has been made many times in the debate today about the pressure from the professions themselves regarding the frustration they have felt at being unable to amend the provisions concerning professional self-regulation. There are concerns that we may not have drafted the legislation correctly. That is usually expressed first. Then there is a kind of throwaway line that the need to do that is recognised and that it is not desired to stand in the way of the general principle.
Perhaps I may put the matter the other way round. It is in everyone's interest to get on with the job of strengthening professional self-regulation and the order-making powers are brought forward in order to achieve that, and not for any sinister motive. On that basis, I hope there has not been produced the despondency and distrust to which the noble Earl referred. Some people will be glad that they will be nearer to getting on with the job that needs to be done in terms of providing a more satisfactory framework for professional self-regulation.
I was looking at the terms in which the professions supplementary to medicine can deal with individual members. They have to look at the conduct of individual members and see whether there has been,
"infamous conduct in any professional respect".
I am not sure that that is the most appropriate way of looking at "fitness to practise" issues as we approach the 21st century. There are a whole raft of areas in relation to protection of title about which we have talked at great length today where those proposals will be of absolute benefit. To be more conciliatory, I was particularly grateful to my noble friends Lord Desai and Lord Peston for bringing economists into the debate. It would unite the whole Committee to agree that the public deserve to be afforded some protection from the profession of economists who are as capable as anyone else discussed tonight of doing harm.
At Second Reading I explained the broad thrust of our policy regarding the order-making power. We are seeking to provide a mechanism that will enable us to modernise and strengthen the existing systems of professional self regulation. We intend to work with the professions to ensure that those systems are more open, responsive and publicly accountable. A number of proposals are already on the table for the use of the power. The replacement of the Professions Supplementary to Medicine Act and the Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Act are two such proposals. But the other professions also have changes
1838
that they wish to make. Those have been alluded to today. The dentists, the professions supplementary to medicine and the pharmacists are anxious to make progress. The order-making power must therefore be of sufficient scope to ensure that the differing needs of each profession can be met. That is sometimes where difficulty arises. One professional group looks at the provisions as they stand and feels that they are wider than they want. But it does not look across the whole span of what we need to do.
We recognise—as I hope I have made clear throughout our debate—that there need to be safeguards. The Bill currently contains a number of important safeguards which have been widely welcomed. I have mentioned too the procedural requirements around consultation and affirmative procedures which we intend to strengthen in the light of the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane, will accept that these are not just reassurances or empty words; they are government proposals to bring forward amendments that will be on the face of the Bill.
There is also the provision that the main regulatory bodies cannot be abolished—with the exception of the CPSM, and soon the UKCC, for the reasons I explained—and I shall come later to the safeguards that we must introduce for those successor bodies. I take the point that they should not be left in limbo but should be allowed the same protection as the bodies that will be ongoing. The four functions which we believe are at the heart of professional self-regulation—the keeping of the register, the setting of standards of education for entry into the profession, the provision of guidance on standards of professional conduct and fitness to practise procedures—cannot be removed from professional regulatory bodies by order.
We therefore have clear limitations on the order-making power already on the face of the Bill. But, as I said at Second Reading, we are seeking to do something which we believe to be in the interests of the professions themselves as well as in the interests of patients. And if there are ways in which we can improve the balance which needs to be struck in these provisions—of ensuring sufficient scope to make the changes that need to be made and providing appropriate safeguards—then we would consider them carefully and constructively.
That is the light in which I have listened to the debate. Perhaps I can therefore turn to a number of different issues which have been raised. The Committee will understand that the changes that we may bring forward will need to be drafted not necessarily in the way that they are drafted in specific amendments.
I turn first to the issue of lay membership. We received representations from some of the statutory regulatory bodies about their concerns that the order-making power might be used to impose a majority of lay members on the bodies. My honourable friend the Minister of State for Health and I wrote to the regulatory bodies to reassure them that,
"We welcome the moves of some Councils to increase lay membership and improve accountability to the public and would want to see the power used for such changes quite soon. We would not, however, wish to impose a lay majority".

1839
We understand the great importance attached by the regulatory bodies to the fact that they are part of the system of professional self-regulation. It is clear that one of the main advantages of such a system is that there is a large measure of professional knowledge and experience in the membership of the body, leavened by a good proportion of lay involvement. As has been pointed out, the GMC, in the past couple of years, increased the proportion of lay members to 25 per cent. while the Medical Act still requires a majority of members to be elected by doctors on the medical register from those on the medical register.
It is equally important that self-regulation should not operate to the exclusion of perspectives other than those of the profession concerned. The presence of lay members on regulatory bodies and committees serves many functions. It provides an opportunity to involve people with different expertise and experience. It also ensures that professional regulatory bodies do not operate in isolation from developments and changes in other parts of the professional world or society at large.
The point was made that the climate in which professional self-regulation takes place today is very different from the climate in which some of the original legislation was passed. Perhaps most importantly, lay involvement reinforces and provides a visible demonstration of bodies' commitment to regulation which places the public interest—be it that of individual patients or the public at large—above those of the profession itself or of its individual members.
I know that the General Dental Council wishes to increase its lay membership from six to 12 and that the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain consulted on proposals which will alter the composition of its statutory disciplinary committees while ensuring that there continues to be a strong lay element. We are sympathetic to the spirit of the amendments tabled on this issue. We do not wish to impose a lay majority. I shall therefore consider placing this commitment on the face of the Bill. I should like to consider the issues raised in this debate and bring forward proposals.
I turn now to the issue of penalties and the amendment which seeks to ensure that there is no reduction of penalties. I applaud the sentiment behind the amendment. We need to give patients effective protection from charlatans. There will be little protection afforded if protection of title is not backed up by the possible imposition of a penalty. I can assure the Committee that the Government have no intention of weakening the deterrent against potential abuse. However, for a criminal offence, two elements determine the penalty which may be imposed. One is the maximum level on the standard scale at which a fine may be levied. The other is the actual amount that is attached to each level as set out in the standard scale. The standard scale applies to all criminal offences, not just those in respect of professional self-regulation. The proposed amendment would limit any subsequent review of penalties and while, as I said, we have no intention of weakening the deterrents available in this field, given the integration with Home Office
1840
responsibility on other criminal penalties, it would be wrong to be prescriptive on the face of the Bill on this issue.
I turn to the role of the Privy Council. I understand that many of the professions attach great importance to their accountability to and relationship with the Privy Council. There are many matters that at present require the approval of the Privy Council; for instance, the making of rules for fitness to practise committees. We are happy to see those accountability arrangements for the existing regulatory bodies continue.
In respect of new and replacement organisations, I think it is right that their lines of accountability should be fully explored through consultation at the time they are set up. The Government have given a commitment in relationship to the CPSM, for example, to address this issue as part of the discussions with the professions on the constitution of its successor body. We would nevertheless expect strong justification for change where the present arrangements can be shown to have worked well.
I should point out that this is not the only model that can work well. The UKCC is accountable not to the Privy Council but to the Secretary of State and that accountability relationship has been very effective. I have heard the concerns which have been voiced today, however, particularly in relation to the professions allied to medicine. It would perhaps be helpful to say that when we do consult on the replacement body for the CPSM we intend to do so on the basis of retaining accountability to the Privy Council for any such successor body.
We have argued thus far for avoiding placing this sort of detail on the face of the Bill but, given the strength of feeling that has been expressed this evening, I would be grateful if the Committee allowed me to consider the matter further and to undertake that I would he willing to bring forward an appropriate amendment, if it is possible to formulate one—and I believe that there are some difficulties in the drafting here—which preserves the role of the Privy Council in respect of the existing regulatory bodies.
I turn now to the transfer of functions from the regulatory bodies. I have already made clear our intention to ensure an appropriate balance between flexibility and safeguards. I am grateful for the contributions to this debate in assessing whether we have struck the balance appropriately in the Bill as currently drafted. I take the point that the nuances may not have been perfect in original drafting. One of the benefits of introducing a Bill in your Lordships' House is that we have the opportunity to go into this sort of detail and to look at ways in which it can be improved. I hope that this will not be seen as backtracking or sinister motives, but as a genuine attempt to get that balance right.
On the issue of determining cases, the Government remain concerned about poorly performing doctors and other professionals and are considering the best way forward on a whole range of issues arising from handling doctors' performance in particular. This includes identifying poor performance and dealing with

1841
it, either within or outside the disciplinary procedures as appropriate. We consider that the role of the statutory regulatory bodies in administering the procedures relating to misconduct, unfitness to practise and similar issues is a fundamental matter that may need to be modernised: but we are clear that, if professional self-regulation means anything, the profession's regulatory body should determine individual cases and we have no intention whatsoever of removing this function from the regulatory bodies.
I am sure that the phrase "administering procedures" in paragraph 8(2)(d) of Schedule 3 also includes the determining of individual cases. On that basis I believe that that amendment is unnecessary. I hope that explains our position and will give some reassurance to the noble Lord, Lord Walton, that it is not necessary to press his amendment on this particular issue.
In respect of Amendment No. 211, which adds the functions of determining fees and continuing professional development to the list of fundamentals, I can assure the Committee that the Government are fully committed to encouraging and promoting continuing professional education and development. Indeed, the encouragement of life-long learning is one of the Government's key objectives across the board, not only in the field of health and healthcare and not only for the professions, although of course it is of key importance for the professions.
The independence of the statutory regulatory bodies from government interference in the minutiae of their workings is understandably important to them. Financial matters give cause for much debate in the medical profession especially, and the freedom to set registrants' fees is an important matter for all professions if they are to maintain their financial viability. It is not the Government's intention to wrest control of bodies' financial arrangements from them, and I can say categorically that we would not be using the order-making power so to do. I do not believe, however, that it is an issue so fundamental that it is appropriate to place this level of detail on the face of the Bill.
We have said that there are four fundamental functions which are essential to what we understand as professional self-regulation: keeping the register; setting the standards of education for entry into the profession; the provision of guidance on standards of professional conduct, and fitness to practise procedures. We believe that we have these essential functions, which need to be protected, right and we believe that they should be maintained.
The amendment of the definition of a regulatory body to include its committees raises a number of important issues, when taken together with the other amendments. It would, for example, prevent the abolition of any committee of any of the regulatory bodies. This will need careful thought. While the Government have no wish for a power which permits the removal by order of functions which are central and necessary for proper regulation of the professions, we are equally concerned to ensure that the power we do take is flexible enough to deal with as yet unforeseen developments. In this particular case, I am anxious that we should not end up
1842
with a position which prevents an order being used to bring forward proposals for the statutory regulatory bodies to modernise or rationalise existing committee structures. I am therefore of the view that this amendment would make the order-making powers unnecessarily inflexible.
I should like now to deal with the issue raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, and to reassure her that there can be no separate regulation of the currently regulated health professions in Scotland. It is a reserved matter, subject to the caveats about new professions which I made earlier. This gives the power to the UK Government to confer functions on the Scottish Ministers, if it were felt appropriate. There are analogies now in the national boards for nurses, midwives and health visitors. I hope I have assured her, however, that there is not the possibility of a dual structure.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I thank the noble Baroness very much for that. The position is perhaps a little more complicated, and it might be that her colleague the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, will be able to look at it from the point of view of the Scottish Office and write to me. I could then pass that on to the British Medical Association. Would that be in order?
Baroness Hayman: That would be extremely helpful, and I will ensure that the noble Baroness receives a letter on that point.
I come now to what seems to be the most important issue: that of whether any of the four fundamental functions that I have described can be removed from the existing regulatory bodies. I have listened very carefully to the arguments on this point. I understand the concerns that have been expressed, particularly by those who are proposing these amendments. I would like to reassure them that it has never been our intention to transfer the fundamental functions of the regulatory bodies to any government-appointed puppet body; nor has it been our intention to transfer such functions to representative bodies or trade unions such as the BMA, the RCN or the BDA. If the drafting allows for that, then it is inadvertence rather than malice that is to blame.
We sought to ensure that there was the flexibility to transfer functions from one professional regulatory body to another professional regulatory body, should it he appropriate to do so at some point in the future. In the light of the points which have been raised this evening and my discussions with the various regulatory bodies, however, it seems that the balance of which I spoke earlier, and for which we are aiming, has not quite been achieved in paragraph 8(1) of Schedule 3 to the Bill. There is a concern that the removal of any one of the four fundamental functions from the main regulatory body of the profession through the use of the order-making power would extend the scope of the Bill too far. Therefore, I shall bring forward an amendment at Report stage to ensure that the order-making power does not encompass such a step.
As we intend that the Professions Supplementary to Medicine Act 1960 and the Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Act 1997 should be repealed under this

1843
Bill, special provision will be needed in the case of the CPSM and the UKCC. I can assure the Committee that any successor bodies should have the same protection of functions as that reserved to the existing regulatory bodies. We will be putting the same safeguards on the face of the Bill for the successor bodies to the CPSM and the UKCC.
I hope that the Committee will feel that we have listened carefully to the concerns expressed both outside the Chamber and in today's debate. I trust that noble Lords will understand that we have tried very hard to ensure a balance that perhaps reflects more accurately our recognition of concern that we should ensure enough flexibility to be able to get on with doing what is agreed to be necessary but that we should not leave the possibility of undermining the structure of professional self-regulation which is valued not only by the professions but also by the Government. On the basis of the assurances I have given, which will be backed up by amendments I shall bring forward at the next stage, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Walton, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Walton of Detchant: In many respects this has been an exceptional debate. It has been inspiring in many ways and, certainly for me and, I am sure, for others, heartwarming and immensely interesting. I pay an exceptionally warm tribute to the Minister for the very careful, well-judged and, if I may say so, co-operative, constructive and courteous way in which she responded to our concerns. I pay also special tribute to my noble friends Lord Kilpatrick and Lady McFarlane, and to all of those Members of the Committee who have spoken. I assure the Minister that in tabling the amendments we recognised the good will of the Government and the fact that they had no intention of dismantling the present self-regulatory mechanisms which I genuinely believe have served the professions, and especially the public and patients, very well over many years. However, these are mechanisms in need of modification. The establishment of order-making powers will enable long-awaited changes to be made.
In passing, I should like to tell the noble Lord, Lord Desai, of a recent opinion poll which showed that 92 per cent. of the public trust their doctors. Politicians came out at about 30 per cent. and journalists at about 15 per cent. I do not remember where economists came.
I should point out to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that I have had several approaches in this respect, although I have not heard from the noble Lord, Lord Christopher. I was not aware that he had become a lay member of the GMC after my presidency ended. However, I have had several approaches from existing lay members of the GMC saying how much they wish to see the powers changed by order-making but how much they also wish to see the fundamental structure of the council's functions preserved.
I am sorry to learn that the lay membership of the noble Lord, Lord Christopher, ended on grounds of age. As a former trade union leader, he must have felt a little like the trade union leader who had been in hospital and
1844
received a letter from his executive committee wishing him a speedy recovery by nine votes to six, with five abstentions.
We have had an extremely useful debate. I was surprised to learn from the Minister that, under the Professions Supplementary to Medicine Act, the term "infamous conduct in a professional respect" is still used. That was introduced, on the advice of Lord Justice Lopes, into the medical Acts in the 1890s. However, it was subsequently amended to "serious professional misconduct", which is the term most recently used. I am surprised that that archaic term still persists; I am sure that it needs to be changed.
The Minister said a great deal about the safeguards she proposes to introduce into the Bill by government amendments at Report stage. I also seem to recall that she said the word "regulatory" might well replace the word "professional" and that the issue of transfer of powers, about which we have been very concerned, will be dealt with by way of amendment. Moreover, I understand that the very important question of the interposition of the Privy Council between the self-regulatory bodies and government will be dealt with on Report. Indeed, I believe we have received a number of assurances which the professions and all those involved in self-regulation will regard as being most welcome. In the light of those assurances, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 203 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Strabolgi): I should point out to the Committee that if Amendment No. 204 is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 205.
[Amendment No. 204 not moved.]
Lord Monkswell Lord Monkswell moved Amendment No. 205:
Page 52, line 3, at end insert ("nor abolish that part of the register continued by section 7(1) of the Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Act 1997 which relates to midwives").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 212, which stands in my name and also the names of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane, and the noble Earl, Lord Howe.
The amendments are by way of a marker to show our respect for midwives—a respect felt by all sides of the Committee and demonstrated by the names of the supporters. I pay tribute to the Royal College of Midwives, which has provided invaluable advice.
Midwives are a separate and distinct professional group; in fact, one of the oldest professions serving humankind. They provide invaluable services to expectant mothers at the time of birth and ensure the good health of both mothers and babies. In the context of this debate, midwifery is a separate and distinct profession from nursing. Therefore, Amendment No. 205 seeks to ensure that there will continue to be a separate and distinct register of midwives.
Amendment No. 212 is a little more complicated. My understanding of the Government's proposals in this part of the Bill—namely, Clause 47 and Schedule 3—is that the order-making power to vary the legislation affecting the self-regulation of the healthcare professions will be brought into play when the professions approach government with proposals for change that previously would have required primary legislation. However, in the cases of nurses, midwives and health visitors, the Government have initiated a review and we have the report of J. M. Consulting before us. The report recommends a new council of nursing and midwifery with equal representation of nurses and midwives on the basis that health visitors are a specialist branch of nursing and would be represented by the nursing side, while midwives as a distinct profession—not all of whom are nurses—would be represented by the midwives side.
However, in their response to the report the Government suggest that nurses, health visitors and midwives should be represented equally on the new council. This would mean midwives being a minority. There is a feeling that their professional integrity and distinctiveness would be subsumed over time. Therefore, Amendment No. 212 seeks to ensure that safeguards are written into the Bill to protect the professional integrity of midwives and ensure effective self-regulation of their profession.
Although these amendments are presented in good faith, I accept that there are drafting flaws. However, they run counter to the general thrust of the Bill in trying to introduce specific details. I advise the Minister at this stage that they are probing amendments. However, I hope she can provide assurances to midwives, and those of us who are keen supporters of midwives, that their professional integrity is recognised and that their fears that their professional self-regulation may be weakened will be allayed. I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: I speak briefly but emphatically in support of the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, in putting forward these amendments. The Minister has made us aware of discussions and consultations that have yet to take place. I certainly do not wish to pre-empt them. If the Government have not yet taken a view on these matters, so much the better. It would be helpful if the Minister can at least indicate the state of thinking in this area. As the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, made clear, one of the problems is that the recommendations of J. M. Consulting in respect of health visitors have not been accepted by the Government, and therefore in a sense the balance on the new body is not to the liking of midwives.
As regards the retention of the midwifery committee, I am not sure what the Government's thinking is. But clearly midwives feel strongly that it must be retained. We have talked about control over education, training and standards of practice. Midwives believe that they constitute a separate profession and that they are best regulated by a committee under the overall council, as the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, made clear. The
1846
retention of the midwifery register, if nothing else, goes absolutely to the heart of the matter. Midwives feel strongly that it should be retained.
I realise that it is easy to view many of the debates we have had as representing the professions pleading their own self-interest. However, I do not believe this is simply a matter of self-interest. I believe it is a matter of public interest. I have a huge regard for the midwifery profession, not least because my wife has been a consumer of their services in the past year. We need to maintain standards in this area. We do not want midwives to be subsumed into the generality of a much bigger profession. That must be seen as a threat to them. I hope that the concerns of midwives will be accommodated in the course of the discussions which the Government will pursue.
Earl Howe: I too wish to support these amendments. With the prospect of the repeal of the Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Act 1997, I think it is terribly important that safeguards are put in place to protect the essential features of the regulatory regime for midwives. This Bill provides an ideal opportunity to do so. Midwives are the third largest professional group in medicine. They can diagnose, prescribe for, and treat a number of specific conditions without reference to a GP, and as a result they are a profession which lays particular emphasis on training and continuous professional development. It would be most unsatisfactory if there were ever any confusion or uncertainty over which education and practice issues were relevant to midwifery.
There is absolute unanimity in the profession about wanting to see acknowledgement of midwifery having control over its own professional destiny and in particular its own education and practice. That can really only be done by strengthening the representation of midwifery on the central council. Whether you achieve that by having a separate midwifery committee, or by having equal representation of nurses and midwives on the council, is open to legitimate debate. I hope that the Minister will at least be receptive to the thrust of these amendments.
Baroness McFarlane of Llandaff: I too wish to speak to the two amendments which bear my name. I regard them as probing amendments because I believe they may well be overtaken when we arrive at a firmer resolution of what is envisaged for the successor body to the UKCC. I have tried to do the arithmetic with regard to the successor body with perhaps 24 members, a third of whom will be lay members, with representatives from four countries. I do not know whether the Minister is prepared to do the arithmetic and divide up the successor council, rather like Solomon wanting to divide the baby between the two ladies. She will need the wisdom of Solomon in this regard. We need to be careful that the particular professional expertise of midwives is guarded. We have already heard that they undertake considerable independent clinical decision-making.
Baroness Hayman: Our brief debate on this issue is analogous to the debate we had on chiropody and

1847
podiatry. We are debating the contribution of important professional groups. In this Bill we establish an enabling structure to allow successor bodies to be put in place. I cannot give the Committee chapter and verse on every detail of that successor body. However, the Government fully understand and share the aims that have been expressed of preserving the strong identity of midwifery as a separate profession within a joint regulatory structure. Midwives have been at the forefront of developing services which are more focused on what patients want and need. They rightly expect to have a strong and decisive voice in the regulation of their own profession. That is why we made clear in our response to the recent review of the Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Act that any proposals we put forward for legislation to replace that Act will provide for the separate registration of midwives. The new council will have a duty to make rules on midwifery practices. There will be equality of elected membership of the council between the professions. However, I shall not follow the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane, into the judgment of Solomon which, as she rightly says, we may need as regards the allocation of places on the council. Perhaps most importantly, the structure and rules for the committees should ensure that midwives cannot be outvoted by the other professions on matters solely affecting midwifery. That is an extremely important point, as indeed is the recommendation, which we support, that the council should create a post of director of midwifery regulation.
As I have said many times today, it is our intention to repeal the whole of the 1997 Act and abolish the UKCC. We shall bring forward an amendment to enable this. We intend to consult fully on the detailed proposals for the replacement legislation. As the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, recognised, that process has started. It would be wrong, through this amendment or through any comments I make on further detail, to pre-empt that consultation. However, I am happy to repeat the commitment that we shall not bring the repeal of the Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Act into effect until we are ready to put in place a new scheme that commands public and professional confidence. We shall consult with each of the professional groups involved to ensure that we strike the right balance between the multi-professional overall body and the representation of individual professions, particularly the midwives, in areas relating to their own practice. I hope this provides some reassurance to the noble Lord.
Lord Monkswell: I thank everyone who has taken part in the debate on this amendment. I thank particularly my noble friend the Minister. I think we are all reassured by the specific assurances she has given from the Front Bench. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 206 to 213 not moved.]
Baroness Wilcox Baroness Wilcox moved Amendment No. 214:
Page 52, line 20, at end insert (", and
(c) consult patients and carers.").
The noble Baroness said: In moving the amendment I must declare an interest. I am the president of the National Federation of Consumer Groups. Having been involved in the consumer representation world over a number of years, I have taken a considerable interest in the way the professions organise themselves. In this House I raised the issue of professional rules during the passage of the Competition Bill in the previous Session. Professions perform important services for us all. This is particularly so in the field of healthcare where the professions try to keep us healthy, look after us and treat us when we are ill. But by their very nature professions can have considerable power over those to whom they provide a service. And we all know that things can go wrong, sometimes disastrously so.
Regulation of the professions is therefore important for the consumers of their services. In healthcare, bodies such as the General Medical Council, the General Dental Council and the General Osteopathic Council provide statutory self-regulation, as we have heard so well expressed today. Those who use the services of the professionals need to be confident that they are adequately trained; that they operate to minimal standards of competence; that clients have somewhere to go if things go wrong; and that appropriate disciplinary action is taken if a member of the profession is found guilty of misconduct.
Each profession is regulated under a law specific to it. This has led to anomalies developing between different professions, which everyone acknowledges need rectifying. For example, the General Medical Council has powers to act where doctors' performance is not up to standard, while the General Dental Council does not have such powers. Some councils have powers to act where the health of a professional is causing poor performance; others do not. And, worryingly, many professions—psychologists, counsellors, psychotherapists and many working in complementary therapies—have no statutory regulation at all.
Changes to these schemes currently require primary legislation. As we all know, relying on spaces in the legislative timetable is a somewhat precarious and inflexible process. The provisions in the Bill to enable these changes to be made through an order rather than primary legislation are very welcome.
My amendment, which is supported by the National Consumer Council and other organisations within the Patients' Forum, relates to the process of making the order. Paragraph 9 of Schedule 3 requires the Secretary of State for Health to lay a draft order before Parliament. He is required to publish the draft order and consult professional bodies about the draft. The purpose of my amendment is to require the Secretary of State to consult also with users and carers as well as the professions. The regulation of professionals has implications for the users of their services and any changes must command their confidence.
In support of my case, perhaps I may quote what the Government said in the White Paper, The new NHS Modern Dependable:
"The Government will continue to work with the professions, the regulatory bodies, the NHS and patient representative groups to strengthen the existing systems of … self-regulation by ensuring that they are open, responsive and publicly accountable".
I believe that my amendment is in the spirit of that very welcome statement. Professional self-regulation is not just about the professions but about the experiences and needs of patients and carers too. They have an important view. Statutory provision for consultation should include them on the same basis as the professionals. I beg to move.
Baroness Pitkeathley: I rise to support the spirit of the amendment. It is in accord with the huge amount of progress that has been made in recent years in making the patient, the user and the carer infinitely more central to healthcare provision than has hitherto been the case. The amendment is very much in that spirit in recognising that the experience of the patient and the carer should be important to all the professional deliverers of that service.
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Hayman: I am grateful to both noble Baronesses who have spoken for allowing me the opportunity to say that, in a sense, this is the counterweight to some of the discussions we had earlier and a recognition that we should not underestimate the importance of the views of those who are at the receiving end of professional services. Opening up government and public services and making them more responsive to the public and public service users' views is a key theme for the Government. We have made our commitment clear in the White Paper, as the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, pointed out. The Government are working to attain more effective public and user input into the development of policies. For instance, they have developed with the help of some national patient organisations a set of principles to follow involving user organisations in the development of health service policies. They have also established a standing advisory group for consumer involvement in research and development which includes user-group representatives to advise on the best way to involve consumers more fully in the department's research programmes. In the White Paper and in our discussion document A First Class Service we made it clear that we expected the statutory regulatory bodies to work in partnership with the Government, the NHS and patient representative groups to strengthen the existing systems of professional self-regulation by ensuring that they are open, responsive and publicly accountable.
As we have said many times this afternoon, protection of patients is at the heart of professional self-regulation. It is important that we consult with patient representative bodies on draft orders and it is certainly our intention so to do. There are, of course, a number of interested bodies and parties which should be
1850
consulted on a draft order. We will work closely with them in developing those orders and consult fully according to the processes I described earlier today.
As ever, we have returned to a recurring theme of some of the Committee's debates—how we avoid listing the people to be consulted in any set of circumstances and the dangers of making that list exclusive. However, I suspect that we have been too paring in the provisions in this regard. We have made it clear that there is a responsibility to consult the professions. Equally, we should make the necessity of consulting patient representatives clear on the face of the Bill. If it is possible to draw up something suitable, and if the noble Baroness would be content, I should like to give some further thought to this matter and see whether at some stage in the further progress of the Bill we can bring forward a suitable amendment.
Baroness Wilcox: I am grateful to the Minister for that very heartening response. I should like also to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, for supporting the amendment. It is only recently that she represented so well the country's carers. I am very happy to have her support at this time.
Given what the Minister has said, of course I will be happy to withdraw my amendment at this time. I look forward at the next stage to hearing what she has managed to come up with to fulfil all my dreams. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 215 to 217 not moved.]
Schedule 3 agreed to.
Clauses 48 to 50 agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Amendments of enactments]:
Lord Harris of Haringey Lord Harris of Haringey moved Amendment No. 217A:
Page 62, leave out lines 22 and 23.
The noble Lord said: This is unashamedly a probing amendment. I expect that we shall be told later that it goes to the heart of the Bill in a deeply unhelpful way in that it deals with the question of the abolition of extra-contractual referrals. The amendment would mean that patients whose quality of life is at risk because of severe pain or loss of mobility or livelihood, would still have the option of being referred outside local service agreements between health authorities and trusts, and that trusts could be reimbursed for treating such patients.
Before the introduction of the internal market by the previous government, GPs were free to refer patients to any NHS consultant anywhere in the country. It was genuinely a National Health Service. The 1990 Act introduced a two-tier system. We were assured at the time that somehow that increased patient choice. The reality was that it restricted patient choice, because there was less of an opportunity for patients to discuss with their GPs the precise referral that would be most appropriate for their individual circumstances.
Under the present arrangements for 40 per cent. of the population GP referrals are restricted by a mechanism known as extra-contractual referrals. It is the mechanism by which trusts are reimbursed if they treat

1851
patients referred outside health authority contracts by non-fundholding GPs. The system has been extremely complicated, poorly explained, and often poorly funded. However, it meant that there was an appropriate mechanism which allowed many thousands of patients to receive timely and/or specifically appropriate treatment for their needs when they were faced with a rare or complicated illness.
My understanding of the Bill as currently drafted is that it proposes to replace extra-contractual referrals with a new system to be known as out of area treatments (OATS) by means of secondary legislation. It is clear from the Government's consultative paper, The new NHS: guidance on out of area treatment, that the new system will mean a dramatic reduction in informed choice for patients. That will clearly affect a number of groups of patients, particularly elderly people whose quality of life may be severely affected by pain and mobility, some of whom currently face waiting times of three-and-a-half years for admission to hospital for operations such as hip and knee replacement or cataract removal; or those patients whose lives are at risk because they are on long waiting lists; or patients who have good reason to want to be referred to a consultant or a centre which specialises in a rare or complicated illness not covered by the new specialised commissioning arrangements.
The purpose of the amendment is to examine how we can ensure that the needs of those patients are met, that there is flexibility and that we can perhaps return to a system where there is genuine patient choice exercised by dialogue and partnership between the GP and the individual patient concerned. I beg to move.
Baroness Hayman: I am grateful to my noble friend for the way in which he introduced the amendment, and for his recognition that, were it to be accepted, it would set in tablets of stone the current arrangements for extra-contractual referrals. I believe that he accepts that the current arrangements are not satisfactory and cause difficulties for patients, and I urge him not to press the amendment. In doing so, I am happy to explain in rather more detail the arrangements that we are putting in place to replace extra-contractual referrals.
Extra-contractual referrals were "one-off' arrangements whereby an NHS trust provided care for someone and that care was not covered by a contract with the patient's health authority. We made a clear commitment to abolish the internal market and to replace it with modern arrangements founded on the principles of co-operation and partnership.
In the ECR system, individual patients became the subject of sometimes heated debate between GPs, NHS trusts and health authorities about whether they were covered by a "contract" and, if not, whether their care would be paid for. Sadly, the focus was sometimes not on building high quality services for patients, which is our clear purpose, but rather on opportunity and "playing the market". The abolition of ECRs signals a clear end to the unnecessary anxiety for patients and the excessive bureaucracy that symbolised the internal market.
1852
The new arrangements for commissioning patient services will ensure that all referrals to hospitals are covered by either the new long-term service agreements or the new arrangements for access to specialist services. The new arrangements are intended to strike a balance between coherent planning for service development and responsiveness to individual needs.
Health authorities and their shadow PCGs, NHS trusts and clinicians, are already putting a great deal of effort into shaping plans for their local health service through the local health improvement programmes. It is our intention that long-term service agreements should be developed through dialogue between the clinicians concerned and with important input from users. More sensitive commissioning will ensure that the new arrangements will also be able to take account of the views of users.
New arrangements for planning and commissioning specialist services, which were often the cause of ECRs, are also being developed. Attempting to support complex services through funding from ad hoc ECRs was never the way to secure good quality patient services. That is why, in The new NHS, we charged the regional offices of the NHS Executive with ensuring that better arrangements are in place, based on clear, long-term service agreements for these services to which all concerned are committed. These are intended both to promote fair access for patients and to support clinical staff in developing the most suitable and effective care. Where there are consistent patterns of referrals to a service, whether a specialised service or more locally, it is right that that should be reflected through service agreements. It has already been possible to build some 90 per cent. of what were ECRs into service agreements for the future.
However, there are cases that do not fit that pattern—emergencies away from home, or a rare condition needing specialist treatment. Such cases will be covered by the new arrangements for out of area treatments. Where a hospital receives referrals of this sort, that pattern will be reflected in the allocation of the health authority which is its main commissioner, and that health authority will build this funding into its own service agreement with the hospital to cover these ad hoc cases. That will be achieved by directions.
OATs will be within service agreements but not constrained by them and the referring health authority will not be constrained by past spending patterns. OAT patients will be treated under the same agreement and on exactly the same basis as the main commissioner's other patients. They will be treated according to clinical priority and covered by the standards for quality and effectiveness specified in the main commissioners service agreement. Freedom to refer will be enhanced through OATs as prior approval will not be required as was the case with ECRs.
There will be no more quibbling as to whether or not patients are covered by "contracts", and no more chasing invoices around the system. The freedom of GPs to refer and the freedom of trust clinicians to admit according to clinical priority within the overall resources available to them are safeguarded.

1853
Allowing ECRs to continue, as the amendment proposes, would mean letting patients continue to be piggy-in-the-middle while health service managers argue about who will pay. I hope that the former provisions enabling ECRs to continue are now clearly redundant, and that my noble friend will feel reassured that we have in place better arrangements to replace them.
Lord Harris of Haringey: I am grateful to my noble friend for her reply. The statement that there will be no requirement for prior agreement before an out of area treatment is approved is extremely welcome, as is the expectation that there will be greater flexibility. I shall need to read with some care the precise mechanism that my noble friend describes. I am not sure that I fully understand how it would work for a patient sitting on the opposite side of the table to the GP who is making the referral. However, on the basis of the reassurances given, I am happy at this stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Harris of Haringey Lord Harris of Haringey moved Amendment No. 218:
Page 63, line 8, at end insert—
("( ) In section 15 (information and consultation)—

(a) for subsection (IA) there is substituted—

"(1A) Subsection (1B) applies where information has been obtained by a Commissioner or any of his officers in the course of or for the purposes of an investigation which is to the effect that a person is likely to constitute a threat to the health or safety of patients.", and

(b)in subsection (1B), omit the words following "patients".").

The noble Lord said: This amendment relates to a very different topic. It seeks to give the Health Service Commissioner (the ombudsman) greater discretion to pass directly to other bodies concerns arising from individual complaints to him where he judges that there may be a risk to the health or safety of patients.
The bodies to which he might pass on such concerns include the professional regulatory bodies which we have spent so much time this afternoon discussing, such as the General Medical Council, the General Dental Council, and the UK Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting, as well as the future commission for health improvement which the Bill seeks to establish.
The Committee may be surprised to learn that the present wording of the Health Service Commissioners Act 1993 (as amended) severely restricts the circumstances in which the ombudsman may disclose, say to the General Medical Council, concerns arising from a complaint to him. He may, for example, not do so if he decides not to investigate the complaint which gave rise to the concern, or if the matter of concern falls to be disclosed in one of his reports. The result is that the ombudsman has less scope to bring concerns to the GMC or other such bodies than has a private citizen. My amendment seeks to put that right.
I do not believe that this amendment will change current government policy about the ombudsman's powers. However, it removes an undesirable effect—quite possibly an unintended effect—of the current wording of the legislation. The deficiency in the present legislation is not an academic point. Since 1996 the ombudsman has had powers to consider complaints about the exercise of clinical judgment. The ombudsman tells me that on several occasions he has had worries, arising from individual complaints to him, about the actions of individual doctors who were still practising. He wanted to tell the GMC about them as soon as possible, but had to resort to intermediaries to do so. Clearly, that cannot be right or sensible.
I trust that I do not need to labour the arguments to persuade the Committee that the amendment is in the interests of patients. I am motivated by my 12 years' experience as director of the Association of Community Health Councils. It is quite unacceptable for patients if the ombudsman is worried that their doctor might pose a risk to their health or safety, or indeed to other patients, but is not in a position to tell the GMC directly. I understand that recent sad cases underline that we cannot be complacent about the present situation. We must ensure that concerns can be acted upon speedily.
The ombudsman has sought my support in proposing this amendment, and I am glad to give it. He has also written on the matter to the Select Committee on Public Administration in another place and members of the committee have questioned government witnesses about it. The amendment also has the strong support of the current president of the General Medical Council, Sir Donald Irvine. I notice that the noble double act, the former presidents of the General Medical Council, is no longer here. Sir Donald Irvine has written to the ombudsman saying:
"I know that you see cases where the specific circumstances of the particular matters you are investigating cause you to have serious concerns about the general standard of a doctor's professional skills, knowledge or attitudes. It must be in the public interest for you to be able to draw those concerns to our attention, so that they can be properly investigated under our performance procedures".
A similar letter has been sent to the ombudsman by the president of the General Dental Council, saying:
"we would support the removal of harriers to appropriate exchange of information where the public is potentially at risk. Whilst clearly this is an area where proper thought must be given to appropriate safeguards, nevertheless, we would have no difficulty in your discretion in this area"—
that is the ombudsman's area-
"being less circumscribed".
The amendment concerns the safety of patients and is supported by the medical profession's regulatory body and by the dental profession's regulatory body. It gives wide discretion to the ombudsman, but I suppose that is what an ombudsman is for. I am confident that the Committee will agree that the public interest is best served by allowing the ombudsman the wider powers sought by the amendment. I beg to move.
7 p.m.
Baroness Hayman: My noble friend has raised a very important issue. The Government are aware that

1855
the existing statutory limitations on the Health Service Commissioner in the area that he has outlined have been a matter of grave concern to the commissioner for some time. I agree with him that it is entirely right and consistent with the wide aims of our proposals for reform of the National Health Service that if the commissioner obtains information which suggests that the health or safety of patients may be at risk, he should be able to pass that information on to the appropriate authorities. Therefore, I would certainly accept the principle behind my noble friend's amendment.
However, I should point out that the Health Service Commissioner is in a delicate position. Complainants, and others who may be called on to provide information to him, do so in the expectation that it will he kept confidential. For many that is a crucial element of the commissioner's work. Of course, the health and safety of patients must be paramount. But I am sure that the Committee would agree that we need to consider carefully the balance between giving the commissioner the very wide discretion which would result from my noble friend's amendment, and the need to maintain the confidence of complainants and those complained against. Indeed, we had a slightly tangential discussion about confidentiality issues and the need to be careful about them on an earlier amendment in Committee.
We need to ensure that we get the balance right. For those reasons I cannot accept the amendment as tabled. However, as I have said, we accept the principles behind my noble friend's proposals. I shall certainly undertake to give urgent consideration to whether we can use the opportunity offered by this Bill to effect the changes in the Health Service Commissioner's powers that he and my noble friend would wish to see.
Lord Harris of Haringey: I am grateful to the Minister for her reply. While I understand the point about individual confidentiality by complainants, there must be ways by which that can be circumscribed by very clear consent being given. We have to ensure that the public interest is protected in such cases.
Clearly, the ombudsman remains concerned about the limits to his powers to make referrals in appropriate cases. While I am delighted to hear that my noble friend intends to look at this urgently, I hope that it will be possible to bring forward an amendment, suitably worded, on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedules 4 and 5 agreed to.
Clause 51 agreed to.
Clause 52 [Commencement]:
[Amendments Nos. 219 to 221 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 52 shall stand part of the Bill?
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: In the absence of this group of amendments I want to ask about the constitutional position of the Bill vis-à-vis the Scottish Parliament. Next on the Order Paper is the Water Industry Bill which is a Bill that the Scottish Parliament
1856
does not have to take up if it does not wish to. Therefore, I want to ask approximately the same question. Will the Scottish Parliament have to accept the whole of the Bill or will it be devolved unenacted as regards Scotland?
Baroness Hayman: We have dealt in general terms with the inter-relationship with the Scottish Parliament for the provisions of this Bill. We have made it clear that the Scottish proposals respect the differences in Scottish traditions and experience. The argument has been made that any change in Scottish health legislation should be left to be dealt with by the Scottish Parliament, rather than being brought before this Chamber and another place. We have explained why the Government take that view on the items that are dealt with in this Bill. It is important that we take action so that progress can be completed on areas where we are clear that progress can be made.
Of course, on 1st July Scottish Ministers will take over responsibility for functions that do not relate to reserved matters, such as professional self-regulation, with which we have been dealing this afternoon. That includes the NHS in Scotland. The Scottish Parliament will assume legislative competence for those matters on the same date. The power to make commencement orders relating to the Scottish provisions in the Bill will automatically pass to Scottish Ministers on 1st July. Any commencement orders relating to the Scottish provisions before that date would be for UK Government Ministers.
I hope that answers some of the questions of the noble Earl. My noble friend Lord Macdonald of Tradeston will be happy to give more details at a further stage of consideration, when I expect there will be a debate on some of these issues.
Clause 52 agreed to.
Clauses 53 and 54 agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.

Water Industry Bill
7.10 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
I appreciate that we have reached this business later than we had intended and I hope it does no harm for me to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, for her co-operation through the usual channels. I am afraid that matters have not worked out as we had thought, but we appreciate her co-operation nevertheless.
Although the Bill covers England, Wales and Scotland, the respective water industries operate in different ways. There are therefore separate provisions relating to England and Wales and to Scotland.
Immediately after the general election in 1997 we held a water summit and set out a 10-point action plan for a better water industry. Since then we, together with the water companies and the Office of Water Services, have made substantial progress in a number of key areas.

1857
A significant area of public concern in the water-charging field is the level of overall costs which fall on customers. It may be helpful, therefore, if I start by putting our proposals in the context of the current periodic review of water prices, which will set price limits to apply from April 2000 to 2005.
Since privatisation in 1989, customers have seen water bills in England and Wales rise by over a third in real terms. There have been significant improvements in water quality and the water environment in this time, but there is still some way to go.
We therefore want to see an ambitious programme of investment to protect our beaches and rivers, make further improvements to our drinking water and protect our precious nature conservation sites. But, at the same time, we want to ensure that hard-pressed customers are not faced with unreasonably high bills. We have given guidance to the Director-General of Water Services on the environmental and quality objectives to be achieved by the water industry in England and Wales. That involves an improvement programme, costed at between £8 billion and £8.5 billion, to be undertaken by 2005. The Director-General has confirmed that our programme could he afforded at the same time as substantial price cuts. We believe that this strikes the right balance between protecting and improving the environment and safeguarding the interests of the consumer.
The proposals before the House are designed to ensure that there is also in place a system of fair and affordable water charges, particularly for vulnerable customers, protecting public health while ensuring that water supplies are used in a sustainable way and protecting the aquatic habitat. The proposals are based on a consultation exercise carried out last year.
The Bill, as it relates to England and Wales, therefore has three key aims: The first is the prevention of disconnection for households and those providing certain vital community services. I think we would all agree that water is essential for life and health, and the Government do not believe that it can be right to deprive anyone of access to clean water because they cannot afford to pay a bill. The Bill will therefore prohibit the disconnection of people's homes and certain premises providing community services and is an important measure in protecting private and public health.
The Bill will also ensure that water companies cannot use other methods short of disconnection for depriving people of an adequate water supply in order to force them to pay a bill, such as devices which severely restrict the flow of water available to them.
The second objective is the protection of vulnerable groups. We are concerned to ensure that vulnerable groups with high essential water use are not faced with hardship when they move into a home with a water meter. So that we can ensure that this does not occur, the Bill contains a power for the Secretary of State to make regulations about the bases of charging that must be offered to certain customers. We intend to use this power to ensure that large families with low incomes and people with medical conditions requiring high water
1858
use who live in a home with a water meter are offered a bill based on average measured use rather than on their own unavoidably high use.
The third objective is promoting customer choice. At present most people—around 86 per cent. across the country—pay for their water on the basis of an unmeasured charge, usually referring to rateable value. That will continue to be the dominant form of charging for many years to come. The number of metered households is increasing steadily, however, by around 3 per cent. a year. There is an important role for measured charges to play in our water-charging system. Those paying on this basis tend to conserve water and to be more aware of the value of the resource they are using. At the same time, many customers do not wish to pay on that basis and could find their bills significantly increased were they forced to do so. Others, who would prefer to pay on the basis of a meter, find that the water company has hitherto charged up to £250 in up-front installation charges. The situation varies widely across the country, depending on the policies of the water company involved.
The Bill will put charging arrangements across the country on an even footing. It will ensure that customer choice plays a central role in the water-charging system, rather than being a footnote to it. It will give customers new rights to remain on an unmeasured basis of charging in their current home where they are using water for normal household purposes only or to pay for their water on a measured basis. To make this a real right, the Bill also ensures that companies will no longer be able to charge for the installation of a meter. So that there continues to be a basis for unmeasured charging, the Bill removes the deadline of 31st March next year for the use of rateable value in water charging.
Part I of the Bill relating to England and Wales delivers our commitment to introduce a system which provides for fair and affordable water charges, particularly for vulnerable customers, while ensuring the sustainable use of water supplies and protection of the aquatic environment.
I turn now to the Scottish provisions in Part II of the Bill, which deals with arrangements for regulating Scotland's three publicly-owned water authorities. It provides for improvement to the regulatory system by creating a water industry commissioner for Scotland who will replace the Scottish Water and Sewerage Customers Council. It will give the commissioner the general function of promoting the interests of water customers and the particular function of advising Ministers about water charges, and will create three water industry consultative committees to support the commissioner.
The need for a better system was identified in the review of the Scottish water industry carried out by the Scottish Office in 1997. That review found a consensus that the arrangements in place for regulating the water authorities had proved untenable. This reflected concern in particular about the current division of responsibility for economic regulation between the customers council and the Scottish Office. It recommended that a new professional regulator should be responsible for all

1859
aspects of economic regulation and for promoting the interests of water customers. The Bill provides for the commissioner to take on those roles.
In effect, the commissioner will therefore take over most of the existing duties of the customers' council and assume the duty of advising Scottish Ministers on water charges. He will not be a civil servant but will operate independently of government within a framework of accountability to Scottish Ministers and, through them, to the Scottish Parliament.
The Bill also establishes water industry consultative committees for each water authority. They will advise the commissioner on the customer-service performance of their respective authorities and on other issues of concern.
To the devolution question raised by the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, in relation to the previous business, by legislating now the Government are ensuring that the new Scottish Ministers will have the opportunity, should they wish it, to introduce quickly a regulatory system that is markedly better than the one in place at present. However, they will not be bound to do so. The decision to implement the legislation will be entirely a matter for them. Given the broad support that exists for the policy in Scotland, we are confident that they will wish to do so.
The provisions of this part of the Bill will greatly improve the regulation of the water industry in Scotland in the interests of all its customers and by achieving the other objectives I have outlined. I believe that the provisions of Part I will do the same for England and Wales. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill he now read a second time.—(Lord Whittv.)
7.19 p.m.
Lord Elliott of Morpeth: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for having succinctly outlined the proposals in the Bill. I should like to make some comments on the effects on the proposed legislation in England and Wales. First, I comment on the noble Lord's explanation about the disconnection powers for non-payment. I declare an interest. For 10 years I was chairman of a water company and for 14 years I was president of the Water Companies Association. Therefore, I know quite a bit about cut-offs. I assure the Minister that the water companies that I knew—and I knew them well—used the power of cut-off only as a very last resort. I am aware that in the past water companies have been heavily criticised for cutting off supply.
Those who did not pay their bills fell into three categories: first, those who believed that as water came from heaven it should not cost anything at all; secondly, those who would pay for anything only as a last resort; and, thirdly, those referred to by the noble Lord, the most vulnerable, who were on low incomes and for whom payment for water was very low on their list of priorities. As chairman of a water company, I had some very peculiar experiences. A farmer who lived close to me in the countryside telephoned me on one occasion. Having tried everything else he thought that he would contact the chairman. He accused me of being cruel to
1860
his animals. He then took his telephone to the window and opened it so that I could hear the bellowing of his dairy cows. I asked him how much he owed the company and his response was, "Just £57". He was by no means a small farmer. I told him what to do. I said that he should go the nearest branch office—I told him where it was—pay the bill, the water would be turned on immediately and he could get on with his milking. There were quite a number of people like that. However, I agree with the Minister in respect of those who fall into the vulnerable category.
Most companies had a number of flexible schemes. We cut off supply only as a very last resort. For example, there was a direct payment scheme administered by the DSS. That scheme allowed customers to pay directly from income support payments. I hope that might be amended to give water a higher priority. When one looks at the whole political and commercial scene, water is always well down the list.
Looking back to my days as chairman, I also recall great difficulty in recovering debts from properties in the rental sector, in particular in the city as opposed to the countryside. There are a lot of rented properties in cities. There must he a very strong case for placing responsibility for water payments upon the landlord, particularly in catchment areas where there is a university. It was quite remarkable to note how many students who were responsible for water charges under agreements with landlords simply left and we had no means of pursuing them. This is a very important point. It would be most helpful if landlords were made responsible for water charges for lettings of 12 months or less.
The right to cut off supply did work. In certain cases where there was a determined intention not to pay, that power could be very effective. The proposals in the Bill concerned with cut-off may well be seen as a charter for non-payment, which will be a great difficulty.
I comment briefly on Clauses 4 and 5. At present Ofwat advises on charges. Under the Bill in future companies' charges will be modified in response to regulations set out by the Secretary of State. That is a major, and somewhat dangerous, change in the way that the industry is regulated. I hope that before the regulations come into being they will be very carefully considered and will be made subject to advice from people and bodies with experience of the industry.
I turn to Clauses 6 and 7. There has been an enormous amount of discussion on metering over the years. In most areas all new properties are automatically fitted with meters. The company for which I was responsible fitted meters in older properties on request. Metering in certain areas can aid conservation of supply. In the north east of England, where I come from, there is no shortage of supply. Therefore, I warmly welcome the proposal in the Bill to continue to charge on the basis of rateable value. Universal metering has always been an extremely expensive proposition. Therefore, it is very sensible to use rateable value as a means of fixing charges.
Finally, in Clause 8 there is a proposal to extend the use of the rateable value of properties to assist in calculating charges. That is most sensible. As I recall,

1861
information about rateable value is available to companies for particular properties but access to council tax data would be most helpful. The availability of rating bands would very much assist in providing flexibility in charging. Those are the only comments that I make on the Bill and I look forward to taking part in the further stages.
7.27 p.m.
Baroness Young of Old Scone: My Lords, I declare an interest as chairman of English Nature and a non-executive director of Anglian Water. Water resources in this country are coming under increasing pressure. Demand is going up. With another 4.4 million houses and climate change demand will increase further. Climate change will also have an impact on supplies. We already see the impact on our wetlands. Over 50 SSSIs and 60 other nature conservation sites are threatened by water abstraction. The Environment Agency has done some work which shows that by 2021 the gap between availability and demand for water will total about 4,000 megalitres per day. For those whose eye immediately passes over any figure that has three noughts and is expressed in megalitres, that is a lot of water. Two-thirds of the gap between supply and demand can be closed by leakage control. However, one-third needs to be met by managing domestic demand in particular. It is necessary to have a package of measures that includes not just leakage reduction programmes but two other matters: educating customers to save water and giving them incentives to save water.
At this point I heap obsequious praise on the Government, particularly the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for the Environment, Michael Meacher. I believe that great progress has been made by way of the Water Summit, work on leakage control, the huge programme of investment that has been announced as part of the water price round and the work that is currently going on in the abstraction review. But action on educational programmes for demand management and incentives for water saving is very slow. The Water Industry Bill could provide an opportunity for the Government to deliver an incentive for water efficiency by encouraging payment by volume. However, the Bill before us is not necessarily an initiative for which I heap praise on the Government. The Bill misses an opportunity to tackle the environmental issues I have outlined.
The Minister pointed out that the Bill has three key aims: preventing household and community service disconnections; protecting vulnerable groups; and promoting increased consumer choice. The first two social objectives are vital and I support them entirely, but they are not enough. The Government are committed to the principle of sustainable development and to achieving economic, social and environmental objectives through the same policies by integrating all three key objectives. However, if we are in earnest about incentives to save water, increasing consumer choice makes current metering policy somewhat flabbier and it is unnecessary as other provisions in the Bill protect vulnerable households.
1862
Water metering is a key tool in reducing the demand for water. However, "metering" seems to be a dirty word in some quarters. I assert that metering is not intrinsically bad; it can reduce environmental pressures and help to save consumers' money by reducing the economic costs of building more reservoirs. The only bad aspect of metering is that it places unacceptably high costs on low income families or those who use large quantities for medical reasons.
Apart from promoting the social objectives outlined, the Bill, if it took on board three elements, could also produce an environmentally effective metering strategy. First, it could target metering to areas where there is water stress, where demand outstrips supply, which is not the whole country, as pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Elliott. The Bill already allows companies to meter on a compulsory basis consumers with high non-essential demands, such as people who use water for swimming pools and garden sprinklers. That could be extended to allow water companies compulsorily to meter customers who live in areas of high water stress without necessarily impinging on the vulnerable households who are protected by the other measures in the Bill.
The Bill could also promote water efficiency measures. Water companies already have a duty to promote the efficient use of water among their customers. Some do so in a rather cursory way by sending out leaflets; others have active and well-thought-through programmes. We need measures which encourage those more effective programmes to be spread more widely. The Bill could do that if it required water companies to set targets for the impact of their water efficiency programmes on actual water savings.
Perhaps most importantly, the Bill could encourage innovative tariff design. In the majority of companies, tariffs hinder voluntary water metering as about 65 per cent. of vulnerable households would be worse off if they switched to a meter under present circumstances. However, some companies have done excellent work in developing innovative tariffs which mean that metering can both benefit the majority of vulnerable households financially and encourage water efficiency by as much as 20 per cent.
The Bill gives stronger powers to the water regulator in approving tariffs but in doing so it gives no incentives to water companies to develop the more innovative tariffs. Alas, the regulator is an economic regulator of the water industry and in approving charging schemes is likely to consider only how they meet economic objectives. I am afraid that the water regulator's track record on innovative tariffing is not good, so the guidance given by Ministers to the regulator is crucial. That guidance needs to ensure that the regulator takes account of social and environmental objectives as well as economic ones as part of joined up sustainable development thinking. It might also be appropriate to give companies performance grades in tariff innovation in the same way as they are assessed for performance in other ways.
I conclude with two other issues raised by the Bill. The first is the issue of switching back. Customers who opt for metering can switch back within 12 months.

1863
There are also provisions for what may happen when premises change occupancy. If the period within which switching back is allowed were to be extended, as was pressed in another place, we would have to ask serious questions about a real commitment to metering, conservation and the environment. Apart from the missed environmental opportunity which would be represented by that, it would also be extremely wasteful if meters were installed and not used.
The importance of the regulations and guidance which the Bill allows the Secretary of State to make is fundamental. There will be guidance on vulnerable households and on tariffing for environmental outcome. I believe that if we are to avoid the dead hand of economic regulation, we need wide consultation with social and environmental groups about the regulations.
During the past 18 months, the Government have demonstrated a clear commitment to addressing environmental impacts on water resources. The Bill is vital in its social provisions to protect vulnerable households. It would be a real shame if we could not have the modest changes which would make it right for the environment too.
7.35 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, addressed many of the environmental issues that I noted when reading the Bill. Whether we on these Benches would go so far as she suggests is another matter, but we share certain of her concerns.
I was first attracted to the social factors in the Bill. The Government can take some credit for ensuring that those vulnerable people who need extra water because of a disability—for instance, someone who has lost control of his bladder and bowel or who regurgitates food more often than is to be desired—will find the Bill of great benefit, provided that the regulations allowed for are sufficiently supported. Such people use four or five times more water simply by having to use the washing machine several times a day. Unfortunately, washing machines are not the most efficient conservers of water, especially if they are dealing with unpleasant matter which cannot be washed away quickly. If someone has discharged his bowel, he cannot wash the affected clothes with others. They must be washed separately, at higher temperatures and for longer. Such people need support and I hope that the Government will press ahead with these measures.
As regards the non-disconnection of all water facilities, it is the basis of all good public health. Everyone knows that a clean water supply saves far more lives than any amount of money spent on the health service. The best way of ensuring good public health is to have a clean water supply. If small groups in society are denied that, diseases and general ill-health will he given a tremendous foothold. If someone cannot use a lavatory and has to get rid of human waste by throwing it out of a window, as has happened in certain tower blocks, that will create a public health hazard of phenomenal proportions. As regards that, the Government have acted correctly.
1864
However, I do not like metering because no matter how one looks at it and no matter how much money is put into education, the poorest will pay more as a percentage of income. That cannot be avoided. Unless that problem is addressed, those with the least disposable income will be forced to use water only as a necessity. I hope that everything that has been said today reinforces that point. If the Government press on with metering, the second most fundamental necessity for existence—water, after air—will cost money from the consumers' pockets. I suggest that the Government introduce a flat rate charge based on council tax bands, which is a fairer way of progressing with water reforms.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, mentioned meters for swimming pools. Of course, an enhanced flat rate charge could have been introduced for such users. I believe that if we go down the path of metering, the poorest will always be hit first and that is not something we would want to encourage.
7.40 p.m.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Addington mentioned the end of disconnection. I am extremely glad to hear that England and Wales propose to catch up with Scotland in that respect.
The Bill has limited implications for Scotland. Those are, of course, contained in Part II. The Bill sets out on the intriguing road to the establishment of a public sector regulator for a public sector industry. It proposes to amalgamate the task of consumer representation with that of economic regulation.
It is certainly right that the water industry in Scotland should be legislated for totally independently of the other constituent parts of the United Kingdom. It is an important part of the Scottish political psyche that the provision of clean water and the effective treatment of sewage should be a public sector activity. It is also important that the industry's three monopoly public sector businesses should operate efficiently and observe the highest standards of production, service delivery and environmental protection. In other words, the industry must deliver in a sustainable manner.
The Bill intends to abolish the Scottish Water and Sewerage Customers Council. I say "intends" because the Act will only be implemented if the Scottish Parliament chooses to do so. So, in this transitional period, we have the interesting constitutional situation of legislating hopefully rather than definitely.
In place of the customer council will be a commissioner and three water industry consultative committees, one for each of the three water authorities. I should declare a current interest as a customer of the East of Scotland Water and Sewerage Authority and the anecdotal interest that my family enabled the public supply of water to the town of Alloa in 1802 from the Gartmorn Dam, the first reservoir in Scotland dating from 1713. The much-applauded city fathers of Glasgow and their 150 year-old Loch Katrine scheme can always benefit from advice, guidance and example from Clackmannanshire!

1865
The commissioner—if the Scottish Parliament likes the idea—will combine the roles of customers' watchdog and industrial regulator. That has caused concern to the Scottish Consumers Council. It feels—I will go along with it in this—that the range of considerations will be too wide for any one office, and that consumers' concerns may be submerged in the welter of undoubtedly heavy-duty, industrial, environmental and economic issues. I suspect that they have a point.
Also, exacerbating the situation somewhat, will be the commissioner's role in the appointment of all the members of the three water industry consultative committees. No doubt that will be done in accordance with the current rules about public appointments, but my own concern is about issues surrounding re-appointment. Will the system seek to retain outspoken members or discriminate against them? In such a vital industry as water, the councils will need to be seen to be robust defenders of consumers' interests. There is a worry that the commissioner's statutory duty to chair each of the three councils or consultative committees will be symbolic of the downgrading of the consumer protection role. A way out of that perceptual and possible issue might be the overt appointment of three distinctly consumer-orientated deputy chairmen.
My noble friends are generally in favour of returning the water industry to local democratic control in Scotland. The Bill retains control at central government level and then devolves it. I do not seek to have 32 water and sewerage authorities in Scotland. I am reasonably content with the regional approach which is being retained. After all, substantial economy of scale issues are involved and the industry is having to face up to expensive renewals of the pipework infrastructure. Anyone travelling through Alloa recently will be aware of the traffic jams caused by the renewal of the water mains.
The issue of democratic control is quite significant. I do not see this Union Parliament as being capable of supplying real democratic scrutiny and accountability to the three Scottish authorities, on the grounds that all the Scottish representatives with real grievances to be dealt with can be overruled by the superior numbers of those from elsewhere who cannot have those grievances because they do not live within the jurisdiction. I am, however, content that the Scottish Executive could be held to account because all the representatives are personally and officially involved in the industry.
There is, of course, an alternative model of local democratic control, by means of joint boards. I believe that they would be rather unwieldy, with between eight and 12 local authorities involved. Your Lordships will be pleased to know that I do not support their creation. However, I should like to praise the work of the old joint board made up of Perth County Council, Clackmannan County Council and Grangemouth Large Burgh, which successfully organised the Loch Turret scheme in the 1950s.
I am concerned about the position of the commissioner vis-à-vis the Secretary of State and subsequently the First Minister. Although I can go along
1866
with the transparency laid down in the Bill whereby the advice given by the commissioner will be published—as will the response of the Secretary of State or First Minister to that advice—I am concerned about the position of the commissioner if the Secretary of State decides to reject the advice. Will that not become resignation time for the commissioner? Will the position of the commissioner be sustainable in such circumstances?
In the final analysis, we need to focus on outcomes rather than organisational structures. The Scottish public need to know that these legislative changes will make a useful difference and improvement to the delivery of water and sewerage services. A few citizens in remote areas of Scotland are not consumers of the three authorities. However, the vast majority are totally dependent upon the three authorities for these vital public health measures. The public need to know that there is effective supervision of the industry which supplies their water and sewerage and that those who govern the industry are motivated by the highest standards of public service taking into account the wide-ranging criteria upon which they must be judged.
7.47 p.m.
Lord Ahmed: I congratulate the Government on delivering its manifesto commitment by ensuring that the water companies improve service, tackle leakage and reduce prices.
The Minister stated that since privatisation in 1989, water bills in England and Wales have risen by more than a third in real terms. Since 1990–91, total profits have risen from £1.3 billion to over £2 billion at current prices. Although some improvements have been made, I believe that significant improvements need to be made in re-investment into the infrastructure, quality of water and water environmental schemes. We need to protect and improve our environment.
Like other noble Lords, I am pleased that the Bill gives new rights to the consumer relating to disconnection. I am particularly pleased that the Bill will remove the powers of the water companies to disconnect, for non-payment of bills, the supply of water to private dwelling-houses and houses in multiple occupation. It also protects vulnerable persons such as children, and nursing and residential care homes. Another important issue relates to the option that rateable value should continue to be used as the basis for unmeasured charges after 31st March 2000.
I should like to draw the attention of my noble friend the Minister to Yorkshire Water's policy of installing water meters in places of worship. My noble friend Lady Young of Old Scone said earlier that "metering" is a dirty word. It certainly is in the faith communities. That policy of installing water meters in places of worship is causing hardship to those communities.
I should like the Government to consider the exemption of all places of worship from water meter installation and to enable places of worship that have had meters installed to have them removed and to revert to being charged according to rateable value or on some token standing charge.

1867
I have had representations from many mosques and Sikh temples. As your Lordships are aware, both the Moslem and Sikh faiths require the use of water in their rituals. Moslems are required to perform ablution and Sikhs are required to cook food for their community. It is not possible to worship properly as a Moslem or a Sikh without the use of water. That means that the high cost of metered water is unavoidable for temples and mosques.
This morning I received a faxed letter from two Kirklees councillors, Councillors Annie Smith and Mahboob Khan. Both stated that Birkby Ward in Huddersfield has three mosques and one Sikh temple. The temple and one of the mosques have had water meters installed. They did not ask for the meters to be installed; they were told that the water company had the power to instal them and that they could not stop it. The mosque installed water-saving devices, but still gets water bills totalling more than £1,000 a year while the Sikh temple's bills are £1,000 a quarter.
Birkby Ward has seven churches. They have not been targeted by the water company, but some have chosen to have water meters. The Christian faith does not require large quantities of water in its worship, so water provision is not an issue. Both councillors have pointed out that their community is not rich and therefore cannot afford the extra expense. I know that other communities throughout Britain have expressed similar views: that they cannot afford these charges in their mosques and temples.
Finally, I welcome the Bill in principle, with the request that the Government include exemption from water meters for all places of worship.
7.52 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I too thank the Minister for his introduction of the Bill. When I heard that we were to have a Bill on this topic, I thought for a while that it would be a DTI Bill, especially as this Bill rather leaves the needs of the environment to one side. Indeed, perhaps the Bill reads rather more like a DTI Bill than a Bill from the DETR.
I have referred to "reading" the Bill as I should like to make a particular point and to say how helpful it has been to have the Explanatory Notes published alongside the Bill, given the large number of amendments that the measure proposes to make to earlier legislation. The notes set out the provisions in the form in which they will be amended although I find it a little curious that they are accompanied by a health warning about their authority. Nevertheless, we have had the benefit of the notes and I hope that the style that we use in our legislation may advance to the point where we have schedules to the legislation setting out the new provisions in a similarly helpful way.
Turning to the detail of the Bill, as has been said the issue of water raises very many different concerns. It is not just about what comes out of the tap; it is also about what goes down the drains, where it comes from, and where it is abstracted. My noble friend Lord Addington referred to water's obvious relevance to health. Calling water a "utility" perhaps fails to address the fact that water is more than just useful; it is essential.
1868
The Bill addresses some social and economic issues rather than environmental matters. Being naturally more diffident than the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, I shall not repeat her "obsequious praise" of the Government with regard to leakages. However, the House may find it helpful if the Minister can tell us what progress has been made in reducing leakages. I understand that the target was a 20 per cent. reduction by May of this year. As has been said, we cannot expect users of water to control their use when they know that so much is literally seeping away. If the Minister can give any news on progress in that regard, it would be welcome.
The Bill—at any rate, a Bill—is obviously needed; otherwise there would be no basis on which to charge non-metered customers in a year's time. That is why I turn first to Clause 8 although it is the shortest clause and buried precisely halfway through the Bill. Indeed, although it does not cover any of the objectives identified by the Minister in his opening speech, it is obviously a most important provision.
I know that the Government recognise the problem of using rateable values as a basis for charging. We on these Benches take the view that it would be appropriate to base charging on council tax bands. I am aware that the Minister in another place addressed that point at various stages of the Bill's progress. At Second Reading, the Minister said:
"there is no firm evidence that a system that relates charges to council tax bands is inherently or automatically related more closely to consumption or the ability to pay than a system based on rateable values".—[Official Report,> Commons, 7/12/98; col. 47.]
That raises many questions about the council tax itself. We agree that it is too far removed from ability to pay. However, although I recognise that issues relating to council tax benefit are not for now, there is a benefit scheme which applies to council tax and it seems to me that there is no reason why there cannot be a similar scheme for water to benefit those who are the most vulnerable or who find it hardest to pay. That could apply whether the basis for charging was the council tax or metering. On that occasion, the Minister referred to council tax bands. In the case of single-person households, the actual amount of council tax payable reflects the demand for services which are paid for in part by the council tax. We take issue with the Government in this area.
The point for now is that the Government say that it is for the water industry to find new methods of charging. We support work within the industry on that. However, for that the industry needs information and it needs it in an appropriate format. I understand that it is possible to ascertain the council tax banding of an individual property but only on an individual basis. In other words, to find out the banding of 10, 100 or 1.000 properties would require 10, 100 or 1,000 individual inquiries. If the Government can assist the industry and enable it to make progress in that area, that would be welcome.
Accepting that much of the thrust of the Bill and its context is about metering, I suspect that we shall need to spend a little time in Committee looking at how the provisions will operate, including the obligation on

1869
water companies to publicise free meters perhaps, and issues concerning the reversal of metering. I share some of the concerns expressed about what the noble Baroness referred to as "switch back." I also wonder whether 12 months is a sufficiently long period to enable customers to assess the position. I share the deep concerns about customers likely to switch back probably being those whom the industry would least want to do so.
I agree with the point made about the importance of dealing first and most importantly with areas where water is in short supply. Within each water company's area I should like the companies to have greater discretion than the Bill may allow in organising the provision of meters. It seems to me a very expensive proposition to require them to respond to the measured charges notices which customers can give in the way that is proposed.
In preparing for today I have been impressed by the suppliers' acceptance of the principle of the Bill and their real concern that the practicalities may not have been taken into account. We welcome precluding disconnections. As regards the enforcement of payment and the groups referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Elliott of Morpeth, but not those who cannot afford to pay, it seems odd that the direct payment scheme, which I understand is in force, puts payment some way down the list below payment for television licences. I should have thought water should be at least equal with other utilities. As the noble Lord, Lord Elliott of Morpeth, said, there are issues concerning landlords' liability as well. I hope that we shall return to them in Committee.
As regards charging fees for disadvantaged people, while welcoming the principle I hope that the Government will insist on very wide consultation on the regulations. It was the water companies themselves who made the point to me that health and social justice groups need to be included in the consultation.
Of course, we are concerned about affordability for everyone. We do not want to see water made difficult to afford for those outside the particular categories which will attract special assistance. There are widespread concerns about near universal metering because of the vulnerable groups. One might say that it is cynical not to believe that vulnerable people would not be protected if there were universal metering. I fear that it is experience over the years of our society failing to give that protection that gives rise to that concern.
I was most struck by the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, who appears to have left his seat. He spoke about mosques and temples. It is an important point. I say for the record that I hope he will table some amendments to enable us to explore those issues to a greater extent in Committee.
My noble friend Lord Mar and Kellie dealt with Scotland. I appreciate that there has been consultation there and that the provisions reflect that. But so close to the inception of the Scottish Parliament, it seems a little odd and possibly even a little arrogant to be legislating to allow the Scottish Parliament to take up what we in London are proposing. I rather liked his concept of legislating hopefully.
1870
Finally, we shall welcome something on the statute book which is very much like this Bill. I hope that the Government will not resist some adjustments to it. Not in this Bill, but at another time, we would welcome more environmentally based focus on how best to deal with this important resource.
8.3 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the Minister for the clear and concise way in which he introduced this Bill. Every Member of your Lordships' House is a user of water supplies and has to decide, if he or she has not done so already, whether or not those supplies should be metered. In my own case my husband and I have had alternative conflicting decisions to make. We are fortunate enough to own a second home, used for holidays, where a metered supply was an obvious choice on economic grounds.
Similarly, in our London home, with four adults taking baths or showers every day; with washing machines, dishwashers and the numerous visitors coming to the house, one way or another we use such a lot of water that the flat charge based on rateable value appeared to us at the time to be better, although that will shortly change when we complete the installation of an irrigation system in our garden.
I did not intend to bore your Lordships with details of my domestic arrangements, but I wanted to point out that of the 30 million or so households there are many differing factors affecting what is best for them as regards their water bills. For that reason we congratulate the Government that the choice of metered supply or a flat rate charge should be continued by this Bill. That was our view. Indeed, the Conservative Party does not oppose this Bill in general principle because it is very similar to the one we would have introduced ourselves. We have some concerns over some of the details.
For example, Clause 9 provides that consumers in private dwelling houses who elect to pay for water by volume are entitled to have the meter installed free of charge. However, Clause 6(3) allows the company to refuse to install a meter if it would involve the supplier with what is called an "unreasonable cost". I ask the Minister how a genuine "unreasonable cost" will be ascertained. If it is not properly monitored, might there not be more cases like that of Mr. Paul Slawson-Price whose water bill, on moving from Kensington where he had a metered supply, to Chelsea where the water company refused to instal a meter on the ground of cost, jumped from £120 to over £1,055.
When the Bill was first introduced in the other place we were also concerned with the provisions against disconnection in Clause 1. The Government had produced a very large sledgehammer to crack a very small nut. In the end, the arbitrary list of exemptions was insufficient. In other words, the sledgehammer—if there had to be one—was itself too small. I am now pleased to congratulate the Government on having listened to the voice of reason despite their earlier reservations and have extended the list of exemptions, now set out in Schedule 1, to cover all of the cases that we argued for.

1871
Let me make it unequivocally clear that we do not lack sympathy for those whose supply is disconnected because they cannot pay as distinct from those who simply will not pay or who usually, for reasons of carelessness or neglect, do not pay on time. But the fact is that these restrictions on disconnection are in a sense still cosmetic because it transpired from the debates in the other place that the total number of disconnections in the first half of 1998 numbered a mere 640 out of 30 million households.
Without going into the details extracted, perhaps appropriately in a Bill about water supply, drip by drip, by my honourable friends in the other place, it seems that all but 264 were reconnected between a day and a week. Some of the 264 were clearly empty houses and second homes. But the number, 640, was a decrease on the last full year of 1997–98. It is a stunning decrease on the figures for the last year in public ownership and compliance with Treasury controls. That year was 1988–89 when the figure was 15,255.
I remember during the power cuts in 1973–74, occasioned by the miners' strikes, coming to the conclusion that, faced with the choice of having the electricity or the water supply cut off, there was simply no contest. There is always a way to cope without electricity, but no way to manage without the most important symbol of a civilised society; namely, running water and a proper sewerage system.
There is no doubt that some of those 640 disconnections were major personal traumas to those involved. I do not detract from the problems of those who find it difficult to pay. There are processes in place to minimise that problem and to help those involved. I hope that the water industry will continue voluntarily to seek and to encourage ways to alleviate by such methods as prepayment and pay-as-you-go, monthly instead of half-yearly bills, and through the charitable trusts which have been set up by some of the water companies.
The Bill prevents the disconnection of customers who do not pay and some vulnerable groups must be protected. But that should not be regarded as a licence to others to default. It is unfair that the majority of customers who do pay should subsidise those who do not; not because they cannot do so, but because they will not do so. My noble friend Lord Elliot explained that very well. The Government must ensure that water companies are not hit by a new crop of bad debts which will inevitably be passed on to the honest customers. I hope the Minister will consider that matter carefully.
I should now like to turn to another topic. It is a small matter, another anomaly in fact which we hope the Government will agree to correct at the next stage. Under Clause 6, as I have already pointed out, the customer has the right to elect to have a metered supply, and then under subsection (5), to change his mind within 12 months and revert to being charged according to the rateable value. My honourable friend, the Member for Chelmsford West, asked,
"if a household installs a meter and then moves to another home after 12 months, will the new owner have the option of reverting to the rateable value system?".—[Official Report, Commons, 7/12/98; col. 59.]
1872
The Minister for the Environment said that he would not. That is fair enough; caveat emptor.
It is at this point that I must declare a small personal interest. I am part owner of two rented residential properties and a shareholder in a family investment group which owns another two. I play absolutely no part in the day-to-day management of those properties. However, I have to ask what is the position of the landlord of a rented house or flat where the tenant opts for a meter? By Clause 11 of the Bill, a landlord is not entitled to prohibit his tenant from opting for a meter. But if the tenant stays for more than 12 months, then it would seem that the landlord is committed for ever. That cannot be right.
I am only talking about short tenancies, not long leases. If the landlord cannot prevent the exercise of the option, then he ought to have the right to cancel the meter within a reasonable time after recovering possession. The same period of 12 months would be fair, but I am open to any reasonable counter offer. I hope that the Minister will tell us in his reply that the Government will give serious consideration to that matter.
Finally, at this stage I must express some puzzlement at an apparent contradiction between Clauses 4 and 5. Under Clause 4 the Secretary of State may give what is called "guidance" to the Director of Ofwat. We all know what guidance means when it is given by the person who has your job in his hands. However, Clause 5 gives the Secretary of State power to make regulations which effectively control the charging regime of the water industry. If the Secretary of State wants to take charge of the water industry, why do we need the director and indeed the whole paraphernalia of Ofwat, except to be there to be shot at, instead of the Secretary of State if something goes wrong. I hope that the Minister will be able to clarify this in his reply; otherwise we can explore the matter further at a later stage.
If I may, I should like to mention the second part of the Bill which relates to Scotland. My noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Drumadoon and my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish expressed surprise to me that there is any Scottish content in this Bill, given that water is about to be devolved to the Scottish Parliament. Any changes in the way the water industry is run in Scotland should be left to that parliament.
In Scotland the Government propose to bring closer together economic regulation and consumer interest. The new water industry commissioner will combine the functions of economic regulation with that of consumer representation. The current area committees are to be replaced by three consultative committees with a reduced number of members and chaired by the water industry commissioner. That does not seem to us to be wise; indeed, I believe that concern is shared also by the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie. My two colleagues will be tabling amendments to keep the two roles separate. They will be looking at ways to strengthen consumer interests in representing the domestic consumer both to the water authorities and to the regulator.

1873
I do not propose to take up any more of your Lordships' time. As I said, in principle we support the aims of the Bill and any amendments that we find it necessary to table will be entirely non-partisan and constructive. We hope that the Government will treat them as such.
8.14 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, this has been an interesting debate covering a wide range of issues and one in which a number of differing opinions have been expressed. I shall try to deal with them.
I agree that the Bill is relatively straightforward and does not of itself tackle all the issues referred to today. I agree with my noble friend Lord Ahmed and others that a substantial amount still needs to be done on other fronts. But I take issue with the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. She may be looking for the whole of our environmental programme in this Bill, but that is not what the Bill is about.
The Government have demonstrated their commitment to a whole range of issues dealing with environmental matters. For example, in the measures to tackle leakage, to which the noble Baroness referred, it is true that progress has been patchy and pressure will continue to be placed on companies to deliver over the coming years the targets that we set at the water summit on leakage. But, with the water companies, we are encouraging an £8 billion programme to improve the environment. That is through the guidance we have given and the periodic review that we undertake of the water services, covering issues like significant sewage discharges which should all receive secondary level treatment; and covering improvement of unsatisfactory sewer overflows, improvement in river quality objectives, reaching the standards of the EC drinking water directive and dealing with adverse effects on habitats, and so forth. A whole new strategy on the environment lies behind our total approach to water policy.
However, this Bill has more limited objectives which are not incompatible, and in some ways support, those environmental objectives. Perhaps I may deal with those points legitimately raised within the Bill and put them within a wider context. The first issue concerned disconnection. I understand what the noble Lord, Lord Elliot, says about the problems of collecting money from those who abuse the system. As the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, said, it is true that under public ownership there were 15,000 disconnections. That actually rose in the first year of privatisation to 20,000, but has come down sharply over the past two years. Last year the total number was less than 2,000.
It is clear that water companies—this is what they tell us—have made great progress in finding other ways of pursuing their debtors without depriving them of access to clean water. That involves not only the kind of schemes to which the noble Lord, Lord Elliot, and others referred in terms of ease of payment, but also using the courts where appropriate. We do not believe that anybody should be deprived of water. But our
1874
policy does not mean free water for anyone who does not wish to pay. The water companies have the right to pursue customers who, as the noble Lord said, believe that water comes from heaven straight into their taps with no intervening powers.
Companies should find other ways of obtaining their money and in most cases are doing so. Moreover, the protection we are introducing is not new. In law and practice, in Northern Ireland and Scotland, there are not now and never have been disconnections. In England and Wales, in practice, four of the private water companies already have a policy of no disconnection. An additional five, in practice, carried out no disconnections in the first six months of this year, which led to the figure of only 640 disconnections referred to by noble Lords. So the reality is that we are tackling an historic problem which is now much reduced. We must retain the principle that nobody should be disconnected for not paying their bill, but it must also be the case that the company should have the means of obtaining its returns.
The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, indicated that she approved of the list of premises which would be protected from disconnection and the related use of limiting devices. We probably met all the concerns expressed in another place on that front.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, raised the issue of protecting vulnerable groups. Perhaps I may clarify that. We propose to offer protection to two fairly broad groups; first, large families on low incomes; and, secondly, those with medical conditions requiring a high use of water. Those on benefits, where they have three or more children, would include those on income support, income-based jobseeker's allowance, family credit, disability allowance, housing benefit, council tax benefit, and so forth. We are therefore talking about protecting a very large number of people who are dependent on benefits.
There is a second group—those with medically related conditions—which I think was the noble Lord's main concern. We are specifying at the beginning such conditions as weeping skin disease, incontinence, abdominal stomas and renal failure which requires home dialysis. We will be setting in place expert groups to advise us on whether we should further extend such groups. In practice, those who are heavily dependent on water should be covered by these exemptions.
On the issue of customer choice and metering, we had some fairly wide-ranging views: from the noble Lord, Lord Addington, who was fundamentally opposed to metering, to my noble friend Lady Young of Old Scone, who was clearly promoting metering as an environmental device. I would probably agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, that providing choice in this area is important; it also provides balance between customer requirements and environmental concerns.
We are intent on putting in place a fair and just framework for water and sewerage services. Nevertheless we do have to observe the environmental impact and we should send out the right signals. In relation to the concerns raised by my noble friend Lady Young. we do provide some incentives by

1875
allowing customers to choose metering and companies to provide metering. Every customer will now have the right to pay on the basis of volume. Many people will choose this option because they will save money. We have found that households which choose meters cut down their water use by an average of at least 10 per cent., with a concomitant reduction in their bills. That is one fairly hefty incentive.
We have also removed a substantial disincentive, which is the right of water companies to apply charges. There have been charges of up to £250 simply to install a meter. There is a small protection to companies in limited circumstances, as the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, indicated, where there are disproportionate costs. By and large, that would relate to multi-occupied premises. In that context, a number of noble Lords have raised the issue of landlords and, in particular, short-term lets in multi-occupied premises.
The Government would agree that only tenants who pay their own bills will have the right to request a meter, and short-term tenancies are excluded. However, longer-term tenants will be in the same position as other consumers. In many ways the water companies will have the ability to define who, in the short-term let situation, is the supplier; the landlord would then pass on the bills in the normal way, rather than it being the responsibility of the company to collect.
I therefore think that metering and the attractiveness of metering to many groups will lead to a reduction in water use, although, in terms of volume of water, the saving is significantly more important in the area of tackling leakages—something to which the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, referred.
There will be a number of customers, however, who will continue to choose a flat charge: currently a charge based to a large extent on rateable value. We continue to leave that option available to those in their current homes.
There have been suggestions by the noble Lord, Lord Elliott, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and others that we should move, in principle at least, to a council tax-based system of charging, or at least that water companies should have access to council tax data or order to set their own charging. We have closely examined the proposals that have been made for the use of council tax data or for a more principled approach on that front. A straightforward move to a council tax base would leave a very high number of winners and a very high number of losers, not necessarily related to any economic use of water or to any beneficial social effect. Therefore, we have not yet become convinced, that we should move directly to a council tax-based form of charges, but we are prepared to consider sympathetically any proposals which might move in that direction in a limited way and which reduce the concern about the extent of winners and losers.
Likewise, we are prepared to consider and not to inhibit—as my noble friend Lady Young suggested—the moves of water companies themselves toward innovative tariffs, related both to metered and non-metered consumption. Indeed, we would encourage such innovation, provided it was directed to water savings.
1876
Particular concerns about metering have been expressed. My noble friend Lord Ahmed was concerned with non-domestic premises. The water companies do have the right to install water meters in all non-domestic premises of whatever description. We would expect them in those circumstances to apply equal treatment to all non-domestic premises that use broadly equivalent amounts of water. I understand that Yorkshire Water have a policy of metering all non-domestic premises using over 30 million cubic metres—that sounds like an awful lot of water. That cannot be right—I have got the noughts wrong here! I will write to the noble Lord in that respect.
The water companies do not have any discrimination in seeing premises either in terms of the use to which those premises are put or, indeed, in terms of the suggestion that there would be discrimination in relation to faith. Nonetheless, I recognise that some religions require the use of water more than others. If there is a concern about the consistency in Yorkshire Water's charging, then, in the first instance, that is a matter for the Regional Customer Services Committee. I would be very happy to pass on those concerns, if the noble Lord will provide me with the details.
My Lords, I have just had a flash of inspiration! The limit beyond which Yorkshire Water install meters in non-domestic premises is 30 cubic metres.
Regarding the regulation of powers, there have been some slightly contradictory concerns about the balance between the powers of the regulator and those of the Secretary of State. These powers will allow a Secretary of State to make regulations on social grounds, to protect the most vulnerable members of our society, and on various environmental grounds. The key role of the regulator in England and Wales is in relation to economic and consumer and customer protection grounds.
There is always a balance in these matters. It has been suggested that the regulation-making powers in Clause 5 are too broad. Subsection 4, however, limits the regulations, in the sense that regulations being made for the purpose of limiting the total revenue of water undertakings would not be admissible under that clause. The effect of the constraint is that, in preparing regulations, where ministers have a legitimate interest, they will be concerned about the distributional effects between consumers or the effect on the environment but they will not be concerned with the overall burden: that is a matter for the regulator. There is, however, a wide range of issues in relation to the structure of charging in which the Government do have a legitimate concern.
I believe that that deals with most of the issues raised in relation to England and Wales. As regards Scotland, first of all, may I indicate, rather diffidently, that we are not being arrogant in relation to our Scottish colleagues. We are providing for the incoming Scottish Parliament a set of amendments which they can adopt or not, but which would be ready-made should they wish to adopt them. Given the consensus in Scotland to engage in a fairly systematic consultation process, it would appear that they have substantial support there. I therefore expressed confidence which was in no sense intended to

1877
be instructive or mandatory on the Scottish Parliament. The Scottish Parliament is completely free to reject these. Since we have put them on the statute book, however, they will be available if triggered by Scottish Ministers in the Scottish Parliament.
The role of the commissioner in Scotland reflects the different circumstances in Scotland, where the water industry remains in public control. The commissioner will be accountable to the Scottish Ministers and, through them, to the parliament. His responsibilities will be to improve the system of regulating water prices, to create greater financial stability, to strengthen pressure for efficiency in the Scottish water industry, and to retain and reflect a strong independent customer voice through the customer committees to which the noble Earl referred.
The noble Earl also asked whether the commissioner can in fact handle the combined role of customer and economic regulator. We believe that he can. The commissioner will be a professionally qualified individual, skilled in economic analysis and will work to a clear remit which will he set in the Bill by the Scottish executive. Of course, he will be supported by skilled staff drawn from the existing customer councils' staff, who are already skilled in the area.
I was quite glad that the noble Earl did not advocate going back to the 32 authorities in Scotland. The system of democratic accountability is clearly established here, with Ministers, accountable to the Scottish parliament, making the ultimate decision on charge levels. The role of the commissioner in this is that he will put his recommendations to the Minister. In doing so, the Minister may accept the commissioner's advice as delivered; amend it or substitute for it advice of his own. The noble Earl suggested that that could put the commissioner in an impossible position in relation to a dispute. I am glad to say that there are plenty of advisers to Ministers who may potentially find themselves in such a situation without resigning.
However, the Bill also requires the commissioner to publish the initial original advice, along with any changes that Ministers make to it, and Ministers must give their reasons for making the changes. That means that the process of setting water charges is available in transparent information to Parliament and the general public. Of course, in acute situations it may still be a personal matter for the commissioner as to whether or not he wishes to resign. But he cannot complain that his arguments have not been seen, put and considered by all the relevant authorities.
I believe that many of these issues will need to be discussed further. Although there are conflicts of philosophy I do not think there is much conflict as regards objectives. Overall there is support for the general objectives of the Bill, but we will need to discuss them further in Committee. I understand from the usual channels that some discussion is taking place about whether we should consider the Bill further in Grand Committee. While I might welcome that myself, as indeed might other noble Lords, that is a matter for the usual channels.
1878
As I said. I believe there is much to discuss in Committee. Indeed, we need to take such matters further. I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate and commend the Motion that the Bill be given a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Trade Sanctions (USA)
8.32 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat in the form of a Statement the Answer to a Private Notice Question on the EU/US trade dispute, which has been given in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. The Answer is as follows:
"The EU and US have been engaged in a long-running dispute in the World Trade Organisation over the EU's banana regime. Following two adverse WTO rulings in 1997, an amended regime was agreed by the Agriculture Council in June 1998.
"The US and other complainants maintain that this regime still does not comply with WTO procedures. In November 1998, the US announced its intention to retaliate against the EU by imposing 100 per cent. import duties on selected products. The US sought WTO authorisation for that in January; at the request of the EU, the level of damage the US was seeking in retaliation was referred to arbitration due to be decided on 2nd March.
"On Tuesday this week, the arbitrator, in an initial ruling, said that he needed more information to make a decision, and asked the parties to answer a series of questions by 15 March. He would then return to the issue and come to a final ruling 'soon' afterwards.
"However, the US yesterday announced that, with immediate effect, the US Customs Service would begin 'withholding liquidation' on imports of various EU products, including those of cashmere knitwear. This prejudges the panel ruling and we believe is contrary to the WTO dispute settlement rules. The US argues that they will not apply the duties until after the arbitrator has ruled, but the practical effect of their measures is the same as if they applied now as exporters have to put up a bond to cover possible duties in the future.
"I deplore the action which the United States has taken. It is completely unauthorised by any WTO procedures and wholly ignores the arbitrator's appeal for discussions to continue. Even now, it is not too late for the US to reverse this decision. It should do so not only in the interests of EU-US relationships but to safeguard the whole framework of dispute settlement within the WTO.
"The US action is irrational and unacceptable. I have summoned the US Ambassador and will make these points to him later this afternoon. We shall also support an urgent convening of the WTO General Council.

1879
"It is particularly regrettable that the American action is directed against industries which have absolutely no connection with bananas or the issues which are in dispute. There can be no justification for inflicting or seeking to inflict serious damage on businesses and communities, in pursuit of objectives which are utterly unrelated to the activities in which they are engaged.
"We are very conscious of the effect that even the threat of US action has been having over the past few months, especially in respect of the cashmere industry. This is a seasonal industry and has been particularly affected. Cashmere orders are now being placed for delivery in the autumn. I spoke this morning to George Pedan, Chairman of the Scottish Cashmere Association, who stressed to me the damaging effect the US action would have.
"In the light of yesterday's action by the US, we have decided that the Government will establish a scheme to guarantee the bonds in respect of the cashmere industry and will discuss with the industry as a matter of urgency the details of this scheme.
"The US action is unacceptable. We shall do all we can to reverse it. I hope the measures I have announced to support the cashmere industry will be welcomed on all sides of the House".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
8.37 p.m.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made by the Secretary of State in another place. The revised banana regime, which the US together with a number of Latin American countries are contesting, is against the WTO rules. These were adopted by the EU in July 1998. The UK held the presidency in the first half of 1998, during which they had a golden opportunity to revise EU policy so that it protected our relationship with the Caribbean countries while conforming to WTO, but failed to meet that objective. Can the Minister tell the House what the Government have done at EU level, as they failed to find a solution to defuse the row during the UK presidency?
Currently a series of preparatory meetings is taking place prior to the launch of the next round of talks in Seattle, Washington, on 30th November 1999. We are committed to achieving global free trade by the year 2020. In the light of that, whatever the outcome of the banana dispute, how do the Government view its impact on the next round of the WTO talks? Does the Minister agree that, in the light of recent developments in the EU/US banana dispute, the objective of further trade liberalisation should be balanced by the needs of small island economies, largely dependent on bananas, which cannot diversify easily or quickly into other sectors? Do the Government agree that, by strengthening trade sanctions on totally unrelated goods like cashmere, the US is using the banana dispute as a pretext to protect its own economy and is, therefore, endangering further trade liberalisation?
Finally, will the Minister ask the Prime Minister to intervene in this very serious matter by reminding his friend President Clinton that we are standing shoulder
1880
to shoulder with him in places like Iraq and we do not expect him to thank us by declaring a trade war on our cashmere industry and on the Scottish Borders?
8.40 p.m.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, I join the noble Baroness in thanking the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place. Before I heard what she had to say I assumed that all parties in this House would stand four-square behind the Government at this moment, supporting them in the action they are taking in difficult circumstances. I dissociate my party from criticising the Government at this time, even if criticism is appropriate in the future. In my view we should not criticise the Government at this moment. Everyone in this House should give full support to the line which the Government have taken in the Statement.
During the course of today, events have moved on. I hope the Minister can give an indication of the reaction of the American ambassador to the dressing down he clearly received from the Minister's colleague this afternoon. Perhaps the one advantage of discussing this Statement so late is that we may be given some clarification on that point. From these Benches I wish to indicate, on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, complete support for the stand that the Government are taking. This is clearly a moment when we need as a country to stand solidly behind the action the Government are taking.
I wish to mention a couple of points not mentioned in the Statement. I shall elaborate on what the noble Baroness said. This matter does not just concern the cashmere industry and the other UK industries that have been affected. We all know that the underlying problem here is the position of the banana industry, in particular in the Caribbean. An island such as Dominica is virtually entirely dependent on the banana industry. If we concede the position of the United States we may gain a short-term advantage vis-à-vis the industries we must quite rightly protect. On the other hand we have a responsibility to the islands in the Caribbean to stand firm in this matter. The British attitude has been absolutely paramount and must be maintained. We must not forget that for every cashmere industry there is also a banana industry in the Caribbean. That is not to say that it is not absolutely outrageous that the United States should in effect impose sanctions on an industry that has nothing whatever to do with the dispute. I just did not want the position of the banana industry in the Caribbean to become lost in all this. As I said, we have a responsibility to represent those interests.
I now wish to discuss the position of the United States. It has not been mentioned so far but there is something that needs to be said. There is significant suspicion that the reason for the pressure being exerted on the US Government is that a number of the companies involved—and one in particular—were significant donors to the Democratic Party and to the Clinton campaign. That needs to be said in this House. Why should the American Government take this irrational action? They are in danger not only of behaving in an unjust manner, but also of being clearly seen to behave in an unjust manner. They are seen to be

1881
doing that because of political pressure. That is a statement your Lordships need to take on board. We need to criticise the American Government for that action because in this area they need to be seen to be above suspicion.
I now wish to discuss the wider context of the actions of the US Government in this area. We shall shortly embark on debate on the euro and our role vis-à-vis Europe. We have to recognise that large numbers of Eurosceptics advocate, as an alternative to joining the euro and as an alternative to our relationship with Europe, initiating some form of wider trading area with the United States. I ask those people to consider what is happening today. They need to ask themselves whether the United States is the kind of partner we want to have a trading relationship with.
8.44 p.m.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, first of all I should make it clear that during our presidency of the European Union we led on this issue and indeed an alternative on this matter was agreed. A key part of that concerned meeting our responsibilities under the Lome Convention. That is an essential aspect of this matter which we have sought to meet. We have also sought to comply with World Trade Organisation regulations.
I totally agree that this dispute could imperil trade liberalisation and that is why we are working hard to resolve the issue. However, as I am sure will be appreciated, this requires both parties to be aware of the damage done to trade liberalisation by this action. During past months we have at all levels of government made representations to the American Government, including the Prime Minister speaking to the President. As regards the American ambassador whom we called in this evening, a frank exchange of views took place. The Secretary of State stressed to the ambassador that we regarded the retaliatory action announced by the US Government as unacceptable and asked the ambassador to communicate to the US Government our disappointment that certain industries and communities in the UK which have nothing to do with the production of bananas should have been hit by the US action.
I also wish to make clear that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office will make forcefully to the American ambassador tomorrow points about the political issues. My noble friend the Minister at the Foreign Office met the Prime Minister of St. Lucia yesterday and made quite clear that we stand firmly behind the islands in this matter.
Even at this stage it is open to the American Government to pull back from this situation. I do not believe that an enlightened foreign policy would have led them to take this action. That obviously must raise questions about their motives. They still have the opportunity at this late stage to take account both of the damage to world trade liberalisation of this action and of the advantages of adopting an enlightened foreign policy and to pull back from their action.
8.47 p.m.
Lord Acton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I have an American wife and a great affection for the United States? Does my noble friend agree that the Government have had to endure a certain amount of criticism for their helpfulness to the American Administration? Is not this news a poor return for that?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I make it clear that we are not asking for favours in this case. We are asking that the rules of the WTO are abided by. That is our primary consideration. I believe that an enlightened foreign policy would have led in the same direction.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, usually when the question of bananas is raised in this House it is seen as a development issue and the responsibility of the DflD. It is extremely unfortunate that it has become a DTI issue because of the nature of the trade sanctions that are involved. I live in the Borders. I realise exactly how devastating the loss of so many jobs will be. I hope that every opportunity will be taken to avoid a trade war. However, if a trade war developed, could sanctions be imposed against the Chiquita company because of the large amount of money that it has given to the campaign efforts of American politicians? If a trade war were to develop, would the Minister consider targeting individual companies?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I am sure noble Lords will appreciate that this is an EU matter. We shall obviously consult immediately with our EU allies in order to resolve this issue as quickly as possible. Therefore I do not think that at this point it is right to start talking about targeting particular companies.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, will my noble friend and his colleagues—I am glad that my noble friend Lady Symons is present too—express forcefully the stern disapproval of this House of the action of the United States? Although the House is not very full at the moment, I am sure that if the Statement had been made earlier during today's proceedings many others would have expressed the same stern disapproval.
Those of us who have observed for some time the trade difficulties that arise from time to time between trading nations—between ourselves and the United States and ourselves, as part of the European Union, and the United States—note with dismay how easily the United States seeks to fall back upon sanctions. One can think of a number of other examples—the difficulties about meat and other commodities—where the United States has threatened sanctions and, as in this case, threatened sanctions wide of the subject of the dispute. Every time the United States of America pursues such conduct, it causes us strongly to disapprove of it. I hope therefore that these views can be expressed as forcefully as possible to the United States Government through the American ambassador in London.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I am very happy that throughout the whole dispute the House of

1883
Lords has been consistent in its disapproval of the action taken by the United States on this issue. I can assure the House that my noble friend the Minister at the Foreign Office will once again make very clear our views and the views of your Lordships' House to the American ambassador when she sees him tomorrow.

Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order 1999
8.50 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Dubs)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Dubs) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 15th February be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order 1999 laid before the House on the 15th February be approved. The draft order before us today authorises expenditure of £146 million for Northern Ireland departments for the current financial year. This is in addition to the £6,780 million voted by the House last July. The order also authorises the vote on account of £3,120 million for 1999–2000 to enable the services of Northern Ireland departments to continue until the 1999–2000 Main Estimates are brought before the Assembly later this year. Given the restructuring of Northern Ireland departments, with the associated allocation of functions to new/restructured departments it has been necessary to remove department names from Part II of the schedule to the draft order covering the vote on account. The 1999–2000 main Estimates detailing the total estimates provision will also set out the amount voted on account by individual vote under the new departmental structures.
This order covers services which will be devolved to the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly. With pending devolution it will soon fall to local representatives to make decisions on the allocation of resources between the various Northern Ireland departments. I am sure that your Lordships share my hopes for a smooth transition of power to the Assembly and look forward to the vote on account for 1999–2000 being spent on the services under the new/restructured Northern Ireland departments. The order does not cover the estimates for the Northern Ireland Office, which will remain the direct responsibility of the Secretary of State. As a Whitehall department, the Estimates for the Northern Ireland Office are dealt with separately.
The aftermath of the Omagh bomb has placed significant pressures on budgets and indeed we have had to make additions this year of some £6 million in total largely to cover criminal damage. It also includes some £2.7 million for the health programme covering such areas as hospital and community care, rehabilitation and social and psychological care including voluntary sector support costs.
I know that your Lordships continue to take a close interest in the prospects for economic development in Northern Ireland and I wish to say a few words about the local economic situation before turning to the
1884
contents of the estimates. The latest available official statistics show that the Northern Ireland economy remains in good health in almost every area. The main economic indicators have, once again, shown very positive results for the Province.
The output of manufacturing and production industries continues to rise at a rate well above that achieved nationally. Over the past four years Northern Ireland's manufacturing sector has increased its output by almost 17 per cent., more than six times the rate of growth achieved nationally. There has also been a significant improvement in the Province's gross domestic product relative to the United Kingdom, with GDP per head in Northern Ireland increasing from 76.9 per cent. of the UK average in 1990 to 80.4 per cent. by 1997.
Record employment levels have also been achieved. At September 1998 the number of employee jobs in Northern Ireland stood at 600,670; the highest September figure on record. This is coupled with the International Labour Organisation's unemployment rate of 6.8 per cent. for the period October to December 1998, the lowest level since comparable records began in 1984. It is lower than Merseyside where the unemployment rate is 11.4 per cent., the north-east at 9.2 per cent., London at 7.5 per cent., Scotland at 7.3 per cent. and Wales at 7 per cent. It is also worthy of note that the Northern Ireland unemployment rate is three percentage points lower than the European Union average of 9.8 per cent. currently. In addition, falls in the numbers of both long term and youth unemployment are particularly encouraging. The latest information available from the Industrial Development Board shows that 1998 has been a good year for investment in the Province. Since April 1998, 15 IDB-supported projects involving planned investment totalling £35.9 million have been announced by locally-owned companies, promoting 759 new jobs while safeguarding 171 existing jobs. Over the same period, 26 IDB-backed inward investment projects have been announced involving a total investment of £81.1 million, promoting 1,884 new jobs and safeguarding a further 143 existing jobs.
Allied to this are the survey results from the local business community. Despite a number of recent business surveys reporting falling optimism among Northern Ireland business leaders, particularly within the manufacturing sector, the main economic indicators point to continued growth in demand and output during 1999.
All of this clearly demonstrates the impressive achievements of the Northern Ireland economy which, coupled with political stability, provides Northern Ireland with an opportunity for a brighter economic future.
With your Lordships' permission, I now turn to the main items in the Estimates, starting with the Department of Agriculture. In Vote 1, which provides for Northern Ireland expenditure on national agriculture support measures, an additional £36.5 million is required. This includes £17.7 million to cover an increase in advance funding from 60 per cent. to

1885
80 per cent. under the suckler cow and beef special premium schemes, £9.3 million in respect of further agrimonetary compensation for the beef sector; and £8.5 million is for increased rates paid under the hill livestock compensatory allowances scheme.
In Vote 2, covering local agriculture support measures, a net increase of £12.4 million is sought. This includes £7.7 million in respect of controlling outbreaks of animal diseases, including tuberculosis, brucellosis, salmonella, Newcastle disease and BSE, and £1.5 million for the Redmeat Marketing Strategy to help recover export markets for Northern Ireland beef.
I now turn to the Department of Economic Development, where token increases of £1,000 are sought in Votes 1 and 2. In Vote 1, £2.7 million is required by the Industrial Development Board to meet the costs of the very successful North American Roadshow, which took advantage of the favourable climate generated by the Belfast agreement to promote Northern Ireland as a profitable investment location. Some £6.3 million is also sought to meet pressures on industrial development grants resulting from increased claims from IDB client companies. These increases are offset by reduced requirements and increased receipts elsewhere within the Vote.
In Vote 2, a token increase of £1,000 is also sought. Within the Vote there are a series of self-adjusting changes resulting in offsetting savings covering any increased requirements. The major element within this Vote is an additional £0.5 million for the Northern Ireland Tourist Board to meet increased promotional and marketing activities.
In Vote 3, a net increase of £6.1 million is sought by the Training and Employment Agency; £5.6 million is sought for the Jobskills Programme, training centres and community projects to meet increased demand for payment of training allowances. A further £5 million is for the welfare to work initiative to provide a range of employment and training measures within the New Deal, mainly for the long-term unemployed. These increases are offset by savings elsewhere within the Vote.
Turning to the Department of the Environment, a net increase of some £4.8 million is sought in Vote 1. The main increases are £5.1 million for roads maintenance while an additional £2 million is needed to support the running costs of Northern Ireland Railways. The Chancellor's Fund provided £0.5 million for roads and £1 million for work to St. Angelo airport in County Fermanagh. These increases are partially offset by reallocations from other areas and increased receipts.
In Vote 2, covering housing, a token increase of £1,000 is sought. The Chancellor's Fund provided some £2.8 million for improvements to certain housing estates, and there is a need for a further £4.9 million to support the work of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. There has also been a drop of £1.8 million in the anticipated level of receipts. These pressures are offset by reallocations of £6 million from planned expenditure on renovation grants and £3.7 million in
1886
housing association spending. The gross amount available to support housing in Northern Ireland this financial year is approximately £609 million.
In Vote 3, covering water and sewerage services, a net increase of £2.3 million is sought. Some £6.3 million is required for increased operational costs, with a further £2.2 million to meet additional running costs. This is offset by additional receipts of £2 million, together with a reallocation of some £4.4 million from planned levels of capital expenditure.
In Vote 4, which covers environmental and other services, a small increase of £0.5 million is sought. Additional expenditure of some £3.5 million is needed for accommodation and supplies costs arising from the proposed political settlement, and £6.6 million reflects the carry forward of running costs and capital underspends from previous years. These increases are largely offset by additional receipts and a reduction of £4 million in matching funding relating to the EU Peace and Reconciliation Programme.
In Vote 5, which covers fire services, an additional £3.8 million is sought of which £2 million is for the development of a new fire training centre and £0.7 million is needed for superannuation costs of fire service personnel. A further £0.9 million reflects the carry forward of capital underspend from 1997–98.
I now turn to the Department of Education, where a net increase of £46.3 million is sought in Vote 1. The main element of this is £38.5 million for student loans due to a reduction in expected receipts from the second tranche of the national sale of the student loans book debt, owing to a change in the amount of the sale. The remaining increases include £0.3 million for costs arising as a result of the Omagh bomb, £1.3 million for energy efficiency measures mainly in schools, £0.9 million for the Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment, some £2 million capital and recurrent provision carried forward under the end year flexibility scheme and £2.5 million for the Odyssey Millennium Project.
Turning to the Department of Health and Social Services, a net increase of £38.2 million is sought in Vote 1 for expenditure on hospital, community health and personal social services, health and social services trusts, family health services and certain other services. This includes £29.3 million carried forward from 1997–98 under the end year flexibility scheme and £9.2 million towards winter and other pressures offset by reductions elsewhere within the vote.
Moving on to Vote 4, a net increase of £12.5 million is required. This includes £16.9 million to fund running costs, capital and other administration pressures in the department and takes into account an additional £1.6 million in respect of administering the welfare to work initiatives. The increases are offset by an increase in receipts of £4.4 million, mainly from the National Insurance Fund in respect of the recovery of administration costs.
Turning to the Department of Finance and Personnel, a net increase of £7.8 million is sought in Vote 1. This includes £1.5 million to provide support for new

1887
institutions flowing from the Belfast Agreement and £1.7 million reflecting the carry forward of running costs underspend from 1997–98.
Finally, an increase of some £1.4 million is sought to cover additional costs arising within the new Northern Ireland Assembly.
I hope that this short summary of the main components of the estimates is helpful. I commend the order to your Lordships.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 15th February be approved.—(Lord Dubs.)
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, the House is being invited to endorse additional expenditure of £146 million for the current year. Secondly, and more importantly, we are invited to give approval to the much larger sum of £3,120 million to enable Northern Ireland services to be financed pending the new Northern Ireland Assembly's approval, and to approve the main estimates for the coming year.
There is an urgent need for early decisions on the mechanism for dealing with approval in the near and intermediate future. Approval is needed for authorisation and scrutiny of expenditure by all the departments that will be devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly. The separate funding for those areas of government reserved to the United Kingdom Parliament, as the Minister has rightly said, is not within our remit this evening.
However, there is a dichotomy. Looking at all the various documents being produced by and on behalf of the Assembly, I cannot help thinking that there is a degree of overlap in the functions of the United Kingdom Parliament and Government and of the Assembly. That overlap was not so apparent during the lifetime of the previous Stormont parliament and government. I had the impression that there was a general belief that a perceived "restored" Stormont, as is often referred to, would automatically reinstate the financial arrangements that existed during the lifetime of the Stormont parliament.
Those who take that rather simplistic view forget that, until 1972, there was no Northern Ireland Office. Presumably, the Vote on those matters for which the United Kingdom Government remain responsible would have been fairly small compared with that over the past 10 years. The Northern Ireland Office now has its own budget and, depending on various factors beyond the control of any of us, it can expand very rapidly. That structure, which existed until 1972, and that very clear division no longer exist. There will be a certain parallel with legislation in the Welsh Assembly and in some respects the Scottish Parliament.
There are problems and overlaps which, as yet, have not come over the horizon in regard to all three areas of the United Kingdom. That being the case, why is it proving so difficult to complete the design of what one might loosely call accountability and control of expenditure, given that all three regions of the United Kingdom have featured so prominently in the
1888
deliberations of your Lordships' House and the other place for a good deal of time? I notice that the Whip is taking account of this particular point.
For the first two years of this Parliament, Northern Ireland has featured in terms of the usage of the time and facilities of the draftsmen in a way that probably did not happen over the previous 20 years. The Minister of State in another place, Mr. Murphy, has explained that the President of the Council and Leader of the other place is looking at the issues in so far—these are the Minister's words—"as they affect Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales." There is a certain commonality, and there ought to be a commonality, in our approach to all three areas so that at least there is a degree of uniformity and one area is not out of step with another.
Will the Minister share my view that progress could be hastened if senior Ministers in Her Majesty's Government could begin with a basic design for all three regions of the United Kingdom? They could then consider slight variations that might be desirable in the light of local differences.
I raise a brief question under Department of the Environment Vote 1. The Chancellor of the Exchequer announced his generous package for road improvements and much else besides. The fact that the Chancellor made the announcement gave the impression that it was a Treasury initiative, a Treasury bonus, perhaps over and above any future appropriation order. However, confusion arose when the local Stormont Department of Finance made it clear that the Treasury bonus would become available only if the Port of Belfast were privatised and the proceeds and receipts used to fund the Chancellor's generous hand-out. That sounds to me like selling the family silver. Perhaps the Minister can provide some much needed clarification.
I have a final point under Department of the Environment Vote 4 relating to planning. In regard to recent proposals for the expansion of facilities and ancillary undertakings at Aldergrove international airport, can I assume that the Minister in his department and the Department of the Environment welcomed those statements, first, on the grounds that such a hub of commerce and industry around the airport would provide lasting benefits for the entire Province and, secondly, because the provision of employment centred roughly on the airport and the town and borough of Antrim would provide employment in an area extending well to the west of the Province where there has been much depression caused by the closure of what appeared to be secure undertakings?
There is a general appreciation of the diligence and determination of the Minister in directing and encouraging all who serve in his wide ranging department and the results that he has achieved. In addition to the burden that he carries in representing and answering for all Stormont departments in your Lordships' House—sometimes we are inclined to forget this—I am certain that we can rely on the Minister to use his experience and initiative in co-ordinating all the various agencies and furthering this much-needed set of projects for the enhancement of the airport, not just the passenger side, but what flows from that by way of

1889
auxiliary undertakings in the area of the airport. We had high hopes at one time that there would be expansion there because it was going to be a kind of tax-free area, but that did not happen. This seems to me a good opportunity to carry that forward. The attraction for one of the Minister's departments—namely, the Department of the Environment—would be that this could all be done at no financial cost to the department. That ought to bring him good cheer.
It was encouraging to hear from the Minister the good news about the improvement in the economy and a further reduction in unemployment. All of that we welcome and applaud. But, like the Minister, we regret the continuing problems of farmers. He will know that, despite the financial support of his department of Agriculture, the pig sector is rapidly collapsing. That is a fact which we have to face. I trust that the Minister will receive full support across the Province for any measures he can take in the form of what would now amount to a rescue mission.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I believe that the delay in the implementation of parts of the Good Friday Agreement has left this House with a continued responsibility to discuss the appropriation order for Northern Ireland. I am sure we all agree that the sooner the agreement can be implemented in its entirety the better. To that end, we all wish the Government well in their efforts to accelerate the establishment of an executive on terms that are acceptable to all who invested goodwill in the agreement last April.
I am sure that the Minister of Finance of the new Assembly, being held to account by that Assembly, will be able to do the issues involved more justice than we can tonight. No doubt when the new Minister of Finance announces next year's budget to the eager members of the Northern Ireland Assembly the attendance will be far greater than it is here tonight!
However, we are presented with an opportunity, since, if this is the last appropriation order to be dealt with by this House, as we all hope. we can be sure that it will be against this appropriation order that future budgets in Northern Ireland will be compared. Whatever the new Minister of Finance announces next year, those changes will inevitably be compared with the figures we pass tonight. This order will therefore probably be judged more critically than most of its predecessors, even if that criticism is blunted because it is indirect and because it is delayed by 12 months.
With that in mind, it would be nice to think that we could bequeath Northern Ireland a golden inheritance. Unfortunately, this order seems to have been bound by the Treasury orthodoxy that money is always tight. In some areas it bequeaths a silver inheritance; in a few others, more base metals spring to mind.
Let me start with the areas on which the Government have done well. Agriculture, which has already been discussed by the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, accounts for almost 5 per cent. of gross domestic product in Northern Ireland and employs 6 per cent. of the
1890
workforce, compared with 2 per cent. and 2 per cent. respectively for the rest of the United Kingdom. In addition to its other woes, the Province has been one of the areas hardest hit by the recent problems in agriculture, in particular in securing export markets for some agricultural products. I am particularly pleased, therefore, to see that in this order the Government are allocating an extra £36.5 million to the Department of Agriculture. That is considerably above the annual rate of inflation and will go a great distance towards shoring up an industry which has been hard hit.
However, there is more that the Government can do for this vital industry. I understand that last year some £4 million in quota support from the Common Agricultural Policy which should have gone to Northern Ireland farmers to supplement the suckler cow premium remained unclaimed. Although the Government are not directly responsible for this shortfall, they should try to ensure that in future all these European funds are taken up. Further down the line, if the Objective 1 status for Northern Ireland is lost, the Government may have to step in to help Northern Irish farmers further. Although agriculture is to be devolved under the new arrangements, the Minister will be aware that dealings with Europe on all matters including agricultural grants are not, so the Government will need to keep an eye on this. They have done reasonably well so far, but there is no room for complacency.
With regard to education, I fear that the Government have fared considerably worse than they have with regard to agriculture. Putting teachers' superannuation to one side, it seems that funding for education is to be increased by only 1 per cent. in the coming financial year. That follows this year's increase of only 2 per cent., which was also below the rate of inflation. And we must remember that these meagre increases—cuts in real terms—are to an education service already struggling from serious under-funding.
I also understand that some of the reduced overall total of funding is to be sidelined into other areas: energy efficiency in schools, the Council for the Curriculum and costs associated with the Omagh bombing. We have nothing against these special areas of funding—indeed, they seem to be very worthy causes—but they leave even less money in a pot that was never full in the first place. This will stretch teaching resources in Northern Ireland even further. To suggest that money can be saved by cutting back on education is a false economy. I fear that the Government have forsaken their last opportunity to give the schools and colleges of Northern Ireland the boost that they need for long-term stability before control on this issue is devolved to the new structures.
As with all large expenditure totals, there is also the question in the area of education funding of how the global figure is distributed between competing demands. I have come across several well-researched reports and indications, backed up by the most heart-rending testimonies, that integrated education continues to do poorly in several senses of the word. We very much applaud the steps that the Government have taken to remedy this. I believe that they share with us the hope that integrated education has real potential to prevent

1891
future generations being blighted by the tribalism instilled at an early age that has been so destructive in Northern Ireland. The Government's recent decision to support all but one of the integrated schools established by parents—originally without government support—is one that we admire, and we hope it yields long term benefits in the Province.
Unfortunately, the basic facts remain that the demand by both parents and pupils for integrated education is very much greater than the supply and that, where it is in supply, it is not well funded at all. I hope that in this "limbo time" before the executive is established the Government will at least make one further gesture in support of integrated education by agreeing to fund Ulidia integrated primary school, which, sadly, remains dependent on the goodwill of parents and philanthropists.
I should like to conclude by dealing with one quandary brought to my attention recently. I refer to the difference between two figures. One is the suggested figure for the running costs for the new Assembly; the other is the estimated expenditure voted on by the Assembly itself. There is a difference between the £14.5 million on which the Government expect the Assembly to be able to run and the figure of £36.8 million that the Assembly is considering. I realise that these figures must be looked at much more closely to see which bears a closer resemblance to the truth. However, the large divergence between the two figures is a cause of concern.
9.22 p.m.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation of the order. Noble Lords will not be surprised to hear that I sneaked a look at the previous debate on a similar order. My noble friend Lord Cope of Berkeley at the time observed that that might be almost the last time that the House debated such an order. We are still debating it this year. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, that it is even more likely that this will be the last occasion. Presumably, next year the matter will be covered by a block vote from the Treasury to the Assembly and the Northern Ireland Office. I found the figures confusing, and I am grateful for the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux. I share the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, about the education budget. The noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, made interesting observations about devolution matters in general.
The Minister made light of the difficulties of agriculture, but these problems are not peculiar to the Province; they apply everywhere. The support that he has given to agriculture is welcome. I join the Minister in welcoming the improvement in the employment situation in the Province. I was pleased to cover this matter in our debate last week. I believe that this improvement is the fruit of the relative peace and stability in the Province.
Perhaps I should have studied the figures more closely. Clearly, the fire service is a vital emergency service for the Province, but I was a little surprised when the Minister mentioned the training centre. Is it
1892
economic or effective and does the number of courses it runs make it worthwhile? I do not expect the Minister to respond or worry too much about my question tonight. I was a little surprised by his comment, but as I have not studied the matter previously I have no particular view on it.
I am concerned about the macro-economic effects of any welcome reduction in expenditure on security as and when it is prudent and safe to do so. I mentioned the subject last week, but it bears repeating. Expenditure on the RUC is more than £400 per man, woman and child in the Province. There would be a major effect on the economy if it were to be significantly and rapidly reduced. As it is a reserved matter, any savings will go to the Treasury in London via the NIO and not to the block Vote for Northern Ireland to be reallocated by the Assembly. Thus, there is little incentive to reduce the need for high expenditure on the RUC, either on the part of the unionists or the nationalists. I am not advocating continued high expenditure on the RUC just for the sake of the economy in the short term; I am just interested in the consideration that the Minister has given to the problem.
There is a further problem relating to the RUC and any redundancy or compensation payments. I accept that it is not strictly relevant to this order, but the costs will be considerable although necessary. Indeed, the Prime Minister has said that the payments will be generous. The payments will have to be funded by the Treasury. Are they being built into Treasury forecasts? If not, there is a future danger that unnecessary expenditure on continued and unnecessary manning of the RUC could be incurred because of a lack of funds to pay lump sum compensation payments. It may be that the Minister cannot help me tonight, but will he draw the problem to the attention of his right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
If I misheard what the Minister said about agriculture, I apologise. My observations apart, I am content with the order.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I am grateful for the comments that have been made and I will do my best to answer the specific questions.
The noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, referred to the Chancellor's initiative and asked about spending on roads and its relationship to the proposals for Belfast Harbour. When the Chancellor made his Statement he made it clear that some of the money—the estimate was £70 million—towards improvements in the strategic road network would come from the proceeds of the sale of Belfast Harbour. The Government believe that the strategic road network is very important and improving it is to the economic benefit of Northern Ireland. We also believe that there need to be changes in the structure and management of Belfast Harbour because it is constrained by its trust board status from competing as effectively as it would wish and it cannot use its money as it would like for the benefit of the harbour. Accordingly, the harbour commissioners came forward with their proposals.

1893
The commissioners consulted the political parties—some were supportive and some were critical—but the final scheme has not yet been produced. However, the issue will be for the Assembly to decide, as the Secretary of State made clear. It will be up to the Assembly to decide how much of the Government's proposals it wishes to continue to pursue—I hope virtually all. It will be up to the Assembly to decide whether it wishes to proceed with the strategic road network as funded by the proceeds from Belfast Harbour; whether it can raise the money for the network from elsewhere; whether the network is not of such a high priority as we had thought. However, that will be a problem for the Assembly.
The noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux of Killead, also asked about the development or possible expansion of facilities at Aldergrove airport. We have been in discussion with the developers at Aldergrove for some time over their proposals for commercial development. For the most part, the proposals are acceptable, subject to certain road access improvements to cope with the additional number of people who will travel daily to and from the airport. I refer to proposals for call centres, distribution centres and aircraft maintenance facilities. However, the proposed factory outlet centre does not accord with the policy on out-of-town retail developments. We are having further discussions with the developers with a view to addressing an acceptable overall development.
The noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, also asked about Northern Ireland legislation and devolution arrangements. He asked why there are some differences between the plans for Northern Ireland and those for Scotland and Wales. I think he suggested that there might be more uniformity across the three sets of arrangements. The noble Lord will be aware that the devolution arrangements for Northern Ireland flow from the Belfast agreement. The legislation which has come before your Lordships' House over the past year has been based upon that agreement. To that extent, therefore, it is not possible for there to be a commonality of approach between Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland, as the noble Lord proposed. Furthermore, in Northern Ireland we are building on the method of government when Stormont was in charge and on some of the arrangements from there. Again, that does not apply to Wales and Scotland.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. In case my remarks misled him, I should point out that I was not thinking of the devolution of powers to the three areas of the United Kingdom but of the very sensitive area of how the financial arrangements for all three will be dovetailed. I gather it is that matter on which the Leader of the House of Commons and the President of the Council are concentrating at the moment.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, given the answer which my right honourable friend the Leader of the House gave in the other place, I do not think that it would be appropriate for me to go into the details. I should be
1894
happy to explain to the noble Lord how we see things developing as regards Northern Ireland. I am not so well acquainted with the thinking on Scotland and Wales. However, if the noble Lord is anxious to have a fuller answer, I should be happy to try to provide one.
The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, asked about education funding. I agree that it is sometimes difficult to deduce from this order what is an increase in funding for any particular activity. I appreciate the problem there. However, my understanding is as follows. Education will receive increases of £90 million, £195 million and £259 million in each of the next three years. That represents increases of 3.7 per cent., 4.3 per cent. and 1.4 per cent. in real terms. I can reassure the noble Lord that the Government's commitment to increased expenditure on education is being met, even if the way in which the appropriation order is designed does not spell it out as clearly as perhaps he and I would wish.
The noble Lord also asked about the crisis in the pig industry. Indeed, the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, also referred to that. I hope that I did not misunderstand him. I thought for one moment he was suggesting that I was not taking agricultural problems seriously, but he then made it clear that that was not the case.
I am aware that Northern Ireland agriculture has gone through a particularly difficult time. I refer not only to the pig sector. Unfortunately, many other sectors are simultaneously facing serious difficulties. On a number of occasions the Government have produced packages of help. That has happened both within the past year and a little longer ago. They were geared at the most vulnerable sectors of the industry. They benefited the beef sector particularly as we added to the suckler cow premium, especially in disadvantaged areas. We also provided some help for the sheep sector.
However, the pig industry is in particular difficulty. Following the fire at the pig processing plant in Ballymoney, which accounted for 40 per cent. of Northern Ireland's entire facility for dealing with pigmeat, farmers had the serious problem of being unable to get the pigs off their farms and for sale. The problem was aggravated by low prices and by a general over-supply in the European Union. We took action and introduced a pig welfare scheme last August/September to deal with farmers whose pigs were overweight and could not be removed from the farms. We helped farmers to deal with some 17,000 pigs and each farmer received £30 compensation.
However, we as a government are very limited by the European Union with regard to what we can do. Unfortunately, many of the requests I have received for additional help for the pig industry have had to be given the reply, "We are not allowed to do it; Brussels won't let us." We have been in touch with Brussels throughout the crisis and a senior representative from the Commission has visited Northern Ireland within the past few weeks. My right honourable friend Nick Brown, who is in charge of all the arrangements at MAFF, visited Northern Ireland and saw the situation for himself. However, we are simply not allowed by Brussels to do everything we are asked to do. We are very limited. Indeed, the European Commission has

1895
objected to the compensation we offered under the pig welfare slaughter scheme. We are still contesting the Commission's findings on that.
Certain developments in the European Union have helped. There is now a proposal to provide food aid relief measures for Russia. That will take some pigmeat off the European market. There have also been a number of other schemes. However, I appreciate that the problem in the pig sector is still very serious. We shall have to await the result of the Commission's visit to Northern Ireland as regards taking that further. I could spend a great deal of time discussing the problems of agriculture in Northern Ireland, but it would perhaps take up more time than is appropriate.
The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, asked why the costs of the Assembly have increased from £14.3 million to £36.9 million. The initial estimate of £14.3 million was based on the main estimated provision for 1998–99 and it was always accepted that some further provision would be necessary; for example, to take account of the Senior Salaries Review Body's recommendations on Members' pay and allowances and the Members' pension scheme. The figure of £36.9 million is the Assembly commission's estimate of the operating cost of the Assembly in a full financial year. That figure was decided by the Assembly within the past week or 10 days. It includes the cost of 400 administration staff, the SSRB recommendations, committee and party costs, research and IT, and printing and publishing costs. As the commission recognised, the actual cost of operating the Assembly in 1999–2000 will depend on a number of factors, including the date of devolution and when the additional staffing identified by the commission takes up duty.
When the order was prepared, we were not aware of the Assembly's decision leading to the figure of £36.9 million for the next financial year. So we were working on the information available to us at the time. Clearly, it will be for the Assembly to decide how it balances its books in the coming financial year. It is a decision for the Assembly. That is part of the process of devolution.
The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, asked a number of questions. I believe that I have dealt with his points as regards agriculture. I believe that the fire training centre is an important provision. I am satisfied that it will be of benefit to the fire service in Northern Ireland and that it will be used effectively with sufficient economies of scale to make it a worthwhile operation. I dealt with that in quite some detail some months ago when I gave the go-ahead for the scheme, but I am certainly happy to write to the noble Earl and give him fuller information on the basis of the question he asked.
As regards spending on the RUC and the assumption that the noble Earl made that there would be a reduction in that expenditure, which I believe is reasonable, given that the RUC represents a level of staffing way above what one would expect in a normal, civilian peacetime situation for a population of the size of Northern Ireland, that assumption is understood by the RUC. Of course, any reduction in expenditure would be made in the light of recommendations from the Chief Constable about the
1896
security situation at the time. So we cannot estimate the speed at which there might be a decline in expenditure on the RUC because we await the frequent security assessments from the Chief Constable on the basis of which we will make reductions if that is recommended.
Of course, in the shortish term redundancy payments will be an expensive cost, as they will be in the prison service. Therefore, 1 do not foresee a reduction in total spending having a damaging effect on the Northern Ireland economy, which I believe was the thrust of the noble Earl's remarks. I shall make sure that his views are made known to my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer as being a concern that the noble Earl has expressed, not for the short, but the medium term.
I believe that I have answered all the questions. In one or two instances I have said that I shall write to noble Lords with fuller information.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Water (Northern Ireland) Order 1999
9.41 p.m.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 22nd February be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of the draft Water (Northern Ireland) Order is to strengthen the law to combat water pollution and conserve water resources and to promote the use of waterways for recreation. The order will up-date and extend the Water Act (Northern Ireland) 1972.
I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to an interesting historical point. The 1972 Water Act was one of the last pieces of legislation to be passed by the old Stormont Parliament while the Water (Northern Ireland) Order may be one of the last measures relating to Northern Ireland to come before this House.
I believe that it may be helpful to the House if I say a few words about the detailed provisions. Articles 11 and 21 will enable the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland to make schemes for fees for applications for discharge consents and abstraction or impounding licences.
The powers in the 1972 Act to make regulations to control water abstraction have never been invoked because of Northern Ireland's abundant natural supplies of water. The need for such regulations is at present under review. The opportunity has been taken in Article 20 of the order to revise the powers in the 1972 Act to include protection for existing rights and to enable the impounding of water to be controlled.
Article 9 and Schedule I to the order provide new procedures for dealing with applications for discharge consents. For example, applications for revised consents will also have to be advertised and a public inquiry may be held to consider representations in response to the advertisement of applications. Article 12 will enable enforcement notices to be issued to specify the measures which must be taken to ensure compliance with conditions imposed on discharge consents.
Article 14 extends the powers to make regulations to prevent pollution to cover sources such as agriculture and industry. Where polluting matter has been discharged into a waterway or water in underground strata, Article 17 will enable the Department of the Environment to serve an anti-pollution works notice on the person responsible. The works notice will require him to take anti-pollution measures to remove the polluting matter. A notice may also be served to prevent pollution occurring. The water provisions of the order do not directly implement any EC directive.
Part III of the order addresses an increasing demand for recreational facilities and inland navigation. The success of the Shannon-Erne Waterway, restored in 1994 as a joint venture with the Republic of Ireland, has stimulated interest in canal restoration. The powers of the Rivers Agency of the Department of Agriculture under the Water Act (Northern Ireland) 1972 were limited to minor works.
Articles 41 to 45 enable that department to undertake works to promote the recreational or navigational use of any waterway. Article 46 provides for projects, such as the restoration of a derelict canal, to be taken forward in partnership between the department and other sponsors who may be able to draw on alternative sources of finance such as the National Lottery or EC funding. Such partnerships could extend under Article 47 to authorities within the Republic of Ireland in the case of a major improvement on a cross-border waterway.
The department may acquire land within Northern Ireland for those purposes, either by agreement or by vesting using the procedures in the local government legislation. Any canal restoration project would require the preparation and publication of an environmental impact assessment in accordance with EC obligations.
Article 49 authorises the department to make orders to regulate recreation and navigation on any waterway, and under Article 50 charges may be made for the use of facilities on waterways and licensing of craft. In exercising those powers, the department would consult with local interests on waterways.
The order will provide additional powers to protect surface and ground waters and promote recreational use and navigation of waterways. It will also facilitate the transfer of recreational and navigational powers, initially to the new department of culture, arts and leisure and then, under an agreed phased programme, to the cross-border implementation body on inland waterways. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 22nd February be approved.—(Lord Dubs.)
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, Article 7 of this order deals with pollution and the penalties for pollution of waterways. I accept that accidents can happen in the best of circles and any action designed to deal effectively with industrial undertakings and others who repeatedly offend against the law must be welcomed.
1898
However, the Department of the Environment has an internal problem by reason of the fact that certain sections of the department and certain of its employees have, on occasion, caused serious pollution damage to fish and sometimes livestock. In the eyes of the law and in the context of this amending order they are guilty of an offence and liable to the penalties defined in Article 7(7)(a) as,
"imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years or to a fine or to both";
and in Article 7(7)(b) as,
"imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months or to a fine not exceeding £20,000 or to both".
I do not expect the Minister to give details tonight, but I am tempted to ask what penalties or sentences have been imposed on officials of the Department of the Environment who have on occasion admitted that they caused pollution on a significant scale? I am not advocating draconian punishment; but it must be accepted that those offenders have not set a good example to others. In a real sense they are weakening the authority of the department itself.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his full explanation. The other night-1 make no complaint—I took out a little bit of light reading—a consultation paper on ground water. I was interested to note that ground water was mentioned by the Minister and, again, I make no complaint. The noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, raised an interesting point regarding pollution by public bodies and I shall be interested to hear the Minister's response in that regard.
The Minister referred to provisions for water-based tourism and leisure. I covered the opportunities for tourism in a debate that we enjoyed last week. I reiterate that there is a great future for tourism in the Province and a lot of opportunity; water-based tourism will be an important part of that.
Article 50 provides for charges relating to water-based leisure. My question is on what basis will these charges be made? Will they be merely to cover the costs of collecting the fees? Will they be to make profit? Will they be to fund capital works, perhaps improvements in new locks and towpath enhancements? Will the funds received be ring-fenced or will they go to the general budget? In particular, what improvements will be seen by users of the waterways as a result of the charges that they will pay? I believe it is partly for safety improvements. Are there are significant safety problems on the waterways? If there are, when does the Minister expect that these will be overcome?
The order refers to the Laganside development. I first saw the development in 1997 as a result of a visit organised by the noble Lord, Lord Eames. My noble friend the Duke of Abercorn has been heavily involved in this development and I was extremely impressed by it. Article 59 provides for the Laganside to issue byelaws, and they seem to be very extensive to say the least.
There is a problem and it is related to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, regarding regulation. There has been a similar problem with the

1899
Civil Aviation Authority, where they both provide the safety regulation and operate the National Air Traffic Services. That problem is being addressed, but we have a similar difficulty with regard to water supply.
Some time ago the Minister issued a consultation document on water and sewerage services. On page 23 of that paper, he says:
"The existing agency arrangement has the benefit of guaranteeing close political control of these essential public services".
We agree with him in that. It continues, "However"—and this is the salient point
"this option is difficult to sustain because of the desirability of having greater separation between the environmental regulator and the service provider".
The problem as I see it is that the environment department is responsible for the heritage services department and also the water service. I fully accept that this is not in the same league as the Civil Aviation Authority in terms of a problem, but it is an important consideration and I look forward to hearing the Minister's comments on that point.
Apart from those observations, I am content with the order.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I am grateful for the comments that have been made and the constructive way in which noble Lords have approached this order.
One of the questions which underlies the various contributions that have been made concerns the relationship between the water service and the Environmental and Heritage Service. The poacher and gamekeeper analogy is probably the one that noble Lords had in mind.
Specifically in relation to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, about penalties on DoE officials, perhaps I may say this. The water service, as part of a government department, has Crown immunity and cannot be prosecuted under the order for the offence of water pollution. However, the consultation paper to which the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, referred and which I launched last year, Water and Sewerage Services in Northern Ireland, put forward options for new structures for the water service which could result in it being outside central government and open to legal proceedings under the order. After devolution, that will of course be a matter for the Northern Ireland Assembly. In any case, the proposed new arrangements for departments in Northern Ireland will also go some way towards dealing with the point, because in the new proposals the Environment and Heritage Service will remain with the Department of the Environment—that is to say, the new-style Department of the Environment—whereas the water service will transfer to the new Department of Regional Development. Therefore, in any case, in so far as EHS monitors or oversees the water service, it will in future be in a separate department.
Perhaps equally, if not more, important are the proposals contained in the consultation paper to which I referred. As I said, it will be up to the Assembly to decide whether it wishes to implement any changes in water and sewerage services. I very much hope that it will. Given the responses that we have had so far to that
1900
consultation document—that is to say, the ones of which I am aware—I believe that there is broad support for the approach of taking the water service at least one step away from the present DOE and therefore making it liable, as I said, to possible action for the offence of water pollution. It would also be seen to be a more independent way of overseeing or monitoring the work of the water service.
The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, also asked about the basis for tourism charges—for example, charges on the waterways for using locks, and so on. I can confirm that all those charges would be ring-fenced. The income would only be used for the purposes for which it was collected; namely, for the improvement of locks or generally for improving the particular facilities of which the tourists were taking advantage in using the waterways. I am not aware of any particular safety problems, but perhaps I may look into the matter and write to the noble Earl giving him further information.
I am grateful for the very constructive comments that have been made. As I said, I shall write to noble Lords with fuller information. I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Strategic Planning (Northern Ireland) Order 1999
9.56 p.m.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 22nd February be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of the Strategic Planning (Northern Ireland) Order 1999 is to require the new Department for Regional Development to formulate a regional development strategy for the long-term development of Northern Ireland and co-ordinate its implementation.
Perhaps I may explain the context in which the order is being proposed. It is a part of the legislative package required to implement the new departmental arrangements agreed in the statement issued on 18th December 1998 by the First and Deputy First Minister designate for Northern Ireland. The statement set out proposals for the re-structuring of Northern Ireland departments and the functions for which each department would be responsible. It was agreed that the number of departments in the new Northern Ireland Administration would increase from six to 10 and that existing responsibilities should be redistributed among these 10 departments.
Under the new arrangements, strategic planning is to become the responsibility of the new Department for Regional Development, and planning control the responsibility of the new Department for the Environment.
I explained that the order requires the Department for Regional Development to formulate a regional development strategy for Northern Ireland. I should also explain that much work has already been done in this regard by the existing Department for the Environment.

1901
In December 1998, it published for consultation a draft of a regional strategy which offered a framework for developing the region over the next 25 years. Responsibility for completing this exercise will now transfer to the Department for Regional Development.
Perhaps I may stress to the House that this is a project which I find very exciting. Indeed, it is one about which I am particularly enthusiastic. Therefore, I hope that the new Assembly will share the sense of enthusiasm I have towards this overall project. There are not many such examples of looking ahead involving local people in that process while covering a whole range of areas, of lifestyle, work, leisure, and so on, than one which looks ahead for 25 years. I believe it to be a remarkable undertaking. It has attracted a great deal of support across the whole of Northern Ireland.
The Government regard this exercise as essential for the future development of Northern Ireland. In the Belfast agreement of 10th April 1998, they gave a commitment to make rapid progress with a regional strategy so that it may be considered in due course by the Assembly. The Government saw the strategy as a means of tackling the problems of a divided society and social cohesion in urban, rural and border areas, protecting and enhancing the environment, producing new approaches to transport issues, strengthening the physical infrastructure of the region, developing the advantages and resources of rural areas, and rejuvenating major urban areas.
The order would also permit the Department for Regional Development to formulate sub-regional strategies as part of, or flowing from, the regional strategy.
A number of the provisions of the order are similar to those in the Planning (Northern Ireland) Order 1991 and we considered simply transferring these to the Department for Regional Development under the Transfer of Functions Order—a piece of subordinate legislation which redistributes the functions of the old departments. However, legal advice indicated that this could not be done as the new Department for the Environment will also need those provisions to carry out its planning control functions. An order was therefore necessary.
These provisions have also been strengthened through the introduction of Article 4, which places a statutory requirement on the Department for Regional Development to provide policy guidance and advice on the regional strategy and its implementation, to co-ordinate its implementation, and Article 5, which places a statutory requirement on other Northern Ireland and UK departments to have regard to the regional strategy when exercising any functions in relation to development in Northern Ireland.
I shall now summarise the provisions in the order. Articles 1 and 2 are introductory and deal with title, commencement and interpretation of the order. Article 1 provides that the order shall come into operation on the same day as Article 3(1) of the Departments (Northern Ireland) Order 1999 which relates to the creation of new departments including the
1902
Department for Regional Development. This would be a date appointed by the Secretary of State and would precede the day on which powers are devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly by the Northern Ireland Act 1998.
Article 2 provides that the order should be construed as one with the Planning (Northern Ireland) Order 1991 for the purpose of interpreting meanings and definitions.
Article 3 requires the Department for Regional Development to formulate, in consultation with other NI departments, a regional development strategy for the long-term development of Northern Ireland. It also provides a saving clause to safeguard work already undertaken in this regard by the existing Department for the Environment. This article also empowers the Department for Regional Development to formulate sub-regional strategies as part of, or flowing from, the regional strategy.
Article 4 requires the department to provide policy guidance and advice in relation to the strategy and its implementation, and to co-ordinate its implementation. Article 5 requires all Northern Ireland and UK departments to have regard to the strategy when exercising any function in relation to development in Northern Ireland. Article 6 provides the department with the power to undertake surveys or studies for the purpose of exercising any of its functions under the order; it permits the department to consult with any persons it thinks fit for the purpose of exercising any of its functions under the order; and it also allows the department where it considers it appropriate to cause a public local inquiry to be held.
Article 7 provides the Minister for Regional Development with the power to appoint advisory bodies or committees to assist the department in the exercise of its functions under the order. Article 8 gives effect to the schedule and provides for consequential amendments.
The schedule to the order provides for consequential amendments to the Property (Northern Ireland) Order 1978 and the Planning (Northern Ireland) Order 1991.
This order permits work to continue on the completion of a regional development strategy for Northern Ireland—a strategy which the Government believe will enhance the lives and prosperity of the people of Northern Ireland. It is also important to give full effect to the new arrangements for devolved government in Northern Ireland. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 22nd February be approved.—(Lord Dubs.)
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for explaining the order. I am reassured that the departments will look a long way ahead. The Minister will be relieved to hear that I do not propose to dissect the order, mainly because I am not able to. It will be interesting to see how it works, having two departments involved in the same business. Of course I know I shall have to be careful in that regard as I have just expressed

1903
that I am content to having two departments involved in the operation and regulation of the water industry. I am entirely content with the order.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, I shall follow the line taken by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, and speak briefly at this stage. One accepts that redesigning and regrouping government departments is bound to cause a degree of confusion, at least in the short term. But can one assume that this order—providing, as it does, for strategic planning and regional planning—might have a bearing on the matter I mentioned during our debate on the appropriation order in regard to Belfast international airport? Is it possible to ensure that such a major project will not be delayed by any confusion that might be caused in the short term by the transfer of these powers? While I take the point made by the Minister with regard to factory development—which is part of this project—I trust that any difficulties and obstacles can be overcome.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, in answer to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, clearly these changes to the planning responsibilities are designed for when devolution has occurred. I see no reason why there should be any delay in dealing with planning applications of the kind described by the noble Lord at Aldergrove airport. I see no reason why there should be any delay when the Assembly takes over. We have all the procedures in place and the departmental structures will have been rearranged to comply with the new arrangements for 10 departments. I do not believe that there will be any delay. I trust that the Assembly will move forward quickly in making decisions of the kind we are talking about. At the moment we are in discussion with the developers about the difficulty which I described and to which the noble Lord referred. I hope those difficulties can be resolved quickly. I share the noble Lord's concern that major planning applications which have a bearing on employment prospects are important and offer an economic reward if they fit in with the planning system.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Energy Efficiency (Northern Ireland) Order 1999
10.6 p.m.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 22nd February be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of the draft Energy Efficiency (Northern Ireland) Order 1999 is to provide a statutory basis for the promotion of energy efficiency in Northern Ireland. I believe it will be helpful to the House if I fill in the background to the preparation and drafting of the order.
Although departments in Northern Ireland have been actively promoting energy efficiency for quite some time, there has to date been only limited statutory authority for the expenditure involved. Consequently, parliamentary approval for this expenditure has been sought annually by way of the appropriation orders.
The Northern Ireland Audit Office indicated in a letter to the Department of Economic Development that this procedure should not be used in the long-term and that authority to incur expenditure should be defined by specific statute. An assurance was therefore given to the Northern Ireland Audit Office that the appropriate legislative cover would be obtained. This order seeks to fulfil that commitment.
The promotion of energy efficiency is an important government priority in Northern Ireland and I should like to explain how this policy is delivered. Until October 1997 energy efficiency was a matter exclusively for the Department of Economic Development. However, it was then decided—mainly due to the introduction of the Home Energy Conservation Act—that the responsibility for energy efficiency in residential accommodation should be transferred to the Department of the Environment. At the same time the opportunity was taken to transfer responsibility for promoting energy efficiency in government buildings, and in the public sector generally, to the DOE. The current arrangements for promoting energy efficiency are reflected in the terms of the draft order laid before the House.
The Department of Economic Development, through the Industrial Research and Technology Unit, promotes energy efficiency in industry and commerce; that is in Article 3. The department also promotes energy efficiency among voluntary organisations and community groups; that is in Article 4.
The Department of the Environment, through the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, is responsible for energy efficiency in residential accommodation; that is in Article 5. The DOE also has responsibility for promoting energy efficiency in the government estate and in other public bodies; and that is in Article 6.
The main provisions of the order are contained in four short and broadly similar articles dealing with the promotion of the efficient use of energy by industry, and voluntary organisations, in residential accommodation and by public bodies.
Each of these articles enables the relevant department to take such action as it considers appropriate to promote the efficient use of energy. The means by which that may be done include: the payment of grants or loans; the giving of advice; the dissemination of information; and the carrying out of research. The order does not place any new duties or requirements on businesses or individuals, nor will it give rise to increased public expenditure.
The promotion of energy efficiency in residential accommodation will also allow the Department of the Environment to focus on helping vulnerable groups in Northern Ireland such as the fuel poor. That will provide the department with the opportunity to promote fuel poverty schemes to improve the thermal efficiency of dwellings.
This is a short, non-controversial but necessary order which fills a gap in the current legislative provision with regard to the promotion of energy efficiency. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 22nd February be approved.—(Lord Dubs.)
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation of the order. I wish to take this opportunity to salute the efforts of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, in this area.
1 presume that the legislation follows similar legislation that obtains in the rest of the United Kingdom. I welcome the order and am content with it.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, I note that Articles 3 and 4 of the order refer to the Department of Economic Development and that that title also appears in the Explanatory Notes. During debate on 8th February (at col. 84 of Hansard) it was declared that the Department of Economic Development would become the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment.
I am not nit-picking, but in a previous incarnation I had the uncomfortable experience of being present on several occasions when Orders in Council were being considered and when, on the highest authority, an order was held to be invalid because one word had been wrongly inserted. Orders in Council cannot be amended. Are we therefore running into any difficulty by using the old name of the department when in the previous order its new name was used?
Lord Dubs: My Lords, first, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, for his positive support. I agree that the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, has made an important contribution in the whole area of energy efficiency. This House has had the benefit of the noble Lord's experience for many years.
The order provides coverage that is not required in Great Britain. because Northern Ireland has a more extensive promotional campaign in the domestic sector. So matters are not exactly the same as in Great Britain: in some respects we may have progressed further.
The noble Lord. Lord Molyneaux, was concerned about the use of a particular departmental name within the order. We are using the name of the department as it exists today. The order is therefore drafted in pre-devolution terms, so we have to use the term Department of Economic Development at the present time. However, the transfer of functions order will apply and will therefore take care of the change of name in the post-devolution situation from the old name to the new one. That is the proper way of doing it. We very much hope that devolution will take place over the next few weeks. In the meantime, we have to use the existing names of departments.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Trade Union Subscription Deductions (Northern Ireland) Order 1999
10.14 p.m.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 22nd February be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this order is to amend the law in Northern Ireland on trade union subscription deduction arrangements—a system known as "check off'—and to place it on the same footing as the law in Great Britain. The change to the law in Great Britain was effected by the Deregulation (Deduction from Pay of Union Subscriptions) Order 1998 which came into force on 23rd June 1998.
The relevant provisions are located in Articles 35 and 36 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1995. These have been unpopular both with employers and trade unions because they impose unnecessary burdens and costs on them.
These burdens are eased by the order's provisions in two ways. First, the requirement on employers to obtain repeat authorisations from individual workers at least every three years, confirming their wish to continue paying their trade union subscriptions by "check off', is removed. Secondly, employers need not notify workers one month in advance if the amount to he deducted by "check off' is to increase.
These changes do not affect those aspects of the legislation on "check off' which provide necessary protection for workers. Written authorisations are still required from workers before deductions through "check off' can begin, and workers are free at any time to withdraw their authorisation if they so wish. Itemised pay statements under Article 40 of the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 showing the amount of any deduction are still required to be provided by employers. These arrangements are considered by government to provide a sufficient safeguard to ensure that employees are informed about and in control of deductions from their pay.
While the order removes the burdensome aspects of the law on "check off' which are universally unpopular, it retains the necessary protections and freedoms for individuals to opt in and opt out of the "check off' arrangements on pay.
I commend the order to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 22nd February be approved.—(Lord Dubs.)
Earl Attlee: My Lords. I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation of this order. We are entirely content with it because it reduces a burden on business.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, I. too, do not oppose the principle of the draft order, which fulfils a manifesto commitment made by the party now in government. It was endorsed by the electorate of England, Scotland and Wales. The party in government did not field candidates in Northern Ireland; therefore.

1907
those in Northern Ireland, particularly members of trade unions, did not have the opportunity to express their approval.
I wonder what the reason was for the intention originally to embody this clear-cut formula in what was called a composite order or, as the late Eric Heffer said, a composite Order in Council. Why was it intended to do that, rather than to repeat the same formula that was used in the rest of the United Kingdom, fulfilling as it did the clear-cut manifesto commitment? It may be difficult for the Minister to answer that, as he was not responsible, but it seems to be something of an anomaly. Maybe there is a message in that for the Assembly when it comes to do the work and tries to avoid the vital commitment in a composite order which, among other things, has no relationship to this particular item.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I am grateful for the comments that have been made. On the specific point made by the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, I understand that it is not possible to legislate in Northern Ireland in the same way as it is in Great Britain. In Great Britain, under provisions in the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994, the Secretary of State has power to make orders removing or reducing burdens on business. That power does not extend to Northern Ireland.
It had been planned to legislate by a deregulation Northern Ireland Order in Council. However, there was insufficient time to complete all the stages required for a deregulation measure containing a number of different issues before the transfer of power to the Assembly. Consultation took place on draft provisions dealing only with the trade union subscription deduction arrangements with a view to there being an early measure introduced by the Assembly.
Yet again, we have some differences in Northern Ireland, but I think we end up in the same place as in Great Britain. Provisions will be the same and businesses and employees will benefit similarly from this order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Northern Ireland (Modification of Enactments—No. 1) Order 1999
10.19 p.m.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 22nd February be approved [11th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as a result of the ongoing preparations for the future administration of Northern Ireland, following the Good Friday agreement, today I present the draft Northern Ireland (Modification of Enactments—No.1) Order 1999. This order seeks to modify the law and make other provisions consequent to the Northern Ireland Act 1998.
Essentially, the order makes provision for enactments which require amendment or repeal; transfer to the appropriate authority in Northern Ireland of powers currently vested in the Secretary of State which were historically vested in the Lord Lieutenant and the
1908
Governor of Northern Ireland, the gubernatorial powers; and provides for the continuation in law of statutory rules made in the weeks immediately before devolution but which, because of parliamentary procedure, are capable of being annulled after devolution by either the Assembly or at Westminster.
I now summarise the main provisions of the order. Article 1 is introductory and deals with the title, commencement and extent of the order. It will come into force on the day appointed for devolution. It applies the provisions of the order to Northern Ireland only, except as it relates to certain provisions of UK-wide enactments and to a provision in a Scottish enactment.
Article 2 gives effect to the amendment of various enactments specified in Schedule 1 to the order. This includes the transfer of powers of the former Governor of Northern Ireland relating to matters in the transferred field and which, during direct rule, are vested in the Secretary of State. Post-devolution these would go to either the First Minister/Deputy First Minister, the relevant departmental minister or the department concerned. Decisions on the level of the authority to exercise these powers have been taken on the basis of the importance, scope and nature of the subject matter.
If I could illustrate by means of examples, it might help to set the provisions in context. The Petroleum (Consolidation) Act (Northern Ireland) 1929 deals with the licensing and safe keeping of petroleum. It gives power to the governor, now transferred to the Secretary of State, to make Orders in Council applying the Act to other substances. The amendment being made would transfer the power to the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, subject to that department's laying an order before the Assembly.
Similarly, in the Public Records Act (Northern Ireland) 1923, which provides for the Public Records Office for Northern Ireland, the governor had certain powers in relation to the printing and publication of records. These powers would now be transferred to the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure.
Finally, Article 7 of the Water and Sewerage Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1973 confers a power on the governor to make appointments to the Water Appeals Commission. This power would transfer to the First and Deputy First Ministers acting jointly so that the power is exercised in the transferred field but at a distance from direct responsibility for the service provision. This article also gives effect to repeals to the extent set out in Schedule 2.
Article 3 makes provision for statutory rules in passage when devolution comes into force. As I said, under normal parliamentary procedures such statutory rules are capable of being annulled, either by the Assembly or at Westminster, during that part of the statutory period which falls after devolution. Under Article 3 of the order, such statutory rules would be protected.
If I could set the provision in context, it might be helpful to your Lordships. As far as the Assembly is concerned, technically a statutory rule, which is subject to negative resolution procedure and made before devolution, would be laid before the Assembly. If within

1909
a statutory period (30 days minimum) the Assembly resolves that it be annulled, the rule would become void from that time.
As a matter of constitutional propriety, the Assembly should not be in a position post devolution to annul statutory rules which have been made under direct rule in the period immediately before devolution. It could, of course, revoke the rule in question after devolution by making a new rule if it so wishes. I should explain that this aspect of Article 3 is not new but largely re-enacts provisions contained in the Northern Ireland Act 1974.
Similarly, it would not he appropriate for Westminster to debate a statutory rule on a transferred matter, subject to negative resolution procedure, after devolution. Once again, the rule could be subject to annulment after devolution because the statutory period of 40 days had not expired on devolution day. For these reasons the provisions of Article 3 are necessary.
Article 4 applies the provisions of the Documentary Evidence Act 1868, as amended in 1882, to documents issued under the authority of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. This means, in effect, that an official document authorised by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister acting jointly can be admitted in court proceedings as conclusive evidence of such a document.
Article 5 ensures that any subordinate legislation already made by, or anything done under, the enactments which would be amended by this order will continue to have effect after devolution. It also takes
1910
account of the provisions of Section 95(5) of and Schedule 12 to the Northern Ireland Act 1998. That schedule provides for certain references in existing laws to continue to have effect following devolution. For example, a reference in existing law to laying a document before the "Parliament of Northern Ireland" will in the post-devolution context be read as a reference to laying a document before the Northern Ireland Assembly. Article 5 makes it clear that the amendments contained in Schedule 1 to this order do not prejudice the operation of those provisions. A comprehensive consultation paper on the proposals on which this order is based, followed by a draft of the order itself, was circulated to, and considered by, the First and Deputy First Ministers (designate). The draft order was also circulated to the Northern Ireland party leaders.
This order complements the other legislation giving full effect to the new arrangements for the future government of Northern Ireland as a result of the Good Friday agreement and as such is a necessary part of it. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 22nd February be approved [11th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Dubs.)
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that explanation. Despite the complexities of the order—it is a technical matter—I am entirely content with it.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past ten o'clock.

  Army District Restructuring
  Army District Restructuring
  Foreign Fishing Vessels: Economic Link to UK
  Foreign Fishing Vessels: Economic Link to UK
  Genetically Modified Food: Approval and Labelling
  Genetically Modified Food: Approval and Labelling
  Architecture: Role of Structural Engineering
  Architecture: Role of Structural Engineering
  Millennium Dome: Future Use
  Millennium Dome: Future Use
  Licensed Software and the Public Service
  Licensed Software and the Public Service
  Severn Tunnel
  Severn Tunnel
  Stolen Vehicles: Licensing
  Stolen Vehicles: Licensing
  Vehicle Excise Duty Refunds
  Vehicle Excise Duty Refunds
  Genetically Modified Crops: English Nature's Advice
  Genetically Modified Crops: English Nature's Advice
  Northern Ireland: Suicides
  Northern Ireland: Suicides
  Car Parking in Black Rod's Garden
  Car Parking in Black Rod's Garden
  Dispute Resolution by Mediation
  Dispute Resolution by Mediation
  Alternative Dispute Resolution
  Alternative Dispute Resolution
  Family Records Centre: 1901 Census
  Family Records Centre: 1901 Census
  Council of Europe Human Rights Commissioner
  Council of Europe Human Rights Commissioner
  Kosovo: Draft Agreement
  Kosovo: Draft Agreement
  FCO: Cash Limit Increase
  FCO: Cash Limit Increase
  NATO: Accession of New Members
  NATO: Accession of New Members
  UN Security Council Members: Nuclear Weapons Policy
  UN Security Council Members: Nuclear Weapons Policy
  China: Human Rights
  China: Human Rights
  Murmansk: Foreign Secretary's Visit
  Murmansk: Foreign Secretary's Visit
  EU/ASEAN Summit: Burmese Participation
  EU/ASEAN Summit: Burmese Participation
  Gibraltar
  Gibraltar
  Immigration Centre: Visa Delays
  Immigration Centre: Visa Delays
  Mr. Salah Idris
  Mr. Salah Idris
  Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989
  Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989
  Human Rights Instruments: UK Ratification
  Human Rights Instruments: UK Ratification
  Fire Service College
  Fire Service College
  Asylum Refusals: Judicial Review
  Asylum Refusals: Judicial Review
  Female Prisoners: Distance from Home
  Female Prisoners: Distance from Home
  Wackenhut (UK) Ltd: Prison Service Contracts
  Wackenhut (UK) Ltd: Prison Service Contracts
  Business Mail: Date Stamping
  Business Mail: Date Stamping
  Woodland Grant Scheme
  Woodland Grant Scheme
  Scottish Parliament: Opening Sitting
  Scottish Parliament: Opening Sitting
  Charitable Organisations Supported by DFID: Standards
  Charitable Organisations Supported by DFID: Standards
  WTO: Participation by Developing Countries
  WTO: Participation by Developing Countries
  Somalia
  Somalia
  Operation Lifeline Sudan: Funding
  Operation Lifeline Sudan: Funding