Sitting of 8 March 1999

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

  Pensioners (Income Support)
  Mr. John Grogan:If he will make a statement about the pilot study carried out by his Department in York to encourage take-up of income support by pensioners. [73038]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Hugh Bayley): As a Back-Bench Member for the City of York, I welcomed the Government's decision to pilot take-up activity in York. The outcome of a pilot in York, and in the eight other locations, is being analysed. Until the full evaluation is complete, the results will not be meaningful, and it would be premature to comment.
  Mr. Grogan: Given that official estimates suggest that at least 500,000 pensioners do not claim the income support to which they are entitled, how many pensioners in York and North Yorkshire does my hon. Friend
  2
  estimate will be eligible for the Government's new minimum income guarantee when it becomes effective in April, and what plans does he have to use publicity to encourage them to claim their entitlement?
  Mr. Bayley: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. When it is introduced, a minimum income guarantee will prove a real boon to the poorest pensioners, providing a minimum of £75 a week for single pensioners and £116.60 for couples. We estimate that approximately 4,000 pensioners will benefit from the minimum income guarantee in the York local authority district, and about 14,500 in North Yorkshire.

  Means-tested Benefits
  Peter Viggers: What proportion of total payments made by his Department are means-tested. [73039]
  The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Darling): The proportion of total social security expenditure going on means-tested benefits was 34 per cent. in 1997–98. In 1979, it was 16 per cent.
  Mr. Viggers: Does the Secretary of State agree that means-tested benefits are much more expensive to administer than universal benefits and can be grossly unfair? Is it not a fact that someone who has saved for his or her retirement can actually be worse off than someone who has made no provision and who will get the benefit of the minimum income guarantee, together with housing benefits and council tax benefit? How can he possibly begin to justify that to decent and respectable people who want to remain independent?
  Mr. Darling: If means-tested benefits are unfair, they were as unfair in 1979 as they are now. The hon. Gentleman supported the previous Government when they doubled the number of means-tested benefits.
  When we came into office, we found that the disparity in income had grown dramatically over 18 years, and we deliberately set about doing far more for poorer people—

  3
  by introducing the working families tax credit, the disability income guarantee, the minimum income guarantee for pensioners and other measures. We have also increased universal benefits, such as child benefit, and our pensions proposals are designed to ensure that we end one of the great scandals of today—that more than a third of pensioners are likely to rely on income-related benefits when they retire. We aim to lift those people out of that position.
  The Government are taking action across the board, but I do not agree that means-tested benefits are inherently wrong. They do a great deal to help the poorest people in our society.
  Mr.Derek Twigg: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, when the Tories talk about means-tested benefits, my constituents live in fear that they really want to talk about cutting benefits and attacking people in poverty? Is not the difference between the parties that, when the Labour party talks about means-testing, we talk about ensuring that those most in need get the benefits that they deserve?
  Mr.Darling: The working families tax credit has a very flat taper; it is designed to help people who would not otherwise receive help, and to make work pay. We are determined to do—as we said that we would in our manifesto—far more to help the poorest pensioners, some of whom did very badly in the previous 18 years. Unlike the Conservative party, we are genuinely anxious to tackle not just the immediate effects of poverty but, above all, the causes of poverty, into which far too many people have fallen.
  Mr.Quentin Davies: Is it not both unreasonable and thoroughly unfair that, according to the Government's proposals, the only pensioners who can look forward to their earnings in retirement being linked to average earnings will be those who qualify for income support—for the Government's so-called minimum income guarantee? Under the Government's proposals, nobody who has earned an occupational pension or a state retirement pension by contributing to the national insurance system for 40 years can dream of that measure of protection. Are not the Government thoroughly ashamed that, after all the rhetoric of the last Parliament and all the promises delivered by hundreds of Labour candidates before the general election, no move at all has been made to deliver on the promise to link the state retirement pension to earnings?
  Mr.Darling: It is my recollection that the Conservative Government broke the earnings link with pensions in 1981, and we certainly made it very clear that we were not proposing to restore the earnings link with pensions. Instead, we have done two things. We have made proposals to put the long-term basis of pensions on a proper footing, with a new state second pension that will help those on the lowest earnings and that is designed to ensure that someone who works for a lifetime and saves during that period need not rely on income support at the point at which they retire. Our other proposals are all designed to alleviate the poverty that we inherited among pensioners and others. Across the board, the Government are determined not only to deal with the effects of poverty
  4
  but to mount a sustained attack on the causes of poverty by making work pay and helping others who are unable to work.
  Mr. Paul Flynn: Would not the best way of achieving my right hon. Friend's aim of fewer pensioners reliant on income support and other means-tested benefits be to raise the level of the basic pension? The Conservative party broke the earnings link in 1980. If it had been maintained, the basic pension next month would be not £66 but £90. Does my right hon. Friend agree that most of the pensioners who will not receive the guaranteed minimum income—between 400,000 and 700,000 of them—are those who say, "For all our lives we have never taken any handouts and we will not start now"? They would accept an increase if it were an entitlement and on the basic pension, but they will not take it if it is on income support because they perceive it as a handout. We have enough money—more than £6 billion—and the cost would be £3 billion. Why do we not go some way towards undoing the damage done by the Conservative Government and raise the basic minimum pension to £75 this year?
  Mr. Darling: The cost of increasing the pension to £75 this year would be substantial. I point out to my hon. Friend that more than half of those who do not receive the minimum income guarantee have excess capital of more than £20,000. About 190,000 people have capital of more than £50,000. In our pension proposals, we ensured that we had a new system through the state second pension that would benefit those who are on lower earnings throughout their lifetime. Alongside that is the £2.5 billion package that we announced last summer. We make no bones about it: we decided that, rather than spread the sum available far more thinly—something that would not have helped some of the poorest pensioners about whom my hon. Friend and I are most concerned— we would give far more help to those on lower incomes.
  If we increased the basic state pension to £75 a week, that would cost about £3 billion. I believe that it is far better to spend our money helping those pensioners who did least well over the preceding 18 years, as well as putting into law proposals that will ensure that the problem is not so acute in years to come.

  Bereavement Benefits
  Mr. David Rendel: What steps he is taking to improve the financial position of the bereaved. [73040]
  The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. Stephen Timms): The reforms in the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill will provide specific help for the first time to widowers as well as widows. The new lump sum bereavement payment at £2,000 will be double the value of the existing widow's payment. Our aim is to concentrate help where and when it is most needed at the time immediately following bereavement and on those with children.
  Mr. Rendel: I know that the Department received a letter from Captain Mongor pointing out that, as recently as September 1998, it wrote telling him that his widow would get the full additional pension even if he died after

  5
  she was aged 55, something that will not happen until the year 2004. Given that the Government have rightly insisted on the private sector compensating people who have been mis-sold private pensions, what will the Government do to compensate people such as Captain Mongor—there may be millions of them—who have been given false information by the Department about what would happen to their widows and the additional pensions that their widows are due to get?
  Mr. Timms: This is another measure inherited from the previous Government. Many people knew about the change and made plans accordingly, but it is the case that Department of Social Security leaflets were not updated until 1996. We are investigating why that was so. I can tell the House that we shall consider a claim for compensation from anyone who can establish that he or she received advice that did not reflect the change from April 2000 and, as a result, acted to their detriment. We shall be announcing further details shortly.
  Mr. Frank Field: One promise in "New Contract for Welfare", is that
  "people can have greater confidence that they will get proper protection in return for the contributions they make."
  How does my hon. Friend square that with the proposals to strip out coverage for widows benefits, even though many people have paid 30 years' contributions for that cover?
  Mr. Timms: The coverage is being extended to widowers. It will be a new contributory benefit for widowers. Those with children will continue to receive non-means-tested help until the youngest child for whom they are responsible ceases full-time education. The income support safety net will be in place for those who are older than 55 when the measures are introduced and who are widowed in the following five years. We are concentrating help—I think that my right hon. Friend will support this—on those who at the time need it most.
  Mr. John Bercow: Further to the highly pertinent inquiry from the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), how does the Minister seriously expect to eradicate the something-for-nothing culture if he continues to pursue his reform of widows pensions in such a way as completely to undermine the contributory principle and to leave worse off no fewer than 250,000 women the length and breadth of the United Kingdom?
  Mr. Timms: I have made the point that there is a new contributory benefit for widowers. There has been no such measure before; we are introducing one. It is time-limited, but not means-tested. All widows will receive non-means-tested benefit for six months to help during the transition, and those with children will continue to receive non-means-tested help until the youngest child ceases full-time education. We are modernising the system. Now, seven in 10 married women are in work. When the original system was introduced, the proportion was very much lower. We must change the system to reflect the changing times in which we live.
  Mr. Tony McNulty: Can my hon. Friend confirm that, for the first time, widows and widowers will get comprehensive assistance via the single
  6
  gateway and special advisers to help them through the maze of the benefit system? Will my hon. Friend comment on a second issue: if it is so crucial to the Liberals that recently bereaved widows are looked after, why is there no provision for that in their Budget, which was issued this morning?
  Mr. Timms: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. I looked carefully through the documents issued this morning by the Liberal Democrats to see whether the matter was dealt with there. My hon. Friend is right—it is not. He is also right about the extra help that we are making available through the single work-focused gateway. That is an extremely important change, which will help many thousands of people. It is important for the House to know, too, that we are doubling the lump sum that will be payable to both widows and widowers on bereavement.

  New Deal (Lone Parents)
  Mr. Graham Brady: If he will make a statement on the progress of the new deal for lone parents. [73041]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Angela Eagle): The new deal for lone parents is providing active support to help lone parents to move into work. As of 29 January, more than 163,000 initial letters have been issued; more than 39,000 lone parents have attended interviews and, of those, 32,000 have agreed to participate in the programme; and more than 6,000 jobs have been obtained by lone parents.
  Mr. Brady: I thank the Minister for that interesting response. On 29 April last year, when the right hon. Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) appeared before the Select Committee on Education and Employment, some 6 per cent. of those who received letters were finding work. The right hon. Lady told me on that occasion that the number was increasing exponentially. I understand from the latest figures that 3.8 per cent. of those receiving letters are finding work. Perhaps the right hon. Lady meant that the number was decreasing exponentially. In any case, do not the figures demonstrate that the scheme is a £200 million failure that needs urgent review?
  Angela Eagle: No. The hon. Gentleman has been doing rather odd mathematics. Why divide the number of letters issued by the number of jobs obtained? That seems a meaningless calculation. The fact is that the Government are doing something to help lone parents to get back into work. The previous Government did nothing but scapegoat them.
  Ms Diane Abbott: Does the Minister share the concern of a number of organisations that represent single parents about the proposal in the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill that single parents should be subjected to a series of compulsory interviews? Does she agree that it is no business of a Labour Government to imply or suggest that the only way for mothers with children under five to improve their lot is to go out to work?
  Angela Eagle: I do not share that concern, because I think that it is based on a misunderstanding of the single

  7
  work focus gateway proposals. No mother of children under five would be made to attend an interview unless she were applying for extra benefits. The idea of the interview is to assist her in getting into work or becoming more employable for when she decides that it is right for her to take up work. There will be no compulsion to act, or to look for a job, as a result of the interview. We hope that the interviews will help the 1.8 million children who are being raised on income support in poverty, and will assist the 1.6 million lone parents to improve their lot, enabling them to look after their children and move off benefit into work, so that they can give their children much better chances in life.
  Mr. Eric Pickles: If the calculation is as meaningless as the Minister suggests, she should understand that it is the Government's calculation. What is meaningless is the amount of wasted money that has gone on the scheme—£200 million, which is a cost of £15,000 a job. The simple truth is that those who wanted to get a job have got one, which is why the figure has gone down from 7 to 3.8 per cent. Does she understand that the only reason why this flagship policy has not sunk without trace is that there has never been sufficient water under it to allow it to float?
  Angela Eagle: One of the largest causes of poverty among our children—something that surely concerns the hon. Gentleman—is the fact that 60 per cent. of lone parent households are workless. We are trying to tackle the problem of workless households by giving lone parents the chance to get back into work so that they can provide for their children at much higher levels of income than income support could ever give them. That is what we are doing; the Tory record is one of total neglect and scapegoating.
  We are trying to do something to get lone parents back into work. The new deal for lone parents will be properly assessed in the autumn and there will be an independent assessment of how it is working. We shall look at how it is doing then. I do not like taking lectures from a member of a party that, when it was in office, did absolutely nothing but condemn lone parents to a lifetime on benefit.
  Madam Speaker: I call Mr. Brazier.
  Mr. Julian Brazier: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The answer to the—I am sorry, Question 5.

  Single Gateway
  Mr. Julian Brazier: If he will make a statement on progress towards introduction of the single gateway to benefit. [73042]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Angela Eagle): A seamless move from Question 4 to Question 5. Our plans for the introduction of the single work-focused gateway are on course.
  Mr. Brazier: The answer to an earlier question established that the voluntary principle is doing nothing to the new deal. What is the point in introducing compulsory gateway interviews for single parents and other categories of people who are not compulsorily required to take a job? Is the whole mass of exemptions under clause 47
  8
  of the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill a sign that the Government are starting to change their mind? How much will it all cost?
  Angela Eagle: I wish that Conservative Members would not dismiss as nothing the 39,000 lone parents who have had an interview so far and nearly 30,000 people who have joined the new deal for lone parents, let alone the 6,262 lone parents who are in work as a result of the new deal. The idea of the single work-focused gateway is to give individual, tailored help to people who may have been away from the labour market for a long time and to give them a strategic direction so that they can plan, when their children are old enough, to get back into the labour market and support themselves and their children.
  Mr. Andrew Dismore: On Friday, I visited a project in Burnt Oak in my constituency, which is run by Hendon college and involves working with the older age group of unemployed people. One of the big complaints that came through to me from the clients and the staff at the project was the lack of a gateway for the older age group. Will my hon. Friend the Minister take that on board and make sure that we do the best that we possibly can for people in the older age group—they face all sorts of barriers, including age discrimination—and start to broaden the gateway?
  Angela Eagle: My hon. Friend correctly identifies the fact that people appreciate having a personal adviser and individualised help in a confusing system of benefits and a difficult and fast-changing labour market. That is something that we have learned from the new deal, and we are anxious to extend it to the benefits system, where it will be widely welcomed.
  Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: Is not the reality that the Government are in a complete mess over their programme—[HON. MEMBERS:"Oh!"] They do not like it, but we have a gateway programme and the Bill is going through Parliament, although the Government still do not understand or admit how much that will cost. They set no targets for the increase in the number of jobs that they want to achieve. There are 1 million lone parents on income support, but there is no comment about how many of them the Government expect to get into work. We have heard about the £200 million cost of the new deal for lone parents, which is wasted, and that 3.8 per cent. of lone parents get into work, although nearly one fifth of them fall away from work after six months. Must not the Government now accept that they have no joined-up thinking in that regard? They have two programmes aimed at two groups, and they are failing. It is the Government who are doing nothing: they raise expectations, and then dash them by failing.
  Angela Eagle: The single work-focused gateway is a pilot scheme. In fact, there will be 12 pilot schemes, to enable us to learn how best—
  Mr. Eric Pickles: Make it up as you go along.
  Angela Eagle: We are not making it up as we go along; we are ensuring that the changes that we are to make will work, and can be properly costed and planned. That is responsible government.

  9
  The hon. Gentleman needs to understand this. We believe that benefit claimants, as well as those who have been unemployed and are taking advantage of the new deal, will find personal adviser interviews and individualised assistance beneficial. As I have said, the single work-focused gateway involves pilot schemes, which will take place in 12 different areas over the next two or three years, and we have set aside £80 million for the purpose. We will evaluate and assess the pilot schemes, and will then be able to tell the House how we can transform our benefit system into an active system that will help individuals, rather than just doling out money and leaving them floundering.

  Minimum Pension Guarantee
  Mr. Bill Rammell: If he will make a statement on the review of the savings allowance in relation to the minimum pension guarantee. [73043]
  Sir Sydney Chapman: What assessment he has made of the effect of the introduction of a minimum pension guarantee on low earners' savings. [73048]
  The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Darling): We made clear in the pensions Green Paper that we want to look at options for changing the rules on the treatment of voluntary saving better to reward those who have saved for their retirement.
  Mr. Rammell: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. I fully support the Government's policy of aiming support at the poorest pensioners in the initial stages of the current Parliament, and decry the selective amnesia of the Opposition. A huge expansion of means-tested benefits took place when they were in power; now, they have suddenly discovered that they have problems with that.
  Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a problem for pensioners with relatively few savings who feel that they have played by the rules, but who are now finding that those relatively small sums disbar them from additional state support? May I strongly urge the Government to take that factor into account in the review?
  Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend has made two good points. First, I think that we all take with a pinch of salt some of what is now being said by the Conservative party, and what will be said in the "kitchen table" talks that it is introducing. Secondly, I have made it clear on a number of occasions that we need to ensure that someone who has saved, and has a modest amount of capital or income, will not be penalised on that account. As we made clear in the pensions Green Paper, we are determined to act.
  Sir Sydney Chapman: Given the Secretary of State's acceptance that the introduction of a minimum pension guarantee will lead to a distinct disincentive for those earning below the average to save, and given that it will lead to a massive increase in means-testing and more dependency on the state, will the right hon. Gentleman
  10
  have a quiet word with the Chancellor in the next 24 hours, to ensure that he addresses those very real problems?
  Mr. Darling: I think that the hon. Gentleman was a Whip during much of the last Government, and he did nothing about the problems about which he now complains.
  We recognise that there is a problem for pensioners with income and capital, and we are therefore determined to do something about it. In regard to the minimum income guarantee, we—unlike the Conservative party— recognise that there are many pensioners who are poor, and who need immediate help. The guarantee means that we are giving to the poorest pensioners real help, which many of them greatly appreciate and which, sadly, many of them greatly need.
  Mr. Steve Webb: I restate my support for the Government's decision to link the minimum income guarantee to earnings. However, does the Secretary of State accept that an anomaly is being created? The overall aim of the policy is to ensure that people reach retirement age with an income above the minimum income guarantee level, but, in written answers to me, he has suggested that they will be below that level within five years of retirement. As the guarantee rises in line with earnings, and all other pension incomes rise in line with prices, people could slip back down later in their retirement. Is the right hon. Gentleman concerned about that, and does he plan to do something about it?
  Mr. Darling: I appreciate the fact that the hon. Gentleman—I assume that he speaks for the whole Liberal Democrat party on the issue—[Interruption.] Obviously not. I appreciate what he said. Most sensible commentators, and he is clearly one, recognise the value of linking the minimum income guarantee to earnings.
  On the hon. Gentleman's substantive point, our object is to ensure that, during their lifetime, people save as much as they possibly can, so that they do not have to rely on income-related benefit. With people living longer— sometimes for 20 or 30 years after retirement—that means that there has to be substantial saving. One of the things that we are doing that will help people who can save but do not, is to ensure that they receive an annual pension statement, which will concentrate some people's minds in a way that has not happened.
  Mr. Malcolm Wicks: Only this morning, before coming to the House, I met a group of pensioners in Croydon. The main issue that they raised was the perceived unfairness of the position of those people who, for either income or capital reasons, were just above the means-tested income support level.
  One elderly woman, a widow, said that she had put aside savings so that she could do repairs to her home, if those were necessary. Because of those savings, she was debarred from income support. I welcome what my right hon. Friend has said about the savings trap and our need to spring it. It cannot be right that those who are the most responsible and thrifty among the elderly population are penalised, rather than supported.
  Mr. Darling: I appreciate my hon. Friend's point. Without wishing to labour the point, let me say that the

  11
  Government are considering how best to deal with that matter. The problem of people who are nearly poor is one that has concerned many of us for some considerable time, but I emphasise that, given the situation that we inherited, where there were many extremely poor pensioners, to do something quickly to help those most in need, it was necessary to introduce the minimum income guarantee, as well as the other measures that we have taken: free eye tests for pensioners, concessionary travel, winter fuel payments and so on. Taken together, those measures are a significant boost for pensioners, but I take the point that my hon. Friend makes.
  Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: Is it not a fact that the Secretary of State has put pensioners in an expensive mess? The very fact that he has to look at the savings trap shows that the Government blundered into the whole business of the minimum income guarantee without thinking through the effects of what they were about to do. It will lead to increasing dependency.
  Let the Secretary of State ask himself what the Government have done for pensioners. When they first came in, they taxed £5 billion a year off pension holders, which means that pensioners will be up to 15 per cent. worse off on their incomes after retirement. Not only is the budget rising by £37 billion a year, but the Government's response to that is to increase dependency through the minimum income guarantee, increase the cost further and so increase the overall cost of welfare.
  The Prime Minister promised to cut the cost and the Secretary of State is raising it. We have heard of dumbing down, but surely that is dumb government.
  Mr. Darling: Discussion over the breakfast table in the household must be absolutely fascinating.
  The Conservatives have to face up to two points. First, the income and capital rules have been there for some considerable time. In fact, they were there during the whole time that the Conservatives were in office, and they did nothing about them.
  Secondly, if we had not changed the way in which pension provision is made for the future, one person in three who is now working would rely on income-related benefits—in other words, the means test that the hon. Gentleman complains about. What we have done is to ensure that, where people work throughout their life, they are rewarded by not having to rely on income-related benefits when they retire.
  The minimum income guarantee was introduced to tackle a real problem: there are far too many poor pensioners.[Interruption.] One would think that the Conservative party—I know that Conservative Members have been told this in their new presentation—had arrived on the planet only last week. They were not only on the planet; they were in government for 18 years, during which time they did nothing for poorer pensioners.
  I am more than happy to be judged on the fact that I am part of a Government who introduced the minimum income guarantee, reduced VAT on fuel, introduced free eye tests for pensioners and extended concessionary travel. The present Government are determined to do far more for pensioners—for whom the Conservative party did absolutely nothing.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Denis MacShane: What plans he has to reform the administration of the CSA. [73044]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Angela Eagle): The Green Paper published last year stated our proposals for radical reform of the discredited child support system. We also made it clear that we would be expecting the Child Support Agency to make substantial improvements before the reforms took effect. Considerable progress has already been made. Planned changes for the coming year include a much improved face-to-face service; simplification of the decision-making and appeals process; introduction of improved arrangements for dealing with the self-employed; and clearer and simpler communication.
  Mr. MacShane: I welcome the Minister's reply. Does she agree with two main points on the CSA? First, since the agency was established six years ago, it has done nothing to slow the break-up of families, or the relentless rise in lone parenthood and school-age pregnancies—the three major by-products of the Conservative era. Secondly, perhaps the agency's greatest failure is the fact that the proportion of lone parents on benefit who receive maintenance from absent fathers is now no higher than it was in 1993.
  I welcome the report in today's newspapers about lone parents on low incomes and in work keeping more of their child maintenance. Will the Government consider extending those arrangement to unemployed single mothers—they should be able to keep as much of their child maintenance as is equivalent to child benefit—and ring-fencing that maintenance in detachment of earnings orders, so that fathers understand that some of their money is going directly to their children and not to the Treasury?
  Angela Eagle: Although my hon. Friend is right about the proportion of parents with care who are currently receiving maintenance, he must also understand that there has been a 60 per cent. increase in case load. We are expecting the case load for the CSA to pass the 1 million mark before the end of the year. Although it is much more effective than it was, it is saddled with a very difficult system of child maintenance assessment, which we are in the middle-via our Green Paper—of attempting to simplify. We shall, in due course, be introducing those changes.
  I also thank my hon. Friend for noticing the announcements on a 100 per cent disregard for women lone parents who are receiving working families tax credit. The disregard should provide them with a huge incentive to go into work. I hope that my hon. Friend will also recognise that there is a £10 disregard for parents with care who are on benefit. Therefore, absent fathers can see that some of their maintenance money is going for the upkeep of their children.
  Mr. Nicholas Soames: Will the hon. Lady accept from me that improvements in how the CSA works are greatly to be welcomed? However, will she also agree that part of the problem for all our constituents is the inconsistency in the service that they receive from the CSA? Although the training programmes that have been established are undoubtedly yielding great benefits, will

  13
  she talk to the head of the CSA to determine what can be done to achieve, through training, greater and more skilful communication with our constituents—who often have to ring up and deal with the CSA while under great stress?
  Angela Eagle: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that child maintenance is a very delicate, difficult and complex issue, and welcome his acknowledgement that the CSA is making strides in how it deals with the issue, particularly through greater telephone contact. We are just completing assessments of pilots on joint Benefits Agency-CSA work, which relies on tele-claiming. We have also allocated £12 million extra to improve the direct client service this year. Those improvements are now showing results.
  As I told my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane), however, the CSA has a very difficult task in attempting to assess child maintenance using the very complex formula established in primary legislation. I do not believe that we shall make any real breakthrough until we have managed to change the formula, for which we shall require primary legislation.
  Mr. Terry Rooney: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the proposals in the Green Paper will cut off the dozens of escape routes in information flow that are exercised by absent parents and that proposals will also be made to alter dramatically the ratio of staff time spent on chasing that information to time spent on collection?
  Angela Eagle: Yes. I believe that with a simpler assessment process the CSA will be able to change the current situation—90 per cent. of time spent on assessing maintenance and only 10 per cent. of time spent collecting it—to a more healthy state of affairs.

  Older Pensioners
  Mr. Simon Hughes: What plans he has for increasing assistance to older pensioners. [73045]
  The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. Stephen Timms): The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. The minimum income guarantee is being set at a higher level for older pensioners. It will be £75 a week for a single pensioner just above retirement age, but £77.30 a week for a single pensioner aged 75 to 79 and £82.25 a week for a pensioner aged 80 or over.
  Mr. Hughes: That is welcome. However, what would the Minister say to pensioners over 75 throughout the country who do not want to go through the means-testing process, those who cannot do so and those who discover that their small life savings or a small occupational pension would result in them getting no minimum income guarantee top-up, leaving them with no additional basic state pension? There is not a single paragraph in the Green Paper on older pensioners' entitlements. Does that mean that the Government have excluded once and for all increasing the basic state pension for older pensioners and are going to leave them with the 25p for the over 80s, which they regard as a simple insult?
  Mr. Timms: I am aware of the proposals in the document produced this morning by the Liberal
  14
  Democrats for higher rates of state pension for older pensioners. That would be an expensive measure that would provide no help to older pensioners already on income support, which cannot be right. We acknowledged in our election manifesto that there was a problem with the number of people who claim the minimum income guarantee. We have carried out pilot projects trying out ways to encourage benefit take-up among pensioners. When the evaluation is complete we shall learn the lessons for encouraging wider take-up. It is right to concentrate extra help on those who need it most.
  Mr. Ian Davidson: Is my hon. Friend aware that my constituents die sooner than those who live in the more salubrious suburbs of Glasgow? Does he accept that there is a strong connection between prosperity and longevity? It would be unfair for money to be targeted on those who happen to live longer. Does he accept that it is essential that those who are in need receive money and that the Government's targeting process of giving more money to those in need is a far fairer way of distributing the money available?
  Mr. Timms: I agree with my hon. Friend. Even the least well-off pensioners should share in rising national prosperity. That is why it is right to aim to link the level of the minimum income guarantee with average earnings. I welcome the fact that the Liberal Democrats have endorsed that policy today.

  Minimum Pension Guarantee
  Mr. Nigel Waterson: What representations he has received about the minimum guaranteed pension. [73046]
  The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Darling): We have received a number of items of correspondence about the minimum income guarantee, including some responses to our proposals for pension reform, which I published last December.
  Mr. Waterson: Will the right hon. Gentleman admit that his minimum pension guarantee is nothing of the sort? Some 600,000 pensioners in this country with a weekly income of less than £75 will not receive a top-up because they have been prudent enough to save during their working life.
  Mr. Darling: Listening to the Conservatives this afternoon, I assume that they would get rid of the minimum income guarantee, which would be a great pity. We are ensuring that a single pensioner will get £75 a week and a married couple will get £116.60. That is far more than they would ever have received relying on earnings-related benefits. The hon. Gentleman must recognise that in his constituency and throughout the country, one of the problems that we, as a civilised society, have to face is that far too many pensioners have nothing. We were determined to end that scandal.
  Mr. David Winnick: Is my right hon. Friend aware that during the 18 years that I sat on the Opposition Benches, I never heard a single complaint from Conservative Members about means-testing? What we are hearing today is unique for Labour Members who have served in Parliament for quite a time.

  15
  Having said that, does my right hon. Friend accept that much needs to be done for pensioners who, in some cases, are just above the income support level? They are having tremendous difficulties and I believe that their complaints have much justification. I hope that the Budget will offer help to those people, who are being punished—as they were under the Conservatives—for being poor, but who are just above the level described by my right hon. Friend.
  Mr. Darling: As I have made clear, I am aware of the problems of people with modest incomes and capital, to which my hon. Friend has referred. He is also right on another point: the Conservatives were quiet about means-testing for the 18 years before 1997 because they doubled the incidence of it.

  War Disablement Pensions
  Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: If he will make a statement on his plans for war disablement pensions. [73047]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Hugh Bayley): I would like to pay tribute to all those members of the armed forces who have been disabled or whose partners have been bereaved as a result of their service. It is only because of their courage and sacrifice that Members of this House have the democratic liberty to stand for election, and freedom of speech when we get here. We will ensure that the war pensions scheme remains available to them and to future generations of service personnel.
  Mr. St. Aubyn: Just before the election, the then Leader of the Opposition described the Conservative Government's policy on disablement pensions for those suffering from deafness as shabby and mean-minded. We now learn from a press release—issued eight days after this question was tabled—that the present Government have no plans to change that policy in respect of deafness on medical grounds. Is that because the Government, too, now regard themselves as shabby and mean-minded, or is it a vindication of the policy of the previous Government? Is it not truly shabby and mean-minded to raise false hopes among war veterans a few months before an election, and then to take two years to come to grips with the facts, during which time many of those veterans— including some constituents of mine—have been waiting for their appeals to be heard?
  Mr. Bayley: When in opposition, we pledged to undertake a review of the changes introduced by the Conservatives to the war pensions scheme. That review took place immediately after the election, and was timely.
  Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: And?
  Mr. Bayley: I can tell the Opposition spokesman that that review came up with two conclusions. First, that the deafness attributable to war service and the deafness later in life attributable to ageing was no more than additive. Secondly, it was decided that a further review would take place within a year. The further review was delivered to the Department 10 days ago, and we made its results available to the House last Tuesday.
  Mr. Peter L Pike: My hon. Friend rightly paid tribute to the sacrifice made during the war by many
  16
  people who fought for democracy and freedom in Europe. Does he recognise that many of those people, for various reasons, failed to make early claims to get the pensions to which they were entitled? Is he aware that the Royal British Legion and many other organisations are fighting for those people, who are getting older? Many veterans and their widows die before their cases are heard. Will he do everything possible to expedite these cases to ensure that people get the payments to which they are entitled as speedily as possible?
  Mr. Bayley: My hon. Friend raises an important point. There has been a serious backlog in appeals for war pensions. On 31 March 1997, there were 9,619 appeals outstanding. By April last year, we had managed to reduce that to just over 5,000. At that stage, we introduced a number of additional measures to speed up the hearing of war pensions appeals. As of 28 February 1999—the date on which the latest figure was available—the total was 2,917. We recognise that, although much lower than the figure that we inherited, that is still too many. The War Pensions Agency has commissioned Ernst and Young to undertake a review of the overall decision-making and appeals process, and we will announce the outcome when the review is completed.
  Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: I am sure that all hon. Members greatly respect those who have been disabled as a result of service in the armed forces. Is the Minister aware that many people—including, for example, members of the British Legion—feel aggrieved because their pensions are at nowhere near the levels paid in other European countries? Is a review being conducted of the level of pensions?
  Mr. Bayley: The payments under our war pensions scheme are considerably more generous than those in other parts of our social security system. For instance, a single man who is severely disabled and is in the war pensions scheme will receive just over £400 a week, which is substantially more than would be paid under the industrial injuries arrangements, and substantially more— more than twice as much—than what would be paid in basic non-income-related state benefits. We believe that the scheme is generous and that its generosity must be maintained, because those who are injured as a result of service to our country should be generously rewarded.

  Benefit Integrity Project
  Mr. Mark Oaten: If he will make a statement on the savings achieved as a result of the benefit integrity project. [73049]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Hugh Bayley): The most recent estimate of benefit savings from the benefit integrity project is £8 million for 1997–98 and £30 million for 1998–99. A further estimate of the savings will be calculated following the cessation of the scheme at the end of March.
  Mr. Oaten: Does the Minister expect the replacement system for BIP to result in more or less savings?
  Mr. Bayley: We are not setting out on the scheme simply to make savings. We want to introduce a fairer system that will allow people on disability living allowance to have their award increased when their mobility or care needs increase, as well as allowing decreases when needs decrease. The benefit integrity project, which we inherited from our predecessors, was unfair because, in effect, it allowed only reductions. Our scheme will allow appropriate adjustments up or down.
  Mrs. Theresa May: As the Minister has just admitted, the benefit integrity project achieved relatively little savings and caused untold anxiety and hardship for many disabled people. [HON. MEMBERS: "Who started it?"] The scheme was operated for nearly two years by the Labour Government, regardless of all the complaints from hon. Members of all parties asking the Government to suspend it. Will the Minister confirm that the replacement scheme, the periodic review system, will lead to more reviews, affecting more disabled people; that the decision-making process will be the same as for the benefit integrity project; and that, if the new review process also leads to anxiety and hardship among disabled people, he will stop it, regardless of the saving?
  Mr. Bayley: I find it quite extraordinary that the hon. Lady should make such a broadside attack on a change to the benefits system that her party introduced. We acknowledge that the system was flawed, and that is why we have changed it. The scheme saved £30 million in 1998–99, which she described as relatively little savings. That is in stark contrast to statements from other Conservative Front Benchers about the need to get the level of payments of all benefits right, which is what we intend to do.
  When we introduce the new system, which we are developing in consultation with the voluntary bodies, we will do so slowly and carefully, and ensure that it beds down well. If the Conservatives had developed their scheme, the benefit integrity project, in consultation with the voluntary bodies representing disabled people, we might not have had so many problems with it.
  Mr. Syd Rapson: May I congratulate the Benefits Agency on its sting operation over the weekend in Portsmouth, in which it targeted people returning from abroad who claim disability benefits but who had full sets of tools in their possession? They are now being investigated for fraud. Does my hon. Friend agree that every pound taken through fraud is stealing from the people who need it most?
  Mr. Bayley: My hon. Friend could not be more right, and it is disgraceful that people make false claims for benefits. It is good that he should congratulate the Benefits Agency on its successful work to ensure that benefits are paid to those entitled to them, and it shows that the agency is doing its job.

  Disabled People
  13.Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: What he is doing to improve the living standards of the poorest disabled people. [73050]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security(Mr. Hugh Bayley): Our proposals for a new disability income guarantee, together with measures in the Welfare Reform Bill, will provide more help for disabled adults and children who most need it, to enable them to live independently and with dignity.
  Mr. Foster: Does my hon. Friend agree that some people will never be able to work, because of the nature of their disability? In view of that, does he also agree that the minimum income guarantee should be updated regularly and will he undertake to do that?
  Mr. Bayley: Yes. The Government's policy is work for those who are able to work and security through the benefits system for those who are unable to work. We recognise that work will never be an option for many people on disability benefits and we must ensure that the poorest of those get more support, which is what the minimum income guarantee seeks to achieve. At current prices, when it is introduced it will add £5.75 a week to the basic disability premium and £8.30 a week for couples.
  Miss Anne McIntosh: Will penalties be imposed on those disabled people who fail to turn up for interview? Will they lose their benefits, and if so, for how long?
  Mr. Bayley: The proposals for attending a single gateway interview are before the House as part of the Welfare Reform Bill and they will be discussed in Committee. It is the Government's view that it should be a requirement for disabled people, as for others entering the single gateway, to attend an interview. Claimants are already required to do certain things before they are entitled to their money—for example, to fill in the application forms appropriately—and we believe that it makes sense for them to attend an interview. However, for disabled people, there will be no requirement to seek work or take a job if that is not appropriate given their condition.

  Annuities
  Ms Gisela Stuart: What plans he has to abolish the vesting requirements on annuities. [73051]
  The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. Stephen Timms): There are no such plans. The Inland Revenue rules require that personal pension and money purchase occupational pension funds must be used to buy an annuity at retirement. The exception is when a personal pension fund is used for income draw-down whereby income is drawn directly from the fund. Although that means that annuity purchase is deferred, an annuity must be purchased by the age of 75.
  Ms Stuart: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. However, annuity rates are at a historical low. The Government should be congratulated on their economic policies, which have brought an end to the boom and bust of the Tory years, but those policies will ensure a continued climate of low returns—although current pensioners should not be discouraged from taking

  19
  annuities. Is there a case for examining whether the age for vesting in annuities should be extended beyond 75, or for reconsidering easing the draw-down facilities and making the process easier for those over 75?
  Mr. Timms: I recognise that many people have been disappointed by the fall in annuity rates, but they have enjoyed the benefits of substantial stock market growth so their funds are bigger than might once have been expected. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the Government's success in managing the economy and that can be expected to continue. Inflation is lower and stable so that annuities keep their value better. My hon. Friend is an acknowledged expert on these matters and I am always interested in her ideas, but I cannot see a practical alternative to the present framework. Life offices which provide annuities have a good record of reliability, which is an important point in favour of the existing system.
  Mr. Howard Flight: Will the Minister accept that there is widespread pressure to abolish the obligation to buy an annuity at 75? In addition, will he accept that profits-linked annuities suffer from rules that discourage their usage? Given the enormous increase in the volume of money purchase pensions required, will the Government consider both the ability of the annuity industry to cope and the possibility of increasing the opportunities for draw-downs?
  Mr. Timms: It is an important principle that since pensions savings are tax free, they must eventually be converted into an income stream so that tax may be paid on them. Of course, we always keep these matters under review, but, as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart), the present system is the only practical one available.

Countryside (Access) 22
3.31 pm
The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement.
In our manifesto, we gave a commitment to give people greater freedom to explore our open countryside, balanced by the needs to protect the environment and to avoid any abuse of greater access. I am pleased to announce to the House today the Government's plan for England and Wales to honour our commitment. A number of documents, including "Framework for Action", will be available in the Vote Office when I have completed the statement.
Securing greater access to open countryside will bring tremendous benefits, and new opportunities for improving people's health—physical and mental. It will enable everybody to experience the wonders of wildlife and beautiful landscapes.
Over the past 50 years, a voluntary approach has delivered relatively little. Despite some commendable initiatives, there is little prospect of much new access being provided voluntarily in future. Even if much more access could be secured by voluntary means, it would not be permanent and the costs would be high. Only a new statutory right will deliver cost-effectively the extent and permanence of access that we seek.
There has been much ill-informed speculation that the Government would not introduce a statutory right of access. I can confirm that we have decided to introduce legislation as soon as parliamentary time allows to provide for a general statutory right of area access coupled with responsibilities for walkers to respect the rights of landowners and managers.
The legislation will include improvements to the rights of way system. The comprehensive package will provide fresh opportunities for walking and other recreational pursuits, while taking the legitimate interests of land managers fully into account.
The new statutory right of access will apply to mountain, moor, heath and down, subject to mapping by the new Countryside Agency and the Countryside Council for Wales, and to registered common land. That amounts to about 4 million acres. The right may be extended to other types of open country, such as some woodland. It will apply to access on foot for open-air recreation.
The Government studied more than 2,000 responses to our consultation document. We talked to a range of organisations, visited key sites and commissioned research into the costs and benefits of different approaches. We are convinced that legislation is the only way to make sure that people will be free in perpetuity to explore open countryside.
However, we accept that there are real concerns about the impact of a new statutory right. Therefore, the statutory right will be subject to proper and reasonable limitations, and there will be codes of practice. It will not apply to developed land, or to agricultural land, except that used for extensive grazing. There is no question of giving people a right to trample over crops, or through other people's gardens. There will be strict restrictions on dogs.
22
Land may be closed when necessary for health, safety or defence reasons. In addition, the new Countryside Agency, the Countryside Council for Wales and national park authorities will be able to authorise closures or restrictions to protect wildlife or historic interest, or for land management reasons, as long as the landowner can demonstrate that the restriction is necessary.
We attach considerable importance to local agreement being reached whenever possible, and we shall promote local access forums, with all the main interests represented, to advise on the details of any local limitations before the right comes into force. The aim of the forum will be to achieve consensus, but no member of the forum will have a final veto. The forums will be advisory; the decisions will be for the statutory agencies.
In addition, land managers will be able to close land temporarily without prior consent for a number of days each year. We propose to set the annual limit initially at 28 days, primarily for land management purposes, although landowners will also be able to close land for other reasons for up to 12 of the 28 days. If necessary, provision will be made to ensure that access is not restricted unreasonably at peak times.
Let me now deal with rights of way. We want to strengthen and develop the rights of way network to enable it to respond to the changing requirements of recreational use and the needs of land managers. Before concluding the detail of new legislation, we shall consider recommendations from the Countryside Commission and seek further views. There is no question of failing to secure the proper recording and maintenance of rights of way, or of reducing the overall value of the rights of way network.
Experience in Scotland and in Wales has shown that much consensus can also be achieved at national level. Therefore, we propose to ask the Countryside Agency to establish a national access forum in England. In Wales, the Countryside Council for Wales will be asked to consider how best to develop the existing informal arrangements.
It will be clear from my statement so far that the new Countryside Agency will play an important role in implementing the new statutory right, as well as in promoting sustainable rural development and protecting our finest landscapes. I can announce today that Ewen Cameron has been appointed to chair the agency: he has made it clear that he enthusiastically supports the Government's access proposals. We have also appointed Pamela Warhurst, who is currently leader of Calderdale council, as deputy chair. She will play a leading role in the agency's implementation of the access package.
Although there will be some extra costs for local authorities and statutory agencies, for which we shall make provision, we do not expect our legislative proposals to have major financial consequences. Nevertheless, the benefits of the basic statutory right and of the rights of way network will be much enhanced by further expenditure on, for example, the provision of additional routes and readily available information.
The lottery has already made a considerable contribution to improving access to the countryside. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport will ask the lottery distributors to consider ways in which their funding might contribute further. We are also considering what part the new opportunities fund,

23
through the proposed green spaces initiative, might be able to play. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will ensure that targeting of the access elements of agri-environment schemes contributes to the overall strategy. In Wales, it will be a matter for the National Assembly for Wales.
Almost 50 years ago, a Labour Government introduced legislation to safeguard our finest countryside and to open it to the nation. The largely voluntary approach to access in the National Parks and Access to the Open Countryside Act 1949 has proved inadequate. Glorious parts of our heritage are still the preserve of the few, not the delight of the many. As soon as parliamentary time permits, we will introduce legislation to remedy that. We look forward to discussing widely the details of the package, but we are firm on the principles. This balanced package fully meets the commitment that we gave in our manifesto and will be a lasting tribute to the memory of John Smith. I trust that hon. Members on both sides of the House will support it.
Mrs. Gillian Shephard: I thank the Minister for the Environment for letting me have a copy of his statement half an hour in advance—although that obviously did not give me time to examine the accompanying documents.
The Opposition strongly support increased access to the countryside, based on voluntary co-operation set within a secure legal framework to define rights and responsibilities that would allow mutual respect to flourish. We believe that the work done by landowners and others has demonstrated that voluntary arrangements can deliver greatly increased access, and we deplore the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has sought to alienate the very people who have done so much to improve access in all parts of the country.
The right hon. Gentleman's tone this afternoon may have more to do with his Back-Bench problems than increasing access to the countryside. No doubt his hon. Friends will judge his proposals by the parliamentary timetable that he is able to achieve to put them into practice. However, it is regrettable—although perhaps only to be expected from someone who has described land owning as "exclusivity and inherited privilege"—that the right hon. Gentleman has this afternoon squandered the good will that those in the countryside have sought to bring to this issue.
When does the right hon. Gentleman propose to legislate? Given the importance that he attaches to these matters, will it be in the next Session? Given—as English Nature has pointed out—that the Government have at no stage during the consultation process defined either the need or demand for greater access to the countryside, how will the right hon. Gentleman measure the success or otherwise of the policy that he has announced today? He has explained that his statement applies to mountain, moor, heath, down and common land. Can he explain to the House when the mapping exercises will be completed and what work has already been done on definitions?
By what means does the right hon. Gentleman propose to assess the effects of increased access on biodiversity and fragile habitats, and thereby refute the claims of Friends of the Earth that he has focused almost
24
exclusively on the social implications of increased access? How strongly does he believe in consensus as a way forward? Will the statutory agencies be encouraged to use compulsion as an early option? Will the Government issue guidelines? What will be the cost to local authorities and statutory agencies of negotiating and managing access? What new money will the Government make available, given that it is precisely rural local authorities that have suffered most in Labour's local government finance settlement?
The right hon. Gentleman's statement refers only to access on foot. How strongly will the Government encourage use of the countryside by the general public, such as horse riders, cyclists, families, bird watchers and the disabled? What is in the statement for them? If compulsion becomes necessary, what compensation will there be for landowners and farmers to meet the costs of access and the loss of land values? What arrangements is the right hon. Gentleman making to protect owner liability? Will there be a new legal code to ensure that those using the land and those owning it are clear about their rights and responsibilities in terms of both public behaviour and the control of dogs—which was a thorny issue during the consultation process?
Who will be responsible for appointing the local access forums? What balance will the right hon. Gentleman seek to achieve within and among the different groups to be represented?
The right hon. Gentleman has today produced a solution that has the potential to satisfy no one. It will be cumbersome and bureaucratic; it will further divide town and countryside; and it represents a squandered opportunity.
Mr. Meacher: Nothing reveals more starkly the fact that the Conservative party is stuck in an 18th century time warp than their approach to the statutory right of access. The right hon. Lady's problem is that she cannot make up her mind whether to accept that the Labour Government, with a full manifesto commitment behind today's proposals, should be supported, or whether, as she said towards the end of her remarks, the proposals will satisfy no one. The contrary is true—they will satisfy the overwhelming majority of the electorate.
The Country Landowners Association's Gallup poll last year showed that 80 per cent. of people are in favour of greater access to the countryside. The Ramblers Association NOP poll last year demonstrated that 85 per cent. of people wanted a legal right of access over mountain, moorland, heath and down and registered common land. Once again, the Tory party is allying itself with the tiny, exclusive minority of 15 per cent. I have not at any time accused landowners of being exclusive or committed to the retention of privilege. It is the Conservative party of which I have said that in the past.
I have made it clear that we shall introduce a Bill as soon as parliamentary time allows. The mapping exercise has to be carried out, and we shall tell the new Countryside Agency to get on with that as quickly as it can. On closure for wildlife, we shall fully protect wildlife, sites of special scientific interest and nature reserves. We have always made it clear that protection of wildlife and environmental crops is our priority, and that will not be overridden by public rights of access.

25
I have made it absolutely clear that we want minimum compulsion to be used. I favour the local access forums, which will be fully representative of all interests. The countryside agencies will issue guidelines. The policy is one not of compulsion but of maximising consensus.
The Government have made it perfectly clear that we shall make available new moneys to ensure that local authorities are able to meet the requirements of the legislation.
On horse riders and cyclists, the right hon. Lady needs to make up her mind whether she is in favour of people on foot having access before she decides whether people on a bicycle or a horse should have access.
On compensation, let me make it clear that the access provisions were devised to have regard to the needs of landowners as well as walkers, and independent research shows that landowners generally will not suffer costs significant enough to warrant compensation. The statutory right will allow agricultural activities, the development of land and the closure of land for good land management reasons to continue.
In answer to the right hon. Lady's final question about the local access forums, I can tell her that we shall certainly ask the Countryside Agency to advise us about the membership, geographical coverage and functions of those forums.
I hope that the right hon. Lady can find it in her heart at least to accept that the local access forums—on which her party will, perhaps, be significantly represented—can work towards resolving the question of access, which has poisoned relations between landowners and users during the past 50 years. We believe that our proposals can finally resolve that question.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government coming down in favour of a statutory approach is great news for walkers and all those who love the countryside? Does he accept, however, that there will be a few fears that the Government have gone for a very bureaucratic approach? Will he therefore assure us that access to the 4 million extra acres of land will be achieved quickly? Will he make a plea for co-operation between walkers and landowners, to ensure that that is carried out speedily, and that townspeople especially have a better understanding of the countryside as a result?
Mr. Meacher: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who makes the important point that the provisions will engender greater knowledge and concern for the countryside among millions of people who have not previously had access to it. I am as keen as he is that this should not be a bureaucratic exercise. That is exactly why we are setting up local access forums. They will be able flexibly to take account of local circumstances, which vary dramatically. We have specifically not decided to resolve all these issues on the basis of a single statutory criterion. As to the time scale, I can only repeat that my wish and the Government's wish is to bring the provisions into operation as fast as we can. The main limitation will be the requirement for mapping because, especially for heathland and downland, some uncertainties must be resolved before the right can be exercised.
Mr.Matthew Taylor:The Minister has taken a big step from national rights to local
26
realities. On that basis, we welcome his statement and support the direction in which the Government are moving. However, there are some key difficulties, not least concerning how people will gain the information that allows them to make use of such access, given that there will be rights of closure and other restrictions.
Does the Minister expect to get the measure through at least before the next general election, a key date towards which perhaps he is working? Does he agree that safe and accessible land rights, as well as a legal right, are important, and that to achieve that will require funds? I hope that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who is negotiating reform of the common agricultural policy, is considering the release of extra funds to allow landowners and farmers to open up safe and accessible routes into the countryside, as well as simply burdening them with a legal right. Perhaps most important, given that the Minister is asking everybody else to open up their land, has he talked to his colleagues in the Ministry of Defence about the very large areas of land to which the Government restrict access?
Mr. Meacher: The hon. Gentleman asks whether we shall have a Bill before the next election. He knows that the Government—all Governments—make decisions about the next round of legislation year by year. My Department and I will certainly be bidding for such a Bill as quickly as possible. The hon. Gentleman knows that, as of this moment, I cannot guarantee it, but I certainly hope and expect that we shall have a Bill before the next election.
I take the hon. Gentleman's point on the question of safe and accessible rights as well as legal rights. I am very keen that, under Agenda 2000 proposals and the development of agri-environment schemes, especially countryside stewardship, which is the most important, and countryside access and environmentally sensitive area schemes, there will be voluntary expansion beyond the statutory rights that I have announced. There are already something like 500 km of extra footpaths and about 14,000 hectares of open-area access on that basis—a small but valuable addition.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: The statement is a lot better than many people expected. I feel kind of warm towards new Labour at the moment. We share a common objective a statutory right to roam—that is what the Minister has enunciated—over 4 million acres of open countryside. That is the shared objective. Where there are reservations, they must be about the means of delivery.
My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) mentioned the bureaucratic solution of local access forums. How will the lines on the map be drawn? Who will be invited to the local access forums? How will disagreements be mediated within them?
What is the timetable? My support is conditional on this matter being resolved in the next year or two, not allowed to fester, as the Minister said, dragging on interminably. The people of this country want action, and they want it now.
My right hon. Friend talked about a suitable legislative opportunity. It may have escaped his notice that my Right to Roam Bill is coming up for Second Reading on 26 March, and it may well be that we should talk about it.
Mr. Meacher: We shall do more than talk about it; I am sure that we shall vigorously debate it on the date that

27
my hon. Friend mentioned. The Government and my hon. Friend share a common objective—that there should be a statutory right of access. However, we believe that Government legislation is needed to achieve our objectives, which go wider than those of my hon. Friend's Bill. The Government's is a package measure; it also includes full protection of wildlife, effective management of land and livestock, local access forums, improved rights of way, changes to occupier's liability and reasonable and balanced rights to temporary closure. That is a very comprehensive package, but I still believe that my hon. Friend and I can meet, and I am sure that we can achieve a large measure of agreement.
My hon. Friend mentioned timing. I do not want this matter to fester. I do not want the arrangements to be bureaucratic or time wasting. The only factor that prevents early or immediate implementation is the requirement for mapping. My wish is that that should be done as fast as possible, but my hon. Friend must recognise that there are limits to the speed at which it can be done properly, bearing in mind that rights of appeal may well be exercised.
Local access forums are not a bureaucratic insertion into the process. We believe that they enable us to maximise local flexible resolution of the specific problems that exist, given the very different landscapes and very different types of land use in different parts of the country. If we tried to resolve those problems on a single centralised basis, we would run into far more problems. I therefore ask my hon. Friend to accept that local access forums are the best way to achieve a pragmatic consensus and early implementation of the right.
Mr. David Curry: Does the Minister accept that the countryside is not a commodity? Does he further accept that the countryside is extremely fragile and, in places like the Yorkshire dales and the Three Peaks in my constituency, under immense pressure? Will he ensure that his legislation respects that and seeks to maintain the countryside for enjoyment, not to destroy it by having too many people? That is a real problem for those who understand the countryside.
Does the Minister understand that the abuse of green lanes by four-wheel drive vehicles is a serious problem which must be addressed? Will he ensure that his local forums, on which much will hinge, are genuinely local, and that local agents of national organisations will not do the negotiating?
Finally, I assume that this will be an English Bill, as it will come in a long time after devolution.
Mr. Meacher: Of course I realise that the countryside is fragile in many ways and in many locations. Local access forums would be expected to take that fragility into account. If there is too much pressure on particular points, agreement will need to be reached to find alternatives, but it will have to be demonstrated that there is a real need for people to move away from one particular part because of excessive pressures. The extension of a statutory right and the spreading of the load is precisely the way to ensure that there is less pressure on areas which hitherto may have taken excessive pressures.
28
I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman's reference to too many people. Once again, that is the exclusivity on which the Tory party so easily falls back. We live in crowded islands—there are 60 million of us in these islands, but it is not a matter of there being too many people. All of us have an entitlement. That is what the Labour party stands for and that is what we are implementing.
There is no access and there are no rights for four-wheel drive or other motorised vehicles. We are talking about access on foot for open-air recreation—for example, picnicking, bird watching or photography. We are not talking about access or rights for four-wheel drives. Those chosen for the local access forums will be local people and not simply representatives of national organisations. They will be people who know and love their local area.
Mr. Paul Marsden: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. I am especially pleased that we can look forward, before the introduction and implementation of a statutory right, to local access forums having their say. That will be critical. The process should be about consensus, co-operation and negotiation. I have confidence that the local access forums will succeed. I implore my right hon. Friend not to forget other users of the countryside. For example, do not forget about horse riders and cyclists. There are millions of users. I am aware that eight accidents occur every day that involve horse riders, but we need greater access.
Several hon. Membersrose—
Madam Speaker: Order. This is the time to question the Minister, not to make comments. Some of us are more experienced than others, but let us have brisk questions.
Mr. Meacher: My hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Marsden), like my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice), has sought to make a positive contribution to this open debate. I hope that he will be pleased that the matters that he raised in his Bill on permanency of access, improved rights of way and changes to occupiers' liability have all been taken on board by the Government. We hope to secure these rights and changes in our legislation.
I repeat what my hon. Friend has said: this is a package for consensus and co-operation, within a statutory framework, which honours our manifesto commitment. That is why we are looking for co-operation. Of course we want to see improved access for horse riders and cyclists but I repeat that what I am announcing today is specifically for those who walk on foot and wish to enjoy open-air recreation. Horse riders and cyclists will have their day, but that will be separate from what I am announcing today.
Mr. James Paice: What benefit or enjoyment can be obtained from a right of access that cannot be obtained from a comprehensive network of footpaths?
Mr. Meacher: The problem with the comprehensive network of footpaths is that it is not as comprehensive as the hon. Gentleman makes it out to be. The latest survey, which was carried out in 1994, revealed that 74 per cent.

29
of ways were free from obstruction, which means that 26 per cent., more than 25,000 miles, are still subject to obstruction. The key point that the hon. Gentleman is not taking on board is that we are not talking about linear access. I am talking not about confining people to paths or ways but about giving them free right to roam across open country. We believe that open-area access is extremely important. Unless there are justifications for confining people to linear access, we continue to press for open-area access.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement, and particularly on his good judgment in appointing Pamela Warhurst as deputy chair of the Countryside Agency? The appointment will bring balance, and Pamela Warhurst will bring with her a wealth of experience.
Will my right hon. Friend consider introducing stronger penalties for people who take four-wheel drive vehicles into the countryside and churn up valuable land, with no regard for people who want access by walking into the countryside?
Mr. Meacher: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments about Pamela Warhurst. There is no question but that she has a great deal of experience in countryside recreation and leisure, and I have no doubt that she will make a magnificent contribution to the implementation of the access provisions.
I take note of what my hon. Friend says about four-wheel drives. There are many areas of the country where they are causing substantial disturbance and where there is a need for tighter regulation and larger penalties. I am looking into such matters carefully, as the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) knows from his correspondence with me.
Mr. Edward Garnier: By granting a statutory right of access, the Minister's statement will necessarily produce damaging effects on the rights of property. Under the European convention on human rights, and under the Government's Human Rights Act 1998, that cannot happen without compensation. What assessment have the Government made of the levels of compensation that will be required under the convention and under the Act, and what further assessment have the Government made of the levels of additional insurance that landowners will have to take out to cover visitors on to their land?
Mr. Meacher: On the question of crime, may I make it clear to the hon. and learned Gentleman that the right of access will cease for anyone who breaches any of the range of restrictions under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 or who commits a criminal offence. Such a person will automatically lose any statutory right of access and ipso facto be subject to the civil law of trespass. [Interruption.] Let me add, as the hon. and learned Gentleman looks a little mystified, that robbers, thieves and other miscreants do not require a
30
statutory right of access in order to target the scenes of their crime. It may have escaped the hon. and learned Gentleman's notice that they will go there anyway.
Mr. Garnier: The Minister is not answering the question.
Mr. Meacher: If I did not understand the question, I am quite prepared, with your permission, Madam Speaker, to allow the hon. and learned Gentleman to clarify it.
Madam Speaker: I shall not let these exchanges run much longer, so I want brief questions. If the Minister has not understood the question, of course I must take it again.
Mr. Garnier: I am grateful, Madam Speaker. The new policy will affect the rights of property, but under the European convention on human rights and under the Human Rights Act 1998, which this Government passed, that cannot happen without compensation in lieu. My first question was what assessment the Government have made of the levels of compensation that will be required. Secondly, what assessment have they made of the levels of insurance that will have to be taken out by landowners in order to protect visitors to their land?
Mr. Meacher: I did understand the hon. and learned Gentleman's question and I was coming to that point. I have already made it clear that a statutory right is entirely consistent with other activities, such as agriculture and development, continuing. Our view is that a fair balance has been drawn between the interests of landowners and the general interest. In our view, there is no right to general compensation under the Human Rights Act 1998.
Mr. Barry Jones: I thank my right hon. Friend for his historic statement. I presume that besides a soft voice, he carries a big stick with which to deal with any remnants of 18th century oligarchy. What new access does my right hon. Friend envisage there will be in Wales? Will he say a little more about Wales with its unrivalled scenery, to which the people of Wales want more access?
Mr. Meacher: My hon. Friend is right to say that Wales probably has a higher proportion of beautiful landscape than any other part of the country. One third of the total open countryside in England and Wales, within the 4 million acres to which I referred, lies in Wales. The scope for the National Assembly for Wales to introduce arrangements that take account of particular Welsh circumstances will depend on provisions in the Bill. I have no doubt that the new Welsh Assembly will be interested in examining the application of the provisions. It will have the opportunity to do so, and we will take account of that when we draw up the Bill.
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: I have two brief questions for the Minister. Why have the Government not ensured that local government in Wales, for example, has the funds to keep existing footpaths open? Does he not realise that exempting extensively grazed land from the agricultural sector will thereby make

31
it open for such traipsing? That land is the delicate environment which needs to be protected and cannot stand an influx of people.
Mr. Meacher: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman was not listening, but I made it clear that my Department and the Welsh Office will ensure that resources are available to local authorities to cover the costs of the new legislation. That will include the building of stiles, gates and signs and possibly some rangering services. We have made it clear that extra resources will be provided for those purposes.
In respect of grazed land, I dissociate myself from the hon. Gentleman's pejorative use of the word "traipsing". We are talking about a pastime that is probably more popular with more people in this country than any other and it would be appropriate to use more respectful terms such as "rambling" or "walking". I do not accept that rough-grazed land is inappropriate for rambling and, if there are particular cases where rambling is producing damage, I would expect the issue to be raised with the local access forum. Evidence would have to be produced that damage had been caused.
Mr. Kevin McNamara: I welcome the Government's proposals, and I am sure that my local branch of the Ramblers Association does so as well, but does my right hon. Friend accept that the devil will be in the detail? In anticipation of the legislation, will his Department establish local access forums at once to discuss the problems that will arise in particular areas and try to make ready for when the legislation is passed? Will my right hon. Friend ensure that mapping, which can be carried out after the legislation is passed, is not used as an excuse to prevent its introduction? In view of his undertaking to protect wildlife and his restrictions on the use of dogs, will we see the end of deer hunting, hare coursing and fox hunting?
Mr. Meacher: I am concerned that local access forums should be set in place as quickly as possible. I have asked the Countryside Commission, which is soon to be replaced by the Countryside Agency, to draw up proposals in respect of the precise functions, membership and coverage of those forums and I shall certainly want to proceed with that as quickly as I can. I agree that mapping should not be used as an excuse for delay and I shall be keeping a careful eye on that to ensure that mapping is achieved as quickly as possible, although access provisions for different categories of land may come into effect at different times.
In respect of dogs, my hon. Friend was making a rather wider point. There are general problems relating to dogs and we will be drawing up guidelines, which will provide for an outright ban in local circumstances where that is appropriate.
Mr. Michael Jack: The Minister said in his statement that, at some point in the future, he may seek to extend the power of access to woodland. Does he propose to seek primary legislative power to give him a general right to designate access—not only to woodland, but to any other form of land—at his discretion?
Mr. Meacher: No, that is not the intention. I have asked what will be the Countryside Agency to draw up
32
proposals about the desirability and appropriateness of extending these access provisions to areas that were included in the 1949 Act—to cliff and foreshore, to river and canalside and to woodland. Depending, of course, on what the agency recommends, we would seek to go further, but not on the basis of secondary legislation.
Ms Joan Walley: I acknowledge the enormous amount of work done by my right hon. Friend, and warmly welcome the proposal for legislation on statutory rights of access. What extra funds, however, will be required in respect of footpaths and the wider aspects of the legislation? When he speaks to the new Countryside Agency and to local authorities, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that in Staffordshire, 189 applications regarding disputed rights of way are outstanding? At this rate, it will take 15 years to see them through. Will my right hon. Friend assure us that funds will be available?
Mr. Meacher: I have already tried to reassure the House that my Department and the Welsh Office will make resources available to cover the cost of the new legislation. I have said the same to local authorities. When that is still not sufficient, we think it reasonable to charge—where car parks, hides or guided trails are provided, for instance—but we do not think it reasonable to charge for the right of access in principle.
My hon. Friend mentioned the large number of disputed rights of way in her area. That is precisely what a statutory right of access is designed to prevent. It is because there is so much uncertainty, because there are no formal agreements and because so many of the alleged agreements are insecure that it is now necessary to introduce a statutory right, which I believe will clear up most of the difficulties.
Mr. Nicholas Soames: Does the Minister accept that all who love and know about the hills, the uplands and the wild places in this country will deeply regret and resent his statement? It would have been so much better if he had decided on a system of voluntary access.
For how long will the right hon. Gentleman allow, for example, the moors to be closed during the nesting season of ground-nesting birds, and for shooting at a later date?
Mr. Meacher: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman chooses to ally himself with the tiny minority who oppose a statutory right of access. As I have said, some 85 per cent. of those who responded to the statutory-voluntary question in our consultation exercise said that a voluntary approach was inadequate for the securing of access, and both the NOP and the Gallup polls showed similar figures.
I am as fascinated and mesmerised as the hon. Gentleman by the beauty, tranquillity and amazing attractiveness of our wonderful open spaces. That is exactly why it is so important to make them accessible to all our people, not just to the tiny number who happen to own thousands of acres of rolling hillside.
Of course I am concerned about ground-nesting birds. That is precisely the sort of issue that will lead to temporary and, if need be, permanent restrictions. I will not allow the rights of wildlife—living creatures that inhabit our country along with human beings—to be

33
overridden simply for purposes of access, but that is no reason for us not to have a general-strategy right of access.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: As the only London Member who is trying to question my right hon. Friend, and also the Member representing the most densely populated urban constituency in the country, I congratulate my right hon. Friend, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, on today's statement and on their aspirations for a right of access. People in urban areas want such access desperately. They love the countryside just as much as Conservative Members, who pretend that loving it means hunting and killing animals in it.
My right hon. Friend said that there might be restricted access on account of defence purposes and defence needs. What discussions has he had with the Ministry of Defence, and what hopes has he that the vast acres of MOD-held land will be thrown open for the public to enjoy, just as we hope other land will be?
Mr. Meacher: My hon. Friend is undoubtedly right about the desire of many urban dwellers, not only in London, but in many large cities, to have access to open countryside, probably near to where they live but further out if necessary. As I have said, that will bring tremendous benefits.
I am glad that the Ministry of Defence has already begun to open significant portions of its estate for rambling. We have begun discussions with the Ministry on how much further that can be taken. My belief is that it is possible to take it considerably further, so long as we can absolutely guarantee the safety of people who ramble or wander over MOD land.
Mr. Peter Atkinson: Will hill farmers be able to close upland commons and hills during the lambing season? Will gamekeepers be able to close moors during the bird-rearing season? If so, who will advise the public that access is to be denied to them? Who will police the provisions? Will the countryside be covered with a forest of notices as a result?
Mr. Meacher: I would expect temporary and limited closures, probably in a wide area of open countryside, during the lambing season and the breeding season, particularly between April and June. We have to work further on the information. I accept that the question of ensuring that information gets to people who wish to use the countryside is important. It will certainly include public notices, newspapers, local radio and, perhaps in the modern age, the website.

Road Traffic (NHS Charges) Bill

  Clause 3
  INFORMATION CONTAINED IN CERTIFICATES
  Lords amendment: In page 3, line 31, after ("out") insert ("in").
  Ordered, That the Lords amendment be now considered.—[Mr. Dowd.]
  Lords amendment agreed to.

  Women
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dowd.]
  4.23 pm
  The Minister for Public Health (Ms Tessa Jowell):Today is the 73rd international women's day—a day to mark what women do, want and achieve. In Europe, the Commission and Parliament are celebrating international women's day. Commissioner Gradin is launching a campaign to heighten public awareness about violence towards women.
  Throughout the world, international women's day is being celebrated. Baroness Jay, the Minister for Women, is today in New York to attend the United Nations Commission for the Status of Women. She will take part in a debate on violence against women and join Commissioner Gradin via a video link.
  What women want is a Government whose actions and priorities reflect their lives. For too many women, the political process is remote and irrelevant. That is why it is doubly important that women see evidence that the Government listen, act on what they hear and never break the link with women and families. The Government must respect the boundary between public policy and private lives, but understand that public policy can make the responsibilities of private life so much easier to handle. Governments do not bring up children; families do. Governments are able, however, to provide the framework of hope and opportunity in which families are given the very best chance of success—success for the part-time worker who is the full-time mother, for the full-time mother who is the part-time carer, and for the full-time mother.
  Mr. Michael Fabricant: Will the right hon. Lady acknowledge the valuable work done by local play groups? What would she say to the Bowley Park play group in Lichfield which, because of the introduction of the minimum wage, faces the difficult choice of either packing up altogether or increasing prices considerably to the young mothers who are sending their toddlers to the play group?
  Ms Jowell: I should first note that about 20 per cent. of Conservative Members are in the Chamber for the debate, and that about 20 per cent. of them has just spoken. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the Department for Education and Employment is examining ways in which to span the interim period until the working families tax credit takes effect.
  The Government, in making things better for women, are making things better for everyone: better for women is better for all. The issues of concern to women are the issues of concern to everyone: health, education, crime, jobs and the economy. Women benefit when we spend £21 billion to improve our hospitals, spend £19 billion extra to improve our schools, take action to cut youth unemployment by 55 per cent. and enable jobs overall to grow by 400,000. Those actions benefit women, because they benefit everyone.
  Mrs. Jacqui Lait: I am sorry to divert the right hon. Lady from the big subjects, but I should

  35
  like to pursue the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant). If I understood him correctly—I am fairly certain that I did—he said that staff at the pre-school play group he mentioned were currently paid less than £3.60.
  Mr. Fabricant indicated assent.
  Mrs. Lait: My hon. Friend acknowledges that that is correct. Therefore, given the Minister's answer to my hon. Friend's question, is she saying that the working families tax credit is a way of supplementing income of less than £3.60? She seemed to be saying that. I should be grateful if she will clarify the matter.
  Ms Jowell: I should make three points. First, I reiterate that the Department for Education and Employment is closely examining the circumstances in which play groups may find it difficult to manage with the introduction of the minimum wage. Secondly, I make it clear that the working families tax credit will be a benefit available to couples earning up to £23,000 annually. Thirdly, the important point—which is always ignored by Opposition Members—is that the minimum wage, which the Government are introducing, will free from poverty pay about 1.3 million women in the United Kingdom. We are proud of that.
  I shall outline the changes that are being made in women's lives, beginning with children. Recent opinion polls have made it clear that more than one third of women think that education is the most important issue facing Britain today. The Government have pledged—in addition to the extra £2.4 billion aimed at raising school standards—£19 billion to education in the next three years. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced last week, by 2002, and probably earlier, class sizes for children under seven will be cut to no more than 30. Already, more than 100,000 children are in smaller infant classes. Those children will be able to learn better because they are in smaller classes.
  Since September 1998, every four-year-old in England has had access to free good-quality, part-time, preschool education. Moreover, we have allocated almost £400 million more to increase the proportion of three-year-olds receiving free pre-school education—from one in three to almost two thirds—by January 2002.
  Mrs. Theresa May: The Minister is lauding the Government's action on nursery education. Does she accept the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant), that as a result of the Government's policy on the minimum wage, many pre-schools may have to close? That will reduce opportunities for women and take away the chance of early years education for many children. It is hardly an example of the joined-up government that the Government keep saying that they are so proud of.
  Ms Jowell: Once again, I assure the hon. Lady that the Government are determined to ensure stability in the provision for very young children. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment is making arrangements on that.
  36
  The aim of our sure start programme is to fill the gaps in local services for children from birth to age four, and to promote opportunity in areas of disadvantage. We recognise that we can improve the health of new babies by improving the health of mothers during pregnancy. Some 250 programmes will be funded by the end of this Parliament. We have invested £452 million in England alone and a total of £540 million will be invested nationwide over the next three years. We are not prepared to allow children's opportunities to be set on the day that they are born. Sure start is about creating opportunities for the poorest families by offering opportunities for all. In a few weeks, we shall see the biggest ever increase in child benefit. That is real delivery, real action and real progress.
  Our second area of concern in the life cycle of women is teenage girls. By adolescence, the issues that face girls and boys can be very different. The effects of the choices that girls face during their teens can last for the rest of their lives. The issues that young women face today are significantly different from those of a generation ago. Britain has the highest rate of teenage motherhood in western Europe. By the age of 15, one in three young women smoke regularly, compared with one in four boys. The number of young women drinking more than 14 units of alcohol a week, which is more than is good for them, has increased over the past 10 years.
  Mrs. Lait: Will the Minister give way?
  Ms Jowell: I should like to make some progress first, but I am prepared to take interventions later.
  Girls tend to outperform boys throughout their school years, but many lose confidence and self-esteem in their teenage years. We need changing actions and new ways of thinking to deal with new difficulties and new problems. That means looking across Government for solutions. We must take note of the evidence that the education of mothers is the most important predictor of the educational achievement of their daughters.
  The social exclusion unit is studying teenage pregnancies. It has undertaken the largest ever consultation exercise and will report its findings shortly. The women's unit is looking at what happens to girls during their teenage years that, too often, prevents them from meeting earlier aspirations and achievements. It is looking at the extent of gender stereotyping, which drives girls into particular careers. It is also studying the growing concern about the risk behaviour that teenage girls are increasingly engaging in—behaviour that may compromise their health for the rest of their lives.
  No one story can be told about the lives of mothers in Britain today, because women's lives are changing faster than ever before. Some 25 years ago, only one in four mothers with children under five were in paid employment. Now the figure is nearly half. Nearly eight out of 10 of all mothers are in paid work. Overwhelmingly, mothers want to work because work brings a sense of value, income and independence. Nearly seven out of 10 women—the same proportion as men— say that they would rather work, even if they could afford not to. However, many would prefer to work for shorter hours.
  When children are young and dependent, there must be a choice—a real choice. The Government have made sure that support is there, whichever course the mother

  37
  chooses. The child care tax credit will fund the first £70 of child care costs for eligible mothers, and £105 for two or more children. The working families tax credit will make it easier for couples on low incomes to cope if one parent—invariably the mother—decides to stay at home when the children are very small. The choice no longer lies between underwork and overwork. Governments can help women to balance their lives, but these are private choices. They can be choices because we have listened to women.
  The Government have taken an important step in improving the lot of families, with the biggest-ever increase in child benefit coming up. That will be in addition to the increase for every family with children on income support. Practical action by the Government will transform the lives of women in paid work.
  From April, the national minimum wage will take effect. It will tackle exploitation and ensure greater fairness in the workplace. Nearly 2 million workers will benefit from the minimum wage, around two thirds of whom are women—1.3 million women. The working families tax credit—together with the minimum wage— will guarantee low-paid families with a full-time worker a minimum income of £190 a week, with no tax to pay on incomes below £220.
  There is still a huge disparity between women's and men's incomes; the earnings gap is still there, and still wide. When men enter employment, their earnings, on average, tend to rise steadily to a peak, suggesting that their earnings reflect their increasing skills and experience—as well as the jobs that they enter. Women's earnings reach only a much lower point, and then gradually taper away.
  We will make clear just how stark the gap is when we publish a new document on the gender gap in the pay packet shortly. Further work will provide us with valuable tools to build on existing measures, such as the national minimum wage, to identify correctly the nature and extent of the pay gap, to enable women to better balance taking paid work with family commitments, and to improve women's incomes in retirement.
  The most important issue for women at work in terms of being able to balance the responsibilities of home and work is family-friendly employment. The Employment Relations Bill, introduced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, makes a good start at levelling off the unequal playing field by extending maternity leave to 18 weeks, creating a right to parental leave and creating a right to time off to deal with an emergency in the family.
  As they grow older, many women become carers; some 60 per cent. of our 6 million carers are women. It is a tough and vital role—a role that has been disgracefully ignored for too many years in this country. Our national carers strategy, published some weeks ago, has three key elements. The strategy will provide information for carers, speaking to the carer who says, "The problem is not just that I do not know what I am entitled to, but that I do not know what question to ask to find out what I am entitled to."
  The strategy will speak to carers' need for greater and more flexible support. It will also provide care for carers. Evidence shows clearly that, too often, elderly people are admitted to residential care not because their own health fails, but because the health of their carer has failed.
  38
  We have listened to carers and acted on what we have heard, providing £140 million over the next three years to ensure that carers get the break that they need. We are also holding consultations on proposals that time spent caring will entitle carers to a second pension: a pension that by 2050—albeit that is some way off—will be worth up to £50 a week in today's terms, payable on top of the basic state retirement pension.
  We are also dealing with the issues that affect older people; we should celebrate older people. Longer life expectancy means that the majority of older people are women, but longer life, sadly, does not necessarily mean longer, healthier life. The baby girl born today can expect to live until she is 80, but she can expect only 61 of those years to be free from any chronic illness or life-limiting disability. That is why one of our top priorities for improving people's health is to extend the number of years for which they enjoy fit, active and healthy life.
  I was reminded of the consequences of failing to do that by a cartoon that I saw recently, showing two old ladies in the bleak austerity of a home for the elderly. They were wrapped in blankets and there was absolutely no sign of pleasure around them. One was saying to the other, "Just imagine, Mavis. I gave up smoking for this." The challenge is huge. Our better government for older people programme will have an impact on several fronts: for example, by improving the services that older people use and tackling in practical ways the issues of concern to older people.
  We already know that pensions are a key concern for older people. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security has introduced the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill, which contains important proposals for helping women in retirement. For the first time, divorcing women will be able to obtain a share of their former husband's pension rights, recognising the contribution that they have made to the financial well-being of the family. The new stakeholder pensions will help people who, until now, have been unable to make pensions provision through an occupational scheme or personal pension.
  There are other issues of concern to women: tough issues such as violence against women. Violence, and the fear of violence, can haunt women throughout their live: year in, year out, thousands of children witness cruelty and violence to their mothers; one in four women experience domestic violence at some time in their lives; every week, two women die as a result of violence in the home; and 46 per cent. of women over 60 hardly ever go out at night, because they feel unsafe.
  Those are stark and unpalatable facts. We cannot achieve a fair and equal society as long as women are not safe in their own homes—for too many women, home is the most dangerous place—and as long as women are afraid to go out at night or cannot raise their children in safety. That is why tackling crime is a top priority for the Government.
  My noble Friend the Minister for Women and I will publish later in the spring a document setting out good practice in protecting women from all forms of violence, with local initiatives to spur local action to make women safer. My noble Friend and I are travelling the country as part of a process called "Listening to Women". From Bristol to Birmingham and from Newcastle to Norwich,

  39
  in Scotland, in Wales and in Northern Ireland, we are ensuring that action by this Government is rooted in the real lives of real women.
  Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: I wish to raise with my right hon. Friend a tough issue that I have raised with her several times before. I am sure that she will agree that the most important development in many women's lives is having a child. She knows of my constituent who has been refused in vitro fertilisation treatment by the health authority because her husband has a child by a previous marriage. That decision is an outrage and an intrusion on my constituent's civil rights. In this day and age, it is intolerable that a health authority feels it has the right to act in that way under a Labour Government, whose Ministers do not agree with it. Does my right hon. Friend have any news about that issue, because my constituent's husband came to my surgery in Workington on Saturday and told me that his wife was very distressed? Something must be done, because the situation is intolerable.
  Ms Jowell: I thank my hon. Friend, and I pay tribute to the sheer diligence and commitment that he has shown to his constituent who faces a dreadfully distressing situation, in which I have taken a close personal interest. As he will know, we are considering several aspects of our policy on infertility. We are determined to get rid of what is no more than a geographical lottery and to ensure that treatment for infertility is based on the best available evidence. We are determined to ensure consistency, guided by the best clinical evidence, in the criteria used by health authorities to determine eligibility for fertility treatment. We are also determined that when couples are first referred for fertility treatment, they are given a proper assessment of the likelihood that it will be successful. It is heartbreaking for couples to persevere with fertility treatment, for reasons that every woman in the House will understand, when the clinical likelihood of a pregnancy is remote. I will remain closely in touch with my hon. Friend about the matter, and I am happy to meet him and his constituent to discuss the action that the Government are taking to create greater fairness in access to treatment for infertility.
  Earlier today, I spoke to women representing more than 100 non-governmental organisations. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to them and to thank them for their tireless efforts on behalf of thousands of women. My right hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Mrs. Liddell), the Scottish Office Minister with responsibility for women's issues, has responded on behalf of the Government this afternoon to a debate in the Scottish Grand Committee. The Scottish Parliament will be well placed to advance the interests of Scottish women.
  Since our election, the Government have been committed to listening to, and acting on what we hear from, women. However, women still feel that their voices are not heard. They still feel under-represented. Let us look at the House of Commons. In the previous Parliament, there were more Members called John than there were women Members. In the current Parliament, we have done much better on my side of the House.
  Mrs. Claire Curtis-Thomas: I welcome the contemplated tour to listen to women, but I encourage my
  40
  right hon. Friend to consider including Liverpool in her round of visits. She may know that that great city is the founding home of the women's refuge movement and the citizens advice bureau. A great collective of people in Liverpool—men and women—have a great vested interest in promoting women.
  I should like to draw to my right hon. Friend's attention a sad fact that afflicts many women in my profession of engineering. Recently, the Women's Engineering Society has undergone a survey of the professional women who are its members. We wanted to know what happened to women throughout their careers. It is a sad fact that 30 per cent. of women aged between 30 and—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. The hon. Lady must take her seat while I am on my feet. The earlier intervention by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) was a trifle too long, but the current one is becoming a speech. The hon. Lady should put her question briefly and then resume her seat.
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: What is being done to improve the participation in work of women with a science and engineering background, given that they have to take career breaks to manage their children and for caring duties?
  Ms Jowell: My hon. Friend's important question goes to the heart of the issues that we are tackling for women in relation to the importance of family-friendly employment that recognises the importance of flexibility and the opportunity to take time off, particularly when children are small. A second question, which will be picked up by the teenage girls project, is why so few women go into careers such as science and engineering. We want more girls to do so.
  In the current Parliament, the Government are proud to have achieved a parliamentary Labour party in which 25 per cent. of hon. Members are women. There are 101 women out of 421 Members.
  Miss Anne McIntosh: Does the right hon. Lady accept that Labour broke European Union law by introducing women-only shortlists? Women must reach the House on merit. Equal opportunities are for men and women. Party lists exclusively composed of women broke the rules.
  Ms Jowell: That is a tired old argument. Let me make it absolutely clear that the industrial tribunal that considered one case decided that all-women shortlists might be in breach of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. No definitive judgment was made, but we decided before the general election not to continue to pursue that course.
  The encouraging point is that even after our decision, the glass ceiling had been broken. Many women were selected from mixed lists in what had been safe seats. We are proud of the level of representation of women that we have achieved. I do not wish to intrude into the private grief of the Opposition on that matter, but The Sunday Times yesterday blew the gaff on what goes on in the Conservative party. Before the Opposition raises concerns about Labour, they should perhaps put their own house in order.

  41
  A quarter of the Labour parliamentary party are women. However, we do not accept that that is enough, and we will continue to build a Parliament that really reflects the balance between men and women throughout the country. We must do much to achieve that.
  Ms Margaret Moran: Does my right hon. Friend agree that representation is not only an issue in this Parliament, and that in the Northern Ireland Assembly, for example, we need to ensure that there is much wider representation of women? Will she join me in congratulating women throughout the community in Northern Ireland on their work in conflict resolution, especially the Northern Ireland Women's Coalition, whose members deserve our highest praise for their work towards reconciliation and peace in Northern Ireland?
  Ms Jowell: I am delighted to endorse my hon. Friend's remark. I would add that we have certainly put our effort where our mouth is on ensuring equality and gender balance in both the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly.
  We need to maintain the drive across Government. We have appointed a Minister for Women at Cabinet level; and we have a Cabinet Committee on women, whose members act as ambassadors for women in their own Departments of State, driving through change. We have had remarkable success: £300 million has been allocated to child care and an extra £30 million to breast, lung and colorectal cancer services, both of which sums will be supplemented by significant lottery funding channelled through the new opportunities fund initiatives on child care, and on cancer prevention, detection, treatment and care. In addition, a further £875 million has been allocated to child benefit. The women's unit, newly set up in the Cabinet Office, acts as a task force to add value and join up the effort across Whitehall.
  Yvette Cooper: Is my right hon. Friend aware that women benefited five times as much as men from the previous Budget—which was hailed by the Opposition as being sexist—because women are far more likely to look after children and to live in poverty? Will she join me in calling on our right hon. Friend the Chancellor to build on that work to support women and children in poverty in tomorrow's Budget?
  Ms Jowell: I shall certainly join my hon. Friend in calling for that. By this time tomorrow, we should know to what extent my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has done what he has said he hopes to do, which is to deliver a Budget for women and families.
  Jackie Ballard: To follow up on that point, will the right hon. Lady also urge the Chancellor to lift the personal allowance by a considerable amount, which would take millions of low-paid women out of taxation altogether?
  Ms Jowell: I am sure that many such proposals have been put to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, but we shall have to contain our impatience and wait for his Budget speech tomorrow.
  We need to increase women's involvement in public life and decision making more generally. We are committed to 50 per cent. representation of women in
  42
  public appointments, and we have already made important progress by ensuring that nearly half of all national health service trust and health authority chairs and chief executives are women.
  Mr. Fabricant: I understand the right hon. Lady's motivation, which is laudable, for saying that 50 per cent. of health trusts and various other committees should be made up of women, but will she give an undertaking to the House that women will be chosen according to merit, and not merely because they fill a quota?
  Ms Jowell: Any such suggestion would be deeply offensive to the excellent women who have been appointed to trusts and health authorities throughout the country. We are lucky to have their services, which will help us to deliver a modern national health service to the people of this country.
  We have also delivered stronger simple guidelines to Whitehall policy makers, in which we set out clearly how we expect them to assess the impact of their policies on women, ethnic minority groups, people with disabilities and other disadvantaged groups, to ensure that Departments are responsive and act with sensitivity. We need to track our action on our commitment to equality across society.
  Lorna Fitzsimons: Does my right hon. Friend see it as a testament to the Government's record on putting policies into practice that the Treasury, the Department of Health, the Department for Education and Employment, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, and the Foreign Office are all represented on the Treasury Bench, but that only seven Members are here to represent all the Opposition parties in a debate on issues that affect 52 per cent. of the population?
  Ms Jowell: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. The Department for International Development is also represented on the Front Bench.
  We must look not just at policy making, but at all Government processes—for example, service delivery— and ensure that we understand the differing impact on men and women. A set of proposals will be developed and printed in the "Modernising Government" White Paper, which will be published shortly by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office.
  For many years, the Women's National Commission has given 50 of the United Kingdom's largest women's organisations a direct voice to Government. I am delighted to report that we have extended the commission's remit by scrapping the limit of 50 member organisations and inviting all women's organisations to join the umbrella group. That is important as the group is a formal channel of communication between Government and women up and down the country. We want to ensure that we talk to all women—women from grassroots groups, community groups, tenants associations and other bodies in which many women are active—who, until now, have been excluded from that process.
  This is a programme for women. It is a programme of listening, of action and of delivery with women for women. It is about not just what Government can do for women but what women, working with Government and

  43
  in their communities, can achieve for themselves and their families. It is about delivering on the key issues that count for women—for example, health, education, crime and jobs. It is about making women's voices heard and supporting women in delivering on their responsibilities to their families, at work and in their communities.
  That is what the Government are doing: recognising that the personal can be made possible by the political. We are delivering deeds not words—as the suffragettes demanded—and making things better: better for women and better for all.
  5.2 pm
  Mrs.Theresa May: I welcome this opportunity to debate the Government's record on delivering for women—a debate that is made all the more important by Labour's emphasis on its approach to women's issues both before and during the last election. I also welcome the Minister with responsibility for women's issues to the Dispatch Box for this debate. I believe that I am correct in saying that this is the first debate on women's issues that the right hon. Lady has opened in the House since her appointment last July. Furthermore, in more than seven months in the job, the Minister has answered only one oral question relating to women—and that was about a health issue. That is hardly an example of placing women's issues firmly at the centre of Government, as the then Minister for Women, the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock), promised in June 1997.
  Dr. Lynda Clark: Does the hon. Lady accept that questions must be asked before they can be answered? Therefore, I assume that Opposition Members did not ask the Minister any oral questions on that topic.
  Mrs. May: I remind the hon. and learned Lady that it is the Government who have made much of the fact that there are so many female Labour Members of Parliament who are very interested in women's issues. How much interest did Labour Members show in women's issues? How many questions did they ask of the Minister with responsibility for women's issues? Sadly, there were none. I wonder how many questions on that topic the hon. and learned Lady has tabled for the Minister.
  Ms Jowell: If the hon. Lady looks at any Order Paper, she will see a long list of questions specifically about matters that concern women. I have made it very clear that we believe women's issues should not be locked in some Whitehall backwater but should be part of the mainstream of Government. Every single Minister is concerned about the position of women and about improving that position and delivering for women.
  Mrs. May: I am somewhat surprised by the Minister's intervention because it appears that she now agrees with the Conservative party about the importance of mainstreaming, which was certainly not the impression given by the Labour party prior to the election.
  What is noticeable about the issue of oral questions is that when her colleagues, the right hon. Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) and the hon.
  44
  Member for Deptford, were responsible for women's issues, they were asked a number of questions specifically relating to women's unit matters. Those questions seem to have dried up since the present Minister for Women came to her position.
  Helen Jackson: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  LornaFitzsimonsrose—
  Mrs. May: A surfeit of hon. Members want me to give way. I give way to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson).
  Helen Jackson: The hon. Lady referred to the previous Parliament. I remember that at that time, the Minister with responsibility for women was the Secretary of State for Employment, David Hunt, followed by Michael Portillo, and it fell to my hon. Friends to engineer any debate on women's issues during women's week. There was not even a glimmer of a suggestion from those Ministers that they wanted to discuss in the Chamber issues of great importance for women in this House.
  Mrs. May: Not all my ministerial colleagues in the previous Government who took responsibility for women's issues were men.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr.GeorgeFoulkes):They were men.
  Mrs. May: The hon. Gentleman says that they were men. My right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) is not a man and my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) is not a man. If the hon. Gentleman wants to make sedentary interventions, he should get his facts right beforehand.
  The Minister, in opening the debate, referred several times to the Government's programme of action and delivery. She spoke of "deeds, not words" and claimed that the Government were listening to and acting for women. Sadly, the opposite is true. Although the Labour party promised much for women before the last election, it has failed to deliver. Its record owes more to gloss than substance, and this is yet another case of Labour's actions failing to live up to its rhetoric.
  I am grateful to the Minister for setting out a number of areas in which she claimed that women's quality of life and role in society had improved. She gave the examples of the number of women in higher education and in the work force. I remind the Minister that those are successes of the previous Conservative Government, who, through flexible labour markets and a healthy economy, ensured that women were able to play a fuller part in the workplace than had previously been the case. The pay differentials between men and women were significantly reduced under the previous Conservative Government, and I am sorry to hear that the pay differential went up last year under new Labour.
  Several hon. Membersrose—
  Mrs. May: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Salford (Ms Blears) and then I will make progress.
  MsHazel Blears: Does the hon. Lady believe that the 1.3 million women who will be helped by the first national minimum wage should not receive that wage and should continue to work in a flexible labour market for poverty pay?
  Mrs. May: I shall comment on the impact of the minimum wage later in my speech, so perhaps the hon. Lady would like to listen to my remarks. As she heard from the intervention on the Minister by my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant), problems associated with the minimum wage are affecting organisations and employers throughout the country. Pre-school playgroups will affect women in two ways because people employed in pre-schools are predominantly women and women are benefiting from the opportunity for their children to attend those pre-schools. The hon. Lady should not welcome the news that pre-schools may have to close because of the impact of the minimum wage.
  Ms Rosie Winterton: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. May: No, I have said that I want to make some progress. I am sure that there will be plenty of opportunities to allow interventions later, which I shall take.
  Prior to the election, Labour promised a Minister for Women with full Cabinet status. Many assumed that that meant a Cabinet Minister with responsibility just for women; it certainly seemed to be a promise for a Minister for whom women would be their sole concern. As the Labour party said in "New Labour for Women","The minister for women will ensure that women's interests are taken into account in all policy making, having power to scrutinise all major legislation to examine its impact on women."
  We even had the somewhat unedifying sight of the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Janet Anderson) telling women that they would get more sex under Labour. What happened in reality? After the election, responsibility for women was given to the then Secretary of State for Social Security, the right hon. Member for Camberwell and Peckham, who is in her place—Cabinet responsibility for women, but hardly sole responsibility for women.
  After much to-ing and fro-ing, the Prime Minister appointed a separate junior Minister for Women, the hon. Member for Deptford, who is also in her place. It appeared that the Prime Minister had recognised the importance of the job. But wait—he had left it so late that there was not enough money to pay any other Minister a full ministerial salary, so the Minister for Women was unpaid. What message did that send about how the Government viewed the importance of women and issues of importance to them? More significantly, what message did it send to women who are still fighting for equal pay?
  After a year in which much continued to be promised to women, but during which the Secretary of State's main claim to fame on women's issues was cutting the lone-parent benefit premium, the two Ministers for Women were sacked. What is in their place? Cabinet responsibility for women has moved to the House of Lords. We all know what the Government think of the House of Lords. What does that say about the importance of women in their policy agenda?
  46
  The Minister for Public Health now responds to debates on women's issues in this House. Once again, responsibility for women's issues is not a Minister's sole responsibility, as many felt Labour had promised prior to the election, but merely one of the areas in a Minister's portfolio. Indeed, the list of responsibilities of the Minister for Public Health numbers 32. Where do women's issues come on that list? Do they come first, second or, perhaps, third? No, women's issues rank 32nd—bottom of the list.
  In November, the Ministers for Women attempted to re-launch the women's unit. In their glossy brochure, "Delivering for women: Progress so far", they listed 18 measures to aid women. Of those 18, there was one strategy, one sub-committee, one initiative, one unit which was not exclusively for women, a new deal which is not working, a minimum wage which will cost jobs, and 12 promises of things to come. That is not about delivering for women; that is still about promising for women. That is not about action rather than words; that is about words and words and no action.
  Let us look in a little more detail at the Government's policy actions for women, as they describe them. Once again, they pay lip service to women. Plenty of press releases claim to deliver for women, but actions speak louder than words. The Government have so far failed to deliver across so many areas of policy—be it the scheme to get lone parents back to work, which has been an expensive failure, plans to cut widows' benefit, or centralised employment policies, which, far from being family friendly, can only destroy jobs. In addition, the Deputy Prime Minister has attacked women who drive their children to school, and there has been a refusal to act on genetically modified crops and food.
  Mr. Foulkes: Oh no.
  Mrs. May: It is an issue of great importance to women.
  Yvette Cooper: If the hon. Lady is so concerned about delivering for women, why will she not withdraw her opposition to the working families tax credit, which will make 700,000 women better off, and abandon her alternative proposal to introduce a tax hike for those 700,000 women?
  Mrs. May: I shall talk about the working families tax credit later. Far from delivering for women, that tax credit may put many families in a worse position in terms of wallet versus purse.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Internationa] Development made a comment from a sedentary position when I mentioned genetically modified crops and food. He may say "Oh, no" in that tone, but food safety issues strongly influence women when they decide what to feed their families, and beef—
  Mr. Foulkes: Beef on the bone.
  Mrs. May: Beef not on the bone—which was the result of the Government's decision, and their failure to allow women to decide for themselves what to feed their own families.
  Lorna Fitzsimons: Does the hon. Lady accept Labour Members' incredulity at being lectured on the importance of food safety by representatives of a party that presided over the biggest disasters in food health and food safety that any Government in living memory have presided over?
  Mrs. May: That intervention does not deserve a response.
  One message is clear: the Government have not listened to women, and their priorities show more about their own priorities than about women's priorities.
  I shall now discuss several specific issues. I shall not touch on all those that the Minister touched on, but I know that my hon. Friends who will be aiming to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, later in the debate will raise other issues.
  Let us consider welfare issues. Labour came to power promising to cut the welfare budget by cutting the cost of economic and social failure. Labour adopted as a key policy the welfare-to-work campaign, and within that the aim of returning lone parents to the work force. The Government therefore introduced the new deal for lone parents as part of that welfare-to-work campaign.
  The pilot scheme was a dismal failure. Less than a quarter of those lone parents who were invited to participate had an interview. Of those, nearly a quarter did not participate in the scheme and, overall, only 5 per cent. of those invited to participate got a job. We were told that things would get better when the scheme was extended nationwide. The Government are very good at promising that things will get better, but they are not good at delivering better things and better results.
  In questions to the Secretary of State for Social Security earlier, it was made absolutely clear that the new deal for lone parents has an overall success rate, not of 5 per cent., as in the pilot scheme—which we were told would get better—but of only 3.8 per cent.
  Of course, we welcome anyone finding a job and getting back into the workplace when they want to, but of 163,000 lone parents invited to participate in the new deal so far, only 6,000 have jobs. The scheme has cost £200 million, so each job has cost about £15,000—and it is not even clear that the people who have got jobs under the scheme would not have got them anyway. In each year between 1995 and 1997, about 40,000 lone parents found work—under a Conservative Government. Two years into the Labour Government's new deal for lone parents, only 6,000 have found jobs under the new deal. The new deal is proving to be an expensive failure—failure for Government and failure for women.
  Judy Mallaber: Will the hon. Lady visit my local jobcentre, in Alfreton, where the new deal for lone parents has now been rolled out, and where I talked, a couple of weeks ago, to the lone parent adviser? In response to the initial letters that she sent out, 30 people came to a meeting, and she has now obtained jobs for 17 of those lone parents.
  Mrs. May: I am interested in the experience that the hon. Lady has set out. I note that she did not say how many letters were sent to people.
  Judy Mallaber:Sixty
  Mrs. May: Sixty letters, and half of those who were sent a letter came to a meeting and now 17 have jobs. Overall, of 163,000 people who have been invited—
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Ms Margaret Hodge):Pathetic.
  Mrs. May: What is pathetic is the result that the Government are getting from their new deal for lone parents. It is proving to be an expensive failure. It is failing to deliver for women and failing for the Government.
  The problems for women in the area of welfare benefits do not end there. The working families tax credit was lauded by the Government as the answer to a working woman's problems. It is also expensive but, more significantly, it will fail to deliver the freedom that women want to choose what is right for them and their families. It will bring more families into the welfare net and hence into the dependency culture. It will provide benefit for families earning as much as £38,000 and it will cost £1.5 billion per annum.
  The WFTC will be paid through employers.
  Mrs. Lait: I warn my hon. Friend against accepting the Government's estimate of £1.5 billion as the cost of the working families tax credit. That estimate is based on the assumption that no one changes his or her form of child care. If there are large sums available for child care tax credit and people register as child minders, the entire equation changes. The cost could increase to £15 billion if everyone eligible under the WFTC opted for a child minder. If only half of them did so, the cost would be £7 billion.
  Mrs. May: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for setting out the figures so clearly. She has brought more proof about how expensive the WFTC will be. It is interesting that it was up to my hon. Friend to introduce the figures of £15 billion and £7 billion. Those figures are not coming through from the Government. The Government do not want us to know how much the WFTC will cost.
  There are other aspects of the WFTC that cause concern. It will be paid through employers, which means that they will have to know their employees' personal circumstances. There is real concern that the scheme will increase the stigma that is attached to receiving benefit. The point has been raised by independent commentators. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has said:
  "As employers and potentially work colleagues would observe the WFTC, it might increase the stigma associated with receiving transfer payments and so decrease take up."
  Decreased take-up would mean fewer families benefiting than those now doing so under the family credit regime.
  We also have the ridiculous situation that the Government's new arrangements for child care may make it more financially advantageous for a woman to pay a neighbour to look after her children and go out to work herself rather than stay at home and look after them.
  Lorna Fitzsimons: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. May: Not at this moment. I shall make some progress.

  49
  The Government's new arrangements are an attack on the many informal arrangements that are made by women to ensure that their children are looked after while they go to work. At my surgery the other day, I saw a constituent who helps her daughter and son-in-law by looking after their young children for part of the week. She told me, "With this new benefit system, I'm going to have to register as a child minder to look after my own grandchildren." Where will women stand when they are no longer free to make the arrangements that they want for their children to be looked after, when they will have to comply with the Government's set regulations?
  The WFTC makes one very significant change for women, about which we have heard little from Labour Members.
  Lorna Fitzsimons: I thank the hon. Lady for giving way a second time. Does she understand that there is some confusion, certainly among Labour Members, about the line that the Conservative party is taking? Given that the Conservative party talks so much about choice, surely the hon. Lady accepts that the increase of £17 a week that families in receipt of family credit will receive as a result of the introduction of the working families tax credit will give them choice. At present they have no choice but to work longer hours for poverty pay. They will have the chance to stay at home and spend more time with their children. The WFTC will also give women the choice to send their children to child care, an economic choice that they have not had previously. Therefore, we are empowering women to make real choices when under the previous Government there was no choice.
  Mrs. May: Of course we are in favour of women being able to make choices. As I have shown, however, the choices available to women may well be reduced rather than increased because of the way in which the WFTC will operate.
  The WFTC makes one significant change about which, as I have said, we have heard little from Labour Members. Family credit, which it replaces, was paid predominantly to women. It was introduced by the Conservative Government to help people get back into work, and at the time the Labour party opposed it. As I have said, it has been paid mainly to the mother as a benefit. It will be replaced by the WFTC, which will be paid through the employer. As I said earlier, this will mean that the employer will need to know all the employee's financial circumstances, and the benefit will be paid through the wage packet. That means that the money will predominantly be paid to fathers, particularly in low income families.
  Ms Beverley Hughes: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. May: No, not at this stage.
  In its research paper last year, "Purse or Wallet? Gender Inequalities and Income Distribution within Families on Benefit", the Policy Studies Institute showed that when money is paid to the father, it is less likely to be spent on child care. New Labour said that it would help mothers to balance work and home, but the working families tax credit will take an estimated £900 million away from women and children.
  50
  How much thought for women and their child care needs was there when the Government signed up to the working time directive? Suddenly, they have realised that it might not be such a good idea to include au pairs in the scope of the legislation, and we see them backtracking on that point. If the women's unit and women's Ministers had had their eye on the ball, the problem would never have arisen.
  That is not all. Women now find that their entitlement to widows benefit is to be cut. Their husbands may have paid into national insurance for years, but that means nothing to the Labour Government. It does not matter how much has been contributed. If a woman has no dependent children, after six months she will not get widows benefit. Some 250,000 women will lose out. How is that delivering for women?
  There are other examples of the way in which Government policy is failing to take account of the needs of women. Far from mainstreaming women's concerns, too often the Government are marginalising them. In the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill, for example, changes are being made to disability benefits. Severe disablement allowance was described by the Disability Benefits Consortium in the following terms:
  "The introduction of SDA was a victory for the women's movement."
  However, the consortium goes on to state:
  "We view with dismay the abolition of Severe Disablement Allowance to all new claimants over the age of 24. We believe this change will have a particularly harsh impact on severely disabled women—61 per cent. of SDA recipients are women and amongst older women the proportion rises to 70 per cent."
  Cutting off women's ability to get severe disablement allowance—how is that delivering for women?
  Let us consider the changes to incapacity benefit proposed in the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill. Those changes mean that to qualify for incapacity benefit, in future a person will have to have paid national insurance contributions for one of the previous two years. Failure to have done so will mean that that person will fail to get benefit. That will impact particularly hard on those who are carers, those in lower paid jobs below the threshold for national insurance contributions, and those who have two part-time jobs that are each below that threshold. It will hit disabled women and many women who are carers, who are unable to build up a record of contributions and who do not claim invalid care allowance. Restricting the benefit opportunities for women—how is that delivering for women?
  Pensions issues are further examples. In its response to the pensions Green Paper, the National Council of Women criticised the Government's proposals as complex and confusing. The NCW is concerned that not enough is being done to educate women, young and old, about pensions and the options available to them, especially looking ahead to the new complex and confusing pensions scenario proposed by the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill.
  The National Council of Women has described as "regrettable" the fact that the Government have launched the stakeholder pensions part of the Bill before the consultation period on the proposals has ended. That is regrettable, indeed, but perhaps not surprising, given the contempt that the Government so often show for consultation. Pensions are a key area of concern for

  51
  women, and it is more than regrettable that the Government have not listened to women before embarking on the changes.
  It is not just in respect of social security and welfare benefits that the Government have failed to understand the needs of women. Part of the Government's claim to be delivering for women is that they are making it easier for women to get into the workplace by providing family-friendly employment policies. Conservatives support higher standards for workers and more flexible working arrangements to meet the challenges of family and work responsibilities. However, we do not believe that the corporatist attitude of the Government is the right way forward.
  Countries with more flexible labour markets are generally better at integrating women into the work force. David Soskice, the director of the Institute for Employment and Economic Change in Berlin, wrote recently:
  "Well educated women do significantly better in the US (and Britain) than in Germany, Japan or Sweden. Upwardly mobile women should be wary of proposals to develop a northern European type labour market".
  That is just the sort of labour market that the Labour Government are intent on producing in this country.
  Ms Rosie Winterton: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way, because it is important to clarify one or two points. As has been said, 1.3 million women will benefit from the national minimum wage and women will also benefit from the fairness at work proposals. Will the Conservative party go into the next election saying that it would reverse the national minimum wage proposals, which would effectively cut the wages of 1.3 million women? Will it also be saying that it would reduce women's rights at work?
  Ms Rosie Winterton: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way, because it is important to clarify one or two points. As has been said, 1.3 million women will benefit from the national minimum wage and women will also benefit from the fairness at work proposals. Will the Conservative party go into the next election saying that it would reverse the national minimum wage proposals, which would effectively cut the wages of 1.3 million women? Will it also be saying that it would reduce women's rights at work?
  Mrs. May: The hon. Lady will have to be patient for a little while. I shall refer to the national minimum wage later on—[Interruption.] Just be patient, ladies. There is plenty of time for our manifesto for the next election to be written and for the hon. Lady to find out what our policies will be.
  Mrs. Ann Winterton: Is not it a fact that more jobs for women have been created in this country over the past 15 to 20 years and that we have a higher percentage of women in the work force than any of those countries in Europe where there are restrictive practices? Is not it the job of a Government to create an economic climate in which more employment opportunities can be created?
  Mrs. May: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that excellent intervention. She is absolutely right: it is the Government's job to create the right economic climate so that jobs can be created, for men and women alike. There are so many women in the work force today precisely because of the policies followed by the Conservative party in government. In her opening speech, the Minister
  52
  praised the fact that there are so many women in the work force, but she failed to mention that that statistic is due to the policies of the previous Government.
  Ms Jowell: Will the hon. Lady accept that there are 400,000 more jobs compared with the number available at the time of the general election?
  Mrs. May: We left a golden legacy, but one job has been lost every 10 minutes under this Government.
  The measures being introduced by the Government on the back of the social chapter and under the heading of family-friendly practices are, as yet, somewhat lacking in detail. For example, the Chemical Industries Association recently said:
  "Every employer in the chemical industry will be hit by the proposals on parental leave. It is worrying that with Parental Leave due to be implemented by the end of the year, we have seen no detailed proposals from the Government indicating to employers just what they will have to do…a consultation period of at least three months would be needed to assess the likely impact of the regulations and respond accordingly."
  Where have the Government thought about the impact of what they describe as family-friendly policies on employers and the extent to which employers can afford them?
  Caroline Flint: Is the hon. Lady not aware that the provision for parental leave was put together and negotiated by organisations representing European employers and trade unions?
  Mrs. May: I am not sure what the hon. Lady expects anyone to say in response to that. Is she saying that the provision should be accepted because it was put together by a group of European organisations? She would do well to listen to the concerns expressed by employers' organisations in this country about the impact of the policy. It will do employees, male or female, no good at all if statutory requirements imposed by the Government mean that small businesses, or any business, cannot afford to keep employing them.
  Real concern has been expressed by the Confederation of British Industry and by other organisations about the impact of the parental leave legislation, especially in respect of the way in which the measure may be open to abuse.
  In its research paper on fairness at work, the Institute of Directors said:
  "Most fair employers won't mind giving time off for family situations."
  Ms Jowell: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. May: No; I am in the middle of a quotation.
  The paper continues:
  "However, if it is made a statutory right, some employees will see it as part of their holiday entitlement."
  In Sweden, the Government have found it necessary to introduce a new law to curtail the problems caused by employees' abuse of emergency family leave rights.
  Ms Jowell: Has the hon. Lady discussed the issue of family-friendly employment with her hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman), who has a long association with Asda? When Asda introduced family-friendly employment policies, the number of staff absences fell by 1 per cent. in the first year, saving the firm £3 million. Labour turnover has fallen by 4 per cent., saving £2.4 million. Some of Asda's stores have halved their labour turnover. More than 95 per cent. of female staff who have been on maternity leave are now returning to work. As a result of Asda's family-friendly policies, the number of customers has risen by 35 per cent., and the firm has experienced growth of 8.9 per cent. Does that not suggest that family-friendly employment is good for business and good for women?
  Mrs. May: The Minister would not have needed to intervene if she had listened to what I was saying. I said earlier that Conservative Members support higher standards for workers, and support more flexible working arrangements to meet the challenges involved in fulfilling family and work responsibilities. Our concern relates to the way in which the Government are trying to impose their proposals on businesses of all sizes. I note that the laudable measures taken by Asda were taken without intervention from Government.
  Good practice will be supported. The Institute of Directors made the position clear when it said:
  "Most fair employers won't mind giving time off for family situations."
  The problem arises when the Government impose regulations and restrictions on businesses that cannot provide such opportunities. If a company already has problems and must shed employees because of the extra costs, that will not benefit any members of the work force, be they male or female.
  Judy Mallaberrose—
  Mrs. May: I will give way, but then I will try to make progress.
  Judy Mallaber: Does the hon. Lady recall that, during a debate on the Employment Relations Bill, the shadow Secretary of State for Trade and Industry implied that even legislating for paternity leave at the time of birth was legislating too far, too fast? Does she agree with that?
  Mrs. May: I think that what my right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has been stressing is the importance of flexibility and choice for those involved, rather than the Government simply legislating for things to happen at a particular time.
  Labour Members should listen to what some parents are saying. In a recent edition of the Evening Standard, a member of the National Childbirth Trust was reported as saying that, in some ways, time-off-work measures were an empty gesture, because many families could not do without the income for three months. That, however, is not the only way in which the Government are potentially attacking the market for jobs, especially jobs held by women. The minimum wage, for instance, is likely to have a strong impact on a number of industries that traditionally employ a large number of women. The textile
  54
  industry and the retail sector are good examples. Bill Martin, chief economist at Phillips and Drew Fund Management, has said:
  "If one person loses his job because of the minimum wage that is bad news but we expect there to be up to 90,000 job losses in the textile sector and hotel and retail sector"
  All those sectors are traditionally high employers of women. How can 90,000 job losses benefit women? How can that be an example of the Government delivering for women?
  In his intervention during the opening speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) made the valid point that, in his experience—he had visited a pre-school this morning that had made exactly the following point—such schools will have problems meeting the requirements.
  Jacqui Smith: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. May: No. I will try to make some progress.
  Such schools will have problems meeting the cost of the minimum wage for their employees. It is a complaint that I, too, have heard from pre-schools. They are concerned about the impact of the Government's legislation.
  Ms Jowell: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. May: I will in just a minute.
  That legislation will have two impacts: first, on women who are employed by pre-schools that are unable to keep going; secondly, on women who want their children to attend those pre-schools. Potentially, it reduces choice for women.
  Ms Jowell: Can we return to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton): is it now the Opposition's policy to abolish the minimum wage and to return 1.3 million women to poverty pay?
  Mrs. May: I answered that question when it was asked, so I suggest that the Minister looks at the answer in Hansard tomorrow. It might help her, if she cares to read it.
  The Government are loading £40 billion of extra costs on to British business, which will reduce competitiveness and lead to job losses. Many women will suffer as a result. How is that delivering for women?
  Jacqui Smith: Is the hon. Lady aware that exactly the same arguments were made about equal pay legislation, and what happened to women's employment after that was introduced?
  Mrs. May: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that intervention. It was, of course, under the previous Government that the differentials between male and female pay reduced significantly. There is more to be done, but it is sad that, last year, under a Labour Government, the differential increased, rather than reduced.
  Ms Rosie Winterton: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. May: I will not take any more interventions.

  55
  The Government are loading extra costs on to business, which will affect women's jobs. Many women will suffer as a result. That is not delivering for women.
  As if that were not enough, I mention one other area where, somewhat surprisingly, women have found themselves under attack from the Government. The Deputy Prime Minister has attacked people who drive children to school and the increased use of cars. Women make up one of the key user groups that has led to a significant increase in car usage in recent years. He wants to attack and to cut that growth. He wants to stop women from driving their children to school, regardless of whether they do so to meet their working needs, or to exercise choice as to which school their children attend.
  Many women would have felt that they were highly unlikely to come under attack from the Deputy Prime Minister. Sadly, that was not the case. There is a complete lack of joined-up thinking in the Government. It is not true that women's issues are firmly at the centre of Government policy, or that the Minister for women looks, as was promised, at every piece of legislation that goes through and ensures that it does not have an adverse effect on women. In many areas of Government policy, the headlines claim that they are helping women. The reality is that women will suffer as a result of those policies.
  I could go on. There are many examples from Department to Department where, far from mainstreaming women's issues, putting them firmly at the centre of Government policy and looking at the impact of policy on women, the Government have pushed women to one side. They talk a lot about women and child care, but they do not deliver policies that will help in a practical sense.
  Women are being hit through the benefit system and are under attack in transport policy. Their jobs are under threat from the Government's adherence to the social chapter and handling of the economy.
  The Government claim to understand women's needs, but they fail to act. They follow their own priorities. Perhaps the best example of that was at the relaunch of the women's unit last November, when the Government came up with the idea of a panel of role models for young women and girls. The panel was to include a former topless model, the former Ginger Spice. However, when those women and girls were asked what they wanted, the panel got the thumbs down.
  Ms Rosie Winterton: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. May: No; I am sorry. I am coming to the end of my speech, and I shall not give way.
  I quote an article from the Daily Mail of Tuesday, 10 November, which stated:
  "Ministers backpedalled furiously yesterday on plans to use celebrities such as Geri Halliwell as role models for teenage girls.
  "The initiative was reconsidered when it emerged that girls admired their own mothers or sisters more than the former Ginger Spice.
  "The Government had planned to invite celebrities—actress Emma Thompson, therapist Susie Orbach and pop starlet Billie were among others—to join an advisory panel to reflect teenagers' views.
  "With overtones of the 'committee for cool', the Foreign Office's panel of hip young things promoting Cool Britannia abroad, it sounded like a classic New Labour solution. But when the new crusade on women's issues was launched yesterday, the scheme had been pushed to one side.
  56
  "Pupils of North Westminster Community School, who met Baroness Jay, Tessa Jowell, the Commons Minister for Women, and Margaret Hodge, the Minister for Employment and Equal Opportunities yesterday, described the idea of celebrity role models as patronising."
  Sadly, patronising is what sums up the Government's attitude to women.
  Before the general election, the Government promised women so much. Since then, their approach has been more one of, "There, there Dear. We'll tell you we're doing something, but, if we're not, it really won't matter, because you probably won't notice." But women are noticing.
  Perhaps the Government should take some notice of the comments made by the teenage girls interviewed, last November, about the issue of the role models panel. The Daily Mail article went on to say:
  "The girls also appeared less than thrilled at being singled out. 'It seems to me boys need support as well', said Terri Roach."
  On 10 November, The Independent also dealt with the matter:
  '"Why isn't there a men's unit as well?' said Nepa Chopra. 'I want equality. I don't want women to go round wanting to be better than men.'
  '"I don't want women being given jobs or being made cabinet ministers just because they're women' said Vicky Markham."
  Emma Blackburn said:
  "'Men have problems as well that should be addressed.'"
  The sad fact is that men and women are now realising that Labour's promises are evaporating. Labour's actions are failing to deliver. The Government are not delivering for women—they are not delivering for any of us. They are certainly not delivering for the United Kingdom.
  5.47 pm
  Ms Harriet Harman: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister for Public Health on the work that she is doing, and fully agree with the points that she made in her speech. I shall take the very welcome opportunity of today's debate—which the Government have called to mark the week in which we celebrate international women's day—to raise some issues and ask some questions about the Government's relationship with women.
  I believe that this Government have done a great deal for women, yet that is not fully the perception. I do not believe that women feel that this is their Government as strongly as men feel that this is their Government, who are there for them. Before I offer some explanations of why that may be so, and suggest what can be done about it, I should like to spend a few minutes reinforcing my point that the Government, and new Labour, have already met a great many women's concerns. The list is impressive.
  The Government are establishing universal, affordable and high-quality child care provision, which has long been a demand of the women's movement and, certainly, a major issue for mothers in my constituency. There has been a massive increase in child benefit—public money paid to women with children. The new deal for lone parents recognises, for the first time, that the billions of pounds that are spent on advice and training for work should go to help not only men but women. The working families tax credit and the minimum wage are, in practice, a massive redistribution towards low-paid women and

  57
  their families. Moreover, there will be equal representation of women in both the new National Assembly for Wales and the new Parliament for Scotland.
  Why are feminists not in the vanguard of support for new Labour, and why are women not the most committed to, rather than the most doubtful of, the Government? I would like to make suggestions as to why that might be the case, and what the Government could do about it. Men in the Government must always remember that they are talking to women as well as to men. Where the Government are making changes that will be important for women, such as policies to help them to balance their home and work responsibilities, they should give them much more attention. Where the Government are making policy that will particularly affect women, such as family policy, men must not do it on their own, but do it jointly with women. There needs to be a genuine sharing of power with women within the Government, not just a sharing of positions.
  My first point is that the Government should remember that they are talking to women as well as to men. This is about style, but it is also about content. They must avoid falling back on militaristic, macho, hierarchical language and behaviour. It is a turn-off for women and alienates them from their Government. The Government know the importance of communication and need to remember that they are speaking to women as well as men. I shall give one small example. When the Government, in the wake of the resignation of my right hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson)—which I deeply regretted— rightly tried to refocus the media agenda, they did so by announcing that that would be led by the big guns, the big hitters and the big beasts. No women talk about women whom they respect in that way. It was clearly men talking about men to other men. Would women talk about the big hitters in the Government tackling domestic violence? I do not think so. Would women in Northern Ireland talk about their Secretary of State as a big gun? Would women talk about big beasts implementing our child care programme? Of course not.
  People can dismiss that as political correctness, but it is a serious point. One can either adopt macho rhetoric or one can talk to women—one cannot do both. I am certain that women do not want a Government of big guns, big hitters or big beasts; they want a Government who understand their changed and changing lives and who deliver for men, but also deliver for them and for their families. The Government are for women, and they should not be afraid to say so.
  My second point is that there needs to be a greater focus on those issues that are important to women, which should be moved higher up the political agenda. Take family-friendly employment. In the Employment Relations Bill, as well as a new right to trade union recognition, there is a new right for employees to take family leave. That is of huge importance to women. It recognises for the first time that half the work force are women and that most of those women are someone's mother. The ability of those women to balance their important home and work responsibilities is critical. Until now, the law has not recognised that the economy depends on women's as well as men's work. Employees can get time off if they are sick, but not if their child is sick. Employment law assumes that an employee is a man who has a wife at home to look after a sick child. That will change under the new legislation. That will be a huge
  58
  relief to women, who will not have to pretend that they are ill when it is their child who is ill, or send a sick child to the childminder rather than risk losing their job.
  Yet, there has been hardly a whisper about that new right and the other new rights to time off, such as when elderly relatives need care. In contrast, hours of debate in the House, hours of Ministers' time and acres of newsprint have been taken up with the debate about trade union recognition, and that has squeezed out the debate on family leave, yet that new right should command our time and attention as well.
  That right, which I am sure that all would support in principle, could be highly controversial to put into practice. If we get it right, it will be a huge plus for women, but if, through lack of attention, we get it wrong, it will be an embarrassment for the Government. The last thing that we want is for the Government to falter when implementing new and important rights for women.
  I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who has, to his credit, given high priority to the issue, as have Ministers with responsibilities for women. It is high time that everyone else did so as well. I make that point not just to the Government, but to all Members of Parliament—men as well as women—and the representatives of business and trade unions.
  Thirdly, men in the Government must avoid doing policy-making on their own. They must do it with women on equal terms. Take policy on the family. I pay a warm tribute to my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary for moving family policy up the political agenda. However, the family is about men and women. Sometimes, that is not an easy relationship. The high divorce rate tells us only about those who have not made it and have resolved to end it. Family life is nearly always a balance between the interests of men and of women. Family policy presented only by men, however right or carefully thought out it may be, will sound and feel like patriarchy. Women will not listen to men telling them about their families, so we need a higher profile for women Ministers on the issue—Ministers such as my right hon. Friend the Minister for Public Health. Policy on domestic violence is currently the responsibility of a male Minister in the Home Office. That responsibility should be shared with the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), working in partnership with Ministers with responsibility for women.
  My fourth, final and most important point—the one that presents the greatest challenge—is that there needs to be a genuine sharing of power, not just of positions, between men and women at all levels in the Government. There should be more women in the Government. We need to support them more than we do; they need to support each other; and men in the Government need to make space for them.
  On that last point, I should like to draw a parallel with devolution. The Government are devolving power away from Westminster to Scotland and Wales because they believe that that is right. Democracy in the centre and in the devolved areas will grow stronger as a result. However, the Government have learned that they are devolving power to Scotland and Wales in a climate of scepticism. People who are used to being powerless remain suspicious even when they are being given power. They suspect the motives and the extent of change.

  59
  When men offer to share power with women, sometimes the sceptics are partly right. It is not easy for anyone to give away power. Not everyone in government has the same commitment. It is easy for people to give power to those who are the same as they are, but that is pointless. The Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly will be different from Westminster. That is why they are worth setting up. The same goes for men sharing power with women.
  Women in government are not the same as men in government. Women and men are shaped by their experience and, because of tradition, history and, above all, the division of labour in the home, women still lead different lives. That difference makes it a challenge for men to share power at the top, but it is worth doing and it is necessary. Our policy will be better and our democracy will be refreshed when we are genuinely a Government of, and for, women and men on equal terms.
  I should like to take this opportunity to tell women that the Government are delivering for them, although there is more to be done. My message for the Government is that they have already done a tremendous amount to improve women's lives, but they still have further to go.
  5.58 pm
  Jackie Ballard: It is just over a year since we last had an opportunity to debate the Government's priorities and policies for women. The debate a year ago was held on a poorly attended Friday morning. I think that the same cast of players were here then as we have at this slightly better attended debate on a Monday afternoon. I hope that next time the debate will be even better attended.
  Sadly, during the past year the two Ministers with responsibilities for women have been moved on without explanation and for no apparent reason, before they had time to get to grips with the challenges in their roles. I am sorry that the Government have not appointed a Minister for Women who has no other major portfolio or responsibility. I agree with the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) on that.
  The right hon. Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) rightly said that the Government do not have the appeal to women that they might think that they should have. That is partly because of their way of communicating. Government communications still use male language. Although there are a number of women in the Cabinet, the main spending Departments are headed by male Secretaries of State.
  I acknowledge—graciously, I hope—that the Government have made progress on a number of issues, including child care and the proposals for family-friendly working practices. However, I am a member of an Opposition party, so I am sure that the Minister will understand if I concentrate constructively on areas where the Government could do more.
  According to the Equal Opportunities Commission, only 33 per cent. of managers and administrators are women—yet, as the Minister pointed out, 45 per cent. of all workers are women. In 1975, women earned only 71 per cent. of male earnings. Twenty years later, that had increased to 80 per cent—still one fifth less than average male earnings. Our society cannot be judged to be healthy if women still earn that much less on average than men for doing the same job, despite equal pay legislation.
  60
  Many women work part-time, especially those with caring responsibilities, and part-time workers are in an even worse position. Their hourly wage is less than two thirds that of full-time male workers. Despite legislation against sex discrimination, women are still discriminated against—especially in the work force and in terms of social security. Some 2 million women earn too little to pay national insurance contributions, and will—if the contributory principle remains—become poor pensioners in the years to come.
  Around two thirds of widows live on or below the income support level. There can be no equality for women until they are economically independent and economically equal. I hope that the Budget will not take a retrograde step towards ending separate taxation for couples in order to tax the child benefit of high earners.
  Each year, the Equal Opportunities Commission presents its report to the Secretary of State for Education and Employment. Last year, I sought to get the report debated in Parliament, but I was unsuccessful. I hope that the Government will consider having not only an annual headline debate on their priorities for women, but a wider debate on sex equality, based on the EOC report.
  One of the major pieces of work undertaken by the EOC last year was a proposal for a new sex equality law to replace equal pay and sex discrimination legislation. It proposed strengthening the rights of individuals and placing new responsibilities on employers and public authorities. The proposed legislation would provide better regulation and help to reduce the incidence of expensive litigation, which can arise when organisations fail to build gender equality into their plans, programmes and practices. I hope that the Government will make a commitment today to review the current legislation, and to introduce their own equality legislation in the next Session of Parliament. I will be interested to hear the Minister's response.
  That would be a real step forward, not just for women who face discrimination on gender grounds, but for men—because equality is not just about women's rights. Women are still under-represented in many areas of life. I will not repeat the arguments that I have made often in this House on the gender balance in Parliament. I am too well aware of the problems in my party in that regard.
  Those who wield power in Britain are still overwhelmingly male—just look at High Court judges, heads of large companies, newspaper editors and members of powerful quangos. That shows how far we have to go before the glass ceiling is broken. The Government have a stated aim to achieve parity in appointments to quangos, although I do not think that as much progress has been made as could have been. The Minister referred to health trust appointments, but 50 per cent. has not been achieved in appointing women chairs to the new regional development agencies.
  The Government have done nothing to encourage the number of women in the judiciary. Women's organisations across the country say that the judiciary is in desperate need of reform—especially in areas such as domestic violence, rape and other issues. There are still no women in the highest court in the land, and only 7 per cent. in the High Court. I hope that Ministers have the ear of the Lord Chancellor on the issue, and that we will soon have a more transparent system of appointing judges that includes a balance of women. There is no shortage of able

  61
  women in the legal profession, and I know that during the last round of appointments, the names of a number of able women were proposed by women barrister associations and women lawyer associations as being suitable for appointment.
  The fact that those wielding power are men conditions the way in which decisions are made that affect all our lives. Any decision or action by Government, or anyone who holds power, is bound to affect men and women differently. I am pleased that the Government have recognised that fact, and I hope that the Cabinet Sub-Committee examining Government legislation for its impact on women will be listened to by all Departments. For example, some of the Government's welfare reform proposals will have an impact on women, including the abolition of the severe disablement allowance to new claimants aged over 24–61 per cent. of whom are women. However, because the Cabinet Sub-Committee meets in secret, we do not know what it thought about the proposal.
  I would like this country to have what many other legislatures have—a Select Committee on equality, to examine all proposed legislation for its impact on equality; not just in gender, but other areas. A pre-legislative Select Committee, made up of Members from all parties, which met in public, could provide proper scrutiny of Government legislation.
  I wish to refer to paid work versus caring responsibilities. The belief in paid work as a panacea for all society's ills does not give adequate recognition of the contribution that women make as members of the unpaid economy, both in their role as carers and in holding together thousands of voluntary organisations on which society has come to depend. The Minister talked about work conferring a sense of independence and value, but parenting provides a sense of value also. It is the most difficult job in the world to do, and being a single parent is even more difficult than being part of a couple of parents. However, it is also the most rewarding job in the world.
  The economic value of the unpaid economy, in which women are predominant, is not recognised, although both the paid and the unpaid economies are interdependent. To remove labour from the unpaid economy would have dire economic consequences, which even the experts—such as my hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb)— have not fully estimated.
  Mr. Steve Webb: It is my fault, is it?
  Jackie Ballard: It is not my hon. Friend's fault. I am saying that my hon. Friend, who is such an expert on these matters, has not fully computed the impact.
  If the pool of unpaid labour is not replenished with new volunteers, there will be a cost to society of providing care from the paid sector. The Government's schizophrenic attitude towards unpaid caring is at odds with their desire to promote and subsidise child care provided by the paid economy. The implication seems to be that non-parents provide better care than parents.
  Inasmuch as the House has a role in promoting lifestyles for women—it has a very small role—in terms of them staying at home or going out to work, I would like us to give women real options and choices. Many individuals, especially women, cannot have meaningful
  62
  choices unless the Government take action to remove the barriers to those choices. Those barriers are not just economic—they are social, political and cultural. Otherwise, there can be no progress and the inequalities in society will remain entrenched.
  Universal access to child care will not be provided solely by the private sector—the market will not meet all needs. Universal child care has been mentioned, but it is not universal yet, and we have some way to go before it is as accessible in rural constituencies, such as mine, as it may be in inner-city communities. It is not universally easily accessible for those on average or lower incomes.
  I welcome the Government's national child care strategy, which is a step in the right direction and something for which we have waited for a long time. It will be difficult to build a properly universal strategy that will give accessible and affordable child care to all those who want it. In the beginning, there are difficult choices. Should the priority be allowing people with children under five to get back on the career ladder quickly, or providing after-school clubs for children of school age?
  Like many other women Members, I have in the past juggled with a variety of forms of child care. One cannot simply find one child minder who will do everything. Often one has to find one person for before school, one person for after school and someone else in the holidays; and then what does one do when the child is sick? We have all had that awful guilt feeling when we have sent our children to school because we are sure that they are not really ill, but we are not sure whether we are acting for their convenience or ours.
  The women's jury, set up by previous Ministers for Women, concluded that women want genuine choice and help with balancing work and family life. It also felt that child care should be provided in conjunction with family-friendly policies in employment. I welcome the Government's recognition of that.
  I hope that business, too, will recognise that both fathers and mothers are parents and that mothers will not have freedom until fatherhood is taken seriously by employers. Fathers should be entitled to paternal leave when a child is born. I read a letter in one of the newspapers this morning from a father who did not understand why he would want leave when a child is born, because his wife would not want him there for a couple of months after having the baby, so that she could bond with the child. What a strange father he must be.
  Either parent should have an entitlement to paid leave to cope with the inevitable childhood illnesses; it should not always have to be the mother. No professional carer will look after an ill child for a day, and when children are ill there is no emotional substitute for a parent. If parental leave is not paid, as the right hon. Member for Camberwell and Peckham said, it will in practice be denied to the lower paid. I hope that, at the very least, the Government will consider enabling low-paid women to go on and off income support easily, so that they, too, can take parental leave.
  Functional families need functional parents who are not tied to their desks or production line. We must get away from the idea that people need to prove their commitment or ambition by getting into work at 7 am and leaving at 11 pm. Perhaps we should take a lead by working more normal hours, both in Westminster and in our constituencies. So many of us now are parents that we

  63
  ought to be able to have some influence. I hope that we will take a lead from the Scottish Parliament, which will work normal hours when it sets up later this year.
  Sadly, not all families are functional. Violence in the home is experienced by thousands of women—and by men—every year. Domestic violence is one of the Government's stated priorities for action, but the voluntary sector, which provides most of the services for victims of violence, is underfunded and suffers the double blow of withdrawal of grants by local authorities whose budgets are under severe pressure. There is a patchwork of provision of refuges, with availability of help varying from area to area, and many police forces still do not provide all their officers with training in dealing with complaints of domestic violence.
  Domestic violence cuts across many departmental responsibilities, with input from the Department of Social Security, the Department of Health, the Home Office and probably other Departments that I have forgotten. The Government say that they are committed to joined-up thinking and have set up many cross-departmental working parties, but joined-up thinking needs joined-up resources, and there is as yet no evidence of that. Instead, there is a multiplicity of sources for bidding for funds. Domestic violence is too serious to be left to a lottery of fund bidding and funding.
  All people want equality, not special treatment. Our daughters are beginning to expect equality as the norm, but it should also be the right of women currently on pensions or about to retire; of those doing the same job as a man but getting less pay; and of those whose choice is to look after their children at home or to take care of an elderly relative. Only then will both men and women be liberated to take on whatever roles they choose.
  As the right hon. Member for Camberwell and Peckham said, men losing some of their powers in some areas will gain advantages in others, giving them the freedom to take on roles involving caring or staying at home, which in the past they felt were not open to them. Surely that should be our aim.
  As the Minister said, better for women is better for all. That is why it is especially disappointing that so few men have chosen to take part in this debate—there are one or two honourable exceptions—which is not only about women but is, and should be, about both genders.
  Women should not have to pay the price of cuts in Government spending or suffer because of the history of a male-dominated political culture. The Government are tackling many of the issues, but much remains to be done. I hope that we will not have to wait another full year before we can debate their priorities in this area.
  6.15 pm
  Valerie Davey: I am delighted to contribute to this debate following a weekend in Bristol during which many groups of women and their families came together to celebrate both the women's world day of prayer and international women's day. Individual women started both those now traditional celebrations.
  Perhaps it is ironic that the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) should have spoken of the problems affecting textile workers in connection with
  64
  the minimum wage, since international women's day stems from demonstrations in 1857 by New York women in the textile and garment industries. Because of low pay and the frustration and concern that they felt, they banded together and probably thereby started international women's day.
  We had music, dance and poetry in a celebration hosted by Bristol city council. People came not only to look back but to look forward and to recognise what the Government have begun to do to meet women's needs and give them greater choice. We must remember that the movements were born in the adversity of New York, where new immigrants had to live in slum dwellings, were out of work and lacked health and education facilities. That is the context in which we look forward to improving conditions for women.
  Make Votes Count, an all-party organisation that seeks to increase political involvement and accountability, also held a meeting in Bristol.
  This year, we celebrate the 80th anniversary of the first woman taking her place in the House, yet only 239 women have ever been elected as Members of Parliament. It is a telling fact that 121 of us—more than half the total—are Members now. There is a long way to go. We are still only 18 per cent., or about one in five. We need more women to be involved.
  We need to take a deep look at making women's votes count and allowing women to be more involved in Parliament and local government.
  Mrs. Ann Winterton: Like the hon. Lady, I believe that we must get as many people as possible to vote in any democratic election. What are the hon. Lady or her party doing to encourage more women to vote in the vital forthcoming local elections? Does she share my concern at the fact that sometimes less than 30 per cent. of the electorate vote—never mind the percentage of women who vote?
  Valerie Davey: If the hon. Lady had come to Bristol yesterday and seen the stalls, and the women urging people to participate in the city council elections to come, and the way in which the city council opened its doors, she would have been encouraged.
  We must seriously consider more radical suggestions, such as everyone being able to vote in the supermarket or by post. That is exactly what Make Votes Count was discussing.
  The other group marching through the streets of Bristol was Jubilee 2000. The people were not so much marching as dancing, because they were led by a rumba band. It was a lovely, colourful occasion, but it brought home the fact that poverty around the world has a female face. I was delighted to see a Minister from the Department for International Development on the Front Bench earlier, in recognition of the fact that the issue is of international concern.
  I wish to share with the House some facts and figures provided at a seminar organised by the Department for International Development on gender development and poverty. The international facts are reflected in this country. Some 70 per cent. of the world's 1.3 billion poorest people are women. Political participation by women is low. Around the world women hold only 11.7 per cent. of seats in parliaments. We have 18 per

  65
  cent. here, but that is not enough. Some 60 per cent. of the world's nearly 1 billion illiterate adults are women. Thanks to this Government, more money will be put in to that area; it needs to be because, of the 130 million children who are not in school, two thirds are girls.
  Worldwide, women earn 75 per cent. of the pay of men for the same work. The value of women's unpaid housework and community work is now estimated by the United Nations to be 35 per cent. of gross domestic product worldwide. In most countries, women work approximately twice the unpaid time that men do. Up to 50 per cent. of women experience some degree of domestic violence during marriage worldwide, and in this country the figure is 25 per cent. The most poignant and important figure is that 585,000 die every year from causes related to pregnancy and childbirth. That is more than 1,600 women every day. In sub-Saharan Africa, one in 13 women will die from pregnancy and childbirth causes, compared to one in 3,300 in the United States of America. There is so much to do to improve women's health and to give women the choice about childbirth. All the neglect of girls and the preference shown for boys causes an unhappy and appalling situation for many women in the world.
  I am proud that the Government are concerned about the plight of women in this country and are extending that concern to women worldwide. I assure the Minister that whichever Minister comes to Bristol for the listening to women day, planned for next month, she will hear questions from women in Bristol that will be varied and set in a global context.
  6.24 pm
  Mr. Michael Fabricant: I am grateful to have caught your eye so early, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I have to attend an engagement in the Speaker's House at 6.45 pm. I also apologise if I Miss the winding-up speeches. The hon. Member for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey) talked about the role of women in the textile industry and congratulated the Government on what they have done for women. However, Bill Martin, the chief economist at PDFM, has said:
  "If one person loses his job because of the minimum wage that is bad news but we expect there to be up to 90,000 job losses in the textile sector and hotels and retail sector."
  I do not need to tell the hon. Lady that most of those people will be women.
  Looking around the Chamber, I can see more women here as a percentage than usual. The right hon. Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) was right when she said that we do not have enough women Members of Parliament. However, we should not condemn ourselves too readily, because although the Westminster Parliament's record is not good, the Assemblée Nationale has an especially bad reputation. Whether its current policy of parité will have any effect, only time will tell. Currently, fewer than 10 per cent. of Members of the Assemblée Nationale are women. As we have heard, the Labour party tried to introduce women-only lists for candidate selection, but that was ruled unlawful and was stopped.
  Ms Joan Ryan: In relation to that point and to the hon. Gentleman's earlier intervention, does he feel that he is here on merit, or as token man?
  Mr. Fabricant: As the hon. Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) said, I took part in the debate on this issue
  66
  a year ago, so I like to think that I am taking part as a matter of consistency. I am also taking part because I was an employer—and I shall come back to that point.
  I am firmly committed to equal opportunities for all, whether for women or ethnic minorities. However, I firmly oppose the introduction of quotas, which serve only to reduce standards. If a woman cannot make it through her ability, she should not do the job in the first place. The role of Government is to break down the barriers of prejudice so that women and the ethnic minorities are given equal opportunities with men.
  Mrs. Maria Fyfe: The hon. Gentleman is probably aware that there has not been a Scottish Conservative woman Member of Parliament since Anna McCurley, so his opinion of his female colleagues in Scotland seems to be extremely poor.
  Mr. Fabricant: I am sad to say that Scotland does not have a Conservative Member of Parliament at all at the moment.
  Now I must admit to the House—mea culpa—that when I ran a broadcast finance and engineering group before 1992, almost all our operational employees were men. The head of finance, the head of engineering and the head of marketing were all men. All the research and development team were men. I admit that I am ashamed of that record. We recruited from the BBC, Rediffusion and other organisations, and they, too, were staffed mainly by men in engineering positions. That was wrong. My only claim to fame is that, when I was at university, I went out with a girl who subsequently became the BBC's first female boom operator—although I doubt whether that was because she went out with me.
  Nothing in the Minister's speech today would have helped the situation. Nothing that the Government are doing would have helped me or other employers to employ women. The debate is entitled, "The Government's priorities for women: progress on their delivery". Like all Government policies, it is like those blister-wrap packages on sale in supermarkets: it makes a cheap, tacky product look exciting and fresh. A pair of mechanical shears is needed to break into it. When you finally get to look at the product that you have purchased, you realise that you have fallen for the marketing spiel and the bright colours, but the contents are cheap and tacky and—more important—do not work, with or without batteries.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) has already mentioned the problems facing playgroups, such as my local one in Lichfield. They are typical of the problems facing many women in employment.
  I have always made it clear that I do not oppose the national minimum wage in principle. However, the Prime Minister defended the minimum wage by saying, "There was such a system in the United States of America, so why isn't good enough for us?" I agree with that, but the minimum wage in the United States has numerous exemptions, including charities and caring organisations. Playgroups would not fall under the ambit of the USA's legislation, and American playgroups would not face the problems that ours do. There are also regional variations for the minimum wage in the United States, and many exemptions depend on the type of job.

  67
  For the sake of packaging and dogma, however, our Government could not allow any exemptions. The economy will reap the whirlwind, and the first people to suffer will be women—both those who work in playgroups and those who hope to send their children to playgroups while they go out to work.
  Caroline Flint: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Fabricant: I give way to the hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), who has never been an employer in her life.
  Caroline Flint: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that children placed in a care environment should have the staff of the best quality in terms of both training and pay? We must pay for an environment in which our children can be looked after, and decent pay and decent training are part of that.
  Mr. Fabricant: The hon. Lady shows her own naivety and that of those on the Labour Benches in the way that she puts her question. If playgroups go out of business because of the minimum wage, there will be no environment at all—good or bad. Moreover, parents will be unable to go out to work, so they will not have the equal opportunity that the hon. Lady seeks. She may nod her head at me, but if she had ever worked in industry instead of being a trade union official or whatever she was, she would know better than to ask such a damned stupid question.
  There is a similarity with the law of conservation of energy. Energy cannot be created from nothing. In the same way, the mere setting of higher wages means that someone is bound to suffer. Small businesses and young women will suffer most. It will take time for that to show, but the minimum wage and other Bills going through Parliament will harm rather than enhance women's employment prospects.
  Ms Beverley Hughes: Does the hon. Gentleman think it right that women, whatever job they are in, should earn £1.50 or £2 or £2.50 or £3 an hour? Is that acceptable in today's society?
  Mr. Fabricant: It is wrong for women—and for men— to be exploited. However, it is better to be employed than to have one's firm go out of business and not employ anyone. We have already heard that many good firms such as Asda, the John Lewis Partnership and Marks and Spencer have women-friendly policies and care about their employees—both men and women. However, those firms can afford it. There are many industries—we have heard already about textiles—that cannot afford it. The Government's legislation—including the minimum wage with its lack of exemptions, unlike the minimum wage in the United States—will create unemployment. The first category of people to become unemployed will be the very people whom we are debating—women. Mark my words on that point.
  Since the Government came to power, 25,000 women have lost their jobs in the textile industry. A recent article in The Economist predicted that the textile industry might be forced to shed another 30 per cent. of its work force— around 100,000 jobs.
  68
  The minimum wage is not the only problem. Let us remind ourselves of the burdens put on businesses during 22 short months of Labour Government: the windfall tax of £5.2 billion in July 1997; the past two Budgets, which added taxes of £19.15 billion; the national minimum wage, which is costing £8.1 billion; the working time directive, which is costing £6.65 billion; the European works councils directive, which is costing £0.085 billion; and parental leave, which is costing £0.11 billion. All that totals £39.3 billion of taxes on business. If a business can afford that, some Labour Members might say, "So be it." However, many businesses cannot afford it, and it will cost people their jobs.
  The Prime Minister said that his Government would make a difference. He was right. The difference will be fewer opportunities for women to achieve gainful employment. The Government call themselves new Labour, but they are not new. They have not learned that Governments cannot create jobs: only businesses can do so. The Government's constant interference, ranging from tinkering to hammer blows, has done nothing for opportunities for women.
  The Government have offered hope to many. Every new initiative has been trumpeted from every rooftop— though rarely first in Parliament. Every old initiative has been dusted down and regularly relaunched from every rooftop. Never has the Central Office of Information been so busy sending out e-mails, faxes and photocopies. Entire forests have been destroyed to provide the paperwork as each initiative has been announced and reannounced.
  Up to 3 pm today, there had been no fewer than four announcements about this debate.
  "Make way for women—Nick Raynsford tells the construction industry",
  said one news release. Apart from the title, however, and apart from the fact that the Minister for London and Construction was addressing the women in construction conference in London, the release makes no reference at all to women.
  Another news release announced:
  "Minister for Women addresses global videoconference".
  A third states:
  "UK Armed Forces—celebrating International Women's Day".
  A fourth is entitled, "International Women's Day— delivering for women". No doubt there have been yet more news releases since 3 pm.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Fabricant: I shall not give way, as I promised you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I would be brief, and as I have given way five or six times already.
  An elderly gentleman stands every Saturday in the precinct in Lichfield with a sandwich board around his shoulders, teaching the word of the Lord. As he might well say, "The time of reckoning is at hand." Newspapers in the west midlands are fed up with the Government, whose Barbie-doll policies ought to be confined to the playground. The newspapers have seen how few expectations have been met for men, let alone women. The Government are all gloss and no substance, and women are most likely to suffer from that.
  6.37 pm
  Mrs. Sylvia Heal: I congratulate Ministers on initiating the debate. Most women are neither "Superwoman" nor the little woman at home who gets the slippers and supper ready. It is sad that so many women underestimate themselves. Many felt increasingly frustrated with a society that demanded black and white choices of them, when they could have chosen from a colourful spectrum of possibilities.
  Women have been let down by previous Governments who did not respond to women's changed place in the labour market. Provision of child care has not caught up with working women's changed roles, or with their desire and their need to work. Since their election just over 20 months ago, the Labour Government have produced many policies that will improve the lives of women and benefit their families. They are providing a choice of possibilities for women, and that is what is important.
  I want to concentrate on two aspects of the debate— women and employment, and women and violence. More than half the United Kingdom's population are women— 29.9 million. Some 12 million of those women are in employment. Yet, in 1997, the Equal Opportunities Commission gave evidence to the Low Pay Commission stating that 40 per cent. of women earned less than £4.50 an hour—less than £8,775 a year for a 37½-hour week. Some 10 per cent. of women earned less than £3 an hour—under £6,000 a year.
  Home workers—nearly always women—are often the most exploited workers. Some are paid as little as 50p an hour, and they are expected to run machines from their homes at their own expense. Most are self-employed, receiving no entitlement to holiday or sick pay, and never being eligible for an occupational pension. They will be among the 1.3 million people who will benefit from the introduction of a national minimum wage. In April, that will be welcomed by many, not least by some people I met recently—for example, a chambermaid in Halesowen in my constituency who works in a Birmingham hotel. She told me that she voted Labour for the first time in 1997 because our party was promoting the national minimum wage. She has a husband and three children but, in that hotel, she earns only £2.50 an hour. She will be one of the many women who will rejoice after 1 April.
  In the west midlands region alone, there will be 230,000 workers who are likely to benefit from the national minimum wage. As the Low Pay Commission was told by the National Council for One Parent Families:
  "The advantage of replacing benefit income with earned income is real—it genuinely helps workers move out of the poverty trap."
  The Government acknowledge that many women have a dual responsibility within the home and as employees. Some of the more forward-looking companies have offered flexible working arrangements and provided child care arrangements, but the majority have made no allowance for the additional responsibilities shouldered by women. Many women have had to make a choice between caring for children or dependent relatives, or pursuing a career of their choice. Many thousands of women have chosen part-time, low-paid and less responsible jobs than they are capable of simply because that enables them to combine domestic responsibilities and work.
  That can affect women's income dramatically, both in the present and in the longer term. Women are less likely to have entitlement to a pension. The Employment
  70
  Relations Bill, currently going through the House, will extend maternity leave to 18 weeks for all women. It proposes that parents should be able to take up to three months parental leave when they have a baby or adopt a child. That will certainly help with the necessary adjustment that has to take place in a family when a new member joins it, whether by birth or adoption. It is an important time for one or both parents to spend with that child. The Bill also provides a right to reasonable time off for family emergencies.
  There are 6 million carers in Britain, of whom 60 per cent. are women. They might be caring for a child with a disability or for an elderly or disabled relative; some are caring for both. I hope that the provisions of the Bill will cover carers because, despite the increased participation of women in the work force in the United Kingdom, evidence suggests that the number of carers is increasing—it rose by 800,000 in the five years between 1985 and 1990.
  Provision of good-quality and affordable child care is essential for working parents; it is especially important for lone parents. I welcome the attention that the Government are paying to the provision of child care; that is long overdue. In my constituency a ward of almost 13,000 people has no child care provision; there are no registered child minders. Not everyone is able to rely on relatives to provide child care, which is why the Government's national child care strategy is to be welcomed. On Friday, I visited an after-school club in a primary school in Halesowen where there were 16 to 18 children. They were happy, motivated and enjoying themselves participating in a range of different activities, and they were given some sandwiches and fruit towards the end of their stay. I met two or three of the parents when they collected their children at 5.30. I did not have to ask them what they felt; they volunteered to me their gratitude that the possibility of the provision of child care had become a reality. It has made a huge difference to the working lives of some of those women, some of whom told me that they now work full-time for three days a week, compared with five days a week part-time. Clearly, that gives them a better opportunity in their careers.
  I met a nurse who has recently graduated after completing her training and now works in the community. Her two daughters attend the after-school club, which has enabled her to take up her post in the community knowing that her children are safe, happy and well cared for. She told me that the club was reasonable and affordable, and means that she can have satisfying and enjoyable work and make a contribution to the community. She also told me that the trust is considering term-time work for staff with children. The Government have given the lead, and employers are taking up the challenge and addressing the issue.
  My second point relates to women and violence. Women suffer horribly from violence at men's hands in the home and on the streets. Men still think that that behaviour can be excused by saying, "She asked for it." Of course women ask to be beaten black and blue, and of course they decide to wear a short skirt because they want to be raped. It has taken women's organisations decades of constant and concerted effort to obtain international recognition of the fact that violence against women is a human rights issue. The affirmation that such violence is a human rights problem entails Governments' obligation to recognise that women are entitled to be protected

  71
  against violence, and that that is their human right. Governments should guarantee that right and provide remedies when it is violated.
  Violence against women is not a private, but a public issue. Government action is needed to protect women against violence, no matter who the perpetrators are. The Government accept their responsibility in that field and are committed to tackling all forms of violence against women. I welcome the Government's initiative to work across Departments to develop policies that combat violence against women—whether it be the Home Office developing a national strategy on domestic violence, or the Lord Chancellor's Department with its responsibility for family law.
  Legislation against harassment and stalking has been introduced, as have ways in which vulnerable and intimidated witnesses can be helped to give evidence. Under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, local crime audits must be conducted. Those will help to focus on violence against women, whether in the home or in the community in which they live. It will no longer be possible to assume, "It doesn't happen here." The audits will identify the extent of the problem in each area, and help local authorities and voluntary organisations to develop the support services that are so necessary.
  I welcome the Government's policies to date, because they are a good foundation on which we shall be able to build throughout this Parliament and the next. We never said that things would change overnight, but we do say that things are improving. I add my voice to those of women in my constituency and throughout the country who are celebrating international women's week, in congratulation and celebration of the Government's start on improving the lives of women.
  6.48 pm
  Mrs. Jacqui Lait: Each year when I take part in this debate, I am not sure whether to welcome or deprecate it. It is sad that we continue to feel the need for a separate debate on women. I wonder whether we should be debating the excluded young men whom young women do not want to marry and with whom they do not want to have children—or rather, the young women will have the children, but do not want the responsibility of having the young men as husbands or even, dare I say it, partners.
  For a long time, many of us have fought to achieve equality for women. Many hon. Members are old hands on that subject, not only through participation in debates in the House, but because we have campaigned for decades—in my case, I am happy to admit that it is since the 1960s—for equality for women. It is sad that the same subjects continue to come up, although the position has improved dramatically since I first started to debate such matters at university in the 1960s.
  Let us consider the achievements of women. If one goes into a school and asks the girls what they plan to do, they are organised and clear in their views; they have clear goals and know what they want to achieve. They are pouring into universities and colleges, where they comprise at least 50 per cent. of students; they are gaining degrees and will make a huge impact on the professions. The situation has changed beyond all recognition. Police forces now recognise the problems of domestic violence
  72
  and have set up domestic violence centres. They know that, if they get a panicked telephone call in the early hours of the morning, they must respond quickly and do what they can to remove the perpetrator of violence against women.
  The situation has changed in many ways. I am one of the oldies who remembers what it was like before. I campaigned for sex discrimination legislation and for the establishment of the Equal Opportunities Commission. However, in spite of those changes for the better, I now believe that we should consider long and hard whether the commission is still required.
  I welcome the announcement that membership of the Women's National Commission will now include smaller women's groups. I campaigned hard for that inclusion when I was a member of a smaller group. I felt excluded from communicating to Government the clear and positive views of my group. If the Women's National Commission is now to encompass all smaller groups and if we assume—it is possibly a big assumption—that it will receive sufficient funds to service those groups properly, we should look to that body and to the women's unit to do the work of the Equal Opportunities Commission.
  I believe that the Government—who claim all sorts of achievements with regard to women's issues—should review sex discrimination legislation and assess what does and does not work in that area. The Government must identify what formats are helpful and those that are past their sell-by date. Organisations such as the Equal Opportunities Commission were crucial in the early days, but I question whether their role remains important today.
  The Government trumpet their achievements in the area of women's issues and we have spent hours considering on the Floor of the House and in Committee legislation that they claim will assist women. So why are we spending precious time today talking about women and women's issues when we have done nothing else ever since I returned to this place in November 1997? I have served on the Committee considering the working families tax credit. It contains some huge flaws, only some of which have been identified at this stage. However, that measure is discussed endlessly as a means of helping women.
  My hon. Friend the maiden for—[Interruption.] That was an interesting slip of the tongue. My hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) pointed out that the working families tax credit contains a fundamental flaw which we fought hard to eliminate in the 1960s and 1970s: the transfer of money from the purse to the wallet. We fought for child benefit as opposed to a tax allowance that recognised the cost associated with raising children because we did not want money to go to the wallet. The Government are returning to the bad old days by reinstating that money to the wallet.
  Mrs. May: I am also concerned about the transfer of funds from the purse to the wallet which will occur under the working families tax credit. Does my hon. Friend share my great concern that the issue has not been raised on the Labour Benches? I am somewhat surprised that Labour Members are entirely silent about the matter. They trumpet the advantages of the WFTC but are unable to see its flaws.
  Mrs. Lait: My hon. Friend is absolutely right: the silence was deafening from Labour Members during discussion of that issue in Committee. We made the point time and again, but it has remained unacknowledged.
  I noted with interest that the Minister said that the working families tax credit would benefit families who earned up to £23,000. I was tempted at the time to ask whether she was formulating new policy in that area and reducing the taper—thereby reinforcing the poverty trap—or whether she did not know that the working families tax credit is available to families who earn up to £38,000. That creates the paradox whereby some people who pay 40 per cent. tax—that is, super tax—receive the working families tax credit. The logic behind that calculation is slightly beyond me—and we have received no answers from the Government.
  Another interesting issue has arisen as a direct result of the working families tax credit and its interaction with the national minimum wage. My hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) referred to this matter, and it is one about which I have received several lobbying cards from my constituents on behalf of the Pre-School Learning Alliance. They point out the effect that the national minimum wage will have on pre-school employees and express the fear that it will damage that provision.
  We agree that all four-year-olds should receive nursery education, but the previous Government ensured that choice remained. The minute that Labour was elected, it abolished nursery education vouchers and insisted upon free pre-school education for all children from the age of four onwards. The state-maintained sector is now eating into choice and the pre-school sector by reducing the age at which it is prepared to offer children nursery education. Pre-schools must not only deal with the consequences of the national minimum wage, but compete on an unfair basis—we welcome fair competition—with the maintained pre-school education sector.
  Mrs. Ann Winterton: I have listened to my hon. Friend's remarks with interest, and I agree with her entirely. This morning, I visited a playgroup in Rode Heath in my constituency, and exactly those points were raised with me. The playgroup serves a village and a rural area, and without the support of an extra grant, would not exist this year. Without that playgroup, there would be no provision in the area. It has been hit by provision for four-year-olds in the maintained sector and by the legislation introduced by the Government.
  Mrs. Lait: I agree completely; my hon. Friend reinforces the point made by pre-schools.
  However, there is another twist in the tale. Costs will be forced up by the minimum wage, which will prompt the pre-schools that survive to increase their prices. The working families tax credit and the child care tax credit will meet those costs, but prices will increase in the sector as a whole.
  At the risk of being declared out of order—if that is possible in a debate such as this, Mr. Deputy Speaker—I will compare that experience to what has happened in the rest homes sector. As soon as the state declared a minimum price, that was the price charged. Costs increased, the state—for whatever reason—was not prepared to increase prices and the quality of provision
  74
  fell. In those circumstances, unless county councils were prepared to assist—which is what happened in the maintained rest homes sector—prices increased and were further subsidised by the maintained sector. I suggest that exactly the same thing will occur in the child care sector as a result of the child care tax credit. Prices will increase, as will the cost to the taxpayer.
  Another reason why the working families tax credit and the child care tax credit will be so expensive—I intervened on my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead on precisely this point—is that people will organise their affairs to maximise their income. That is why a poverty trap exists. People will say, "I cannot afford to go back to work because I get more benefit when I am out of work." I am not saying that that is right, but those people are making a clear economic statement. They will organise their child care and working patterns to maximise that tax credit. That means that the £1.5 billion that the Government dream will be the cost of the measure will increase certainly to about £7 billion and potentially to as much as £15 billion. That is an increase of 8p in the pound in the basic rate of income tax.
  That leads me to tomorrow's Budget, with which I have potential problems. The Chancellor has already said that he plans to tax child benefit. If he does, he will undermine the basic right of individuals to have control of their tax affairs. I lobbied on that issue throughout the 1970s and 1980s until, in reply to my speech at the Conservative party conference, Nigel Lawson said that women would get independent taxation. If the Chancellor introduces the taxation of child benefit, he will fatally undermine that principle because he will be insisting that couples share their tax information, and confidentiality is one of the basic principles of independent taxation.
  The Chancellor will not only penalise a family with one earner who pays 40 per cent. tax, while another family with two earners who do not pay 40 per cent. tax have a combined income that is higher than that of the first family, but he will break the basic principle of independent taxation. I am sure that the Government would not want that accusation made against them because the scales would suddenly fall from the eyes of the legions of women who campaigned, lobbied, wrote and sat in the Gallery, day after day, in their fight for independent taxation.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mrs. Lait: There are many more matters about which I am angry, but I promise that I shall not take up much more time.
  I want now to address a subject that does not speak its name—what we should do about young boys who are alienated from society. I raised the subject in this debate four or five years ago, and I hate to be repetitive, but nothing is being done. I should prefer us to spend an Adjournment debate discussing young lads and their problems rather than women, whom we discuss year after year, and about whom we say the same things again and again.
  There is a problem that needs to be tackled: women do not want some chaps as fathers because they are useless— in every respect except one—and our education and parenting systems are the cause. We must somehow deal with unskilled young lads who cannot contribute to

  75
  society and who feel rejected. Nothing that the Government have done so far has addressed that issue. The emphasis on mainstreaming through education is further alienating those lads. More and more of them are excluded from school. Those who are in school refuse to learn. They do not benefit from any measures that have been taken.
  We must address those concerns because if we do not create a society in which men feel responsible for a family, we will reinforce the huge problems experienced by lone parents. My hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead pointed out the sheer costs and difficulties of trying to get single mothers back into work. We are excluding and alienating those young lads from work because they need to be educated to get a decent job, and unskilled jobs have gone. As we know, they are more prone to criminality and to perpetrating acts of violence against women.
  We must, as a society, tackle the problems of those alienated young men. I hope that on international women's day next year, the Government will have the guts to hold an Adjournment debate on that subject, not women yet again.
  7.5 pm
  Mrs. Ann Cryer: I, for one, am absolutely delighted to participate in a debate about women to celebrate international women's day.
  I am also very proud to be the chair of the parliamentary Labour party Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and in that capacity, I pay tribute to the leading role played by women in the peace movement over the years. Many women who are now in this place established their political credentials through involvement with the peace camp at Greenham Common and in the wider peace movement. Many of them continue to put forward arguments for peace and disarmament in this place whenever possible.
  We are well assisted by the many campaigners outside Parliament who continue to focus on arguments against Trident and the non-accountable nature of US spy stations such as Menwith Hill, which is not far from my constituency. The women at the Menwith Hill peace camp have for many years bravely questioned the reason for the existence of the US base, its legality and precisely what goes on there. Helen John, Lindis Percy and Anne Lee are among many women who have continued to oppose the existence and expansion of the base. In the early days, when the existence of the station became known, many of us attended picnics—rallies—in the adjacent fields, where we had excellent speakers such as my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), the Secretary of State for Education and Employment. The picnics have ended, but the arguments continue.
  As a member of the Council of Europe committee on equal opportunities for women and men, I have recently been involved in a report on the equal representation of women and men in the Parliaments of the 40 member countries. In a table demonstrating the representation of women in Parliaments, the UK is 12th, Sweden is at the top and Turkey is at the bottom. Albania did not get its act together so we did not receive figures for its Parliament. Should the House need reminding,
  76
  this Chamber has at present 659 MPs, of whom 121, or 18.4 per cent., are women, and 101 of them are Labour Members. Our position on the list would have been much higher if it had not been for the overwhelming preponderance of men among hereditary peers. Perhaps next year, our position on the list will have improved.
  Parliamentary selections will be made by all parties in the next year, and I am not particularly hopeful that the representation of women will be addressed by any party, including my own. Three years ago, when two male no-hopers took three constituency Labour parties, including my own, to an industrial tribunal, I felt confident that the chair would throw out the case because a prospective parliamentary candidate could in no way be described as an employee of a party. There is no wage, no contract of employment and no employer-employee relationship.
  Those men would have had no chance of selection, whichever party they had applied to and whatever the shortlist. They would probably not even have made it on to an all-male shortlist, yet the tribunal chair accepted their complaint and the tribunal—amazingly, in my view—decided in the plaintiffs' favour. That decision still stands and therefore, sadly, no party can safely use an all-women shortlist as a vehicle, no matter how imperfect, to move towards equality of representation in Parliament.
  The Council of Europe equal opportunities committee suggests that member states introduce a quota system— although that would be effective only where the very undemocratic system of lists operates. There are other carrot-and-stick approaches to encourage political parties to move toward the nomination of equal numbers of men and women in winnable seats too; but without constituency parties being able to opt for all-women short lists, such good intentions may result in little improvement. In fact, unless changes are made, there may be a reduction in the number of women Members of Parliament following the next election.
  The Council of Europe equal opportunities committee has also been considering in detail the issue of violence against women. Last week, we decided to hold a press conference to coincide with international women's day. The committee's unanimously adopted declaration on zero tolerance of violence against women and girls reads as follows:
  "Gender violence is a fundamental violation of the right to life, to liberty and security, to personal, mental and physical integrity, equal protection before the law, equality within the family as well as the right not to be subject to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
  Violence against women is both a serious obstacle to the achievement of women's equality, and the outcome of the inequality which persists throughout Europe. The most important way to fight violence against women consequently is the fight for equal rights and opportunities for women.
  We therefore call for equality being one of the issues covered by monitoring compliance with the obligations of Council of Europe member States."
  I shall finally mention just a few of the Government's measures which will help women. The £40 billion extra for health and education will certainly be greatly welcomed by women with small children who, more than most, must visit their doctor. They will see improvements. The money will also be welcomed by many older women, who also have to use their doctors a great deal more than the average person.

  77
  There is a commitment to promote family-friendly initiatives through, among other things, the "Fairness at Work" White Paper and implementation of the working time, part-time work and parental leave directives. Anything that makes life easier for women who work and have small children will be of help. There are many stresses and strains on such women. When they are at work, they feel guilty about not being with their children, and when they are with their children, they feel guilty about not being at work. Anything that helps them in any direction should be welcomed. I certainly welcome such measures.
  I welcome the new deal for lone parents, to help them move from welfare to work, provided that the final decision on whether a young mother with small children goes to work is the mother's alone. She should not feel pushed into going back to work. I am very much in favour of the introduction of a national minimum wage, too. It will be very popular in Keighley, which is traditionally a very low-wage area. The hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) described the policy as one of the Barbie doll proposals or strategies. If that is so, many women on very poor wages in Keighley will say, "Long live Barbie."
  There has been much argument about playgroups. The national minimum wage will provide working women with enough money to pay a playgroup an economic rate, which will in turn enable the playgroup to pay those whom it employs an economic and reasonable wage. Even the Conservative party cannot knock increases in child benefit and income-related benefits to help families with children—although I am sure that it will try. As a grandmother with five—going on six—small grandchildren, I can speak with authority on the first ever national child care strategy. Readily available and reasonably priced good quality child care is the greatest enabler of all for women. I for one welcome the measure with very great enthusiasm.
  7.14 pm
  Miss Anne McIntosh: Here we are debating the Government's priorities for women, and progress—or lack of it—in delivering on them. In welcoming the hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge) to her post—this is my first opportunity to do so—I wholeheartedly endorse the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May), who eloquently set out the position of Conservative Members. I want to separate the fact from the fiction in this debate. I shall draw attention to the Government's ultimate failure to set priorities for women, and accuse them of being hopelessly remiss in delivering for women.
  I am mildly surprised that no reference has been made to the United Nations action programme for women. My researchers pulled a three-page document from the internet on the programme, which I had imagined would be the core of this debate. It raises real issues for women, not just in this country but throughout the world. As we celebrate international women's day, the programme raises issues such as the contribution of women to all aspects of society, equal opportunities for women, the role of women in developing countries, and Government funding to enable women to perform such a role.
  In the light of the remarks of the hon. Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer), I should like to refer to the number of women on the Government Benches. The Minister for
  78
  Public Health said that all-women lists for parliamentary selection at the general election were not deemed to be in breach of any rules. But as the hon. Member for Keighley said, when the matter was taken to an industrial tribunal, such lists were found to be clearly in breach of the treaty of Rome and the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, which implemented its provisions. As a result, the Labour party stopped selection from all-women lists.
  I should like to share with Labour Members, especially the Minister, the following thought: the Government must learn—I am sure that they will not mind taking lectures from Opposition Members in this regard—that there must be genuinely equal opportunities for men and women. I am wholeheartedly enthusiastic about the fact that I and the other 13 women who represent the Conservative party in this House were selected on merit, and not simply to fulfil the gender quota.
  I pay tribute to the previous Government, and especially my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) for his contribution as Prime Minister to delivering positive policies for women. He introduced and endorsed Opportunity 2000, which has put more women into public life and indirectly resulted in greater numbers of women in the professions, the boardrooms and other walks of life from which politics can draw. More work opportunities for women arise today as a result of the previous Government's commitment to flexible labour markets. As of April 1997, there were 12.3 million women in the work force. By comparison, this Government have failed miserably to deliver positive policies for women.
  The Minister for Public Health referred to every stage of a woman's life, from girlhood to womanhood, as well as to those who care for elderly relatives. This Government have failed at every such stage. Women whose aspirations were raised before the election have been let down. To illustrate that point, I shall start with the example of nursery education. Nursery education vouchers were introduced nationwide in April 1997, and would have resulted in the provision of free nursery education for every four-year-old. Many mothers want the provision of such pre-school education, which gives them the opportunity to work. On being elected in May 1997, the Labour Government immediately abolished that scheme.
  Equally, it was recognised that the minimum wage for au pairs would have a devastating effect on women returning to work. I understand—perhaps the Minister will put my mind at rest on this score when she winds up the debate—that that category has now been excluded under Government provisions for the minimum wage, first, because it would have led to fewer au pairs working, and secondly, because, as a result, fewer mothers would have entered the workplace.
  There are probably more women teachers than men teachers; certainly there are more women heads than men heads. In North Yorkshire, and especially in the Vale of York, teachers and heads have been extremely disappointed by this year's poor standard spending assessment for north Yorkshire. Teachers are being promised a pay increase, but the Government have committed no new money to pay for it. Moreover, the Government are committed to cutting class sizes to 30, yet they have committed no new money to achieving that aim.

  79
  The Government are going even further, saying that they wish to introduce performance-related pay for teachers in two years' time without considering how that is to be achieved or the administrative burden that the achievement of that aim will impose on teachers and heads. Many of those teachers and many of those heads will be women.
  The Minister with responsibility for women's issues briefly mentioned the plight of teenage girls, and especially the increasing number of teenage pregnancies. That is now an extremely pressing problem, in view of the number of teenage girls falling pregnant, many of whom are applying to take the morning-after pill before a pregnancy has been diagnosed, or—in the long term— applying to go on the contraceptive pill. However, the Minister made no mention of the higher incidence of sexually transmitted diseases among teenagers. That is an especially worrying development for young teenagers, especially girls, because as they develop and, hopefully, marry, it could have a very negative effect on their fertility and ability to give birth.
  I am concerned that intrusive, old-fashioned socialist policies such as the minimum wage and maternity or paternity leave will lead to higher unemployment among women. It is believed that the working time directive and the constraints imposed by it will hit working women hardest.
  I shall now discuss those choosing not to work but to stay at home to bring up children or to care for sick or elderly relatives. It has been found that the tax situation imposed by the Government is severely disadvantaging women who choose to stay at home. The only beneficiaries, under the present tax law, are couples living together and choosing not to marry, or one-parent families. That is hardly an incentive to working mothers, or carers choosing to stay at home.
  I should like to discuss the equal opportunities provisions under the treaty of Rome and the implementing regulations, especially in relation to woman returners to work. That is a special category which has been recognised, especially under objective 3 training funds. There have been qualifying programmes for women such as "New Opportunities for Women"—the NOW programme. I understand that, in all probability, that programme will lapse under the Agenda 2000 reforms.
  I leave the Minister with the following question. What provisions will replace those schemes, enabling woman returners to work to undertake courses to boost their chances of taking up employment, especially after leaving employment to bring up young people—their children— and to ensure that there will be new provision either under a Government programme or a future European programme?
  The enduring message that I shall be left with at the end of tonight's debate is that the Government are now adopting Conservative language. They are "seeing women as mainstream" in life and they have adopted a programme of listening to women. Obviously we have coined a phrase with our Listening to Britain campaign, in which we addressed 52 per cent. of the electorate and 45 per cent. of the work force, namely women.
  The Labour party's rhetoric has changed. In opposition, it claimed to want to do something to help women; now, in government, it supports the Conservative rhetoric of
  80
  developing a strategy to make women feel mainstream in society, not a hived-off special category. However, in my view the Government have consistently discriminated against women.
  The Government have failed women and disappointed their aspirations—raised before the most recent general election—most in relation to family credit, which is now being paid to the mother. Family credit has been paid through the benefits system to the mother; the working families tax credit will be distributed through the tax system, and in the majority of low-income households the father, as the sole wage earner, will receive that benefit. The money will therefore be paid to him through his pay packet, and the wife and children will lose out, because scientific evidence proves that money given to the father is less likely to be spent on child care. That is a fundamental point, which the Government have failed to address and on which they have failed to deliver for women.
  Incapacity benefit is changing, and is now to be available only to those who paid national insurance contributions in only one of the past two tax years—not the past five or six tax years. That will hit women especially hard, and the majority of those penalised will be those with young children who become ill, or carers for elderly relatives.
  Finally, bereavement pensions—the new bereavement benefit—will be cut off after only six months for those without dependent children. It is important that we, the Conservatives, take the message to those who will lose out after six months and will no longer receive a bereavement pension until retirement age, as they currently do. As my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead pointed out, 250,000 women will lose out in that category alone.
  I conclude that the Government have failed to deliver for women on a catalogue of areas and policies, and that they can hardly be welcomed as having introduced woman-friendly policies.
  7.27 pm
  Barbara Follett: I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in the debate on the last international women's day of the 20th century. This has been the century of women, just as the 15th was the century of exploration and the 18th the century of industrial revolution. In this century, the revolution has been in women's lives. A hundred years ago there were no women engineers, no women professors, no women managing directors or women MPs, let alone women Speakers, Chief Whips or Leaders of the House. A hundred years ago, women did not even have the vote. Then, as now, there were many talented and entrepreneurial women, but their abilities were wasted and their ambitions stifled by a seemingly monolithic social order.
  Women today still have a number of glass ceilings to break, including that of leader of the Liberal Democrat party; 100 years ago they were still on the floor. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Ms Jowell) said, women's lives have changed beyond recognition. I know that she, like me, is proud that the Labour party, which came into being with the century, has played its part in ensuring that those changes are reflected in the laws of our land.
  It was the 1945 Labour Government—who, like the 1997 Labour Government, contained a record number of women—who brought in the maternity allowance in the

  81
  Beveridge reforms of 1948. It was the 1974 Labour Government who made formal provision for maternity leave in their Employment Protection Act 1975. In 1997, it is the Labour Government who are increasing that maternity leave from 14 to 18 weeks and introducing— for the first time in our country—the right to parental leave and time off for family emergencies.
  Those new provisions recognise the importance of women in the workplace and the importance of men in the family—better for women and much better for us all. Men—not just retiring Conservative Members—need to spend more time with their families. Research into underperforming boys has shown that the root of the problem is the boys' unwillingness to learn to read because they consider reading too girlie—too unmanly. That is because they are generally read to by their mothers or by their primary school teachers, who on the whole are women. Almost never are they read to by their fathers or by other men. They rarely see men or their fathers reading anything at all except newspapers. Families definitely need fathers and I am proud to be serving on a Committee that is considering a Bill that translates recognition of that fact into law.
  We have heard today about how the Government are delivering for women in this country and for women in developing countries throughout the world. The minimum wage, the working families tax credit, the sure start programme and the national child care strategy have all been mentioned. With my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer), I am pleased to say how much the national child care strategy means to me personally as a mother of three and a grandmother of two. I was one of those women who in the early 1980s sent a son to school even though he did not look very well because I needed desperately to keep my job. I was called to the school later in the day, and a day later he was diagnosed as having meningitis. He hung between life and death for two days. Fortunately, he is now a man of 23. If he had died, I do not think that I could ever have forgiven myself. We put women in that position every day of their lives in this country.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey) so tellingly recounted, the numbers of women elected to the House in the past 80 years have been pitifully small. It was not until 1983 that the number of women in the House exceeded 5 per cent. of the total membership. When Parliament was dissolved in April 1997, that percentage had risen by four, to 9 per cent. On 1 May 1997, it doubled to 18 per cent. Meanwhile the number of women on the Conservative Benches fell from 18 to 13. It was only after the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) came to the House after a by-election that the number rose to 14. Only three Liberal Democrat women Members and two women Scottish Nationalist Members were returned. It is clear that it was the 101 Labour women who made the difference.
  In opposition, the Labour party made a huge effort to ensure that women were selected in seats which they had a chance of winning. I find it unbelievable that Opposition Members cannot accept that on both sides of the House we have had hundreds of years of men-only shortlists, which owed much more to Buggin's turn than to merit; few of us have acknowledged that today. I applaud the efforts that the Labour party made to overcome Buggin's turn. I am glad to see that in government we are
  82
  committed to righting this democratic deficit, not merely to promote equality but to promote women's participation in the political process.
  Women throughout the country, especially outside the House but including some of us inside it, find the way in which we debate the issues that we care about—the economy, education and the health service—demeaning. They feel that it involves a lot of shouting but little doing. If we really want to involve more people, including women, in the political process, we shall have to reform it. I am delighted that the Government have made a start. I am glad to say that the new Assemblies in Scotland and Wales will be horseshoe-shaped and will work far more family-friendly hours than we currently enjoy.
  Although the same cannot be said for the reformed House of Lords, I am confident that the current number of women in that place—7 per cent. of the total membership—will rise. It is the upper Chamber which keeps the British Parliament so low in the league table of women's representation. Yes, we are above France, but the French are so desperate that they are thinking of amending their constitution to ensure that the law encourages women to participate in public life. However, we are below countries such as Kuwait and Korea, which are not known for their women-friendly policies. The Labour party is committed to encourage the principle of a 50:50 ratio of women and men in public appointments. The number of women appointed to public posts has risen by 7 per cent. in the 20 months that we have been in office.
  We do and will select on merit. As the century draws to a close, I look forward to the next, which I hope will be the century of partnership between the Government and the people and between men and women. Only in that way can we guarantee a better future for us all.
  7.35 pm
  Mrs. Teresa Gorman: The hon. Member for Stevenage (Barbara Follett) said how much she welcomes the 101 women Labour Members who have entered the House following the general election, which she informed us had made the difference in this place. I find it difficult to understand what the difference has been as a result of additional female talent coming into this place. There have been occasions when women Labour Members have all sat on their hands, robotic-like, not even being prepared to support one of their colleagues. I remember witnessing the slaughter of the right hon. Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), who was attacked for her policies that were altering the legislation applying to women, which I thought had been reasonably well thought out. Hardly one of the women Labour Members would do a thing to support the right hon. Lady on the occasions when she sat in her place as lonely as a cloud.
  There is no point in looking at the width; it is the quality that matters. If women are to justify their increased numbers in this place, they must try to decide what issues really matter in improving the position of women in our society and then to do something about them. For example, if Labour women Members were collectively to go and sort out the Lord Chancellor on matters such as

  83
  the number of women judges, I am sure that they could frighten him to death. If that were to happen, we might see some more women judges appointed.
  Ms Blears: Would the hon. Lady like to tell us what she achieved, as a supporter of the Conservative Government for 18 years, to increase the number of women in public life?
  Mrs. Gorman: I do not think that that is the point. However, with my colleagues I went and sorted out our own Lord Chancellor. We persuaded him to introduce several changes in legislation bearing on children and matters relating to cohabitation, for example. On those occasions we had an impact. There is no point in calling for more women in the House unless those women will act independently, individually and in support of the issues that they claim are still waiting to be sorted out.
  Women want much the same as men want. They want more opportunities, a better standard of living and more independence for themselves. To put it crudely, they want to be better off. The Conservative free-market, free-enterprise policies have introduced a vast new range of industries and opportunities, which have given women the opportunity that they now have, for example, to own motor cars, albeit that they block the roads when collecting their children from school. It is an opportunity that they did not have before. I recall the old, stale Labour policies of keeping alive out-of-date heavy industries which were enormously subsidised. They gobbled up public funds to sustain jobs that were long out of date. Conservative changes over the past 20 years have transformed the free market and made it possible for women to gain opportunities.
  Lorna Fitzsimons: If the hon. Lady is saying that greater financial independence has given women the ability to have their own motor car, I expect her to join me in welcoming the increase in women's incomes as a result of the national minimum wage and the working families tax credit.
  Mrs. Gorman: I think that both measures are extremely misguided. Once women have taken time out of work and need to get back in it, they usually need the opportunity to get back on the ladder. If we load the employment of women with extraneous costs, of which the minimum wage is sometimes one, but not always, we will encumber women and make employment much more difficult. In making that remark I quote not a rabid right-wing Conservative like myself, but Carmen Callil, who is a well-known supporter of the Labour party and an extremely successful publisher. I believe that recently she was running HarperCollins, one of our major publishers. She said that trying to employ women, as she does—many book editors are women, and it is predominantly a woman's profession—is a nightmare. If a woman is doing a job that is exclusive to that individual and she needs to take time off—there is the old cry about maternity leave—it becomes impossibly difficult to offer such opportunities to other women. I do not believe for one moment that the policy that the Labour party is pursuing on the matter will help women one little bit. It will make small firms in particular, where there is
  84
  a limited choice of staff, less likely to take a woman on. In that respect, Labour's legislation is extremely backward-looking.
  Ms Moran: One of the effects of the flexible labour market which the hon. Lady so eloquently espouses has been the fact that more women work for lower pay and longer hours. For example, one in four women works more than 40 hours a week. Does she believe that that is an improvement in the quality of life for women and, more particularly, for their children?
  Mrs. Gorman: The woman's individual circumstances are paramount. I do not know why an individual woman may be in a particular job. I do know, however, that as most women in their middle years, especially if they have a family, take relatively unskilled work because they do not have the time to devote to a more highly skilled job or even to a higher level of training, they tend to be in the lower-paid percentiles.
  The Labour party does women no favours by constantly referring to them as victimised and badly paid. That simply is not true. In the past week I have met women bank managers, women managers of large hotels, a woman who runs one of the largest transport companies in the country, a woman who runs one of the largest Ford car dealerships in the country, women doctors and dentists, and women who work in the stock exchange.
  There are many rapidly rising women in Britain. That is largely because of the education reforms that were introduced during the last period of Conservative government, which have made it much easier for women to undertake higher education. The mere fact that their families could afford to support them in that speaks highly of the legislation introduced and implemented over the past 20 years.
  It is foolish for Labour to suggest that women have made no progress over that time. They have come from nowhere during my lifetime. Earlier, someone of my age and as intelligent, bright and in every way as attractive to the employment market as I am was unable to find a university place. Less than two in 10 people went to university and of those, the percentage of women was minimal. That position persisted almost until the mid-1980s, when Conservative education policies altered it.
  The Labour party does no credit to women by constantly harping on the notion that we are all victims and underdogs and are being ground down by evil employers. That is silly. If a woman does not like her occupation, and if the pay is so poor, under our welfare system she almost has the option of staying at home and not bothering to go out to work at all. I deplore that, but it is a fact of life. Under welfare legislation, a great many women are assisted.
  Ms Moran rose—
  Mrs. Gorman: No, I have given way to the hon. Lady once, and I am sure that many other hon. Members want to speak.
  There is a further issue to which the Labour party should turn its mind. One the most significant developments in the progress of women in a relatively short time has been the ability to control the size of their

  85
  families. Legislation has brought that about, but we still have a serious problem of young women becoming pregnant when they are not old enough or mature enough to raise children. That is detrimental to the children, although I know that many of the young mothers do a wonderful job.
  We spend most of our time condemning girls for getting themselves into that situation. We talk about giving young women more assistance in such matters and allowing them so-called emergency contraception if they face an unwanted pregnancy. I suggest to Labour women Members, as there are 101 of them, that if they insisted on that—if they went to see the Secretary of State for Health and told him that that should be made easier for women—they could achieve something, but they do not try. They sit on their hands.
  As a result, we read newspaper articles such a cutting that I have, which states that hospitals are refusing such assistance to young women who, not knowing where else to turn, go along to the hospital accident and emergency department. Perhaps hon. Members will tell me whether a delegation of Labour women Members has been to see the Secretary of State for Health, to ask what he is doing about the matter.
  It is extremely important that young women should be given better information. It is still the case that a woman who decides that she cannot go through with a pregnancy, and wishes to have it terminated, must beg two doctors, and must humiliate herself and often lie, in order to get that assistance—a process that is often dragged out until the middle or even late stages of the pregnancy, when it could have been dealt with earlier. A reform of that situation would give dignity to women's lives and remove some of the carping and criticism from the subject of birth control and abortion.
  What have Labour women done? They have a marvellous opportunity to make progress. Bringing into women's lives dignity and control over their fertility would advance the cause of women by giving them control over the way in which their lives progress. I have given two examples of the way in which Labour Members could have done something for women, but have not done so.
  Many young women have low expectations. Like many other hon. Members, I taught. It is a great shame that so many girls come from homes where they do not see much future for themselves, even now. I challenge the women on the Labour Benches to tell us what they are doing to raise the expectations of those young women, so that they do not think that the first thing to do, as soon as they are old enough, is to have a baby and live unhappily—or rather, meanly—ever after, trying to raise that child, possibly on their own, or even sink into thinking that they may as well have two or three babies while they are at it, because at least that brings in a little more social security. What sort of ambition in life is that for a young woman?
  Although standards have improved enormously, educational opportunities have been opened up by a Conservative Government, and at the top end a huge number of women have benefited from that, we still have a long way to go. In their term of office, which I naturally hope will be short, Labour women Members can start the ball rolling and show us what they are made of, so that when they leave office they can claim to have contributed to women's progress.
  86
  I shall deal briefly with the informal networks that women often set up to help themselves. The playschool movement is an excellent example. Women get together, they do not want a great deal of money out of it for themselves, they are doing something useful, and along comes the heavy hand of Government and clobbers them. The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge) and I have corresponded extensively on the subject. She has given me to understand that there is a great dollop of money floating around out there on which such groups can call, but I have read the small print. That dollop of money is to be limited to areas of special need, which precludes many of the schools in my constituency.
  Again, that is a challenge for Labour—not necessarily to find more money, but just to leave those women alone so that they can get on with improving their own lot. A similar case is that of women who look after their neighbour's children. Because of perhaps one or two bad cases that went national, all informal arrangements were stopped. Through the Children Act 1989, which otherwise had many good points, licensing was introduced, regulations came in, and the women's houses had to be specially adapted, with low toilets, prefabricated windows and goodness knows what else. Those initiatives were crushed, and women were denied the opportunity of relatively low-cost child care, which they could afford, which they could swap around and through which they could help each other out. We made that an illegal activity and I think that we will go down the same route with playschools, which I would deplore. I challenge the women on the Labour Benches to do something about that because they tell us that they are here to improve the lot of women.
  I want to say a word on behalf of older women, who are much underrated and undervalued in this country. Many women prefer to work part-time for relatively modest pay because of their life pattern when they are raising their children, although the policies that the Labour party is introducing will probably squeeze a lot of them out of that market and they will be even worse off than they were before.
  I challenge the women on the Labour Benches to think about how more mature women can be helped to become Members of the House. One method, which I have mentioned in the House on more than one occasion, is their health care. In particular, we should think seriously about doing a great deal more to make older women aware that their health can be enormously improved in many ways. I will not go on about hormone replacement, but that is a significant element. For the record, I am told that my skeleton is equivalent to that of a 15-year-old. It will last me, even if I last for a century or more.
  I emphasise that there are still elements of health care that make older women less interested in going back into the workplace, even though they probably have 30 years of useful life left, and we should not forget that the average age of mortality for women is their mid-80s. The chaps have still to catch up.
  What should we do to make use of mature women? We often read of terrible abuse cases involving children in institutions. Many women have had massive and explicit experience of judging people's characters and weighing up the pros and cons of what is going on in a household. They could make a better fist of that type of work than many councils, who make a mess of it—not

  87
  least Islington council, on which the Minister sat and whose record on child care and abuse in the homes that it controlled was deplorable.
  The issue of how to get more women elected to the House has been raised and we have heard the old saw that we should get here on merit. Well, we all know that the men do not all get here on merit. They get here by pulling strings, phoning up the right person or pushing themselves forward.
  Ms Ryan: Or by having the right wife.
  Mrs. Gorman: Perhaps by having the right wife—that, too. We need women as Members of the House because half the population are women. Most of the legislation passed by the House these days concerns matters of primary interest to women, especially health, education and social welfare. We spend the majority of our budget on those issues—not on war and defence, as we did in the old days. Government was largely about defence and foreign affairs and, even today, the Chamber fills up with the chaps when we are talking about such things. However, that is not where the bulk of the Government's concern lies and we should have more women in the House for that reason.
  On two occasions I have introduced Bills calling for an equal number of men and women Members to be achieved through dual lists, with constituencies voting for a man and for a woman. So far as I know, that idea originated with George Bernard Shaw and has been pushed for many years by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). In that respect, we would make progress if the women on the Labour Benches were genuinely interested in more women being elected to the House, not on a temporary basis, which is the basis on which many of the Labour women Members are here, but permanently. Although I share the interest in more women being elected to the House, I do not want them to be sent here artificially.
  Jackie Ballard: Although a change was made in this House in 1997, is the hon. Lady aware that the legislatures with the highest proportion of women Members are in Scandinavian countries, which have a form of proportional voting? Would she support that form of voting to get more women into Parliament?
  Mrs. Gorman: I do not want a half-baked system of proportional representation or women's lists, but change, once and for all. I want dual lists so that each constituency can choose a man and a woman—not doubling up on numbers, but twinning of candidates. I have presented such Bills to the House and hon. Members can read the technical details in Hansard.
  I challenge the women on the Labour Benches to make a true impact on the ability of women to progress, without forgetting the fact that what happened under the previous Government provided the best role model that women have yet had in politics. We had the first woman Prime Minister, whose achievements were mammoth. She rescued this country from the doldrums of a socialist Government—there was a strike every other day of the week, which is only one example of something that she
  88
  cured—and brought this country to such a level of prosperity that the women on the Labour Benches have good jobs, women own cars and control industries. Their progress is rapid because of the legislation that the Conservative party introduced. Let us see what the women on the Labour Benches can achieve during their term in office.
  7.56 pm
  Caroline Flint: I welcome the opportunity to take part in the debate. In last year's debate I was the last Back-Bench speaker. I had three minutes, which I devoted to the important issue of domestic violence. That issue has been raised today and I hope to touch on it later.
  It is important to say to people in the Gallery and those watching us on cable television that the debate has been initiated because this is international women's day. We are concentrating our minds and our ideas on the issues affecting women throughout the world. That is not to say that contributions on issues affecting women have not been made by hon. Members on both sides of the House in the year since we last celebrated international women's day—and I am sure that such contributions will continue to be made during the next 12 months.
  Earlier in the debate, I was called "stupid" by the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant), who has left the Chamber, although he gave notice that he would have to do so. I was making a point about child care and those who work in that field, which we all have to address. For too long, work involving care has been undervalued and given low status. Correspondingly, that has affected the premium at which the work done by such people is valued and, therefore, the rate at which they are paid.
  This country is going through a transition in respect of addressing the needs of parents who require child care. I hope that, during that transition, we reassess the role of the people, predominantly women, who work with children, care for the elderly and work in other areas of care. It is about time that we put a premium on such care and recognised it. We should respect those workers and we should also hope to achieve the best quality of care for children or elderly people who are being looked after.
  My satisfaction at being part of the new Labour Administration is that we have tackled a number of issues that predominantly affect women on low incomes. To sum up a proportion of the debate, if there was a general election tomorrow and, for some reason, the Conservative party won, we could be certain that it would get rid of the national minimum wage and part-time workers' rights, say no to statutory holidays and undermine the child care strategy that has been developed. That strategy has been welcomed by every child care organisation in which I have been involved. I was chair of a national child care organisation for four years before I became a Member of Parliament. All those policies would be undone by a Conservative Government.
  There is still a barrier, especially in manual work. In certain professions, some of the institutionalised segregation has gone over the years, but in manual work there is still rigid segregation between men and women. I believe that that is why women still earn only 80 per cent. of the hourly pay of men, and 72 per cent. of their average weekly pay.
  That economic picture leads me to the more fundamental relationship between family and work, for two reasons. We must ask ourselves why women end up

  89
  with all the part-time work, with broken working lives and low or non-existent pensions. That is due first to the distribution of family—and parental—responsibility, and secondly to an uneasy partnership between men and women.
  I know that I can go out, pick up a magazine from the shelf of any newsagent and, probably, find examples of new men who are parenting, working from home and challenging traditional roles. Those, however, are merely crumbs of comfort. Perhaps there are more choices for middle-class, highly educated women. We should celebrate the fact that some women have broken into different fields, and that such women have more choices—they have financial independence, their own cars and can employ cleaners, hopefully paying at least the national minimum wage. That, however, is just a small segment of the wider picture. Women overwhelmingly perform the household organisation tasks; women overwhelmingly deal with schools and doctors; women take part-time work in order to balance employment with looking after their families.
  We all want women to be able to make choices, but pre-set parameters ensure that economic choices favour men, while domestic responsibilities fall on women. That must be challenged. I have referred to an uneasy partnership. Reference has been made to domestic violence, and it is to the credit of all the women's organisations that formed the refuge movement that so much progress has been made in that regard. I am pleased, however, that we now have a Government who are finally producing a national strategy. Although domestic violence is known about, there is little evidence of its eradication from relationships between men and women.
  I must now declare an interest I am a parliamentary adviser to the Police Federation. When considering local budgets, the Government must ensure that resources are available to support police stations containing domestic violence suites. Much work has been done over many years to provide a sensitive service in that regard, and we want the police to be able to continue to do the job well.
  The uneasy partnership—as I term it—between men and women is partly a product of the sexual revolution. As a feminist, I can say that a fundamental tenet of the sexual revolution was women taking control of their own bodies. The personal became political: it was a case of "our bodies, ourselves". We can learn all the top sex tips from women's magazines, and wherever we look British society is more sexualised, but there are 10 times as many teenage pregnancies in the United Kingdom as there are in Holland, and many young mothers will become young grandmothers. As a feminist, I think we should address that.
  The problem is not just young parenthood, but a high rate of failure to establish solid relationships, or even to get men to pay for their pound of flesh. As we enter the 21st century, there is still considerable evidence that men take and leave what they want from women—and the Child Support Agency has failed to scratch the surface. I say that although I have a good deal of case work from men who have been treated badly by the CSA when its administration has gone wrong. The number of such cases does not equal those of women who have been abandoned to look after their children alone, left in poverty by men who should take responsibility for fathering children.
  90
  Unfortunately, a large number of young women who are engaged in sexual activity—and that is the reality— have not mastered their own fertility or any control in their relationships. For me, the concept of "our bodies, ourselves" was a metaphor for the ability to control all aspects of one's life. By controlling when they became pregnant, women could control their working lives and education, influence their earning power and maximise their happiness by planning their families if and when they wanted them. However, as my right hon. Friend the Minister said earlier, there is a significant vulnerable group of young women. Disaffection at school among boys can manifest itself in low self-esteem, truancy and criminal activity, but among girls such low self-esteem often leads to early sexual relationships and pregnancy.
  Members of that vulnerable group are becoming parents before their education is completed, without solid relationships, with poor parental support and facing a possible 10 years or more out of the labour market, dependent on benefits. Such women often become dependent on boy friends to provide occasional luxuries. They are likely to have more children in difficult circumstances, and, crucially, are likely to have daughters who follow the same pattern of young parenthood, low achievement and abusive relationships. There are a number of young women in such circumstances who try their best, are good mothers and go on to succeed; but the evidence shows that a large proportion are left alone and isolated. Certainly, the fact that there are grandparents of 30 and parents of 14—as there are in my constituency— represents not a triumph for feminism, but a challenge.
  Mrs. Gorman: How does the hon. Lady view the Home Secretary's proposal that such young women should be required to live in hostels collectively, in what could be described as a return to the old workhouses, rather than being supported separately?
  Caroline Flint: That is an interesting point. In my area, the foyer project is intended to encourage young people to take advantage of training, and to put a roof over their heads. In my experience, one of the problems for teenage mothers is isolation: isolation on run-down estates, and isolation from the resources and opportunities that could be available through training and health care. One way of tackling that is trying to bring together housing, health and education services so that young women have the opportunity to take advantage of them if they wish. It would be voluntary, but it should be offered to young women. There is a sure start initiative in part of my constituency, and I hope that we can look at the way in which resources are put together there to ensure that women have as much access to resources as they need.
  If we want young women with children—especially lone parents—to exercise choices, we must ensure that we give them choices. I know that Members on both sides of the House, including Labour Members, have asked why it is necessary to pay someone else to look after a child when one can do it oneself. I think that we sometimes confuse freedom of choice with Hobson's choice. We confuse women who are deciders with women who are victims. These women have never been financially independent. Although we have raised child benefit to record levels, they need much more than that to escape from the poverty trap. Many may find a man to subsidise their lot in life, but I would sooner offer them new doors

  91
  that they can open to have real choices, with education, employment, child care, taxation and benefits working with them rather than against them. If they then enter new relationships with men, they will be able to do so on more equal terms.
  As I have said, I am pleased that Denaby, in my constituency, is to be a trailblazer for the sure start initiative, which will target services on women with pre-school children. New money will be pumped in to support vulnerable families. It will not be top down; success will depend on allowing local partnerships to flourish. It is especially important to listen to what young women think about the matter. I shall quote the words of some young women who became pregnant when they were young and on their own. According to one:
  "The reality of looking after a baby 24 hours a day, 365 days a year is a far cry from the pretty clothes and the pictures that you see in magazines … To this day I still haven't understood why I wanted to have a baby so much. Sometimes I wonder if it was due to my upbringing, as I watched my father walk out of the door when I was about 6 years old and I am forever having arguments with my mother. I have considered the possibility that perhaps I wanted a baby to love in the way that I felt I had not been."
  Such young women can also give advice on the support that needs to be given. Another of them said:
  "I find now that my friends come to me for advice and I feel that they don't get sex education in normal schools that we get here at the unit."
  She was referring to a young parents unit. She continued:
  "Normal schools just tend to show you body parts and teach you how they work, and how you can conceive. They don't really teach you anything about feelings and they definitely don't teach you enough about parenthood … more sex education in schools would have been useful to me and that education about feelings is as important as knowledge about body parts."
  We should involve such young women in the projects that we hope to fund and to support because, possibly more than any other group, they can act as good role models to younger girls.
  Jackie Ballard: Does the hon. Lady agree that very few young women deliberately get pregnant to live a life of Riley on benefits, which was the impression that the previous Government used to give? It is more because of wanting someone to love, failures of contraception and lack of education. Once that has happened to them, to give them a meaningful choice of what to do with their lives they should have benefits at a level that enables them to stay at home and to bring up their children, if that is what they want, as well the option, to which the hon. Lady referred, of education and training opportunities to go into work, if that is what they want. Does she agree that, if they want to stay at home, the benefit levels need to be adequate so that they do not live in poverty with those children?
  Caroline Flint: I am dealing with a 13-year-old who has given birth to a child. I am talking about young girls of 12, 13 or 14. The best thing to do is to give them support during their pregnancy. I hope that we can try to do something to raise their self-esteem, so that they do not enter relationships over which they have no control, and to give them support so that they can continue their education, both up to 16 and beyond.
  92
  Evidence shows that we should try to ensure that young girls of 13, 14 or 15 are aware of the health risks that are associated with early pregnancy, and there is also evidence showing the detrimental effect that it will have on their health in later years.
  When I went to my young parents unit—I am pleased that Doncaster has one to sustain young women who want to continue their education and who may find that their school is not the best place to do that—I found that the emphasis was on continuing education. All the women to whom I spoke wanted to continue that post-16. Where we have a problem is that, having been given child care and support when those young women are under 16, and the education environment to support that, the child care is not there to back it up when they want to go on to a further education college or another educational establishment. As one of the workers said to me at the young parents unit, the tendency in that vacuum is to have another child, possibly in a relationship with someone else, so the problem gets worse and worse.
  Given the choice, those young women want education and a chance to work and to support their children. I hope that the Government will attend to that and provide the necessary support for them to succeed. That is why the sure start project is so important. It is about not only choices, but empowering those young women to move beyond their circumstances, or relationships that fundamentally leave them powerless.
  We will see further changes as women become a majority of the work force. I hope—on the basis more of optimism than experience—that technological change speeds up changes in the labour market, breaking down the traditional gender segregation. It has been predicted that, in 30 years, half of us will be doing jobs that have not even been invented. That suggests a dynamic in society the like of which most people have not experienced before. That being said, women still face difficulties. Women are continuing to gain ground in traditional no-go areas, be they representation in the armed forces or in the professionalisation of women's team sports, but men still run the armed forces, control our major sports and dominate in the political arena.
  Representation of women is important. It is important that, in the House, we have women from all walks of life and backgrounds, but representation cannot be allowed to overshadow the need to deliver on outcomes for women. A total of 330 women Members alone will not mean equality. It is economic and social change in wider society that must be the barometer of women's progress.
  The goals that have been outlined by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Public Health and by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment give us plenty to think about, campaign on and move forward with. At the heart of the issue is the need to address the relationship between men and women and its emotional and psychological make-up, which, in many ways, defines male and female genders, but can also make us prisoners.
  I say that having three prisons in my constituency and having seen the good work at Hatfield young offenders institute, where young men, 60 per cent. of whom are parents, go on parenting courses and do work that is aimed at developing their communication skills. There is something to be said for men being feminised. I have no problems with saying that. We would have a less

  93
  violent society if people talked, rather than fought out issues. The Government should address the issue of the masculinity of boys at school and men in our society.
  I am happy that women have managed to force their agenda into the mainstream—long may it continue—and that the Government are addressing the many concerns of women that were untouched by previous Administrations. I am proud to be here and to represent the whole of Don Valley, but I am also proud of the work and commitment of the many women in my constituency who make community life worth while and who support the initiatives on which the Government have set themselves an agenda.
  8.16 pm
  Ms Joan Ryan: It is a great pleasure and an honour to be called on international women's day to speak in a debate on delivering priorities for women.
  Clearly, there are still those who refuse to recognise the need to ensure that we deliver for women—who claim that all is well; that we do not need to do anything extra or special; and that women today can make it entirely on their own merits. The implication is that, as women form 51 per cent. of the population but do not figure in the numbers that they should in the professions, the House or anywhere else, we can only conclude that women do not have the ability: if they did, they would be there.
  I found it distressing to hear the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) put that view, and do so forcefully. Clearly, he believed it. He is entirely wrong. If they hear that contribution, women will despair. I entirely reject that view.
  It is as well to remember what my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey) said about the number of women who have been elected to the House: about half of all those who have ever been elected are Members now. That is interesting. Presumably, the hon. Member for Lichfield would still maintain that women have not been elected because they do not have the ability, and that we are not here on our merits.
  I applaud the measures that the Labour party took to ensure that there was an enormous leap forward in the representation of women among Labour Members. Women Conservative Members should look closely at what happened to their numbers and what they might do to improve that situation.
  Thank goodness we have a Labour Government who are not characterised by an approach which says that women do not need to be taken account of in any special sense. Women certainly have great strength, determination and motivation and have succeeded, but that is despite the barriers that they face. It is not true that women do not need to be concentrated on in the way that the Government are doing. It is the job of Government to work in partnership with others to remove the barriers.
  It is because the Government acknowledge the need to deliver for women and to tackle the barriers that they face that they are making real progress in delivering for them. We have heard it many time: women make up 51 per cent. of the population. Any Government who deliver for women deliver not only for women, but for men, for communities and for society as a whole. We came into government to deliver for the many, not just the few. It is vital that we do so.
  94
  It was interesting listening to the contribution of the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May). She and the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley)—perhaps I am only being kind, but we have to be kind to our sisters—have seemed to be a little uncomfortable during this debate, for most of which they have been in the Chamber. Perhaps they are uncomfortable because the 18 years of Conservative Government were characterised by complacent sentiments such as these: women will make it on their own merit; there is no need to consider the world that women are forced to inhabit or the inequality that women suffer. Perhaps the right hon. and hon. Ladies believe that.
  Opposition Front Benchers are uncomfortable because the Labour Government are delivering for women across the board. Although there is much more to do, the Government are making progress in leaps and bounds in delivering for women. Opposition Front Benchers may jump up and say, "No, you're not delivering for women," but their argument is unsustainable because, according to them, there is not a need to deliver for women. They are therefore in a difficult position. I should like to think that they are criticising the Government's fundamental policy changes to support women—so that women may play their full role in society—more as Conservatives than as women.
  I am delighted that the Government have adopted the use of mainstreaming. I was also pleased to hear that there seems to be considerable support for mainstreaming among Opposition Members. It is vital that, in all policy areas—as a first thought, not as an afterthought—we meet women's wants and needs. There is no add-on sphere entitled "women's issues", because all issues are women's issues. Women's needs and wants must be dealt with—at the beginning, in the middle and in the outcome.
  I should like to consider a few of the matters on which the Government have delivered substantially for women. We know that women make a crucial contribution to the economy, in their roles both as workers and as carers, and that the proportion of women in the labour force has been increasing. That trend is likely to continue. In Great Britain, more than 12 million women—just over half of all women—aged 16 and over are economically active. In 1977, however—as has already been said in the debate— the average weekly earnings of women in full-time employment was still only 72 to 73 per cent. of men's average weekly earnings.
  In Enfield, in my own constituency and my own borough, women's earnings have often been among the lowest in London. I therefore face the issue on my own doorstep. As the hon. Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) said, although the number of women employed in many managerial professions has increased, women hold only 32 per cent. of managerial and administrative jobs, and fewer than 5 per cent. of company directors are women. Therefore, although I enjoyed the speech of the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman)—I was very interested to hear of her 15-year-old skeleton—I think that she will agree that the women and jobs she described do not accurately reflect the situation of the vast majority of working women. We have to deliver for the many, not the few.
  Some 92 per cent. of all women in employment are employees, and only 7 per cent. of women are self-employed. In my own borough of Enfield, about 20 per cent. of men, but only 5.2 per cent. of women,

  95
  are self-employed. It is important that we should implement measures to encourage women into self-employment. I am therefore very pleased that the Government are supporting Opportunity 2000.
  We have a long way to go before women both are treated equally and are able to compete equally. The Government are introducing policies to make the difference that we seek to achieve. As we have heard already today, the pay gap between men and women is still too great, primarily because many women work in part-time, low-status jobs—often because they have dependent children.
  We have heard many speeches today, primarily from Labour Members, on the Government's action to improve women's pay, women's rights at work and women's access to quality affordable child care. The Government's action will make a significant difference in women's working lives, and in determining whether they are able initially to decide to work.
  Opposition Members seem to have lost the plot a bit on the working families tax credit. They seem not to realise that the credit will not necessarily go from purse to wallet, and that there will be a choice in deciding to whom it is paid.
  The national minimum wage will help over 1 million women. Unfortunately, Opposition Members have made it absolutely clear today that, should they ever again be elected to government, they would reverse the minimum wage.
  We should emphasise that family-friendly employment policies are not only good for women but very good for men. Many working men also are fathers, and what is good for working mothers is good also for working fathers.
  The Government's action on women's issues makes an impressive list. We have acted in providing better child care, which is vital in giving children the best start in life. The national child care strategy and the £540 million for sure start are not merely words, words, words, as the hon. Member for Maidenhead said, but action, implementation, resources, quality and monitoring. That is what matters; that is what we need; and that is what we are delivering.
  The Government are also delivering the child care tax credit, and a 20 per cent. increase in child benefit.
  If all those actions are insufficient, or mere drops in the ocean—which is what Opposition Front Benchers seemed to be arguing—why did the Conservatives not do more for women when they were in government, when they had ample opportunity to do so?
  The majority of the poorest pensioners are women, and action to help them is extremely important. If one takes the time to speak to a range of women, one learns that it is not only women with small children who have difficulties. We shall have to address the concerns also of women in other age groups.
  From April 1999—next month—income support will be uprated by the largest-ever amount, and the pilot schemes that have brought help automatically to the poorest pensioners will go nationwide. As has been said already today, the Government's plans for pension sharing on divorce will also help to narrow the pension gap between men and women. We should acknowledge those significant measures, which are very welcome.
  96
  I should like specifically to deal with cancer screening. I think that all hon. Members will appreciate how frightening cancer is, and that the guarantee that everyone with suspected cancer will be seen by a specialist within two weeks of an urgent referral by their general practitioner is most important. The action was long overdue and has been most reassuring and welcome to those who are in that position. Many women in my constituency have mentioned to me also the Government's provision of £10 million for breast cancer services.
  I was very taken by what my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Rowley Regis (Mrs. Heal) said about domestic violence, and the fact that it is a human rights issue. I support that, as does the Enfield women's aid centre. A Government document is due out shortly.
  Confidence is of great importance in women's safety. It is important that women feel safe and confident when they are out and about in the community, in parks and public places, going to and from work and using public transport. Women who fear for their safety can be restricted in going about their day-to-day business. Opposition Members smirk at the mention of joined-up thinking, but the measures in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and the integrated transport White Paper are important. We are taking action on issues on which women need to feel safe. Those important measures cannot be achieved without cross-departmental working and joined-up thinking, however much some may smirk at the notion.
  I have been impressed this year and last year with the number of events held in my constituency around international women's day to raise awareness of the women's groups and organisations in Enfield that support, care for, encourage, motivate and enthuse local women. I should like to mention in particular the Enfield women's centre and its work with the new horizons 50-plus group, Enfield women's aid and the Enfield and Freezywater townswomen's guild.
  Finally, I should like to mention two women in my constituency. At this time of year, we hear a lot about the origins of international women's day and the struggle for votes for women. We look back with gratitude and thanks to women such as Emmeline Pankhurst, but we should also remember the unsung heroes of our communities. Molly Sutton, a pensioner, is a community school governor and a member of the Co-operative party and the Labour party. However, this is not a partisan issue. She spends many hours encouraging, supporting and motivating other women to fulfil their potential. We are grateful to her. Doris Nulty, also a pensioner, runs a pensioners' luncheon club with great vigour and energy, providing a lifeline to many elderly women in my constituency. I pay tribute to those unsung heroes—or heroines, perhaps I should say; so much for sexist language—who work day in, day out, week in, week out, year after year, often without being mentioned. It is important to acknowledge the work of the millions of ordinary women who contribute so much to our communities, to their families and to society.
  8.32 pm
  Ms Julie Morgan: Thank you for calling me to speak in this important debate on international women's day, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  I should like to speak about the position in politics and society of women in Wales. Women have always been under-represented in politics in Wales. Of the 40

  97
  Members of Parliament from Wales, only four are women—although Labour has four more than any of the Opposition parties. There have only ever been seven women Members of Parliament from Wales. Before the election, my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) was the only female Member of Parliament from Wales.
  We also have few women councillors in Wales. A recent research paper by my right hon. Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) showed that Wales has the worst record in the UK for the number of women councillors. Again, the majority of them are Labour. Only 27 per cent. of councillors in the UK are women and Wales is bottom of the league, with only 20 per cent. Of the 10 councils with the lowest percentage of women, five are Welsh. Anglesey and Blaenau Gwent have the worst representation of women in the United Kingdom. My local council in Cardiff has the highest percentage of women councillors—35 per cent. From what I know of the women who are coming through to be candidates, it looks as though there will not be much of an increase at the coming elections in May.
  Dealing with the under-representation of women on local authorities is a huge task for all political parties. Local authorities deal with bread-and-butter issues. It is sad that such issues are decided by people who represent only 50 per cent. of the population. That is particularly important given that women are so active in other areas, such as school governing bodies and voluntary groups. In Wales, women more or less run the voluntary sector, but they have not taken enough places on local authorities.
  The National Assembly for Wales will be elected on 6 May, and half the Labour candidates will be women. That was not an easy achievement, bearing in mind the traditions of the Welsh political parties, where men have totally run the show. Despite the natural problems caused by the introduction of the twinning procedure—there has been concern about constituency autonomy—we now have 30 women and 30 men in place. Many of those women would not have been candidates if we had not had that arrangement. The Labour party should be proud that we have an equal number of men and women standing as candidates. I am sure that the presence of those women will make the National Assembly a very different place from this House.
  As my right hon. Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) said, we hope that power will be shared, and that women will not have to operate like men to achieve power. In Wales, an exciting time is ahead, with a unique body—perhaps the first in the world with an equal number of men and women. If Labour wins every seat, there will be an equal number of men and women.
  In Wales, women are under-represented in many positions. When the unitary authorities were created in Wales, the only two chief executives appointed who were women were in those local authorities which followed the equal opportunities guidelines recommended by the Local Government Association. That produced two women chief executives out of 40 in the unitary authorities. Generally, women lost out in the unitary authorities, and we have few women in senior positions.
  Outside Wales, the popular image of the Welsh woman fluctuates between the idea of the traditional woman in a tall, black hat and shawl—the traditional costume—and
  98
  the image of the Welsh "mam"; the home maker, and the indomitable figure, holding the Welsh family together in bad times and good. In Wales, when we talk about opportunities for women outside the home, we should never play down the role that women have played as home makers.
  Women's lives in Wales have been hard and, for some, they still are. "Struggle or Strive"—a book describing the lives of women in the south Wales valleys between the two world wars—draws attention to the constant struggle of women to keep their homes, backyards and pavements spotlessly clean. I can remember my own grandmother struggling to keep the house and the backyard clean despite the constant dirt and dust that was coming in from the pits. Miners were working a seven-hour day, but their wives' working day was nearer 17 hours.
  Women's work was as well regulated as men's: washing on a Monday; ironing and cleaning on a Tuesday; baking and shopping on a Wednesday; cleaning the upstairs on a Thursday—it was a full-time task. The book tells us that "tidy" was the most important word in "mam's" vocabulary. To be tidy—or "decha" in colloquial Welsh—was to be decent and respectable, and despite the grinding poverty that existed in those valleys, there was many a tidy woman. We should recognise the enormous contribution made to society by women who have worked in the home for many years, and still do.
  Most of the mines in Wales have closed now, and women are employed outside the home in smaller numbers than in England, and for less pay. However, there has been a big shift in working patterns in Wales— particularly following the end of the heavy industries. We must continue to develop and deliver policies in Wales that will enable women to take their place in the new Wales.
  We are starting to do that in many different areas, two of which are child care and health. A 1996 survey by Chwarae Teg—an organisation promoting equal opportunities in the workplace—showed that 80 per cent. of women in Wales found it difficult to work because of the lack of child care.
  The Government launched the Welsh child care strategy last year. For the first time, a Government have seriously taken on board the importance of child care, both to allow parents to be economically active or to train, and for the good of the children. All research shows that it is good for children to go to nurseries and mix and socialise.
  It will be up to the National Assembly to ensure that the strategy is developed to suit the individual needs of Wales. There is a thriving Welsh language playgroup movement, which we have tried to protect this year and will continue to protect next year.
  We must also consider the needs of rural areas and the particular problems of acute areas of deprivation. Some parts of Wales will never have thriving nurseries, playgroups or after-school facilities unless a permanent subsidy is built in, because the deprivation is too great to rely on one, two or even three-year funding. We need affordable and sustainable provision, and I call on the Assembly, when it starts in two months' time, to continue to invest in child care and to develop the strategy to suit the needs of Wales.
  Health is tremendously important for women, with breast and ovarian cancer being an abiding concern. The most recent reliable age-standardised figures for the

  99
  incidence of breast cancer date from 1992, when the rate for England and Wales together was 107.4 per 100,000, but the rate for Wales alone was significantly higher, at 125.8 per 100,000. That higher incidence is being tackled by the additional funding for breast cancer that the Government have granted and by Breast Test Wales, a regional screening service of very high quality that operates outside the hospital system and delivers a service for healthy women.
  One of the biggest issues for the health service is the availability and development of anti-cancer drugs and how to cope with their cost. New drugs to treat ovarian cancer are not universally available in Wales; it is a lottery, with the drugs that women get depending on the area where they live. Each health authority in Wales has been recommended to prescribe and pay for certain drugs—they prolong life for 12 to 14 months—when the doctor thinks it appropriate, but some authorities say that they cannot afford it. The situation is not acceptable and must be tackled. A big breakthrough is being made in anti-cancer drugs but we have yet to work out how to tackle the issue.
  I want to end with a tribute to a woman who died of breast cancer in Wales a week ago. Bernice worked hard to support other women with breast cancer, helping them to cope with the upset and strain of the disease as well as campaigning for more research. She lived life to the full until the end.
  International women's day is a time to remember all those women, throughout the United Kingdom, who carry on, day after day, looking after children and keeping the wheels of the family turning, coping with many difficulties in addition to paid work or work in the home. This is a day on which to celebrate their achievements and renew our determination to tackle the issues that are their priorities.
  8.44 pm
  Lorna Fitzsimons: I warmly welcome the second opportunity that I have had in my 20 months as a Member of Parliament to speak in a women's debate, celebrating not only international women's day, but our Government's record on delivering for women. As yet, we are the only party that has given such days for debate, following our practice when we were allowed to choose subjects for Opposition days. That shows our consistent support for women's issues. We have also paid consistent attention to the fact that women are the majority in the population and it is, therefore, naught but common sense to ensure that we engage women in the political debate. Government and Parliament must be seen to be for women and relevant to women.
  We have heard much about the difference that 101 Labour women and 121 women Members of Parliament overall will make. My mother often jokes that women will know that they have true equality when mediocre women are accepted alongside the multitude of mediocre men by whom we have been governed—I know that there are plentiful exceptions—for many a decade.
  I wish to pay tribute to the strong women in my life, who have been my role models. I am sad to say that I lost my grandmother this year—Queenie Elizabeth Grimshaw. It is obvious that she was born at the turn of the century
  100
  with a name like that. She was a socialist before my mother was born and gave me a grand old lecture when I was 16 about not presuming that, just because she spoke properly because she wanted to better herself, she was not a root and branch socialist. She organised women-only speaker engagements, training and choirs just after the second world war and ran a home, looking after a disabled mother—my great-grandmother—and two young boys. She knew exactly what grinding poverty was, but she also knew what pride was about. Her older sister, May Banks, is still with us at 98. She went through two world wars and was still doing meals on wheels at the age of 86. She now faces the indignity of developing breast cancer at 98.
  Such women have been the backbone of our society and that is why it is important for us to celebrate international women's day. It is not unfashionable. Other hon. Members have talked about feeling awkward about 70s feminism, but it is common sense to examine how Government policies affect women. I want to put on record the abject difference between the approach of the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) and that of the hon. Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard). Labour Members can appreciate the genuine attempt to make both critical and supportive comments by the hon. Member for Taunton, which are evidence of her commitment to women's issues. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, North (Ms Ryan) pointed out, the hon. Member for Maidenhead gave us false opposition that did not ring true, given the record of the previous Government during 18 years in power.
  In contrast, we had the stark honesty of the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman), who is honourable in her political beliefs to her fingertips. On many occasions before I became a Member of Parliament, I found myself agreeing with the hon. Lady on the issue of female reproductive rights. Her comments struck a chord with the truly international speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey) about the correlation—which is so simple that even the International Monetary Fund and the World bank have now cottoned on to it—between educating women and improving the economic circumstances of a country. As the hon. Member for Billericay pointed out, educated women regulate the size of their families. A large group of my constituents come from Bangladesh and that country is having great success in turning around its economy. It is educating women, and thus slowing population growth and increasing prosperity. Neighbouring Pakistan, whose population growth is going through the roof, is only just beginning to realise that if women are educated and given real choices in education and employment, they will regulate the size of their families. That ensures a greater benefit for all the population through growth in the economy.
  We need only consider the position of women in the rest of the world to realise how fragile our position is in this country. The programme that this Government have implemented has been much needed for a long time.
  As we approach the millennium, I find it sad that Opposition Members, who claim to belong to the party of the family, can say that women, children and families will pay the price for ending bad employment practices and poverty pay. We should be saying that there is no room in a modern society and a prosperous economy for bad business practices, which have probably caused the UK to be the divorce capital of Europe and which have had some impact on our scandalous teenage pregnancy figures.

  101
  I pay tribute to the thoughtful and honest speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint). It is sad that we cannot be honest without being browbeaten by people who do not have everyone's best interests at heart and who refuse to consider the reality of people's lives. Those people try to say that proper sex education in schools will lead to children going off and getting pregnant. They do that already; it makes no sense to argue against education. Around the world, it is clear that there is a downturn in teenage pregnancy and an increase in rates of staying on at school where people are more progressive about sex education,
  Young women outstrip men in terms of their educational performance, but they are under-represented in the job market. Why should that be? That is a big question. As my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley said, as soon as there is a downturn in their interest in school, there is a stark increase in the chances that they will become a teenage pregnancy statistic. We must stop that.
  The Government are introducing a much-needed policy, and the Minister dealt thoughtfully with the life cycle of women. She covered the lives that women live, from the time they are born, through the invaluable sure start project to their final years.
  It was rich of the hon. Member for Maidenhead to talk about pensions and women. Who got rid of the earnings link, who means-tested pensions and who put the majority of women pensioners in poverty? The last Government did all that. The previous Labour Administration kept the earnings link, recognising that pension poverty was intolerable. Our Government are having to deal with the problems now.
  Mrs. May: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Lorna Fitzsimons: We are on a tight timetable and I must go on. Other hon. Members have waited a long time to speak.
  I want to put the working families tax credit into context. The lie must be nailed that it is anything other than brilliant news for working women. On the doorsteps in Rochdale before the general election and in every other election in which I have travelled around with a mobile surgery, I saw that the plight of women in poverty who were trapped in social housing on council estates—good though some of it may be, provided as it is by Rochdale council, one of the best social housing providers—arose from the cost of child care and the differential between benefits and low-paid work. They were trapped at home. They did not have choices. For the first time, I can go to them now to tell them that they do have choices. The working families tax credit will make them £17 better off. They will have the choice of being paid the child care costs that they need if they choose to stay in work.
  Another myth needs to be nailed on the purse-to-wallet issue. There was a problem, but the Government have solved it to a large degree. The Inland Revenue will administer the working families tax credit, and the man no longer needs to sign the form. The woman can be the main applicant, and the man can be the supporting applicant. Nearly 60 per cent. of recipients are already single parents. In one third of other cases, the woman is the main earner. In the remainder, the family can choose. If the woman receives the form because she is the current recipient of family credit, she can fill it in and receive the working families tax credit.
  102
  Some vulnerable women could never receive the benefit because him indoors did not want to declare what he earned as he wanted to go down the pub to swill it all down his neck. Now, the Inland Revenue can phone a woman, and if she can give some details of her husband's employment, the Revenue can make sure that she receives the money if the majority of the information provided is correct. Women previously unable to receive family credit will be able to receive working families tax credit. It can be paid to a same-sex couple or a non-married couple; it is good news. People who have had to work extraordinarily long hours, because this country is the long-hours-for-low-pay capital of Europe, can now stay at home and do homework with their kids. To address the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Barbara Follett) about men offering positive role models, half the reason that such role models are not available is that men are working slave-labour hours for slave-labour wages. They can offer positive role models for work and the work ethic, but cannot be at home to read to their children.
  People can now have real choices. The Opposition's claim that the working families tax credit and the child care tax credit will force women out to work is codswallop. Families will have real choices—for example, one family member stays at home, which previously might not have been possible; or the other main earner can work fewer hours. The measures will give real choices. They will give real choices to the people whom I represent in Rochdale where, sadly, there are large numbers of single parents and teenage pregnancies, and we are over-represented in the poverty stakes.
  I pay tribute to the raft of women's organisations which this debate acknowledges, and which have bridged the gap between the reality of women's lives and public legislation that has not talked the talk or walked the walk. Women know now that the Government are prepared to listen to them. We are not saying that we can offer a panacea for all ills and that everything is perfect. However, this morning at my town hall, I had the honour of opening the international women's week celebrations organised by the women's working party of Rochdale—a cross-party, multi-denominational group. That was a wonderful celebration of the richness of all the communities of Rochdale, and those women believed that this Government were starting to put women at the heart of Government. I believe that too, otherwise I should not sit on the Labour Benches.
  I congratulate my colleagues on the Treasury Bench and I pay tribute to all the women out there who have made my position a reality, in that I am one of the younger women Members of Parliament. The tribute to their work is the fact that, hopefully, more and more women will enter Parliament so that we attain 51 per cent. representation in the next millennium.
  8.57 pm
  Charlotte Atkins: I shall confine my remarks to the issue of part-time workers. The Government's decision to implement, through the Employment Relations Bill, the European Commission directive on part-time work will bring women benefits that are long overdue. Those benefits were denied to women by the previous Conservative Government, who blocked the Commission's proposals. That forced the Commission to introduce the proposals under the social

  103
  chapter, which of course the Tories had opted out of. There is now an historic package of measures that will bring new employment rights to millions of people; part-time workers will at last achieve the rights enjoyed by full-timers.
  As everyone knows, part-time work is not confined to mums of young children who work to pick up pin money—that is an old concept. The contribution of part-time workers is vital to the household budget and to the whole economy. There are 6.6 million part-time jobs in Great Britain, of which more than 80 per cent. are held by women. There are more than 6,000 part-time workers in my constituency. Most people are happy to work part-time, but they should not be exploited merely because their work fits in with their domestic, caring or other responsibilities. What message does that send? It is that we do not value the caring, family responsibilities that many part-timers take on outside their paid work and that we are not a civilised society. The Government have introduced a national strategy for carers which acknowledges the huge contribution made by carers.
  There should be a level playing field for full-time and part-time work, so that the economy can find the most efficient distribution between the two. No economic good can come from making part-time workers a cheap alternative to full-time workers. However, the Opposition do not seem to believe that—certainly not if their record in the Standing Committee on the Employment Relations Bill is anything to go by.
  For too many women, part-time work has become synonymous with low pay and insecurity. We have seen the women's labour market polarised between a narrow band of women in professional and managerial posts, and the large and increasing number of low-paid, part-time workers. Poverty pay has generated spiralling benefit bills for the taxpayer and business. It is a transfer from the taxpayer to the sweatshop employer.
  Labour's national minimum wage—which is about to come into force—will stop this subsidy to bad employers. It will also put an end to the old Burger King ploy of employing staff for a full shift, but paying them only for the time that they spend serving customers. For too long, that has been the attitude of employers to part-time staff. Under the Tory Government, flexibility became a euphemism for insecurity and exploitation. This Government recognise that the world of work is changing: the nine-to-five, Monday-to-Friday generation is passing and the number of part-time workers has doubled in 25 years. They are the linchpin of the economy; they work in every sector, in industry and commerce.
  Part-timers care about their careers as much as full-timers, but many have been denied the opportunity to fulfil their potential. Many are denied access to training and management development. They are viewed as disposable, so companies will not invest in their skills. That is a huge waste of human potential, particularly of women workers. This scandal cannot continue—and it will not under a Labour Government. With equal rights for part-time workers, many more people will take up part-time work. People will be able to move between full-time and part-time work and back again at different stages of their lives without worrying about the impact on
  104
  their status, seniority, or their pension. It will create a society in which people can broaden their choice between working and engaging in other activities.
  I fear that society is becoming increasingly divided. There are families who are work rich and income rich but leisure poor, such as families comprising two parents who work full time—in fact, who work all the hours they can—and have no time for their children. On the other hand, there are families who are not in employment—for example, single parents or couples with children—who are leisure rich, but extremely income poor. Neither side of the divide is ideal: both situations have a devastating impact on family life and both can be helped by the availability of good, well-paid part-time work to relieve the stress of increased costs and the increased time commitment required by family life.
  Women's current experiences tell them that they can have a job, but not a career after having a baby. If they want responsible and rewarding work, they must adopt male working hours and employment patterns. With increased rights for part-time workers, we can challenge Britain's long-hours culture and male absenteeism from the home.
  9.30 pm
  Ms Beverley Hughes: In view of the time, I shall be brief and concentrate on only one point. However, in so doing, I associate myself with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, North (Ms Ryan), who referred to the continuing need for this kind of debate about women's issues. I reject the views expressed by some Opposition Members who seem to think that everything has been achieved.
  In the past two years, this Government have done more for the interests of many different kinds of women than the Conservatives achieved in the past 20 years. The contributions of the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) and her hon. Friends were notable for their complete bankruptcy: they offered nothing by way of ideas or policy to address the real issues facing real women, and proved that they are completely out of touch.
  The Government's priorities are to address issues that are important for women, such as work, child care, domestic violence and caring. As we have heard from one or two hon. Members, womanhood and the social experience of women embrace an even wider diversity of issues. Hon. Members have briefly touched on the point that the debate about women must also include issues of older and very old women. I call for the older woman— her past and current experiences—to be central to the debate about women.
  Women over 65 are a substantial proportion of the total female population. Women are a substantial majority of the population over 65, and the world of the very old is almost exclusively a woman's world. Despite those facts, older women have been notable for their absence from the debate about the way in which gender shapes experience. As policy makers, we must not tolerate that omission because it will fail not only current but future generations of older women; and as we age, we will find ourselves confined to the rocking-chair that forms part of the stereotype about older women. As we know, such stereotypes hide the truth and mask the diversity and richness in the lives of many older women.
  The Conservative party has always had difficulty with the view that people's class, race or gender has an impact on the course of their life. That is surprising when one

  105
  considers that nowhere is the impact of gender more clearly demonstrated than in this generation of older women. Their earlier lives were ones of enforced inequality and dependency structured by social values and enshrined in law, and it should therefore be no surprise that those characteristics have been carried into old age. Women are much more likely than men to be very old, very poor, single or widowed, living alone, living in poor housing and so on. Older women are among the most socially excluded people in our society.
  We must not let those facts colour the whole picture, because the personal histories and testimonies of older women tell us also that if they are, in some senses, victims, they have not been passive victims. We would do well to remember that today's older women are survivors and that their lives have inevitably involved surmounting personal and social challenges throughout this century. As part of our commitment, older women must be given a central place as we develop ideas and policies for women.
  Many older women continue to play vital roles for their families and society. They are the cornerstone of many grassroots organisations; they are the activists in residential homes, and it has already been said that political parties could not do without them. I could easily bring to mind women in my constituency who are in their 70s and 80s and who are still active. They have not arrived at that age without any of the consequences of living that long; they simply carry on regardless. They have arthritis and they are living on low incomes, but they continue to contribute, as they have always done.
  Government policy can have an enormous impact on older women. The previous Government's policies, which my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Lorna Fitzsimons) has outlined, made the lives of many older women even poorer and more restricted than they already were. This Government, particularly through their policies on welfare and community care, have already started to introduce reforms that will help older women, including reducing VAT on fuel, guaranteeing a minimum income that will rise with earnings, and helping with winter fuel.
  As well as those important economic and welfare policies, we should do more to bring older women into the mainstream of our thinking on policies for women. We can begin to do so in a number of ways. We must challenge the existing stereotypes of old women and validate the contributions that they continue to make to their families and local communities. We must ensure— this is a particular point for Ministers for Women—that the voices of older women are heard distinctly in the listening to women exercise that is now being conducted. We must ensure that Ministers speak specifically to older women, bringing back the issues that they raise. We must ensure that services for older people are delivered in gender-sensitive ways. We know that the way in which many health and social services are delivered is important.
  9.10 pm
  Ms Hazel Blears: I am pleased to be able to take part in this debate, and delighted to see so many women Members of Parliament in the Chamber. We do not quite fulfil the definition of girl power; perhaps woman power would be more appropriate.
  I welcome the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Public Health—the Minister responsible for women's issues. It was full of positive proposals to
  106
  improve women's lives, in marked contrast to the speech of the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May), who, apart from an obsession with a flexible labour market, had nothing positive to say on behalf of women. I am sorry that the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley) is not in her place because I wanted to welcome her to her Front-Bench post. I wonder whether her appointment is part-time, temporary and casual, and she is participating in the Tories' flexible labour market, or whether she is on a full-time contract. Perhaps she will enlighten us later.
  This is a serious and very exciting debate, partly because of the policies that the Government are delivering, which will make a real difference to women's lives, and partly because of the tremendous achievements that women in communities throughout Britain and the world have already made. I shall talk about the experiences of women in constituencies such as mine in the inner city, and the way in which the Government's policies are making a practical difference on the ground.
  The Tory legacy in areas such as Salford is absolutely horrific. There is mass unemployment, and poverty and ill health are widespread. A woman in Salford is likely to have seven fewer healthy years than a woman in Surrey. A child born in the city today is likely to die five years earlier than one born in a more affluent community. That is the reality for many families in places like my constituency. Tackling the problems of social exclusion is the greatest challenge facing communities such as mine.
  Managing money, finding work and trying to improve one's health and make a better life for one's family can sometimes seem like an impossible mountain to climb to many women who struggle every day with all such problems and more, but this Government have brought hope to our cities, and especially women. I pay tribute to the organisations and women in Salford who are so often at the heart of projects which renew and improve our communities.
  I have been involved with Salford women's centre since its birth 15 years ago. It is a haven for many women in our city. It provides a range of activities from creative writing and aromatherapy to stress counselling, as well as a mental health drop-in centre, further education classes, high-quality child care and counselling for people with alcohol and drugs problems. Its latest venture, the unity cafe, is very appropriately named. Women work together, funded through the national lottery, involving young people through the new deal, providing training courses, education, cookery classes, health promotion and healthy eating programmes. It is a perfect example of women working in partnership, taking advantage of all the Government's programmes and initiatives, to make a real difference to women's lives in the community.
  The women's centre is part of our health action zone. It is a very practical way in which to deliver health promotion and other health services—not in a traditional clinical setting, but in an environment where women feel comfortable and at ease while taking advantage of health services.
  Smoking cessation is a key issue to women in inner cities. I make a plea to the Minister to extend the nicotine replacement therapy programme from one week, as it is in health action zones, to three or four weeks, to give women a real chance to give up smoking. Doing so will probably make the biggest single difference possible to their health and that of their families.

  107
  As well as being in a health action zone, Salford has the benefit of being in an education action zone. We are helping to raise standards and, crucially, the aspirations of our young people, especially young women. The involvement of adults as mentors and role models is helping young people to broaden their horizons and think about careers of which they would never have dreamt. That is vital if we are to expand young women's choices and reduce the number of teenage pregnancies, which is far too high. Such pregnancies blight the lives of women for many years to come. I am delighted that we are also a trailblazer for sure start, which will be fundamental in broadening the horizons and choice of women in my area. That is real joined-up government—health, social services and education acting together for the benefit of women in our communities.
  We have made a bid under the single regeneration budget, which will be decided in April. It is about building a sustainable community in our inner city, which has been decimated in recent years. From my experience, women are often at the heart of projects to build sustainable communities. I shall briefly mention two very special Salford women who are an incredible example of the drive, determination and commitment that it takes to make real change.
  Mrs. Betty Burton is the driving force behind Apple Tree court, which was recently visited by my right hon. Friend the Minister. It is a grey tower block in the middle of the inner city, once unpopular and hard to let, now a thriving and vibrant community. Working with a dedicated team, Betty Burton has created an oasis in the concrete jungle.
  At the foot of the tower block there is a wonderful community garden. The tenants grow flowers and vegetables. I am told that they even grow aubergines—in Salford! Local children learn about nature in the wildflower garden. Pensioners come to the cafe for good quality, affordable meals. There is a conservatory to catch the sun. There is even a duck pond with ducks. That woman has transformed that community almost singlehandedly. It would not have happened without Betty Burton; I believe that she is a woman who can move mountains.
  Mrs. Levy is another of our formidable Salford women. She also lives in a tower block—we have rather a lot of them in Salford. She saw that people in the block had nowhere to go, nowhere to make friends, nowhere to do their washing and nowhere to be in touch with one another, so she decided to create a drop-in centre—a place where people could get to know one another, get welfare rights advice and have the benefit of all the services in the community. She raised the funds almost singlehandedly. She managed to get a grant from John Paul Getty Junior to build a community launderette. That is probably the most unusual grant that the John Paul Getty foundation has ever made. That is real initiative; it is get up and go, and in many cases it is women who have that type of energy. We must ensure that we support and encourage those women to make a difference.
  Perhaps there is something about Salford that creates strong women. We are proud to be able to claim Emmeline Pankhurst as a Salford woman.
  108
  Women are achieving, but the Government are helping us enormously to do so. The national minimum wage, which has been so disparaged by Conservative Members, will benefit 2,000 women in Salford—many of whom are low-paid part-time workers in the cleaning, catering and retail trades, who are paid £2 to £2.50 an hour. The Opposition have made it plain that they will repeal that legislation, and 2,000 women in my constituency will be worse off if we ever—heaven forbid—have a Tory Government again.
  The massive increase in child benefit—the biggest ever—will help more than 9,000 families in Salford to have a better income and a decent life. The new deal and the national child care strategy will be key to tackling poverty, but I suggest to Ministers that a great deal of extra work will be needed if we are to have a national child care strategy.
  In an inner-city ward in my constituency, we have only one registered child minder. We must build capacity, ensuring that we have not only child minders but after-school clubs and the full range of facilities for people to key into. In many districts, that provision does not exist, and we have a long way to go to build it up. I know that the Government have the intention and determination to do so, but I remind my right hon. and hon. Friends that, if we are to give every woman access to high quality child care, we must ensure that that provision is universal. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Ms Morgan) said, that provision must be affordable and accessible to people on a very low income.
  The new deal is very welcome indeed, but I notice that at first it was limited to people out of work and claiming benefit, which meant that 85 per cent. of the eligible people were men and that it was difficult for women to access the scheme. I am delighted that the scheme has been extended to partners, so that more and more women may access that scheme, which will give them a chance to get back to work.
  We must ensure that all the social initiatives that I have talked about tonight are properly integrated—properly joined up—so that people, especially women, do not fall through the net. I know that that is a tremendous task for the Government to take on. I believe that the Government are working across Departments, beginning to deliver opportunities that can transform women's lives, but one of our biggest tasks is to convince women that they can take up those opportunities—to help them to have self-esteem, confidence and a belief in their ability to succeed. That, I believe, will be the real difference that this Labour Government make.
  9.19 pm
  Ms Dari Taylor: I am pleased to be able to make this contribution on international women's day. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister for Public Health on introducing the debate on delivering for women. In my constituency this most definitely means choice. It means a range of choice, from universal nursery provision and the national minimum wage to good family-friendly policies and the working families tax credit. These are all incredibly valuable measures, and my constituents are talking about them and have high expectations from them.
  My constituency has been celebrating international women's day and I shall talk about that gently while wearing my defence hat. As many in the House

  109
  know, I have been keenly involved with the armed forces for some time. When I visited Bosnia and Srebrenica I was taken by the fact that our armed forces are not only the stabilising but the building-up force in that torn country. We may find ourselves doing exactly the same thing in Kosovo. I say that because the Labour Government have widened opportunities for women in the armed forces, and I want that to be celebrated as widely as all other measures. When the Labour Government took office, only 47 per cent. of all the positions within the armed forces were available to women. Now, more than 77 per cent. of positions are available to them. That is valuable.
  Two of our women are controlling frigates. That is a sign of things to come. I want to join up the way in which I celebrate the involvement of women—the serious development of women within the armed forces and the use of their talent—with a small group of people who are active in my constituency. The group is called Women's Aid and its members too have been in Srebrenica. Four of them described themselves as ordinary women with nothing very special about them to suggest that they could open the doors and get into Srebrenica. On hearing of the hideous happenings that were taking place in that area, however, they decided that they wanted to play a part.
  These four women operated an organisation called Hands for Friendship. They managed to get the funds for a lorry and they filled it with medical provisions, blankets, books and anything else that they thought would be valuable. These are four ordinary, everyday women. They drove across Europe and they found themselves at the border with the passport people saying, "No, I am sorry, you can't come in. There is no way we can allow you in." They begged, pleaded, cried and stayed at the border for two nights and two days until eventually they broke down the reserve of those on the border and they were allowed in.
  The women went into Bosnia and then they went on into Serbia. They went into areas that were especially dangerous. Nobody would guarantee their safety and nobody would protect them because they could not do so. Such women are to be celebrated.
  The four women managed to get to Tuzla. They wanted to be with the women of Tuzla, who were remembering the massacre that had occurred there. Let us remind ourselves that, overnight, 10,000 men disappeared— murdered, and not even buried. They were left strewn on a mountainside. The ordinary women of Tuzla wanted one thing only, and that was to bury their dead. They wanted to find their sons and husbands. These four ordinary women said, "We will help you in any way we can." The women of Tuzla wanted to get to a small place called Dulici where they knew that many of their men were probably buried in mass graves. Again, the four women had to go through terrain that was unknown and isolated. They were threatened with ambush. They were stoned and shot at, but they stuck with the Tuzla women and walked the journey.
  The Russians said, "No, there is border control and you cannot go through." The British, too, said that they could not go through. However, they pleaded. The Tuzla women said, "They are our menfolk and we have a right to kneel at their graves. Please let us through." Eventually, the women were let through. Those are women whom we should always celebrate—ordinary women, women who were so poor that they had no shoes and barely more than
  110
  the clothes that they stood up in. They wanted to do what is only decent—to say a prayer over the graves of their loved ones.
  I must tell the House that I am incredibly proud of the women of my constituency, particularly Naseem Akhtar. I am sad to say that ultimately the women were turned back. They did not make it to Dulici and had to go back to Tuzla. They cried, they were heartbroken, but they had done their best.
  On international women's day, when the House has remembered so much that is valuable, we know that the women and the families in our communities will value so much of what the Labour Government are doing. It is appropriate that we remember that throughout the world there are women who are not even capable of articulating such an agenda. It is meaningful to them, but it is totally outside their grasp. I hope that in celebrating women's lives and the roles that we play, we will remember the women who are fighting so hard in other countries, in desperate situations, to define rights that we consider inviolable in our own country.
  9.26 pm
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: This has been an extremely interesting debate. There has been some selective memory, a great deal of propaganda and a great number of words. I shall try to do justice to some of the contributions that we heard today.
  The first speaker from the Back Benches was the right hon. Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman). She spoke about the importance of universal, affordable child care. Many others spoke about universal, affordable child care, as though that was something new and different, which was actually in place. I must tell the House that in my constituency there is absolutely no difference between the affordable child care today and that which existed before 1 May 1997.
  Before that, there was a great increase in child care places. A large number of out-of-school children's initiative places were created by my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard). She introduced nursery vouchers and tax relief on workplace nurseries. As a result of the Children Act 1989, each area had to develop a child care plan. The suggestion that the position was new and totally different on 1 May 1997 is not one with which I entirely identify.
  The right hon. Member for Camberwell and Peckham also spoke about power-sharing and the importance of change within Government. I can understand her doing that. At her time, there was an editorial in The Economist which stated:
  "Bringing more women into Parliament is, of course, an achievement in itself—
  I pay credit to it. The editorial continueed:
  "But there is not yet much sign that the advent of Blair's babes represents a decisive breakthrough for female politicians… Because Mr. Blair has made it brutally clear that Labour back-benchers are expected to toe the line set by the party leadership, few of the new intake of women have had a chance to make much of an impression in Parliament."

  111
  The document "Delivering for Women—Progress so far" is an extraordinary series of trite comments. We read that
  "Crime blights the lives of victims"—
  not too controversial there. We are told that
  "A decent environment is our legacy to our children"
  and that
  "Efficient transport is vital to our economy and our quality of life".
  There are many other bland, trite comments. Perhaps more sinister, given the way that the Government do business, is the definition of the Cabinet. The right hon. Member for Camberwell and Peckham may have some sense of this. The Cabinet is defined as
  "A group of senior Ministers appointed to advise the Prime Minister. A collegiate approach is adopted."
  That is the new and quaint definition of the Cabinet, which I discovered in "Better for women, better for all". I think that it is despicable for women and appalling for all. I consulted the Library, which provided as one definition of "cabinet":
  "A piece of furniture for display."
  I could see that it could be for display. Another definition was:
  "A committee formed of the most important members of the Government chosen by the Prime Minister or President to be in charge of the main Government Departments."
  Women are being flattered, but essentially fobbed off with the Government's publications.
  The hon. Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) talked about a number of important issues such as separate taxation and the possible adverse effects on women of the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill—the comment that paid caring is valued more by the Government than unpaid caring is frequently repeated. She also commented on the use of family-friendly policies in the House of Commons. I would deplore any further reduction in the number of opportunities for Back Benchers to get their points over. We have a tyrannical Executive who will do anything to reduce the number of opportunities for Parliament to scrutinise their actions.
  The way in which Parliament has been diminished and insulted during the past couple of years is disgraceful. Thursday afternoons used to be extremely busy, but hon. Members would be lucky to see three cars in Speaker's Court now. The place is deserted by Thursday evening, which is a great sadness and a great disgrace.
  Lorna Fitzsimons: Would the right hon. Lady support any moves towards a more civilised balance of hours— which, I believe, is what the hon. Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) was suggesting—rather than a reduction? Does she realise that we are not doing fewer hours because of what I hope is the permanent modification of Thursdays? We have reordered Thursdays to achieve a more civilised working environment.
  Mrs. Bottomley: The difficulty is that the greater the number of days on which the Government cannot be held to account, the greater the number of opportunities they have to be ruthless and manipulative and to avoid high profile occasions. When the Government came to power
  112
  they immediately initiated the longest holiday that Parliament has ever known; there was a Government who were longing to get on with their business.
  The hon. Member for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey) spoke on a subject to which I hope to return at greater length. She talked about the women's day of prayer, international women's day and Jubilee 2000. I hope that she will support the concerns of the Churches in respect of the Government excessively politicising the millennium celebrations and the dome. The Government rubbished those issues when they were in opposition and they have politicised them in government. It is extremely important that Church leaders have the opportunity to register what the millennium celebrations are about and to achieve real changes on the commitments of Jubilee 2000.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) made a splendid speech in which he covered many areas and identified the issue of playgroups, which has been repeatedly raised with me. Playgroups face real problems such as the loss of jobs for women as a result of the minimum wage and the loss of choices for parents. He also mentioned the possible 90,000 job losses in the hotel, retail and textiles sectors as a result of the minimum wage and the £39.3 billion tax on business resulting from the Government's actions.
  The key point is that a prosperous, effective and flexible market will create jobs for women. That is why, so spectacularly in the past 20 years, women in Britain have achieved levels that they had never previously achieved and have had opportunities at work that were never previously open to them. There is more to be done, but the dramatic transformation over the past 20 years—at work and particularly in education—has been formidable.
  Much of the Government's document is, in effect, a paean of praise to the steps taken by the previous Government. There has been a dramatic transformation involving women in higher education, where there are more women than men, as well as GCSE results, A-level results and achievements at every level. My hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield said that Labour Members have Barbie doll policies; one could say only that the Under-Secretary of State for International Development would be known as their Ken.
  The hon. Member for Halesowen and Rowley Regis (Mrs. Heal) talked about violence against women. That area is of great importance, but she seemed unaware of the steps that were taken before 1 May 1997 such as the White Paper on protecting the public, changes in respect of sex offenders, the establishment of an interdepartmental group on domestic violence and a public awareness campaign. I looked back at "A Guide to Services for Women", which was produced in 1993 and has a great section on domestic violence. These are difficult and intractable problems, and there is no room for complacency, but the idea that words on their own can deliver change is naive and irresponsible.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) made a splendid speech, and I identified with a number of elements in it. My first job was working for the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field). At the time, we were fighting bitterly to save family allowances for women. The Labour party has always been dominated by the trade unions and the "man at work", and there was a real battle. I went to the headquarters of the Transport and General Workers Union to try to persuade the union to

  113
  support the campaign. I am pleased to say that one of the most able advocates at the time was Molly Meacher. Together we campaigned long and hard.
  This is a battle that is never finished, and now, with the working families tax credit, we have it again—the move from the purse to the wallet. As we await tomorrow's Budget statement, we are faced with the threat of the taxation of child benefit, which would be a deplorable and retrograde step. It would penalise couples when the wife stayed at home and the husband was earning, say, £35,000 a year, as opposed to couples both of whose members were working, earning perhaps £20,000 or £25,000 each.
  More importantly, child benefit is the way in which we register the existence of children in our society. The move away from child tax allowances meant that everyone benefited in the same way. The point about child tax allowances was that the better off were given more advantage in return for their responsibilities. Turning the clock back would be an act that women would never forget, and for which they would never forgive the Government.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham spoke of the increasing irrelevance of some of the debate, given the perhaps more worrying alienated group of young men. As she will know, her concern is shared. In her Green Paper, "Our Healthier Nation"—not to be confused with our White Paper, "The Health of the Nation"—the right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Ms Jowell) spoke of anxieties about suicide. I was pleased that her ideas about the priorities for health improvement were so similar to the ideas that she had inherited. After all, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
  The hon. Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer) mentioned all-women shortlists. It would take a great deal to persuade my party of their desirability, although we would certainly all agree that the party should do more to encourage more women to join us.
  Given all the discussion of role models that we have heard, and the welcome tributes from many Labour Members to women in their constituencies who have played an important part, I felt that I must quote a recent newspaper headline:
  "Maggie is the boss of all role models".
  Certainly, the achievements of Margaret Thatcher, as our first woman Prime Minister, and those of the first woman Leader of the House of Lords, Lady Young, are extremely important developments—although, like others, I wish that those developments had been reflected in the presence of more women in Conservative constituencies.
  Miss McIntosh: Do you agree, Madam Speaker, that a great omission on the part of the Government has been their failure to recognise the role model that you have been to all of us, in Parliament and outside, as a very distinguished lady in politics? Perhaps the Minister will make amends in her winding-up speech.
  Mrs. Bottomley: I cannot cope with that, Madam Speaker.
  Much has been made of the new deal for lone parents. My hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) dealt with that admirably: there has been a 3.8 per cent. success rate, at a cost of £200 million. I am disappointed
  114
  that the hon. Member for Keighley did not refer to some of the international human rights issues which I hope to mention, and which have been extraordinarily lacking in today's debate.
  My excessively generous hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) stressed the need for a distinction between fact and fiction. How right she was. She went on to identify an issue that I am delighted to hear the Government have supported equally and that was crucial in achieving many changes for women: Opportunity 2000.
  I take great pride in having led the national health service into Opportunity 2000: the Department of Health was the first Government Department to enter the initiative. Unlike the Government's documents, on joining Opportunity 2000, the NHS set explicit targets on how many more women consultants, women managers, women accountants and women on health authorities and trusts we were seeking. There was a dramatic increase in the number of women on NHS trusts and health authority boards.
  Among those who we were able to use that as a springboard to great career success were Baroness Jay, Leader of the House of Lords, Baroness Hayman, Baroness Dean—all people whom I took pleasure in appointing—the Liberal Democrat colleague of the hon. Member for Taunton, Julia Neuberger, and many others.
  If there has been widespread shock over the behaviour of the new Government, it has been about their particularly partisan appointments to many of the health authorities and trusts.
  Mr. David Maclean: And regional development agencies.
  Mrs. Bottomley: And regional development agencies. Having personally been involved in the selection and appointment of so many people, particularly women who went on to great success in the Labour Government, I am qualified to comment.
  I am particularly pleased to hear that Dame Rennie Fritchie has been appointed the commissioner for public appointments. She was a distinguished regional chairman and she was central to the development and unrolling of Opportunity 2000 in the NHS. She is a great advocate of family-friendly and practical employment policies. I want to register her contribution.
  The point about Opportunity 2000, which was launched by my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), but led by the business community, was that it worked with people. It was about encouragement and setting goals. It was not coercive. It was not bullying.
  The hon. Member for Stevenage (Barbara Follett) was the designer of Emily's list. I am sorry that she did not refer to advice for women through the list. Nor did she refer to her experiences in South Africa. The role of women in South Africa today is something that I want to address.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) spoke on the important issues affecting older women. I speak not just from self-interest. I hope that hon. Members will have the opportunity to look at the university of Manchester's Pennell initiative,

  115
  again chaired by Dame Rennie Fritchie, which examined coronary heart disease, breast cancer, depression, bone disorders and social isolation among older people.
  Older people are equally worried about the raiding of social service budgets, the inability to deliver a carer strategy, the fudging on the royal commission on the long-term care of the elderly, the mess and complexity over pension reform and, above all, the loss of the tax credit on dividend share income.
  I regret not being able to identify all the others who have spoken admirably during the debate, but I need to speak about international women's day. We celebrate 50 years since the universal declaration of human rights. The Secretary-General's message to us all today is most important. We can look with some pride at the remarkable achievements so far. He said:
  "We entered a century where women had the right to vote in a mere handful of countries; we leave one where the vast majority of countries have universal suffrage. We entered a century where women were practically excluded from decision-making; we leave one where the participation of women at senior levels of leadership, national and international, is no longer questioned."
  But it is a world where, in Afghanistan, India, east Jerusalem, South Africa, China, Yemen, Peru, Ethiopia, Ghana and places throughout the continents, women have no human rights. There is continued bride burning, female infanticide, genital mutilation, appalling domestic violence, and a lack of participation in the political process.
  Today's debate has been unforgivably self-centred. We have focused on issues in which dramatic progress has been made in Britain, as if the rest the world scarcely existed. I especially commend the work of the British Council—of which I am vice-chairman, and honoured to be so—which is doing practical, important and courageous work in all those countries. The Foreign Affairs Select Committee has just reported on human rights and asked the British Council particularly to address its concerns; the concerns of women will be foremost among those.
  This has been an important debate. This century, we have made great changes in the United Kingdom. Our task and priority now should be to deal with the plight of women around the world.
  9.45 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Ms Margaret Hodge): This has been a thoughtful and wide-ranging debate. We have reached some agreement across the political divide on the issues of importance to women in Britain today. In a sense, that in itself was telling, for—as my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Barbara Follett) said—women often bring a welcome and different approach to politics. I think that we have demonstrated the truth of that statement in our discourse today. On both sides of the House, the speeches by hon. Members—with one or two less notable exceptions by Opposition Members—have shown that we can identify common needs and priorities without engaging in sterile political banter.
  There are, of course, differences in substance between the parties. Conservative Members oppose the minimum wage, whereas Labour Members warmly welcome the
  116
  impact that it will have, especially on the 1.3 million women who will benefit from it. We differ from Conservative Members on a national child care strategy. They have traditionally believed that child care is a matter of private concern for families, with the state intervening only when the child is at risk, whereas we think that there is a proper role for the Government in creating a child care infrastructure that will better promote the interests of children and families.
  We differ also on family-friendly employment. Our new Bill will establish a statutory right to unpaid parental leave, a better package of maternity rights, a right to time off in emergencies and stronger rights for part-time workers. All those measures will not only benefit society overall, but make a real practical difference to women's lives. The Conservative party opposes all those measures.
  This has been an excellent debate, in which we have heard some eloquent and emotive arguments. It has also been fascinating to hear right. hon. and hon. Ladies give the female perspective on key aspects of Government policy. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) for the contribution that she made during her time in office in addressing many issues of importance to women. I assure her that we shall consider seriously the issues that she raised today.
  I welcome the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Ms Blears), who talked about how our policies, right across Government, have impacted on women in her constituency.
  The hon. Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) made a constructive speech, mentioning the consideration that we should give to proposals from the Equal Opportunities Commission. We shall be responding to those proposals. However, we shall not—as the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) intimated—be suggesting that we should abolish the Equal Opportunities Commission.
  Several speeches—including a sincere one by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey), and a passionate one by the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh)—dealt with the international dimension of today's celebration. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor) also dealt with the international dimension. I should tell the hon. Member for Vale of York that my noble Friend the Minister for Women is today at the United Nations, speaking on the status of women. We therefore do take our international responsibility seriously.
  Hon. Members spoke about the importance of women's representation, both in this place and in other arenas. I particularly welcome the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer), who described to the House how abolition of the hereditary principle in the House of Lords will help to push us up the European league on representation of women.
  I was very struck by the thoughtful and important speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), who showed a telling understanding of the problems faced by teenage mothers. I tell the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) that we shall be making proposals on programmes dealing with teenage pregnancies. We think that the issue is so important that it is being addressed, across Government, by the social exclusion unit, with the support of the women's unit.

  117
  Several hon. Members have talked about the importance of our child care policies and our family-friendly policies. My hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Rowley Regis (Mrs. Heal) described the difference that they made to the lives of her constituents. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Ms Morgan) stressed the importance of our policies, which were also mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley. My hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage talked about the importance of the child care strategy and how she wanted an end to women being forced to choose between the children whom they love and the jobs that they need.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Ms Hughes) and others raised the crucial issue of older women. That is a central part of the strategy that we shall be delivering. Our ideas and policies for older women will be developed through a listening programme by the women's Ministers and those responsible for the programme of listening to older people. I was also delighted to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Lorna Fitzsimons) celebrating female role models.
  The hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) raised concerns about the working families tax credit. The Conservatives do not understand its effects. It will benefit more than 400,000 low-income families, helping many women. Transferring money from the purse to the wallet is not an issue, because those who benefit from the tax credit can choose how it is paid.
  The Conservatives' opposition to the minimum wage is nonsense, given its importance to women. The minimum wage is not the cause of the closure of playgroups. Recent pre-school closures have been a direct result of the previous Government's policies on nursery vouchers. The idea that we should have child care on the cheap by exploiting women working in that most important role of giving a good early start to our children is outrageous.
  Mrs. May: Does the Minister accept that the Pre-School Learning Alliance has said that hundreds of pre-schools have closed as a result of this Government's policy on the provision of early-years education? Does she further accept that if the introduction of the minimum wage means that the cost of child care through pre-schools becomes so great that people cannot afford it, those pre-schools will close?
  Ms Hodge: The Pre-School Learning Alliance blames the previous Government for the closure of thousands of pre-schools. The working families tax credit and the child care tax credit component will ensure that workers in pre-schools can be paid the decent wage that they deserve.
  Some argue that it is unnecessary to focus on an agenda for women and that it is simply a gesture of political correctness. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, North (Ms Ryan), who said in her strong contribution that such people are wrong. Of course, policies that benefit women will benefit everyone—better schools, better health services and better community safety—but if we do not consider the issues facing women in our unequal society, we shall fail to achieve the fair and inclusive society that we want.
  The lot of women has massively improved over the past 25 years. Girls now out-perform boys at school. We have also made great strides in higher education. In 1970,
  118
  twice as many men as women took a degree. Now men and women enrol as students in equal numbers; ever more women now work. In the past 10 years, the proportion of working-age women in the labour market has increased, while the proportion of working-age men has declined. Most dramatic has been the increase in the number of mothers in work whose youngest child is under five. That figure has gone up by 10 per cent. in the past 10 years. More than half the mothers of children under five now work.
  Life has become easier in the home. No longer do we have to spend hours at the kitchen sink scrubbing the dirt off the potatoes, and most modern washing machines can cope with woollens without shrinking them. However, those advances have brought new needs that are particular to women and new issues that affect not just women, but all of us. At the same time, old inequalities still persist. Women still earn 20 per cent. less than men—often for doing an equal job. Even at 18, when girls have done better than boys at school, they earn 6 per cent. less.
  The glass ceiling persists, with only 4 per cent. of directorships in companies being held by women—and those are mainly in marketing and human resources, not in finance or industrial production. Although we are all delighted that there are more women in the House, the proportion is still only one in five. However, three out of four of those working in clerical or secretarial jobs are women.
  One in four women will, at some time in their lives, experience domestic violence—an issue raised by many, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham, the hon. Member for Taunton and my hon. Friends the Members for Bristol, West, for Halesowen and Rowley Regis, for Keighley and for Enfield, North.
  A responsible Government, knowing these facts, must address the issues implicit in them. That is just what we are doing—and doing successfully. At the same time, the welcome changes have brought new challenges. More women work, but many are working part-time. In fact, four out of five part-time workers are women, and the rights for part-time workers that we are introducing are crucial for women. With more women at work, affordable, accessible and high-quality child care is vital.
  I do not know where the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley) has been but, in the first two years of the new Labour Government, we have created more real child care places than the last Government did in 18 years. Our national child care strategy recognises the needs of mothers who choose to stay at home, as well those who need to—or choose to—work.
  For many of us, our needs and concerns are the same as they always were. We still bear most of the responsibilities in the home. Even with school-age children, we are the ones to sort out everything from homework to the dentist's appointment; from making sure the children get to their sports activity after school to rushing them to the accident and emergency department when they fall and bang their heads. We are the ones most likely to care for sick, disabled or elderly relatives. We have to juggle our lives and our time to cope with pressures.
  That is why the Government's emphasis on encouraging a better balance between work and home is so important. That is why we are committed to ensuring

  119
  that paid employment is more compatible with family life. It is not corporatist Britain, as suggested by the hon. Member for Maidenhead—it is common sense that brings bottom-line benefits to businesses and to families.
  I am proud of our record in government. In a mere 21 months, we have achieved immeasurably more than the Opposition achieved in a miserable and interminable 18 years: a national child care strategy; a minimum wage; the working families tax credit and the child care tax credit; a new deal for lone parents; the biggest ever hike in child benefit; a new minimum income guarantee for pensioners, many of whom are women; the introduction of parental leave; new rights for part-time workers; proposed reforms of the Child Support Agency; £19 billion to improve educational standards; measures to cut crime, reduce the fear of crime and tackle issues of importance to women, such as the giving of evidence in rape trials; a national carers' strategy, with a new £140 million package to help carers take a break; £20 billion for the national health service, with money specifically set aside to speed up both preventive care and the treatment of breast cancer; £40 million announced last week to help phase out mixed wards; and targets to ensure that half the appointments to public bodies are women.
  We are listening, responding and doing, and we are addressing those issues which most concern most women. We are not in the business of dictating to women—we are in the business of ensuring that they have a real and effective choice. We know that there is much left to do as we continue to tackle women's inequality and to develop policies to improve all our lives.
  As we move towards the new millennium, women's concerns are finally being given the weight and the consideration that they deserve. We may be confident that this Administration will continue to place women at the very heart of Government.
  Jane Kennedy (Lord Commissioner to the Treasury): I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  Northern Ireland
  10 pm
  The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Paul Murphy): I beg to move,
  That the draft North/South Co-operation (Implementation Bodies)(Northern Ireland) Order 1999 be approved.
  The debate in the new Northern Ireland Assembly on 15 February dealt with some fundamental aspects of the Good Friday agreement. Members of the Assembly discussed the civic forum and how it would be best for the First Minister and Deputy First Minister to appoint members to it. They debated how the British-Irish Council might perform in ensuring that relations between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands, and the new devolved Administrations, can work in the future.
  Members of the Assembly dealt with the 10 Departments of the Executive that are to run Northern Ireland after devolution. The House of Commons approved the order setting up the 10 Departments of State in Northern Ireland, as did the other place some weeks ago. Today, we are dealing with what was known during the talks process as strand 2 of the agreement. We are dealing with what is termed the North-South Ministerial Council—a body based in many ways on the European Council of Ministers—which is to deal with areas of co-operation between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.
  The agreement specified areas in which co-operation may occur, and those areas were extended and debated in the Assembly on 15 February—they include transport, tourism, the environment, agriculture, education and health—although the details are to be decided by the Council itself.
  The order provides the statutory basis for the six agreed so-called implementation bodies, to deal with inland waterways; food safety; trade and business development; language; and aquaculture and marine matters. The details are in the Library for hon. Members to consult.
  The order deals with how the bodies will operate, including details on their functions; annual reports and accounts; grants; staffing; and other issues. It is important for the House to realise that after devolution the British Government will have no role in the day-to-day operation of the bodies.
  The two Governments were charged by the agreement with drawing up the legislation and the treaty, which is in schedule 1 of the document and was signed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland's Foreign Affairs Minister in Dublin this morning. All the details on the implementation bodies and the treaty itself are the result of intensive negotiations before Christmas, ending in the early hours of 18 December, after Christmas, and indeed right up until only yesterday.
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: Part VII of the order deals with aquaculture and marine matters. What is the likelihood of the implementation body engaging in matters relating to the common fisheries policy or fish farming?
  Mr. Murphy: My hon. Friend doubtless heard me when I said that the way in which the bodies will operate

  121
  will depend on the Northern Ireland Assembly and on the Republic. It is important that there will be an opportunity in the British-Irish Council for people from the Scottish Parliament, from the Welsh Assembly, and of course from Westminster, to discuss matters of common concern, including fishing. The European side will of course remain a matter for the Ministers from the sovereign states. The appropriate Minister for agriculture and fisheries in Northern Ireland will play his or her part in discussions on fisheries.
  The negotiations continued until yesterday. That explains the relative lateness of the documentation, which right hon. and hon. Members might normally have expected to receive earlier. I apologise to the House for the lateness, but these are unusual circumstances and times. We have discussed the issue through the usual channels and, of course, much of the detail is already in the public domain and has been discussed and debated in the agreement itself, in the various meetings of the Northern Ireland Assembly and in documents that the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and the Deputy First Minister have circulated to all parties in Northern Ireland in the past few weeks.
  Another reason why we are dealing with the matter today is that the Government pledged to complete all the necessary legislative preparations for devolution, and all the issues in connection with the agreement as far as they affect devolution, by 10 March. That we have now done, if the House approves the motion—as I presume it will— and if the other place approves it tomorrow. The only step then remaining will be for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to judge whether it appears to her, as it says in the agreement,
  "that sufficient progress has been made in implementing the Belfast Agreement, to permit the transfer of powers to the new Assembly."
  That transfer would be the devolution order itself, which will be debated by this House and the other place.
  Dr. Godman: My hon. Friend mentioned the British-Irish Council. If that body is to have a fixed locus, I can think of no better city than Glasgow. The Nordic Council has a fixed locus, with a secretariat of some 70 people. I know that Liverpool has a good case, but I do not believe that Belfast, Dublin or London has a case. It should be Glasgow—does my hon. Friend agree?
  Mr. Murphy: I would get into terrible trouble if I agreed anything on the British-Irish Council and its secretariat. Stranraer, the Isle of Man, Liverpool and Cardiff have all expressed an interest, and we shall have to wait and see. It is a matter for the council itself and the two Governments to discuss.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State indicated that she would be ready to call a meeting of the Assembly as early as 10 March to allow the so-called d'Hondt procedure to be run. As hon. Members will know, that procedure would trigger the formation of the new Assembly's Executive. She has made a further announcement about that matter today. She announced that in her consultations with Northern Ireland parties she heard differing views. Some wanted the running of d'Hondt to be delayed and others wanted it to go ahead immediately. All those who support the agreement remain committed to achieving full implementation of all its aspects as quickly as possible, and all the parties said that they wanted to move forward on an inclusive basis.
  122
  In the light of the differing views, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has decided that 10 March would not be the best time to run the d'Hondt procedure. She has concluded that if it were to be run, it would not produce an effective Executive on which both communities would be represented. Indeed, some parties feared that running d'Hondt this week might even collapse the process. My right hon. Friend also recognised that the decision could not be put off indefinitely. Therefore, she announced today that she would call a meeting of the Assembly to run the d'Hondt procedure no later than the week beginning 29 March. That is the week of Good Friday, which is the anniversary of the agreement. That will give the parties the time and space to find a way forward. Many of the Northern Ireland political leaders will be visiting the USA. There will be opportunities to build confidence and to talk informally in preparation for an intensive round of discussions on their return to Belfast.
  Many of us find such an announcement disappointing. However, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made clear, we can, with determination and courage, take the next steps towards bringing the agreement to fruition. We will work closely with the Irish Government and all other supporters of the agreement to find a constructive way forward.
  It is against that background that the House is considering the order. It will put in place the new implementation bodies, which are an important piece of the new infrastructure under the agreement. The bodies will operate fully in accordance with the terms of the agreement as is spelled out in the treaty attached to the order. Ministers in the North-South Ministerial Council who are responsible for the various bodies—or any additional bodies that they may decide to establish by future agreement—will be fully accountable to the Assembly and to Oireachtas.
  Mechanisms to ensure proper accountability and transparency were included in the Northern Ireland Act 1998. They include the requirement that the Executive Committee and the Assembly should be notified of the dates and agendas for meetings of the ministerial council. Northern Ireland Ministers will be accountable to the Assembly for their actions in the council, just as they will be for their other responsibilities.
  By law, Assembly Ministers who participate in the council will be required to act in accordance with the decisions of the Assembly or the Executive Committee. Northern Ireland Ministers will also require Assembly approval for any decisions that go beyond their defined authority. Any agreement in the council that requires new legislation will require the support of the Assembly. No agreement to establish a new implementation body can come into operation without the specific approval of the Assembly.
  We have a balanced package of measures to enhance co-operation, north and south. The bodies will operate within a clear framework of democratic accountability as defined in the agreement, supporting legislation and the procedures of the Assembly. The bodies, and any others that may be agreed in the council, will provide a foundation for close co-operation between the Northern Ireland Administration and the Irish Government.
  The order provides the statutory basis for the six agreed implementation bodies. In my view, and, I am sure, in the view of both the people of Northern Ireland and the

  123
  House, it is an important part of the path towards a political settlement in Northern Ireland which will, we all hope and pray, lead to peace. I commend it to the House.
  10.13 pm
  Mr. Andrew MacKay: We support the order, and we shall not divide the House on it. We support it for a variety of reasons. First and foremost, it was an important part of the Belfast agreement, and it is essential that all aspects of that agreement should be implemented in full. It is a matter of deep regret to Members on both sides of the House that certain aspects of the agreement are not being implemented at present.
  I completely accept the Minister's apology for the lateness in our obtaining the documentation. The negotiations went on throughout the weekend, and we were satisfied with the key text. I shall quote briefly from it to record the important definition that gives us comfort that the order is the right way forward. It states that the arrangements—
  "an Assembly in Northern Ireland, a North/South Ministerial Council, implementation bodies, a British-Irish Council, and a British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference and any amendments to British Acts of Parliament and the Constitution of Ireland"—
  are
  "interlocking and interdependent and that in particular the functions of the Assembly and the North/South Council are so closely inter-related that the success of each depends on that of the other".
  I know that the Minister will agree that that is a point worth underlining.
  I have always favoured proceeding with all other aspects of the agreement, especially the north-south bodies, so that there could be absolutely no excuse for the lack of decommissioning of illegally held weapons. We want a clear message to emerge from the House tonight that the two Governments and all the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland have fulfilled their responsibilities in full; and that there is now no reason why there should not be a devolved Administration in Northern Ireland. Only one thing holds that back: that Sinn Fein-IRA have still not started to decommission their illegally held arms and explosives—not one gun nor one ounce of Semtex has been handed in.
  The reason why I was pleased to learn over the weekend that the two Governments and the constitutional parties had reached a clear agreement on setting up the north-south bodies is that doing so removed any last hurdle or excuse that allowed Sinn Fein-IRA to say that they could not decommission yet because they were still waiting for this, that or the other, or because they were not convinced of the good faith of the British Government, the Irish Government, the Unionists, the Social Democratic and Labour party, or whoever they wanted to blame at that point. Once the order has been passed by the House of Commons today and by another place tomorrow, there will be no excuse.
  The eyes of the world will be on Sinn Fein-IRA, watching to see whether they really meant what they said and signed up to on Good Friday last year; whether they have really renounced violence for good; and whether they will decommission their illegally held weapons. If they do not decommission, in my view and that of my hon. Friends, it is not possible for the Northern Ireland
  124
  Executive to be set up. It is not right or proper in a democracy for people to take ministerial office, with all the responsibilities that such a duty entails, while continuing to hold illegal weapons without any suggestion that they will be handed in. It would be quite unfair to expect constitutionally elected politicians who have never taken part in violence to take part in an Executive with such people.
  I conclude by underlining the fact that the buck now stops with Sinn Fein-IRA. They must commence decommissioning, and the process must be verifiable and genuine. Only when that happens can we have a devolved Administration in Northern Ireland, which many of us believe is long overdue.
  10.18 pm
  Mr. David Trimble: As the Minister said, the order and the associated treaty give effect to agreements that were made between the parties in the Northern Ireland Assembly on 18 December, although they were not formally approved until 15 February because of some outstanding business.
  In their effect, the order and the treaty achieve something rather unique. Co-operation between states is a common feature of western Europe today, and co-operation between the two parts of Ireland has gone on for decades—indeed, the key elements were developed under the previous Stormont Administration. However, the treaty and the order go further in that they create implementation bodies—bodies in international law—to which each jurisdiction transfers functions as a means of carrying on a scheme of co-operation. There are six different areas of co-operation. The concept formed a central part of the agreement, we worked out the detail of the schemes in December and we are now giving effect to them. Therefore, the order marks a significant step forward in the implementation of the agreement, and embodies one of its chief characteristics.
  Most of the documentation, which is lengthy and detailed, simply fleshes out the detail of what was agreed on 18 December. The 18 December documents are in the order, and further memoranda flesh out the situation in greater detail. There was difficulty with the particular legal concepts used and I am glad that, following much discussion, we got it right. However, it is interesting to note that the Northern Ireland Assembly will not have the power to create such bodies in the future. It may propose schemes for future co-operation, but only the House and the Government can exercise treaty-making powers. That is a rather cumbersome, roundabout way to proceed, but I think the Government are reluctant to create precedents that might be applied elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
  We had one significant difficulty. It has been suggested in some quarters that the process would result in the creation of some freestanding bodies that would not be accountable or subject to any sort of veto or direction and would somehow continue if anything happened to the agreement. I am glad to say that it is clear from the agreement that that is not so. Article 8 of the treaty is sufficient to dispose of such claims, and the preamble to the treaty makes the situation absolutely clear.
  As the Opposition spokesman, the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay), said, the agreement states that all the arrangements—in particular the Assembly, the North-South Ministerial Council and associated

  125
  schemes—are "interlocking and interdependent". One relies upon the other. The relationship between the particular bodies created by the order and the North-South Ministerial Council is also made absolutely clear. Hon. Members will find in each of the documents a sentence that states that, in exercising its functions, the body will act at all times in accordance with any directions— whether of a general or specific nature—given by the North-South Ministerial Council. That demonstrates the correct relationship between the bodies and the council.
  The Minister quoted from material in the agreement that shows clearly the relationship between the council and the democratic bodies: the Assembly of Northern Ireland and the Oireachtas in the Irish Republic to which accountability then flows. This structure maintains democratic accountability and ensures that the operations will proceed in a way that is genuinely beneficial to both parties.
  There is a continuing problem that was not apparent when we made the agreement on 18 December. Hon. Members will see it referred to on page 39, which deals with aquaculture and marine matters. We thought that we could include provisions regarding the Commissioners of Irish Lights but, subsequent to 18 December, it became clear that some quite complicated matters were involved. Hon. Members will see those references in paragraphs 7 and 7.1 on page 39, which state that the existing arrangements will continue until such time as more general United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland legislation can be brought forward.
  The question remains as to what is the best way to cope with this issue. I was interested in some earlier comments about the British-Irish Council because I suspect that it might present a solution to the real practical problems that we encountered when addressing the question of lights. That matter might be best handled—as it is at present— on a British Isles basis. The British-Irish Council could be an effective way of dealing with the issue. That matter will be carried forward in further discussions within the North-South Ministerial Council and the British-Irish Council.
  As the Minister said, our general approach has been to move as quickly as we can. Although it has taken from 18 December until now, we have spent that time doing serious work in order to produce all the material. It has been our intention throughout the past few months to move as quickly as possible to the point where we can say that everything that we can do to give life to the institutions of the agreement has been done. We have now reached that point. My colleagues in the Ulster Unionist party and I—and, to some extent, the House—will be able to say after tonight that everything we can do has been done.
  All the institutional and structural arrangements provided for in the agreement, which are necessary for the North-South Ministerial Council and the British-Irish Council, will be put in place and ready to go live as soon as the necessary conditions are present. That point relates to the one outstanding issue in the agreement on which there has, as yet, been no progress. I refer to the commitment of the paramilitary-related parties to the agreement to achieve the total disarmament of paramilitary groups. There has been no progress by any of those parties that have endorsed the agreement.
  126
  The one act of progress, which coincidentally took place on 18 December, was the first act of decommissioning by the Loyalist Volunteer Force, a precedent that was very welcome. The paramilitary parties to the agreement have, as yet, done nothing to implement the commitment that they made nearly a year ago. Until they do, there will not be sufficient confidence in the community to enable the agreement to proceed—nor ought it to proceed, when we consider simple justice and defence of the democratic principle. An important principle is at stake here—that of ensuring that we are proceeding on a sound basis that will ensure peace and democracy for the future.
  I hope that it will be possible for that further step to be taken, sooner rather than later. I regret the Secretary of State's statement today. We tried very hard last week to have everything ready for 10 March, and as the Minister has said, discussions continued throughout the weekend. The order has been tabled and is being debated tonight so that everything will be ready for 10 March. It was therefore disappointing to hear the Secretary of State announce this afternoon that 10 March did not matter any more and that the Government will just forget about it. That demonstrates a slightly mistaken approach.
  The Secretary of State should maintain the posture, as should we all, that we have the institutional arrangements sorted out, so from tonight, each and every day, we are ready to take whatever further steps we can as soon as the necessary confidence-building measures occur. To announce, as the Government have done today, "We shall not bother because we have given up hope for this week and we'll forget the matter for another couple of weeks," is the wrong approach and undermines the efforts that we have been making in the past week.
  I hope that the Secretary of State will think again about the approach to adopt in these matters and focus on the need for confidence-building measures to be taken. We must focus pressure on those who are refusing to act, wasting time and delaying progress, because as from tonight, everything that can be done from our point of view has been done. We hope that the arrangements will work out well in practice—experience, of course, will determine that—but the arrangements are flexible and can be developed and altered in the light of experience.
  I look forward to the time when we can operate this part of the agreement together with all the other parts and, through them, change people's view not only of north-south co-operation but of how society operates in Northern Ireland. At the end of the day, we must remember that the arrangements provide the potential to transform circumstances in Northern Ireland and give life to those hopes that were engendered nearly a year ago by the Belfast agreement.
  10.29 pm
  Mr. Lembit Öpik: The Liberal Democrats also welcome the order. Politics is as much about processes as anything else. To put it another way, "It's not what you do, it's the way that you do it." That lesson has clearly been learned by the British and Irish Governments, judging by what is being presented to us today.
  If we compare the situation now with that of 14 years ago, when the last great effort in cross-border co-operation—the Anglo-Irish agreement of 1985—was

  127
  implemented, we realise that co-operation between London and Dublin was the exception, and now it is the rule. Direct involvement with the parties in Northern Ireland was rare then, but now those very parties are leading the process. Back then, the public were shut out of decision making; now, they are decision making— through the referendum and election last year, which continue to determine policy this year. Those are crucial changes, and they have made the settlement process possible. Part of the Good Friday agreement included the repeal of the 1985 agreement. Can the Minister give any details on a possible time scale for that repeal?
  The message, "It's not what you do, it's the way that you do it", must not be lost on Sinn Fein. To some extent, the question is not whether the IRA decommissions, but how—particularly when it starts and its time frame for fulfilling that requirement. If it starts now and finishes by April 2000, the consequences will be far better for everybody, including the republicans, than if it starts a year from now.
  The official Opposition have once again highlighted the impatience that many of us feel when some, including the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), are working so hard to make the agreement work, yet there is no sign whatever of the IRA decommissioning. Of course, we will all continue to wait until decommissioning begins, although the worry about whether it will happen at all concerns us most. I think that Gerry Adams knows that very well. We are optimistic, but can hardly be blamed for becoming impatient for some progress on decommissioning.
  The order is very detailed and thorough. We are glad that it has been worked out so thoroughly, especially concerning the bodies on food safety, trade and business development, and with regard to special European Union programmes, which have been drawn up very specifically indeed.
  I would like to raise two other points with the Minister. First, every politician knows that the most important person in any office is the secretary. To control someone's diary, their post and their phone is effectively to control their life. The second most important person is the person who pays the secretary. That vital role needs to be remembered in funding the new bodies.
  The order makes it clear that six new bodies are to be funded by money allocated by the Northern Ireland Assembly. The agreement between the two Governments announced today suggests that they should be funded in accordance with the provisions of the multi-party agreement, on the ground that it constitutes a necessary public function—as set out on page 11 of the order. How will the balance of funding between the Belfast Assembly and the Dublin Government be addressed?
  Presumably the two bodies should put in something like equal amounts, otherwise one may have undue influence on the day-to-day operation of one or more of the sixbodies. Is that the plan? By allowing the Belfast Assembly to choose how much it allocates, we may be giving it power to pay the secretaries more or less than Dublin. I am suggesting not that the Belfast Assembly should not have such a power, but that it should consult Dublin before it decides how much to pay. I can see frictions developing if that has not been clearly established. Similarly, I urge Dublin to consult Belfast on the matter.
  128
  Secondly, I am glad that the body dealing with language is to cater for all languages as well as Irish. It is good that the rich diversity of culture and heritage on the island of Ireland is so celebrated. Will any other languages be specifically catered for? There are more than 5,000 people from ethnic minorities in Northern Ireland, and no doubt more in the Republic. Some of those, such as the Chinese community, may wish to benefit from help in conserving or promoting their language. Can the functions of the language body be extended to help such people? May I stress that this is not special pleading on behalf of the Estonian community in Northern Ireland, or, indeed, the four or five people who still speak Estonian on the island.
  We often hear the phrase, "The devil is in the detail." On this occasion, it would be more appropriate to say that the Minister is in the detail. His formulation seems sensible, consistent and empowering. That does not necessarily make him a saint, but it does clearly make him a very important player in the process. I praise him for the sure-footed and consistent way in which he has brought matters forward.
  Despite the very assiduous efforts made by many people, including the right hon. Member for Upper Bann, in attempting to achieve the important breakthroughs for which we were hoping by 10 March, it is probably smart to delay the procedure. Having said that, we have a very clear date—29 March—by which we must have made some progress. The clock is ticking. The reprieve is not a big one, but it gives us a chance to make this process work without the pressure that we may have felt over the preceding few days.
  I have got to believe that, as the Minister says, with determination and courage, we shall reach agreement. Surely, now that we have come so far, we can get the last little bit sorted out. There are some hard times now, especially for those who have yet to show some good will with regard to decommissioning, but just think of the good times to follow. I, for one, am hoping for a happy Easter.
  10.35 pm
  Mr. Kevin McNamara: Like the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik), I am looking forward to a happy Easter. I hope that it will materialise.
  I welcome the order and the implementation bodies. They are very important for their symbolic and practical effects on the communities in Ireland, and especially for the nationalist community in the north of Ireland, which will no longer feel cut off from the rest of the island of Ireland.
  The implementation bodies are very practical, and yet one wonders why other implementation bodies were not involved. Of course, one does not always know what is included under an umbrella such as food safety. There is BSE in both parts of the island; would that have been covered by it? Does trade and business include all-Ireland tourism and the possibility of a Northern Irish tourist board?
  On the issue of food and food safety, remarkably, although we are happy to talk later about aquaculture, we are not prepared to talk about an implementation body for agriculture—and yet it would seem that farmers in both parts of Ireland have far more in common with one another than they have, for example, with the far richer

  129
  farmers of England, with its large farms and large estates. Although some of the hill farmers may have some fellow feeling with many of the smaller farmers in Ireland, there is a real problem.
  Rural depopulation is also a real problem in both parts of Ireland. It is difficult for small farms to maintain families when other smaller rural industries have not been built up to an extent that would enable farmers to work part-time on their farms and to supplement that income with sufficient income from other sources. There are limits to what one can do with bed-and-breakfast and other, perhaps somewhat more imaginative, schemes, but that is not reflected in the agreement.
  The right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) said that from these small beginnings, other things might develop, and perhaps some of these issues will develop in that way. I hope that they will, because on many of these economic issues, the two parts of Ireland have more in common with each other than they have with this island. They could benefit from further European Union programmes, as they are benefiting at present on both sides of the border.
  Much has been made of the extent of progress so far. Like everyone else, I should like to see the Executive in operation, and I should like to see the Assembly meeting and debating, but there are problems on both sides. The right hon. Member for Upper Bann has a problem in how far his party is prepared to go in accepting Sinn Fein into an Assembly. Sinn Fein, equally, has a difficulty in the problems and the questions that it is being posed by Unionists in the Assembly about how far it can go. I believe that neither side really understands the other's problems. Certainly, the right hon. Member for Upper Bann has a fixed position, from which he would find it difficult to move. I understand that.
  Equally, the representatives of Sinn Fein have their difficulties. They claim that they cannot move on decommissioning because they do not control the decision making. That is something that some people doubt, but I think that we must take some of those statements at face value and in good faith. However, it is patently obvious that they are concerned that if three bullets, or whatever, are given up under decommissioning, that will be seen as an act of surrender.
  It might be argued that that is not the case, and that it is a gesture, a magnanimous step forward or a sign. However, sadly, that is not how the representatives of Sinn Fein see it. Further, they are concerned that if a concession is made, it will mean that there will be not a trickle, as has been happening, but a flood of volunteers moving from supporting the Provisional IRA to bodies such as Continuity IRA and the Real IRA, which are outside the process and do not accept the agreement. It is a very difficult situation for the Official Unionists and for Sinn Fein, and we must understand that on both sides of the argument.
  We all hope that movement can be made by both sides. Perhaps the meeting in Washington after the St. Patrick's day celebrations will result in a damascene conversion by both the right hon. Member for Upper Bann and the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Adams). We do not know. However, we know that if people continue pushing, asking one side or the other to do something that is not within its power to deliver and accusing it of being in bad faith because of that, we shall be in a difficult and dangerous position.
  130
  I hope that at the meeting on 29 March, we get progress, and that the parties on either side will, to use current parlance, go to the wire, or go to the precipice and then draw back. I hope also that no one involved will seek to push either side over the precipice. That would be a recipe for disaster for all the people of Northern Ireland, for the island of Ireland and for all these islands.
  10.43 pm
  Mr. William Thompson: There have been many political developments in Northern Ireland over the past year. There is no doubt that the agreement that was reached caused much division within Northern Ireland, and particularly within the party of which I am a member.
  I have always taken the position that I oppose the agreement and that when the agreement is being implemented, I must, out of conscience, reject that implementation. Therefore, I must disagree with the implementation bodies that it is proposed to set up under the agreement.
  I believe, of course, that the terrorists should be so defeated that they will be unable to carry out any more of their acts. That, ultimately, is the only way to defeat terrorism, whether it comes from republicanism or from the Unionist side of the divide.
  I believe that the agreement is a device to try to persuade paramilitaries that they will get something of what they want. It is thought that if they get some of what they want, perhaps they will desist from their paramilitary activities. I believe that, rather than making them desist from paramilitary activity, the agreement is more likely to encourage them to keep at it. Therefore I have not supported the agreement, nor will I.
  I feel that by setting up the cross-border bodies, the agreement gives us, to a great extent, joint sovereignty in Northern Ireland. At least three of the six implementation bodies will have considerable power. The food safety implementation body will have a long list of powers. If that body gets off the ground, will a food safety agency for Northern Ireland be needed, or will the food safety implementation body take over that function? Perhaps the Minister will tell us.
  The powers of the trade and business development body seem to be extensive, as do those of the special EU programmes body. I note that the bodies seem to have different types of government. There are to be three boards—one for trade and business, one for language and one for marine matters. However, the food safety board will only be advisory.
  The other two implementation bodies—inland waterways and special EU programmes—will be run by chief executives, similar to the way in which agencies are currently run. As far as I can see, we have little control over agencies, and we do not have much control over boards. What we are setting up are six more quangos. It will be difficult for the Assembly to control their activities.
  As we have heard tonight, the implementation bodies are likely to grow and acquire more powers, and we are likely to have more implementation bodies. Indeed, the agreement that was signed referred to 12 implementation bodies. Only three are included among the initial six, so we can be sure that those who wish to detach Northern

  131
  Ireland from the United Kingdom will be pressing hard to get as many more implementation bodies as they can. Slowly but surely, Northern Ireland will start to be eased out of the United Kingdom.
  I cannot say much more that is useful about these matters. I have taken my stand and I must maintain it. I know that some people are disappointed that nothing dramatic will happen on 10 March. I never thought that anything dramatic would happen on that date. I shall be surprised if there is any progress on an Executive on 29 March. Those who believe that an Executive will be set up in Northern Ireland who will work and provide good government in Northern Ireland are living in a dream. I do not believe that it will happen.
  Mr. Gerald Bermingham: If the hon. Gentleman's stand is set in stone, what can anybody ever do to shift the stone? Unless people begin to give and take, there can never be a solution.
  Mr. Thompson: Unionists are not against co-operation with the Republic of Ireland. One thing that I dislike about the implementation bodies is that they are always mentioned in respect of north and south. I do not believe in north and south; I believe in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. There is no reason why we cannot have good co-operation between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, but we do not need implementation bodies such as these.
  We are to have those implementation bodies only because we are trying to buy off the terrorists and make them believe that they are going down the way to achieving what they are aiming at—a united Ireland. I do not see why I should encourage them in the process in which they think they are involved.
  10.51 pm
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: Although his case is not one that any of us accept, the hon. Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson) argues it honestly. He is exceedingly pessimistic about what he considers to be the likely failure of Assembly representatives to control quangos. Amidst all that gloom, he ought to express a bit of optimism about the calibre of the representatives and what I reckon to be their determination to control quangos. That is how I see the Scottish Parliament and people who will be elected to it.
  Although there are pronounced differences, there are numerous similarities between Scotland and Northern Ireland, and we in Scotland see the quangos coming under more critical examination from the Members of the Holyrood Parliament. I would hope that the same will eventually be the case for the Assembly in Belfast. The hon. Member for West Tyrone is too pessimistic in that regard. He can be gloomy at times in his prognostications, but let us have a wee bit of optimism as well—the kind of optimism that we are showing vis-à-vis the Scottish Parliament.
  I was struck by a couple of comments that were made by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble)—
  Mr. David Winnick: My hon. Friend described the speech of the hon. Member for West Tyrone
  132
  as honest. No doubt it was, but was not it also highly dangerous? The alternative to the agreement is almost certainly what we saw last night on BBC 2:tit-for-tat atrocities—one committed by the IRA followed by another committed by some loyalist murder gang. Those who oppose the agreement live in Northern Ireland and represent Northern Ireland constituencies, so they know better than we do that we will go back to the terror and counter-terror of 25 years if the agreement is destroyed on the ground.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) responds to that intervention, I should say that we must return to a discussion of the order before the House.
  Dr. Godman: I am grateful for your admonition, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I agree with much of what my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr Winnick) said in his brief intervention. Might I say that I was struck by the fact that everyone who has spoken in the debate has referred to how the decommissioning impasse affects all those other developments? I compliment my right hon. Friend the Minister and his ministerial colleagues on the work that they have done to move us this far.
  I was also struck by the toughly worded editorial on decommissioning in today's edition of The Irish Times, which says that
  "from the beginning the IRA has not moved a millimetre. In contrast, the Ulster Unionists have time and again indicated their willingness to seek compromise. At Oslo, Mr Trimble made it clear he was not seeking a surrender of weapons to the RUC or the British army. Mr Ken Maginnis spoke a fortnight ago of giving the IRA 'wriggle room'."
  It would be interesting to hear a definition of "wriggle room".
  The editorial continues:
  "This weekend again, Mr Trimble has declared that if the IRA sends 'a signal' to General John de Chastelain and if the general conveys that to him, then the process will go forward."
  Like everyone else, I sincerely hope that such a signal will be given.
  Let me ask a couple of practical questions, which are prompted to some extent by what the right hon. Member for Upper Bann had to say. Paragraph 2.1(b) of part 4 of annexe 1 states that
  "the views of Northern Ireland Ministers"
  will be
  "represented to the British Government to contribute to the UK's negotiating strategy"
  on topics relating to structural funds. I have made my views clear to Foreign Office Ministers—in a very public way; I have not been leaking. I have said that, in the negotiations concerning enlargement, it is necessary to ensure that the peace initiative is maintained, whatever happens to the structural and cohesion funds. I have made that known to my right hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Ms Quin), the Minister responsible for European affairs, in two public formal evidence sessions of the Foreign Affairs Committee. I have also said that the international Ireland fund must be retained.
  I think I am right in saying that the north of Ireland and the Irish Republic are divided 80:20 on the peace initiative. That initiative must continue. The way in which

  133
  objective 1 status is defined means that Northern Ireland falls outwith the criteria. I think that there is a specific criterion of 76 per cent. of gross national product per capita, but given the exceptional circumstances of Northern Ireland it is very important for the campaign to be conducted by our Ministers. I believe that there is a role for those on the body that we are discussing in relation to the negotiations that will continue in Brussels over the next two or three years.
  The word "concordat" arises in this context. Ministerial colleagues of the First Minister will need to play a decisive role in the negotiations. It is possible that they will be unable to negotiate on the peace initiative, the international Ireland fund and objective 1 funds; but those Ministers—those represented on this implementation body—will have an important part to play in UK-wide negotiations with other member states of the union on the retention of those important funds. None of us must lose sight of the importance of the European Commission's structural fund plans to Northern Ireland.
  I said that I would be brief, but let me say a little about marine matters. I was struck by what the right hon. Member for Upper Bann said about the Irish lights. He is right: historically, there has been a remarkably good relationship between our system and the system pertaining in the Irish Republic. I had hoped that a recent order for a ship for the Irish republican lights would be won by a shipyard on the lower Clyde, but it was not to be. I believe that another ship is on order, which I hope will come our way—but I must stop such parochial pleadings.
  An important development is taking place in respect of the development of such a body. The document that we have been given says that both United Kingdom and Irish legislation will be required in order for a body to become the general lighthouse authority for the island of Ireland.
  The hon. Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson) would perhaps say that that was another quango, but let me assure him that the lights as they operate in mainland Britain, in Northern Ireland and in the Irish Republic perform a useful service highly efficiently. I would expect that efficiency to be maintained, as is mentioned in the document, under the new general lighthouse authority. I look forward to the legislation being introduced in the House. As someone who represents a maritime community and who has a concern for Northern Ireland, I would want actively to engage in the matter.
  I asked a question relating to the British-Irish Council. One or two of my colleagues thought that I was being facetious when I said that Glasgow would be an excellent locus for the secretariat of such a body. I say again that the Nordic Council has a fixed locus, with a secretariat of about 70.
  It is all right the Minister saying that Stranraer and the Isle of Man are campaigning. I put my cards on the table. If there is to be a fixed location for the British-Irish Council, with respect to the hon. Members for West Tyrone and for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross), it cannot be in Belfast. It cannot be in Dublin or London. Glasgow is an excellent choice. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) will no doubt agree with me without intervening in my short speech. Liverpool has a case, but it has to be Glasgow, as the Lord Provost has suggested recently. The Minister needs to take that special pleading on board, as do all.
  134
  The document refers to rivers and their tributaries. The development of aquaculture could be an important subject—the right hon. Member for Upper Bann suggested it—for the British-Irish Council. We have much to learn from each other in relation to fish farming. Serious mistakes have been made in Scandinavia and in Scotland. I hope that, if the aquaculture industry is to develop in Northern Ireland, the people involved can avoid some of the mistakes that we have made in Scotland. Where those marine matters are influenced by a reformed common fisheries policy, we have again to think in terms of a concordat relating to maritime matters being developed between Ministers of the Assembly and Ministers in Whitehall.
  11.4 pm
  Mr. William Ross: The hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) said at the outset that there was quite a lot in common between Northern Ireland and Scotland. That is true in many ways. A great deal more in common will rear its head over the next few years as the Scottish National party increases its strength. He will find out then what nationalism in the Northern Ireland context and the Scottish context really means in political terms. His education is not complete, but it will be.
  Like everyone else, I have received the documentation fairly late in the day. I have had an opportunity to glance through it. I must confess that I am not yet clear as to how the bodies are formed, how many persons will be on the bodies and how they are to be chosen. Undoubtedly, the Minister will clear up those matters for me in his reply.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) was clear that the quasi-autonomous national Government organisations that will be created will be under Assembly control. That will depend on whether the Assembly is controllable enough to agree on what should be done with the quangos; I am not so sure that it will be. There is a slight chance of friction on the matter. Ultimately, it will all depend on whether the IRA will co-operate in surrendering its weapons. I see precious little sign of that.
  The particulars of the agreement, on page 10 of the documentation, state that
  "an Assembly in Northern Ireland, a North/South Ministerial Council, implementation bodies, a British-Irish Council, and a British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference and any amendments to British Acts of Parliament and the Constitution of Ireland … are interlocking and interdependent and that in particular the functions of the Assembly and the North/South Council are so closely inter-related that the success of each depends on that of the other".
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann said that, if the Assembly fell—or if it never comes into operation, for whatever reasons—the cross-border bodies would cease to exist or never come into existence. Interestingly, when the subject was discussed during passage of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, the Minister was rather coy about it. I hope that he will not be quite so reticent about it today, and will confirm that my right hon. Friend's comments on it were absolutely accurate. Many people in Northern Ireland are fed up with fooling around at the edges of the issue and should like to have a very clear statement on it from Ministers.

  135
  I should like to deal with the matter of inland waterways—the four functions of the
  "management, maintenance, development and restoration of the inland navigable waterway system"—
  which are mainly, but not only, canals, and chiefly for the tourist trade, either internal or external.
  The order mentions the Shannon-Erne, the Ulster canal, the wider Shannon-Erne system and the other waterways—such as the Royal canal, the Grand canal, and the Barrow and Lagan systems. Interestingly, it includes also navigation on the lower Bann. The lower Bann is a long, long way from the border. Although it is a major waterway and has considerable potential for the tourist trade, I cannot understand of what interest it might be in the implementation of any cross-border body. If the Republic wished to be difficult about the matter, it could starve the river of any sums that need to be spent on it, to the benefit of its own areas and the cross-border areas. As the lower Bann runs through a chunk of my constituency, I should not take very kindly to that happening.
  When I looked up the order's references to repeals and transfers, I discovered that the new bodies will be taking on liabilities—such as the liability of compensation— powers of land entry and certain powers in fisheries. It is clear that the longer-term intention is to take control of all inland waters that could be used for navigation. In many ways, and for a number of reasons, I find that prospect disturbing, especially as there will be three regional divisions—northern, western and eastern. Perhaps we could be told exactly which areas each of the subdivisions will cover, and why it is necessary to have the subdivisions.
  The inland waterways body will have all the powers "necessary or incidental" to the exercise of its functions. The powers are not specified, but I think that they are probably stated in preceding legislation. I noted that the Water (Northern Ireland) Order 1999, which the House recently passed, is mentioned in the order. The new body would assume control of various aspects of that order— such as the power of the Department to carry out works, canal schemes, powers of maintenance, waterways, general powers of the Department, provisions of the drainage order, and all the rest of it. Those are wide powers. When they are applied to the Foyle area and Bann navigation, considerable sums of public money could be involved. Many people will not be happy with a quango controlling them. They are already quangoised to some extent, but the existing quangos at least have elected members and members of local councils.
  The hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde referred to aquaculture and marine matters. That aspect of the order is interesting and involves the Foyle Fisheries Commission, which has a long history. I made a speech on it in the House some years ago. If hon. Members are interested in the body's roots, they should look up that speech. It is a cross-border body that was set up to protect the game fishing, mainly salmon fishing, in the Foyle, which is a valuable commercial and angling fishery.
  The order says that the powers are to be extended to Carlingford lough. I do not know of any salmon rivers or game fish rivers of any description flowing into Carlingford lough. I do not know the area well, but I do
  136
  not remember many of my game fishing friends taking expeditions to that area. I do not see the point of that. It must have something to do with navigation and lights. Some navigation aids in Lough Foyle have always been under the control of the Londonderry harbour authority.
  Lough Foyle is not a suitable place for the development of aquaculture and salmon farming because it is shallow. It is a valuable wild salmon fishery and it would be crazy to do anything to damage it. We know what has happened to sea trout in the west of Scotland and down the west coast of Ireland and the problems of salmon fanning in Norway. There have also been recent infestations in salmon farms in Scotland. We do not want any of that; we have seen quite enough of it. I apologise to the Scots, but I should prefer it if they kept it at home.
  Dr. Godman: That is my point. Any body with responsibility for such shallow water should refuse all licence applications for any kind of fish farming.
  Mr. Ross: We do not need the cross-border body to do that. The Foyle Fisheries Commission is perfectly capable and has dealt with that.
  The Foyle has quite a large shell fishery; we also have the largest eel fishery in Europe. All those matters, formerly internal to Northern Ireland, will now be cross-border matters. The new body is to have 12 members. An earlier draft said that there were to be three from the Republic and the Carlingford area and three from Northern Ireland, with the same proportions in the Foyle fisheries organisation. The Foyle is currently run by civil servants from Belfast and civil servants from the Republic. At least that was 50:50. Now the Unionist population will be in a minority of four against eight. Some people may say that that is a good deal, but I say forget it. It is a dangerous situation.
  Those who are anxious about the powers over discharge can look them up in this year's Northern Ireland water order. We are handing over to the new body all powers over discharges into the river system in one of the most valuable salmon fisheries in Northern Ireland—indeed, one of the most valuable in these islands. The new quango will not be able to do a better job than has been done in the past. The Foyle Fisheries Commission is not one of my favourite bodies, but it has improved recently because it has some money. I fear that the proposals are a retrograde step and I do not welcome them. It is foolish of the Government to pursue them.
  I could say a great deal more about food safety. My hon. Friend the Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson) has mentioned some of the issues. There are issues relating to trade and business and how a language body will be nothing but an attempt to increase the use of Irish Gaelic. That has not worked in the Republic since 1920.
  Mr. Trimble indicated dissent
  Mr. Ross: My right hon. Friend may shake his head, but most of the money will go to the not very many people who wish to learn the language. Minority languages are a residue of the past—they are dying and being superseded by modern languages. The languages of the future are the languages of technology—English, German and Japanese. Minor languages can be sent off to the academics,

  137
  universities and historians, who may want to look at ancient history. As far as useful everyday trade is concerned, forget it—no one really cares.
  We are running out of time, and I want the Minister to have time to reply—although I could say a great deal more on a matter which I do not like any more now than I did 12 months ago.
  11.15 pm
  Mr. Paul Murphy: With the leave of the House,Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall reply; there is much in the debate to reply to. First, I thank the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) for his support today, and for accepting my apologies for the way in which we have had to rush the documentation.
  The right hon. Gentleman referred—as did the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble)—to the interdependency of the bodies in term of the agreement. Both were right—it was clear in the talks, and in the agreement itself, that the agreement is a package. The success of the agreement depends on the success of all the different parts of the package. It will work only if all the institutions and parts of the agreement work as well. That is why paragraph 5 of the declaration of support and the preamble to the treaty have embedded the principle in the treaty and the accompanying order.
  As all of us have said throughout the process, the Government are not planning for failure—that is not an option. We have said that if there is no Assembly, there will be no North-South Ministerial Council. Each depends upon the other.
  It is clear that the implementation bodies could not continue to function as envisaged in the agreement. Arrangements for the Executive functions that they carried out would have to be reviewed. For example, the Foyle Fisheries Commission has been operated as a cross-border body for many years, and doubtless will continue so to do.
  Mr. Thompson: The Minister qualified what he said about the implementation bodies when he said that they could not continue in that form. Does that mean that the Government could continue them in a different form?
  Mr. Murphy: I said—pretty clearly, I thought—that where there are examples of cross-border co-operation that have operated for many years and will do so in the months ahead, the Government will look at sensible arrangements by which that co-operation would continue. The North-South Ministerial Council, to which the bodies are accountable, would disappear if there were no Assembly. Similarly, the bodies envisaged in the agreement would disappear.
  The right hon. Members for Bracknell and for Upper Bann referred to the importance of progress on decommissioning. With the exception of decommissioning—the Police Commission and the Criminal Justice Commission are due to report— progress has been made. The Assembly has been set up, with 108 Members elected to it; the north-south bodies dealt with today have been agreed; the British-Irish Council has come into effect; the civic forum has been established; constitutional change has been agreed in the Republic of Ireland; the Human Rights Commission has been set up; and we are
  138
  advertising for the appointments to the Equality Commission. In addition, 240 prisoners have, under the agreement, been let out of the Maze prison. A great deal of the agreement has been established.
  The right hon. Member for Upper Bann said that the order marked a significant step forward, and he was right. He also emphasised, rightly, the interdependency of the different parts of the agreement, and the important issue of confidence between political parties and communities in Northern Ireland. We must enter negotiations on the basis of confidence as the remainder of the month progresses. The right hon. Gentleman was right to say that the arrangement is unique in Europe and possibly the world, but it was very important for the agreement.
  The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) referred to funding arrangements and to the 1985 agreement. That will cease to have effect on the entry into force of the British-Irish agreement on devolution day. He asked whether other languages would be dealt with, in addition to Irish and Ulster Scots. That is clearly a matter for the North-South Ministerial Council. I cannot guarantee that there will be an Estonian language body, but I am sure that his various points will be taken into account. He also referred to the importance of decommissioning, which will clearly be a priority for the parties over the next couple of weeks.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) welcomed the order because of the symbolic effect on the nationalist community, and he is absolutely right about that, but the order is significant because of the effect of the bodies on the whole of Northern Ireland, whether nationalist or Unionist. The bodies will improve the quality of life of women and men throughout the island of Ireland.
  Tourism in Northern Ireland is dealt with uniquely by a publicly owned limited company. There is provision for co-operation between Northern Ireland and the Republic on the common agricultural policy, animal and plant health policy research and rural development. As the months and years go by, it will be a matter for the North-South Ministerial Council whether it wants to extend the roles of implementation bodies in those areas; at present it does not.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North rightly referred to the difficulties that people in Northern Ireland experience in their own communities. Those difficulties are not confined to one side or the other. There is no doubt that political parties and leaders—not least, the right hon. Member for Upper Bann—have to understand what matters to their own supporters and ensure that they can take people with them. That applies to both sides of the equation.
  The hon. Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson) said that there was a division in Northern Ireland concerning the agreement. There is indeed: 72 per cent. said yes and 28 per cent. said no. That is the division in Northern Ireland. I do not agree with his view on the Good Friday agreement. People voted for implementation bodies, which by no means constitute joint sovereignty.
  There is nothing wrong with having different types of boards, as long as they are properly accountable. Control over the boards is far better if they are accountable to an elected body of 108 people from Northern Ireland,

  139
  representing other people in Northern Ireland, than if they are accountable to me, a south Wales Member of Parliament.
  The agreement was based on the principle of consent. Talk about the bodies growing into a united Ireland, and all the rest of it, does not square with the concept of consent. The fears are unjustified. It is up to the people of Northern Ireland to decide on their constitutional future, and that is the clear basis of the agreement.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) brought his Scottish experience to bear. He talked about how quangos in Scotland will be more accountable to the Scottish Parliament than they are to the Scottish Office today. That applies to Northern Ireland as well.
  My hon. Friend talked about the editorial in The Irish Times and rightly said that no one is talking about surrender when decommissioning is discussed. No one wants surrender of anything. We are talking about fulfilling the terms of the agreement. The independent commission on decommissioning under General John de Chastelain will play a hugely significant role.
  My hon. Friend also referred to the work of the European Union body that has been set up. It will work alongside UK Ministers, and Irish Ministers when appropriate. He referred to the significance of the First Minister, the Deputy First Minister and the Administration in Northern Ireland in months to come, in the negotiations for European funding. I can tell him and the House that the First Minister, the Deputy First Minister and myself visited Brussels and Bonn recently, where we presented the case for Northern Ireland. That case will continue to be presented by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann, the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) and myself on every possible occasion. After devolution, Ministers will be appointed within the Northern Ireland Administration who will have responsibility for that. Those of us in the British Government will work alongside those Ministers to ensure that the best deal is obtained for Northern Ireland.
  The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) obviously does not like the order very much. The details of the new bodies are available for him to examine. He referred to interdependency and we all agree with him on that, but I cannot agree with his view on the Celtic languages. I would like him to visit my constituency in south Wales, which is very much an English-language constituency but where Welsh is now being taught to every pupil, whether or not they have Welsh-speaking parents. There is nothing wrong with the great diversity and richness of different languages and cultures, whether in Northern Ireland, Wales, the Republic of Ireland or elsewhere. Indeed, there is a growing demand. I was in the Isle of Man recently, where Manx is being taught to the children, even though it has ceased to be used as a language for some time. That enriches our culture and our lives.
  There is overwhelming support in the House for the order. It sets up strand 2 of the agreement and brings into effect the north-south arrangements that are an integral part of the Good Friday agreement. Those arrangements, and the other matters that I have mentioned, will ensure— I sincerely hope and pray—that between now and Easter
  140
  the people in Northern Ireland, through their political leaders, will find the solution and enable devolution to go ahead. I commend the order to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the North/South Co-operation (Implementation Bodies) (Northern Ireland) Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 8th March, be approved.

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

  NORTHERN IRELAND
  That the draft Northern Ireland (Modifications of Enactments— No. 1) Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 22nd February, be approved.—[Mr. Jamieson.]
  Question agreed to.

  PROTECTION OF CHILDREN BILL [MONEY]
  Queen's recommendation having been signified—
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Protection of Children Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

  (a)any expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State under or by virtue of the Act; and

  (b)any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other Act.—[Mr. Jamieson.]

  11.27 pm
  Mr. Eric Forth: I would have thought that on an occasion such as this the Minister might have sought to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because this is the opportunity for the House to consider the financial implications of a private Member's Bill that has received its Second Reading. As I recall, none of the financial implications of the Bill was examined on Second Reading, and that makes this money resolution debate that much more important and germane as it gives the House the opportunity to examine in more detail the financial implications of the Bill.
  I have glanced through the Bill and identified four areas of potential additional expenditure that it may require. I shall examine each in turn so that the Minister has an opportunity to let the House know what the financial implications are so that it can take a view. The first area is, self-evidently, costs arising in the Department of Health. That issue arises immediately from clause 1, which states:
  "The Secretary of State shall keep a list of individuals who are considered unsuitable to work with children."
  I presume that there will be a cost implication within the Department of Health in the maintenance of such a list. That is especially true as one examines the provisions of clause 2, which lays a number of responsibilities on the Secretary of State, including determining the references, provisionally including individuals on the list, inviting observations and confirming an individual's inclusion on the list. All of those activities imply a process within the Department of building up and maintaining the list and

  141
  suggest that an underpinning of bureaucracy and officials will be required to fulfil all the different functions outlined. It would be useful to hear from the Minister about the extent to which his Department will require additional officials to carry out the responsibilities laid on it by clause 2.
  I shall come later to the tribunal, which I suspect will add the biggest single extra cost. First, the next additional element of cost arises from clause 5, which refers to the additional grounds for prohibiting or restricting employment with regard to the Department for Education and Employment. I had some passing experience of these matters when I was responsible for List 99 at the Department for some years.
  I believe that clause 5(2)(c), which refers to
  "the grounds that the persons concerned are not fit and proper persons to be employed as teachers or in such work as is mentioned",
  considerably widens the scope that has traditionally been available through List 99—always a relatively narrowly focused mechanism that was rightly concerned with ensuring that people who had committed some offence would, after due consideration by the Department, be put on the list and barred from teaching.
  I suspect that clause 5 gives rise to the possibility that much wider consideration will be needed, and that implies considerable additional effort by the Department and its officials. What extra cost does the Minister believe will fall on the Department for Education and Employment over and above the cost of the existing List 99?
  The next heading that I have identified as involving almost certain additional expenditure falls within clause 8, which is titled:
  "Searches of both lists under Part V of Police Act 1997"
  The clause describes additional new requirements, which implies additional costs for the police service. Those costs should be laid before us so that we may consider them.
  I have identified three distinct areas of additional cost in the Department of Health, the Department for Education and Employment and the police.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Hutton): Has the right hon. Gentleman read the regulatory impact assessment that accompanied the Bill, and which dealt with all those issues?
  Mr. Forth: I am grateful to the Minister for being helpful so far into the debate. He might or might not accept a bit of friendly advice from me—if he had done the House the courtesy of rising to move his money resolution and explaining what lay behind it, he might have truncated the proceedings. If he wants to do it back to front, that is entirely up to him. Whether or not I have read any document is neither here nor there. [Interruption.] This is a debate, and it is the occasion on which the House of Commons has an opportunity to consider these matters.
  Mr. Keith Bradley (Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household): Idiot.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. The House must listen to the right hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Forth: If the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) is moved to shout "idiot",
  142
  he will not help his colleagues, who are anxious to get home. Each time he says "idiot", he will add a considerable number of minutes to my speech. I invite him to think a little more carefully before he does that again because he will earn no brownie points from his hon. Friends.
  I shall now address briefly—albeit not quite as briefly as I had originally intended—the main item in the Bill that is likely to cause extra expenditure. The provisions for the tribunal must surely require considerable extra expenditure, not only because of the requirements set out in the clause, but because of those that are usefully set out in some detail in the schedule to the Bill. It would be helpful if the Minister were to explain in some detail the possible elements of expenditure.
  Not only does the schedule contain the usual provisions that one expects in setting up a tribunal—provisions relating to the president, the panels of persons, the process of appointment and so on—but there are provisions relating to meetings and training, which one might have thought would require a considerable amount of on-going bureaucratic commitment, to say nothing of provisions relating to staff and accommodation required by the tribunal and also to remuneration and expenses. The schedule helpfully spells out that:
  "The Secretary of State may pay to the President, and to any other person in respect of his service as a member of the Tribunal, such remuneration and allowances as the Secretary of State may, with the consent of the Treasury, determine."
  I accept that that is clearly a provisional arrangement, but even at this stage the Government should be able to give us some idea of the scale of remuneration and expenses for the tribunal that they have in mind. I doubt whether even the Government would want to embark on such a project without any idea of the costs it entails.
  Mr. Andrew Lansley: Ministers believe that the costs of an appeal tribunal can be met within current provision for Departments—the regulatory impact assessment mentions a figure of £500,000 shared between the Department of Health and the Department for Education and Employment. However, my right hon. Friend shares my perception that the fact that costs can be met within current provision does not mean that they should not be subject to scrutiny and explicitly approved by the House.
  Mr. Forth: Like my hon. Friend, I always thought that that was the point of a money resolution. It appears to have escaped Labour Members, but my hon. Friend and I share the view that a money resolution debate is a vital part of the mechanism for the proper scrutiny and consideration of a Bill—especially given that it is a private Member's Bill and none of the matters currently being considered were touched on during Second Reading. The fact that figures may or may not exist in a document is no excuse for them not to be properly considered on the Floor of the House and put on the record. That is why the Minister's contribution should be helpful.
  On the matter of attendance allowances, the schedule to the Bill states:
  "The Secretary of State may pay such allowances for the purpose of or in connection with the attendance of persons at the Tribunal".
  That could become a substantial item of expenditure, depending on the view taken by the Government of the volume of business that the Tribunal might attract and the

  143
  number of persons who might attend the tribunal and be paid attendance allowances. Past experience of tribunals supports the assertion that such allowances will become a substantial sum.
  The money resolution almost certainly contains a wide range of potential additional expenditure: departmental expenditure in two Departments of State; probable expenditure on the part of the police service; and, not least, expenditure resulting from the activities of the tribunal. The House will want to hear the Minister's remarks on all of those item before it is fully satisfied that the expenditure is properly undertaken in connection with the purposes of the Bill. The House will then want to consider whether or not to approve the money resolution, having only recently given the Bill a Second Reading.
  11.40 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Hutton): I must correct the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) on one point. He expressed concern that I had not moved the money resolution. It is normal for money resolutions to be moved by Ministers, but I should point out that Government Whips are Ministers.
  Much of our time tonight could have been spared if the right hon. Gentleman had read the regulatory impact assessment. It is quite clear from his contribution that, unfortunately, he has not had the opportunity to read the assessment, in which we set out in some detail most of the issues that he raised in the House this evening. He will certainly be aware of the purpose of the Bill and what it seeks to do because he took part in the Second Reading debate only last week. We welcomed his contribution then, as we do tonight.
  I shall try to respond to some of the right hon. Gentleman's concerns about the money resolution. The Bill creates an obligation upon the Secretary of State to maintain a list of individuals deemed unsuitable to work with children and allows other organisations to refer names to the Department of Health list in certain circumstances. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, there is presently no statutory requirement on child care organisations to refer to the list or to check names against the present Department of Health consultancy index. The Bill will change that arrangement. Once included on the list, the individual concerned will be prevented from obtaining employment in certain positions.
  Additional costs associated with the establishment and operation of the appeals tribunal will fall on the Department of Health and the Department for Education and Employment. The tribunal will hear all appeals from people in the child care and health service fields against inclusion on the Department of Health list. It will deal also with appeals from List 99, which is a similar list operated by the Department for Education and Employment.
  The right hon. Gentleman was correct in identifying that extra costs will fall on the Department of Health in operating a scheme which, due to the expansion that we envisage, will process an increasing number of checks. I assure the right hon. Gentleman and the House that those additional costs will be met by the Department from within existing budgets, and therefore are not affected by the term of the money resolution.
  144
  However, costs will be incurred by the creation and administration of the tribunal system, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. The estimated costs associated with the appeals tribunal, which we have identified, are set out fully in the regulatory impact assessment, and we estimate that they will be in the region of £500,000.
  The purpose of the Bill is clear and simple: it introduces the mechanism of an appeals tribunal and widens accessibility and scope. Both of those aims have been broadly welcomed by all child care organisations and by the House, which gave the Bill an unopposed Second Reading. In simple terms, the money resolution that we are debating will authorise the necessary expenditure relating to the establishment of this new appeals tribunal, and I urge the House to accept it.
  Question put and agreed to.

PETITIONS

  Conscientious Objection
  11.43 pm
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I have the honour of presenting a petition in support of the right conscientiously to object to the military portion of taxes.
  The petition states:
  "To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
  The Humble Petition of residents of the United Kingdom,
  Sheweth that at present though Parliament recognises the right of individuals to conscientiously object to personally fighting in combat, there is no right at present for a citizen who, for religious or moral reasons, objects to having the monies they pay in taxes used for military purposes, to pay that money into a separate fund that would be used for the promotion of peace. We believe that at the beginning of a new millennium Britain should both recognise the right to conscientiously object to taxation for military purposes and take a pivotal role in order to promote peaceful conflict resolution worldwide.
  Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House inquire through its committees into the establishment of a Non-Military Security Fund, to which the military portion of people's taxes could be diverted, if they so desired. The fund's central aim would be to fund non-violent conflict prevention, resolution and management.
  And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, &c.
  This petition is presented on behalf of Mr. Jon Nott and supported by 612 other people from all parts of the country. I welcome and strongly support it. I ask the Government and the House to consider it because the greatest form of security in the world is gained not through military presence, but through the elimination of conflict and poverty and the causes of conflict.
  To lie upon the Table.
  11.45 pm
  Mr. Neil Gerrard: I wish to present a petition in identical terms to that presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn). It is in the name of Mr. Rowson and 1,037 other people from my constituency and other parts of the country. There are people who hold strong moral and religious beliefs that stop them taking part in violent activity—that has been recognised in the right of conscientious objection

  145
  since 1916—but many of them believe also that they should not be forced by the taxation system directly to fund military action. They want to be able to use their taxes to fund peaceful settlement of international conflicts. I present the petition and offer my support for it.
  To lie upon the Table.
  11.46 pm
  Mr. John McDonnell: I wish to present a petition in exactly the same terms as the previous two petitions. It is on behalf of David Hillman and 473 other signatories. On the day when the Government announced that in future they will link aid to ensuring that disarmament occurs in the third world, the right of conscientious objection should be recognised in this country. Many of the signatories are therefore convinced that their taxation should not be spent on weapons of destruction.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Trawlermen (Compensation)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]
  11.47 pm
  Mr. Alan Johnson: Almost 23 years ago, promises were made in this House to distant water trawlermen who were being made redundant by the Government's agreement with Iceland which ended the so-called cod wars by setting a 200-mile fishing limit around the Icelandic coast. On 28 June 1976, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said:
  "We shall discuss with the unions and employers the feasibility of an arrangement for compensation for those fishermen directly affected by the settlement who, because they do not have regular contracts of employment, are denied the benefits they might otherwise have received under the redundancy payments Acts."
  The Opposition Front-Bench spokesman said later in that debate:
  "We are glad that the Minister acknowledges that, because of the nature of their occupation, fishermen will need some special and additional arrangements beyond what is contained in the redundancy payments Acts".
  That gave the special scheme cross-party consensus. Later in the debate, the Minister said:
  "On redundancy, I cannot be more specific: that will be a matter for the Department of Employment. It will have to identify the people affected, but it has been agreed in principle that a special scheme will be needed."
  Later, in response to a young MP for Hull, East, called Mr. Prescott, the Minister said:
  "The Government have decided, after discussions with the trade unions and with the employers, that there will be a special redundancy scheme which will be favourable to those fishermen who are not covered by previous legislation."—[Official Report, 28 June 1976; Vol. 914, c. 27–33.]
  Promises were made and they were nothing less than the men concerned deserved. They were courageous; they went out in the most difficult conditions, and distant water fishing was the most dangerous of occupations. They worked in Arctic conditions beyond the north cape bank, and the mortality rate was 14 times that for coal mining.
  During the second world war, trawlermen, like other fishermen, played a major part in the allied victory, at a high personal cost. Since the debate to which I have referred and, indeed, since the first debate that I secured in this House in 1997, we have learned the extent to which distant water trawlermen were used by the intelligence services during the cold war. Despite such service to their country and their perilous occupation, none of the promises made by the Minister were kept. The men were wrongly classified as casuals—casual war heroes, casual cold war heroes. Men who had spent their working lives at sea were dismissed as being unworthy of any help. They received no retraining, no resettlement, and not a penny of compensation.
  Whole communities in Hull, Grimsby and Fleetwood— I am pleased that my hon. Friends the Members for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) and for Cleethorpes (Shona Mclsaac) want to speak in this debate, and I have given them permission to do so—were made worthless by a Government decision. The Icelandic Government even offered the British Government quotas that were almost equal to that being caught—at that time, British fishermen

  147
  were catching about 130 million tonnes—which would have kept the industry going, but, as part of the agreement, the British Government refused.
  Compensation was paid by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to trawler owners to decommission their ships. More than £100 million was paid to trawler owners—not one penny of which went to the men. That is very important, because the criteria under which that money was paid was made absolutely clear in a letter on 12 March 1996 from MAFF to another supporter of the campaign, the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath). MAFF said:
  "Both Labour and Conservative Governments offered compensation to vessel owners to alleviate the position that the industry found itself in through the loss of these fishing grounds following the imposition of the 200 mile limit. The vessel owners, in particular, found themselves with considerable assets that could no longer be used. "
  The trawlermen had considerable assets that could no longer be used, too: their skill, energy and courage.
  The MAFF letter went on to say, very interestingly:
  "No restrictions were placed on vessel owners as to the use of any grant monies received, nor was there any requirement to compensate crew members."
  Millions of pounds were paid to trawler owners, but not a penny was paid in compensation to the trawlermen, despite the promises that were made.
  The way in which distant water trawlermen have been treated is nothing short of a national disgrace. Left to fight alone, they formed the British Fishermen's Association, and pursued a series of cases through the courts in the 1980s. Eventually, in 1983, the men won a case in the High Court. The victory established that they were employed staff and never casuals. Even then, the Government's response was entirely inadequate. The special scheme still did not materialise. Instead, the Government argued that their only obligation was to provide the minimal terms of the redundancy Act to those trawlermen who would been "expressly discouraged" from pursuing industrial tribunal cases because they were told that they did not qualify for payment. That had two disastrous consequences.
  First, a two-year continuity rule was applied. That is in the national redundancy scheme, and might be okay in factories and many other industries, but it had nothing to do with the way in which the trawlermen worked. They worked in a scheme—it was run by the Department of Employment—but it meant that they had to leave on whatever ship was in port at the time. They had continuity in the scheme, but the way in which their industry worked meant that they could not have continuity otherwise, especially for two years with any one employer. As a result, men who had served at sea for 30 years received a few hundreds pounds.
  Secondly, the criteria set by the Government paid nothing to men whom the British Fishermen's Association had supported through the numerous cases that it took and lost during the 1980s. In the final perverse aspect of the Government's decision, they said that those men had not been misdirected because they had pursued industrial tribunal cases. Therefore, they received nothing—not one penny, even from the ex gratia scheme.
  148
  The result of the most recent general election provides the opportunity for the party of Government in 1976 belatedly to meet the commitments made at the time. On 5 November 1997, with colleagues and members of the BFA, I met the Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney). A MAFF official was present at that meeting. We made it clear that we wanted a new scheme. The Minister said that he would raise the matter with colleagues at MAFF.
  In the subsequent six or seven months we were heartened by the response. We felt that we were making progress. Indeed, we were given great encouragement by letters from the DTI. One, from May 1998, said:
  "As we both recognise, what the BFA are seeking is actually a new scheme of more general compensation for the loss of employment in their industry"—
  absolutely right, and similar to what the trawler owners received—
  "rather than a reopening of the old ex-gratia payment arrangements which had a specific and limited purpose, and I am of course continuing to pursue this matter with Elliot Morley at MAFF."
  MAFF replied:
  "Ian McCartney and I have been reviewing this issue and will be meeting shortly to consider the position. We will then arrange a further meeting with you and other MPs concerned."
  Even the Prime Minister, in response to a petition, signed by 15,000 people, presented by the BFA in June 1998, wrote to me and said:
  "I understand that Ian McCartney has since been in discussion with Elliot Morley at MAFF and that they intend to invite you and the BFA to another meeting shortly to consider the matter further."
  That was July 1998. Since then, there has been no activity at all; there has been silence from the Government Departments.
  In summary, promises made by MAFF have not been kept. Millions of pounds have been paid to trawler owners as compensation for the loss of their fishing grounds, but not a penny of compensation has been paid to the trawlermen who lost their livelihoods. I believe that, under the previous Government, MAFF paid something like £30 million to Spanish fishermen for the loss of their licences in 1996, but nothing has been paid by MAFF to British trawlermen who lost their livelihoods.
  Time is running out for those men. We ask the Minister to ensure that what appears to be a game of pass the parcel between Departments stops. We ask for the promised meeting to be arranged quickly and we ask that that claim be settled, so that distant water trawlermen have some belated justice and dignity after being so appallingly mistreated by successive Governments over the past 23 years.
  11.57 pm
  Mrs. Joan Humble: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, West and Hessle (Mr. Johnson) on securing this important debate and allowing me the opportunity to speak, albeit briefly. I also congratulate the British Fishermen's Association on fighting such a long campaign to secure compensation for its members.
  I especially single out Peggy Whittacker, who chairs the Fleetwood branch of the BFA. I do so deliberately because today, on international women's day, it is

  149
  important to remember the role that women had, and still have, in fishing communities such as Fleetwood—wives and mothers, they were left behind for weeks at a time to raise children, look after the home, pay the bills and wait in the hope that their husbands would return safely from one of the most dangerous jobs in the world. We are talking about whole communities and about families, not just about the men who went out on the boats.
  However, I would not like to underestimate how dangerous the job was. My hon. Friend the Member for Hull, West and Hessle outlined the dangers. When I speak to men in Fleetwood who fished the waters around Iceland, they tell me horrific stories of cold, ice, fierce seas and frostbite. Those men and their families deserve compensation for the loss of their jobs and livelihoods.
  There is now a chance to rectify the broken promises of the past. While vessel owners received handsome compensation, the men received nothing—no training, no help, no compensation. For a large number of Fleetwood men, the original injustices of the 1970s were made worse by the failings of the previous Government's ex gratia scheme. Many of them were share fishermen. They were employees in every sense of the word. They paid tax and national insurance; they saw themselves as employees. But because of the rules imposed by the 1993 scheme, they found that they could not claim. Most of the men who were distant water trawlermen in Fleetwood could not claim and did not benefit, and even those who did received a paltry amount for the long, long years that they spent on the seas. To make things worse, these men are dying off. Even since September 1998, nine men who would qualify within the scheme supported by the BFA have died. How many more have to die before something is done about this matter?
  Time is running out. The trawlermen and their families have been treated as third-class citizens for too long. They are looking to the Government to right the wrongs of the past. Just as I back workers at GCHQ, miners and other groups including trawler owners, I fully back the trawlermen in their cause. I look for a positive response from the Government. If there is a more deserving cause, I would like to know what it is. It is about time that we responded positively.
  12.1 am
  Shona Mclsaac: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, West and Hessle (Mr. Johnson) on securing the debate. I thank him for allowing me to contribute to it.
  We cannot imagine while we are in the Chamber the hardship that the trawlermen endured at sea. We probably cannot imagine either the pain with which their bodies are racked these days as a result of many years fishing in distant waters. We promised them 20 years ago to compensate them for losing their jobs. We are here tonight to ensure that justice is done at last.
  My father was off Iceland in 1976. He was not on the trawlers but serving on HMS Russell to protect the fishing fleet during the cod wars. Even with more than 20 years' service in the Royal Navy behind him, my father was appalled at the conditions in which the trawlermen worked. We have heard a little about that already tonight—for example, the 18-hour days, the temperatures that the men endured and the nature of the job, which made it far more dangerous than mining. In addition to
  150
  the hardships that they were enduring at sea, there was hardship at home. Their home lives were largely dissipated by a working pattern that meant about three weeks at sea and then only three days at home.
  All those years of working in such an environment is taking its toll. The ex-trawlermen who are still with us have ailments such as arthritis, bronchial conditions and heart disease. When people say that the price of fish has been high in human terms, they are certainly not kidding.
  My father sailed home on HMS Russell to the security of a job, but the men of our distant water fleet sailed back to redundancy and a bleak future. They were promised compensation but it never came. We have heard that the trawler owners received a tidy packet in compensation but, as ever, the trawlermen, the workers, got nothing.
  In August 1996, my right hon. Friend the now Deputy Prime Minister, visiting me in Cleethorpes, told my local newspaper, the Grimsby Evening Telegraph:
  "It's been an absolute scandal. Owners were paid large sums of money to decommission fishing vessels, but none passed on to the trawlermen themselves."
  My right hon. Friend added:
  "I am an ex-seaman. When there were redundancies in other areas, the seamen were properly compensated. But fishing was not only the hardest of these professions, but has been the worst treated, too."
  I shall refer to only a few of the many men in my constituency who worked in that hardest of professions, who lost their livelihoods and have now lost their health. They are still waiting, 20 years on. There is William Webb of Thornton crescent in Cleethorpes. He worked in Icelandic waters until the jobs dried up in 1978. He says:
  "There was no chance of getting a job. There were so many men and so few jobs left."
  Since then he has suffered several strokes. He can hardly walk. He has severe arthritis. Bob Sinclair of Berkeley road in Humberston worked for 30 years until the firms packed up after the cod wars. He has since had both hips replaced. He suffers from osteoarthritis in his spine, hips, knees and ankles.
  Finally, Jimmy Gale of Healing says that he feels luckier than some. Two ships that he left temporarily to take Christmas breaks sank, killing many of his colleagues. He describes the job in these terms:
  "It was the last legalised slavery in the country."
  In a way, it was slavery, and like slaves, the trawlermen were given nothing. They have been cast aside and forgotten. Tonight we want to see justice done. Let us have no more talking. To coin a famous phrase, it is now time to do.
  12.5 am
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, West and Hessle (Mr. Johnson) on the courage and perseverance with which he has pursued the matter. I assure him and my hon. Friend the Minister that the Members for the great former distant water fishing ports will not rest until compensation is provided on the lines proposed by the British Fishermen's Association for the trawlermen who lost their jobs when we packed up fishing in Icelandic waters in 1976.
  As my hon. Friend said, the trawlermen were promised compensation, retraining, new jobs, and support for the industry. The promises were lavish; none of them was

  151
  fulfilled. Instead, the men were dumped on the shore, and they did not even get the statutory redundancy money, because they were deemed to be casual workers and therefore entitled to nothing.
  That view was proved wrong by Humphrey Forrest of the Humberside Law Centre in the Atkinson Dickenson v. Hellyers case, which showed that the trawlermen were not casual. As a result of that proof, they got minimal redundancy 16 years late, but they got no compensation for the loss of their jobs, their future and their industry. Had it been realised in 1976 when they lost their jobs that they were not in fact casual, they would have got compensation for their jobs at that time, as car workers, steel workers and miners did. The trawlermen would not have had to cash their pathetic pensions just to survive.
  Distant water fishing was the only British industry that was run down without any compensation at all for those who worked in it. There was lavish compensation for the owners, running into millions. The owners hit the jackpot, but the fishermen did not even get the lemons to put on the soles, as a result of the death of that industry. It is a scandal for which we can now make only partial reparation, but we should make it by paying them compensation on the terms set out by the British Fishermen's Association. That will pay our debt to those who suffer still from the industrial diseases of fishing— dermatitis, white skin, weeping scabs, arthritis, injuries, loss of limbs and loss of fingers—which were deemed then in fishing to be acts of God, not grounds for compensation.
  We can pay our debt to those who lost their pensions because they had to withdraw the money, as they had nothing else to exist on when they lost their jobs. If they did not work again, as many did not, they were not able to accumulate a SERPS pension to comfort them in old age, so they are now relegated to poverty in old age as a result.
  By paying compensation, as we must, we can pay our debt to those who worked in Britain's most dangerous industry, where death and injury were their constant companions as they did Britain's business in great and distant waters.
  I can tell my hon. Friend the Minister that in 20 years of fighting the case, I have heard all the excuses. They do not wash. The men were employed, not casual workers. As such, they had a right to compensation, which we should pay now and fulfil our moral responsibility to them a quarter of a century late. They were treated appallingly. We owe them decent treatment and justice. We must pay them what they are owed.
  12.9 am
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, West and Hessle (Mr. Johnson) on securing tonight's debate, and on the way in which he and my hon. Friends the Members for Cleethorpes (Shona Mclsaac), for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) and for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) have argued the case on behalf of the fishermen whom they represent in their constituencies.
  152
  The importance of the debate is reflected by the fact that my hon. Friends the Members for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman), for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey), for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard), for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Quinn), for Tynemouth (Mr. Campbell) and for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden), and the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George) are present. I am surprised that no Member of the official Opposition is present to listen to this important debate.
  I and my colleagues in other Departments responsible for the fishing industry naturally have a great deal of sympathy with the situation of the fishermen who lost their jobs as a result of the loss of fishing opportunities when the United Kingdom was excluded from Icelandic fishing grounds 20 years ago. Indeed, I moved to Hull as a student in 1971, when the fishing fleet was at its peak.
  We fully appreciate the extremely arduous conditions that the people concerned had to face in what was then, and still remains, one of the most difficult and demanding ways of earning a living. We are also conscious of the role of the industry in providing a much valued element of the nation's diet and the wider contribution that many seafarers have made to the defence of the nation's interests, which my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, West and Hessle rightly pointed out.
  The role of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in the events following the loss of the Icelandic fishing grounds was in making payments to vessel owners as direct compensation for the loss of fishing opportunities. There is no surviving evidence that any enforceable conditions were attached to those payments. As has been said, owners were free to use that compensation as they chose.
  A decommissioning scheme was operated between 1983 and 1986 under which a number of the vessel owners who were affected received payment for decommissioning or for converting their vessels to oil support vessels, but there were certainly no requirements at all on participating owners to make any part of their grant available to the former crews of those vessels. That could certainly be criticised, but it was part of the regulations at the time.
  I should also correct my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, West and Hessle: there has been no payment of £30 million to Spanish trawlermen in respect of the loss of fishing opportunities. That matter is still being pursued through the courts and the Government have not conceded any liability at this time.
  Considerable time has elapsed since those payments were made and there is no evidence that the legitimate initial recipients acted improperly in any way. However, it is clearly possible to continue to debate the question whether the policy was correct, particularly in the light of the knowledge that we now have about the subsequent evolution of the fishing industry, and the National Audit Office was critical of the later decommissioning scheme and the way that that money was used at that time.
  In respect of compensating the crews of the vessels, it was always intended that those payments would be a matter for employment rather than fisheries policy. In his statement to the House on 28 June 1976, Fred Peart, the then Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food made it

  153
  quite clear that the question of redundancy payments to the people affected was not a matter for his Department. He said:
  "On redundancy, I cannot be more specific: that will be a matter for the Department of Employment. It will have to identify the people affected, but it has been agreed in principle that a special scheme will be needed."—[Official Report, 28 June 1976; Vol. 914, c. 30.]
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hull, West and Hessle has already pointed that out.
  Those responsibilities, which formerly lay with the Department of Employment, rest with the Department of Trade and Industry. Thus it is clear that any question of redundancy payments to trawlermen has always been considered as a question of employment policy rather than one for Fisheries Ministers.
  154
  Consequently, although I and my ministerial colleagues in MAFF stand ready to play our part in responding to the case that has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, West and Hessle and my hon. Friends, the final decision on whether to meet the trawlermen's claims is ultimately one for my ministerial colleagues at the DTI. However, I will convey to them the depth of feeling within the House and that which I know exists in the communities affected. I will also convey the strength of feeling that has been so clearly articulated by those hon. Members who have spoken in the debate. I might add that I fully share and support those feelings.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at thirteen minutes past Twelve midnight.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Economic and Monetary Union
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those hon. Members who are planned to go, or have been, to Sweden to lecture on the single currency and EMU for the British Council. [75130]

  Mr. Fatchett
  I understand from the British Council that no hon. Members have travelled to Sweden to lecture on the Council's behalf on the single currency and EMU. The Council is organising a conference in Sweden later this month with the title "Outside EMU—North European Perspectives" at which the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) will speak.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the ministerial visits made to(a) Argentina and (b) Taiwan in 1998. [75020]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  (a) There were six ministerial visits to Argentina in 1998. These were as follows:
  The Minister for Sport visited Argentina from 26 to 28 March in connection with the World Cup 2006 campaign.
  The Minister for Education and Employment visited from 18 to 21 April in connection with educational co-operation.
  The Minister for Transport in London visited from 12 to 14 July in connection with transport co-operation.
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), visited from 2 to 4 August to discuss bilateral relations.
  The Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the Minister for the Environment visited from 10 to 13 November for the Climate Control Conference.

  (b) The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office visited Taiwan privately from 14 to 20 February 1998, at the invitation of the British Chamber of Commerce in Taipei, in connection with inward investment opportunities.

  Ambassadors and High Commissioners
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many ambassadors and high commissioners there are; how many of them(a) are women, (b) are members of ethnic minorities, (c) have Oxbridge degrees and (d) were educated at public schools; and if he will make a statement. [74880]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  As of 1 March 1999 there were 148 Ambassadors and High Commissioners and High Commissioners/Ambassadors designate. Seven are women. None are members of ethnic minorities. Eighty-four have degrees from Oxford or Cambridge 2
  universities. Information on the schools they attended is incomplete but at least sixty were educated at private schools and at least fifty-eight were educated at state schools.

  Western Sahara
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects the UN to be able to conduct a referendum on the future of the Western Sahara. [74872]

  Mr. Fatchett
  In his report of 11 December 1998 the UN Secretary-General stated that it is the United Nations' intention to hold the referendum in the Western Sahara in December 1999, provided that it receives full co-operation from the parties involved. We fully support the UN in its efforts to achieve this goal and hope that this deadline will be met.

  Sierra Leone
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the EU member states that are assessing the need to provide extra funds to Sierra Leone; when he requested them to do so; and what form the invitation took. [75482]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The new £ 10 million package of British assistance to Sierra Leone was announced by the Foreign Secretary on 2 March 1999,Official Report, columns 895–96. On the same day, we instructed our Embassies and High Commissions to invite not just our partners in the European Union, but around the world, to play their part. Support from other donors could include direct support for ECOMOG, for the Government of Sierra Leone, or for humanitarian or other assistance

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he took the decision to commit up to an additional £ 10 million from the reserve for Sierra Leone; and over what period of time the sum will be spent. [75481]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The request from the Foreign Secretary for a contribution from the reserve for Sierra Leone was approved by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 18 February. We are inviting others in the international community to follow our lead in providing support to Sierra Leone; the £10 million will be spent as we receive matching new pledges from them.

  Rambouillet Talks
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to the answer of 1 March 1999, Official Report, column 605, for what reasons President Milosevic was not invited to join the Rambouillet talks. [75485]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The invitation allowed both sides to nominate their representatives at Rambouillet. It is a matter for the Federal Yugoslav and Serbian Governments as to why President Milosevic was not a member of their delegation.
  3

  Africa
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the representatives of the Governments of(a) Angola, (b) Zimbabwe, (c) Namibia, (d) Uganda, (e) the Democratic Republic of Congo and (f) South Africa whom the Minister of State met on his recent visits to the region, indicating the dates of the meetings. [75479]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  As the Prime Minister's Special Envoy I visited the Democratic Republic of the Congo and other African countries directly or indirectly involved in the conflict from 22–26 February to assess progress in African mediation efforts and to explore what more Britain and the international community may be able to do to support these. I met(a) Deputy Foreign Minister Miranda (24 February), (b) President Mugabe (25 February), (c) Prime Minister Geingob (24 February), (d) President Museveni (26 February), (e) President Kabila (23 February) and (f) Deputy Foreign Minister Pahad (22 February). I also met President Bizimungu and Vice President Kagame of Rwanda (25 February) and the Secretary General of the OAU (26 February).

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those(a) British citizens and (b) British citizens with dual nationality who have been kidnapped in Africa from 1 January 1998 to date, together with (i) the date of the kidnap, (ii) the identity, or suspected identity, of the kidnappers and (iii) the outcome of the kidnaps. [75484]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Not all kidnappings of British nationals are reported. However, to our knowledge, the following kidnappings have taken place in Africa since 1 January 1998:On 10 March 1998, Lenard Holland and Barry Glover (both British nationals) were abducted by villagers in Warri, Nigeria, along with a US national. They were released unharmed on 12 March.
  On 14 April 1998, Gordon Hutchinson, Andrew Odell, Mark Edward and Grevill Moteran (British nationals) were held hostage by fellow oil workers in Nigeria. They were released after four days.
  On 11 August 1998, Douglas Kear (joint New Zealand/British national) was abducted, probably by Rwandan Interahamwe rebels, in the eastern Democractic Republic of Congo, along with two Swedes and a Canadian. The Canadian was released on 18 August. The fate of the other three remains unknown.
  On 6 October 1998, Pierre de School-Meester (British national) was abducted by pirates from a ship off the Delta State Coast, Nigeria. He was released unharmed on 12 October 1998.
  On 8 November 1998, following a UNITA attack on a diamond mine in north-east Angola in which two British nationals were killed, Jason Pope (British national) was abducted along with a South African, two Filipinos and several Angolans. Their fate remains unknown.
  On 10 November 1998, Peter John Holgate (British national) was taken hostage with seven other oil rig workers by Ijaw youths in Bayelsa State, Nigeria. All eight were released unharmed on 17 November 1998.
  On 9 February 1999, Jim Simpson (British national) was abducted by local youths in Warri, Nigeria, along with an Italian and a Nigerian. He was released unharmed on 17 February.
  On 15 February 1999, Martin Westbury and his young son Benjamin (both British nationals) were abducted by armed youths in Warri, Nigeria. They were released unharmed on the same day.
  4
  On 1 March 1999, Joanne Cotton, Steve Roberts, Mark Lindgren, Martin Friend, Gary Tappenden (all British nationals and Mark Avis (joint New Zealand/British national) were abducted by Rwandan Interahamwe rebels in Bwindi National Park, western Uganda, along with a number of other Western tourists. Gary Tappenden and Mark Avis found their way to safety; the other four were murdered by their abductors, along with four US and New Zealand tourists.
  On 3 March 1999, Ian Lane (British national) was abducted by armed men in Warri, Nigeria. The case has not yet been resolved.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations were made to the Minister of State during his recent visit to Africa concerning the targeting by the Interahamwe of(a) British and (b) American citizens. [75480]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  None.

  Uganda
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations his Department received from the Government of Uganda concerning travel advice between 1 January 1998 and 1 March 1999. [75487]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  None.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to assist the Ugandan authorities in their investigation into the murders and kidnappings at Bwindi National Park. [75483]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The Ugandan President has promised us a full report on this tragic incident. A British police team arrived in Uganda on 5 March to assist the Ugandan authorities with their investigation.

  Nigeria
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the President-elect of Nigeria following his announcement of the intention to withdraw Nigeria's peace keeping troops from Sierra Leone. [75477]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will visit Nigeria on 8 and 9 March. In his discussions with President-elect Obasanjo, the Foreign Secretary will pay tribute to the efforts which Nigeria is making to help provide security in Sierra Leone; and will stress the support which Britain is giving to ECOMOG to help it consolidate the security situation.

  Rotherham Euro Experiment
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 22 February 1999,Official Report, column 192, on the Rotherham Euro Experiment, what role (a) ministers and (b) officials in his Department played in locating sponsors for the Rotherham Euro Experiment. [74491]

  Ms Quin
  (a) None. (b) None.
  5

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Environment Council
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the issues for discussion before the Environment Council of 11 and 12 March, indicating the position he proposes to take on each issue. [72738]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 24 February 1999]: The following issues will be debated in Brussels on 11–12 March:
  Community strategy on climate change: Council conclusions.
  Amended proposal for a Council Directive establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy: Common position.
  Proposal for a Council Directive on end-of-life vehicles: Common position.
  Community strategy to reduce C02 emissions from private cars— Commission negotiations with car manufacturers which are not members of ACEA: Council conclusions.
  Proposal for a Council Directive amending Directive 88/609/EEC, on the limitation of emissions of certain pollutants into the air from large combustion plants: Policy debate.
  Proposal for a Council Directive on the incineration of waste: Progress report.

  It has not been the practice of successive Administrations to indicate the position Ministers propose to take in advance of Council.

  Completion date

  Highway scheme

  Planned completion

  Actual completion

  Original works budget £ million (1992)

  Spend to date (million)

  Contract A: Fore Street Underpass

  31 December 1997

  4 December 1998 (Tunnel—16 July 1998)

  56.6

  62.0

  Contract B: Angel Road Viaduct

  16 January 1996

  28 November 1996

  31.4

  39.6

  Contract C: Lea Valley Viaduct

  14 November 1995

  22 August 1996

  32.7

  39.4

  Total

  120.7

  141.0

  Notes:

  1.All figures are exclusive of VAT

  Figures include the cost of work,statutory undertakers, variations of price and contingencies They exclude Traffic control systems Unit (TCSU),Preparation and Supervision (P & S) and Land costs.

  Departmental Websites
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions for what reason the current running cost estimate of the Environmental Protection Agency website is projected to rise to £ 1,000,000 in the year 2000–01. [74007]

  Mr. Meacher
  I am advised by the Environment Protection Agency that the estimated cost of running its website is projected to increase from £ 25,000 in 1998–99 to £ 100,000 in 2000–01. This estimate is based on current growth rates, comparisons with the US Environmental Protection Agency and costs of other internet services.
  6

  North Circular Road
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what were the(a) budgeted cost and (b) total final cost for the three contracts to extend the North Circular Road (A406) at the junction of Fore Street, N18 (A1010) extending eastwards to the boundary of the London Borough of Enfield; on what date each contract was to be completed and when they were actually completed; and if he will make a statement. [74202]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I have asked the Chief Executive of the Highway Agency, Mr. Lawrie Haynes, to write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Peter Nutt to Mr. Andrew Love, dated 8 March 1999:
  The Minister for Transport in London, has asked Lawrie Haynes, the Chief Executive of the Highways Agency, to reply to your recent parliamentary Question about the improvements to the A406 between Fore Street and Hall Lane. I am replying in Lawrie's absence from the office.
  The information you asked for is in the attached table except for the information on the final cost of each of the three contracts. I am afraid it is not possible to provide this until the final accounts have been settled. I have therefore provided figures of the spend to date.
  The delays in completing what were highly complex improvements to the A406, particularly at Fore Street, are regretted, but as you know, they were largely due to the contractors encountering unforeseen ground conditions. There were also difficulties installing the specialist mechanical and electrical equipment necessary for safety in the tunnel.
  However, the improved road between Fore Street and Hall Lane now means that traffic on the A406 is able to run much more freely. It no longer has to compete with local traffic at the Fore Street, Angel Road and Lea Valley junctions, thus reducing congestion and delays to all road users. This coupled with the extensive landscaping we have carried out means that local people who live and work in the area can now enjoy a much safer, healthier and more attractive environment.

  The figure of £1000000+ is a rough and untested estimate of the cost in 2000–01 were the Agency to develop its information systems and business processes to provide a range of electronic services including electronic handling of 25℅ of licence applications and access to public registers. It is being considered alongside competing priorities but has not yet been subject to critical business assessment and does not feature in the Agency's current financial plans

  European Commission on the Regions
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will deposit
  7
  in the Library a copy of the report of the April 1998 Conference organised at Brighton by the European Commission on the Regions. [74443]

  Mr. Caborn
  I regret that the Department was unable to determine from the Question which conference the right hon. Member has in mind. If he would like to write with further details, I would be happy to consider his request further.

  Supermarket Sites
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many supermarkets have been granted planning permission as a result of a planning inquiry or appeal since May 1997 on (i) out of town, (ii) green-field, (iii) town centre and (iv) brown-field sites. [74556]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Since May 1997 planning permission has been granted, as a result of a planning inquiry or appeal, in respect of ten supermarkets. Of these, none were out-of-town or on green-field sites, six were in town or district centres and the remaining four were out-of-centre, but within the urban area on brown-field sites.

  Trunk Road Network
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will announce his decision on the extent of the core trunk road network following consultation on his paper, "Roads Review: Implementation of Detrunking Proposals". [74720]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Responses from regional planning bodies, local authorities and others are being considered. We will announce a final decision on the extent of the core network as soon as possible.

  Rail Links
  Mr. Linton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he plans to consider(a) the order application for the link from London Underground's East London Line to Railtrack's South London Line and (b) the funding application for the southern link and the northern extension to the North London Line; and if he will assess the benefits of creating an orbital rail network for London. [74624]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Deputy Prime Minister gave permission for London Underground last August to do preparatory work for securing the legal powers necessary to build the southern extension to the East London Line. This work would need to be completed before an order application could be lodged.

  London Transport and the Department are considering a number of ways in which both the Northern and Southern Extensions might be funded. Any appraisal of the extensions will take into account the benefit of establishing orbital railway links.

  Planning Applications
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many 8
  applications for consideration of planning applications by public inquiry have been received by him since May 1997. [74536]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Comprehensive records are not kept centrally of requests to my right hon. Friend to call in planning applications. However, of those called in in the period 1 May 1997 to 31 December 1998, 239 applications have been or are due to be considered at a public inquiry.

  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many planning applications have been called in by him since May 1997. [74535]

  Mr. Raynsford
  For the 20 months from 1 May 1997 to 31 December 1998, my right hon. Friend called in some 246 planning applications.

  Self-financing Trading Operations
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will(a) list and (b) estimate for each of the past three years applications by local authorities in England and Wales for trading credit approvals or other borrowing requirements for the development and maintenance of self-financing trading operations other than airports. [74702]

  Ms Armstrong
  In the last three years my Department has received a large number of applications for extra credit approvals for a wide range of purposes, including for Trading Credit Approvals (TCAs) for self-financing schemes. Owing to the constraints on my Department's resources, such requests could only be approved in the most exceptional circumstances. Local government in Wales is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will estimate the effect on the Public Sector borrowing requirement for 1999–2000 of approving all applications by local authorities in England and Wales for trading credit approvals or other borrowing requirements for the development and maintenance of self-financing trading operations other than airports for that period. [74703]

  Ms Armstrong
  Local authority applications for Trading Credit Approvals (TCAs) can be made at any time of the year and therefore it would not be possible to estimate the amount of requests for TCAs my Department might receive in 1999–2000 or future years. Were an application to be successful the PSBR for 1999–2000 would be expected to increase by the amount of the credit approval issued. Local government in Wales is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Advance Corporation Tax
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if he will estimate the financial impact of the changes made to advance corporation tax since May 1997 on local authority budgets for 1999–2000; [74948]

  (2) if he will estimate the cost per council tax payer for 1999–2000 by local authority of the changes to advance corporation tax introduced since 1 May 1997. [74947]
  9
  Ms Armstrong
  Actuarial assessments of the impact on local authority pension funds as a result of changes to advance corporation tax are not yet available for all funds. The Local Government Association, following a national survey last year, estimated the impact at £ 130 million. This was taken into account in the Revenue Support Grant Settlement for 1999–2000. It is not possible to say how these changes will impact on council tax. Local authorities will need to take into account all the relevant local circumstances in deciding on budgets and hence council taxes.

  Sorting Office, Feltham
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he proposes to report on the planning application for a Royal Mail sorting office on the Feltham Marshalling yards site. [74886]

  Mr. Caborn
  We have decided not to intervene on this planning application and have written to the local planning authority today to tell them that they can determine the application as they see fit.

  Merchant Ships
  Mr. Prosser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many merchant ships joined the United Kingdom register during the last year for which figures are available; and if he will indicate their(a) names and (b) previous flags. [74965]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  In 1998, 30 trading vessels of 100 gross tons and over joined the UK register. Their latest recorded names and previous flags are as follows:

  Name

  Previous flag

  Alexander

  not known

  Amandine

  Antigua & Barbuda

  Berge Hugin

  Norway

  Cape Sable

  Liberia

  Carole T.

  Barbados

  Clansman

  newbuilding

  Crear

  newbuilding

  Global Mariner

  Hong Kong

  Humber Fisher

  newbuilding

  Janet C.

  Barbados

  Johanna C.

  Barbados

  Loch Rannoch

  newbuilding

  Maersk Cotonou

  Isle of Man

  Mersey Fisher

  newbuilding

  Milford Fisher

  newbuilding

  Olaf

  Norway

  P & O Nedlloyd Genoa

  Liberia

  P&O Nedlloyd Kobe

  newbuilding

  P&O Nedlloyd Marseille

  Liberia

  P&O Nedlloyd Southampton

  newbuilding

  P&O Stena Elite

  Bahamas

  Red Jet 3

  newbuilding

  Sea Centurion

  Sweden

  Seacat Scotland

  Uruguay

  Solent Fisher

  newbuilding

  Stena Fantasia

  Bahamas

  Stena Lynx

  Bahamas

  Tor Gothia

  Sweden

  Tor Hollandia

  Sweden

  Wightstone

  Honduras

  Source:

  Lloyd's Maritime Information Services Ltd.

  Development Projects
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the development projects involving sites larger than one hectare in the South East which he has called in the past year. [75499]

  Mr. Raynsford
  In the period from 1 March 1998 to 28 February 1999 the Secretary of State has called-in 20 planning applications involving sites larger than one hectare in the South East. These are as follows:

  Extension of a quarry and new cement works at Holborough Quarry, Snodland, Kent;

  Leisure development at Stone Lodge, Dartford, Kent;

  Conversion of a house and outbuildings to residential units, North Frith, Tonbridge, Kent;

  Development of land for bagging and storing topsoil at Honeypot Farm, Edenbridge, Kent;

  Leisure development at site of High School for Girls, Chichester, West Sussex;

  Housing development at Newdigate, Surrey;

  Retail, leisure and restaurant development at land to the west of Park Street, Camberley, Surrey;

  Mixed-use development including retail, leisure, restaurant and cinema at land to the north of Obelisk Way, Camberley, Surrey;

  Extension to Nuffield Priory Hotel, Nuffield, Surrey;

  Multiplex cinema, Port Solent, Paulsgrove, Portsmouth, Hampshire;

  Foodstore, Bordon Motors site, Bordon, Hampshire;

  Foodstore, Southampton Road, Paulsgrove, Portsmouth, Hampshire;

  Storm Water Screen House, Fort Cumberland, Portsmouth, Hampshire;

  Retail warehouse and restaurant, Churchill Way West, Basingstoke, Hampshire;

  Two proposals for the redevelopment of Bracknell town centre, Berkshire;

  Housing development, Grazeley, Wokingham, Berkshire;

  Housing development, Spencers Wood, Wokingham, Berkshire;

  Park and ride, Grain Silo, Cherwell, Oxon;

  Multiplex cinema, Abingdon, Oxon.

  Green Ministers
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the team of Green Ministers last met; what was discussed; and which departments were represented by officials. [75089]

  Mr. Meacher
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 8 December 1998,Official Report, column 131, and also to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) on 25 November 1998, Official Report, column 5. Those replies related to the last meeting of Green Ministers on 18 November 1998. The next meeting is scheduled for 22 March 1999.

  Cycle Paths
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the Government's policy in respect of the use of cycle paths by invalid scooters. [75104]
  11
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Cycle tracks and mandatory cycle lanes are not generally available to invalid carriages, although advisory cycle lanes can by used. Local authorities can permit the use of Class 3 invalid carriages (those capable of a maximum speed of 4 mph on the footway and 8 mph on the carriageway) on mandatory cycle lanes.

  Genetically Modified Crops
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how crops grown in genetically modified crop trials are disposed of where the subsequent foods or food ingredients do not meet the requirements that would allow them to enter the food chain. [75112]

  Mr. Meacher
  The method of disposal is specified in each consent to release genetically modified crops. Methods for disposal include landfill, incineration, or autoclave. In addition to these methods, non-regenerative material may be disposed of by maceration or chemical treatment at the trial site and subsequent incorporation into the soil at the trial site.

  Business Rates
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what powers are available to local authorities to encourage businesses to move to their areas through the waiving or reduction of business rates; and if he will make a statement. [75008]

  Ms Armstrong
  Local authorities do not have the power to waive or reduce business rates to attract businesses to their areas. However, we have proposed in the White Paper "Modern Local Government: In Touch with the People" (July 1998) a measure of local discretion over the business rate, which would allow an authority to grant a rebate to all of its ratepayers, though the cost of that rebate would have to be met by the authority. We shall shortly be issuing a public consultation paper on the details of implementing the White Paper proposals on rates.

  Local Government Reform
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to make changes to the function and composition of local councils. [75075]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Our plans for the modernisation of local government are set out in the White Paper "Modern Local Government: In Touch with the People" published in July 1998. This is a programme for change stretching for ten years or more. The Local Government Bill (which provides for the replacement of Compulsory Competitive Tendering with the new duty to achieve best value in providing local services, and also abolishes crude and universal capping) completed its Committee stage in the House of Commons on 25 February. Our proposals to transform the political management and ethical framework of councils will be published soon in a draft Bill, and other measures will follow.
  12

  Local Authority Housing
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will announce the results of the consultation exercise on the proposed incentive for local authorities to buy back ex-council flats and houses. [75707]

  Ms Armstrong
  Around 200,000 people in England have bought a council flat, mainly under the Right to Buy. Research shows that the great majority consider it good value for money. But some, especially in system-built flats, cannot afford the costs of maintenance. Some cannot re-sell their home—either because they cannot find a buyer, or because mortgage lenders refuse to give a loan.

  The Government already provide financial help to councils to reduce high repair bills in flats. But some people—including some older people on low incomes— can no longer cope with the cost and strain of home ownership. Local authorities have powers to buy back housing, but their resources are limited, and they have other pressures. Last July we published a consultation paper offering to cover 25 per cent.of councils' costs.

  Many respondents were concerned that the incentive offered was too small. We have therefore increased it to 35 per cent.of all costs incurred by a council above a threshold of £50,000 per council per year. This will target help on those areas with the greatest problems. We have also extended it in other ways—for example, to cover homes already bought back during 1998–99, and to include former New Town housing.

  In addition to this incentive, when a council buys back a property it regains a capital asset which, sooner or later, it can re-let. It also reduces the costs of managing its leasehold property including, for example, trying to recover arrears of service charges. And in some cases, such as buying from an elderly or vulnerable person in arrears, the council will be helping someone whom it might otherwise have to re-house.

  Local authorities are best placed to decide who needs their help. They will be free to decide whom to assist and on what terms. there are just two restrictions: the incentive only applies where they are buying from an individual, and where they are not using compulsory purchase powers. This limits the incentive to cases there occupants wish to sell their home.

  We have today laid an Order before Parliament amending regulation 104 of the Local Authorities (Capital Finance) Regulations 1997. Subject to Parliamentary approval, this will come into force on 1 April and councils will then be able to use the financial incentive. A copy of the consultation paper, and a list of the responses, is in the Library of the House, and copies of the responses are available in the Library of the Department.

PRIME MINISTER

  Minister for Science
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Prime Minister what instructions he has issued relating to the Minister for Science's attendance at, or participation in, meetings where genetically modified foods and crops are discussed. [73026]
  13
  The Prime Minister
  It has not been necessary to issue any such instructions.

  At all times the Minister for Science has acted in accordance with the rules set out in the Ministerial Code and the statement he made at the time he became a Minister.

  Train Operating Companies
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral answer of 24 February 1999,Official Report, column 383, what criteria he uses to evaluate the (a) quality of service and (b) customer satisfaction provided by train operating companies. [74153]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 2 March 1999]: Quality and customer satisfaction are currently measured against benchmarks in passengers' Charters and franchise agreements. As I made clear at the Rail Summit on 25 February, this Government are committed to improving the quality of rail services, and believes that transport generally is as important as schools and hospitals.

  The Summit demonstrated our determination to improve rail services. Sir Alastair Morton, as the new Chairman of the British Railways Board and prospective Chairman of the Strategic Rail Authority, will have a key role in raising standards and boosting investment. We also made clear that we need better measurements of quality and customer satisfaction.

  Single Currency
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on procedures for(a) democratic accountability and (b) official representations on economic management permitted from (i) national Governments and (ii) parliamentarians from countries within the euro zone, concerning management of the single currency; and what analysis he has made of such in determining whether the United Kingdom should join EMU. [74446]

  The Prime Minister
  Article 109b(3) of the Maastricht Treaty contains several provisions designed to balance the necessary independence of the European Central Bank with the need for democratic accountability. The Government believe that accountability and transparency in their policy-making will be key to ensuring that the European Central Bank gains the trust of the European public and financial markets. Ultimately, it will help to provide the credibility needed to deliver a more effective monetary policy.

  Euro
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Prime Minister what estimate he has made of total costs to(a) public services and (b) government departments of preparations for transition to the euro; and if he will make a statement. [74499]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) on 1 March 1999,Official Report, column 529.

  Racism
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Prime Minister what arrangements are being proposed to guard against 14
  institutional racism in the public sector as a whole, with particular reference to new tests, guidelines and monitoring arrangements; and if he will make a statement. [75136]

  The Prime Minister
  The Government have accepted the definition of institutional racism set out in the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry Report and have welcomed the Report's recommendations. A detailed response and action plan will be laid before the House in time for the debate on the Report.

  As my right hon. Friend made clear in his statement to the House on 24 February 1999, Official Report, columns 389–403 the Report is a challenge to all public services and the Government are committed to a comprehensive agenda to improve race relations which will set out over the coming months. This will include extending the Race Relations Act 1976 to cover public services.

  Newspaper Articles
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will arrange for copies of articles which he writes for publication in overseas journals and newspapers to be deposited in the Library, together with a translation. [75051]

  The Prime Minister
  No central store is routinely kept of such articles and it would not be practical to make systematic arrangements to do so.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) what representations he has received from (i) foreign Governments, (ii) foreign agencies, (iii) foreign media and (iv) British lobbyists concerning potential writing of articles for placement in foreign newspapers and journals; [75050]

  (2) what representations he has received from overseas on articles which he has written in foreign newspapers and journals. [75049]

  The Prime Minister
  As far as I am aware, none.

  Geneva Trade and Environment Symposium
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister who will represent the British Government at the High Level Symposium on Trade and Environment in Geneva on 15 and 16 March 1999; what policy position the Government will be promoting; and if he will make a statement. [74869]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 5 March 1999]: We will be represented at the World Trade Organisation Symposium on Trade and Environment by senior officials from the Department of Trade and Industry, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the Department for International Development, and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. We expect the event to be an opportunity to work with other WTO members and representatives of non-governmental bodies, including business, to identify constructive ways ahead on the trade and environment interface.
  15
  The Symposium is not intended to be a forum for negotiation or decision-making, but we hope that the event will progress the trade and environment debate by helping to:
  Clarify the relationship between trade rules and international Environmental law;
  Identify mutually-beneficial solutions for achieving trade, environment and development objectives;
  Encourage further dialogue between all interested communities, in particular highlighting the importance of transparency at both the national and international level.

  The United Kingdom will engage constructively in the debate at the Symposium.

  Genetic Modification
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 1 March 1999,Official Report, column 527, on genetic modification, on what basis he stated that genetic modification has the potential for the production of food that is more nutritious and better tasting. [75061]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 5 March 1999]: This is the view of eminent scientific opinion. In its report on 'Genetically Modified Plants for Food Use' published in September 1998, the Royal Society say that
  'the use of genetically modified organisms has the potential to offer real benefits in agricultural practice, food quality, nutrition and health'.

  Biotechnology
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Prime Minister when he last met environmental groups with an interest in biotechnology; and who was present at the meeting. [75063]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 5 March 1999]: As under previous Administrations, it is not the normal practice to provide details of private meetings with specific individuals or organisations.

  UNSCOM
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister on what date he was informed that the American Government were running a signals intelligence operation under the cover of UNSCOM. [75408]

  The Prime Minister
  I am aware of the latest press allegations of the United States spying under cover of UNSCOM operations.

  The US Government have publicly stated that all activities by US nationals assigned to UNSCOM, and all information exchanges between the US and UNSCOM have been strictly in pursuit of UNSCOM's mandate to dismantle Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) capability.

  Lockerbie
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to the answer by the Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution of 23 February 1999,Official Report, column 212, on Lockerbie, if he will define which aspects of the Lockerbie issue will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament, and which for the UK Parliament. [75280]
  16
  The Prime Minister
  Scottish criminal procedure and the Scottish criminal justice system will be within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament. International relations will remain the responsibility of the United Kingdom Government.

  Lord Chancellor (Garrick Club)
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Prime Minister what action he has taken in respect of the Lord Chancellor's use of his private office to promote a candidate for membership of the Garrick Club. [75153]

  The Prime Minister
  None. The Lord Chancellor did not use his Private Office to promote a candidate for membership of the Garrick Club. His Private Office was involved in preparing and despatching some letters on the Lord Chancellor's behalf. This was an oversight and the costs have been reimbursed.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Paramilitary Violence
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list for the week ended Saturday 6 February the number of(a) violent incidents involving paramilitary groups, (b) punishment beatings and (c) punishment shootings which took place in Northern Ireland, indicating how many involved (i) Loyalist and (ii) Republican groups. [70902]

  Mr. Ingram
  Between 31 January and 6 February 1999, there were 4 shooting incidents and 1 bombing incident. The number of casualties as a result of paramilitary-style attacks were as follows:

  By Loyalists

  By Republicans

  Assaults

  2

  1

  Shootings

  1

  1

  Total

  3

  2

  Note:

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

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list for the week ended Saturday 30 January the number of(a) violent incidents involving paramilitary groups, (b) punishment beatings and (c) punishment shootings which took place in Northern Ireland, indicating how many involved (i) Loyalist and (ii) Republican groups. [70901]

  Mr. Ingram
  Between 24 and 30 January 1999, there were 4 shooting and 2 bombing incidents. The number of casualties as a result of paramilitary-style attacks were as follows:

  By Loyalists

  By Republicans

  Assaults

  7

  4

  Shootings

  1

  2

  Total

  8

  6

  Note:

  Figures may be subject to minor amendment in the light of further information becoming available
  17
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list those incidents of violence attributed to Loyalist paramilitary groups which have occurred in 1999 to date. [71379]

  Mr. Ingram
  The number of security incidents during 1999 to 24 February attributable to Loyalists are as follows:

  1999 To 24 February

  Deaths

  0

  Shootings

  13

  Bombings

  11

  Note:

  These figures are subject to amendment

  Casualties as a result of paramilitary style shootings/assaults

  Loyalist

  Republican

  Shootings

  January

  6

  5

  February (24)

  6

  1

  Total

  12

  6

  Assaults

  January

  17

  12

  February(24)

  12

  4

  Total

  29

  16

  Note:

  Figures are subject to minor amendment

  Good Friday Agreement
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the timetable for normalising security in Northern Ireland under the Good Friday Agreement. [71399]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Government will make progress towards the objective of as early a return as possible to normal security arrangements in Northern Ireland, consistent with the level of threat. The situation is kept under constant review.

  Graffiti
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the cost was to the public purse in each of the past five years to clean up graffiti on public buildings in Northern Ireland. [72912]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  This information is not recorded in the form requested and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Pilot Projects
  Yvette Cooper
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport 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. [72636]
  18
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The Department is funding five pilot schemes to promote the voluntary recording of archaeological finds in Kent, Norfolk, North Lincolnshire, the North-West and Yorkshire for two and a half years from September 1997 to April 2000.

  Departmental Policies
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what systems he has in place to ensure that policies being developed by his Department are subject to a crime impact(a) assessment and (b) audit and are not likely to lead to enhanced criminal opportunities. [72694]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  [holding answer 24 February 1999]: Departments co-operate on policy development and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State works closely with other Ministers in assessing any likely implications for crime of new developments, in support of the Home Office's aim to reduce crime and the fear of it.

  The procedures for crime assessment and audit vary across the Department's responsibilities. Where a policy is assessed as carrying some risk, for example where grants are made to third parties, specific systems are in place. Relevant sponsored bodies such as the national museums and galleries, Historic Royal Palaces, and English Heritage have security systems to guard against theft and criminal damage and we expect our sponsored bodies to keep these systems under review, to ensure they are appropriately effective in developing circumstances. The Department and its sponsored bodies have fraud policies in place and the Department has developed a checklist of key controls to prevent, detect and investigate fraud and deal with its consequences. The Department is committed to producing an annual fraud return to the Treasury's timetable each year.

  From this year onwards, Departmental and NDPB Accounting Officers will be required to prepare statements on the system of internal financial control which operates in their organisations, including risk management. In preparation for this, my Department is about to pilot Control and Risk Self Assessment (CRSA) techniques in a number of policy areas.

  The National Lottery regulator also has systems to ensure that those associated with the running of the National Lottery are fit and proper for their role and to monitor the effectiveness of the operator's systems to guard against crime including fraud.

  British Airways
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when he last met representatives of British Airways; what was discussed; what help his Department is receiving from British Airways and if British Airways is financially sponsoring initiatives run by his Department or its agencies. [72810]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 24 February 1999]: I have no formal meetings with representatives of British Airways in that capacity. From time to time, however, both as Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and as Chairman of the Millennium Commission, I have

  19
  met Bob Ayling, the Chief Executive of British Airways, in his capacity as Chairman of the New Millennium Experience Company.

  Neither my Department nor The Royal Parks Agency is receiving any help or financial sponsorship from British Airways. However, British Airways has for some years been providing financial sponsorship for the Art for Architecture scheme, for which my Department is the core-funder.

  UK Sports Institute
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport on what dates he has visited the headquarters site of the UK Sports Institute since December 1997. [73563]

  Mr. Banks
  [holding answer 26 February 1999]: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I visited the Sheffield headquarters site of the UKSI on 26 January 1998 and I returned for a second visit on 18 June. We have had several meetings with the UKSC, ESC, Sheffield City Council and the Phoenix consortium throughout this development period to track progress; the most recent one took place on 26 January this year. I will be visiting the site again in April.

  Libraries
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what advice is given by his Department on the provision of locally available, accessible libraries. [73161]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  [holding answer 1 March 1999]: Local library authorities have a statutory duty to provide comprehensive and efficient services and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has recently reminded them of his own statutory obligation to ensure that they do so. The Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964 does not specify the number, location, distribution or opening hours of local libraries. These detailed decisions are for local library authorities to make, based on the precise nature of their areas and their local resources and priorities. However, through their Annual Library Plans, library authorities are required by my right hon. Friend to report on the availability and accessibility of local libraries, which is a key element in ensuring that a comprehensive and efficient service is being provided, and he subsequently provides both individual and general feedback to each authority.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations he has received concerning the future of Kilburn, Chalk Farm and Belsize public libraries in Camden; and if he will make a statement. [75186]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  [holding answer 5 March 1999]: To date, I have received 23 representations about these public libraries. I am looking at Camden's proposals for its library services in detail to ensure that they meet with statutory requirements and do not result in a reduction in service quality across the authority.

  Sports Cabinet
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list the members of the Sports Cabinet; and when it has met. [74558]
  20
  Mr. Banks
  [holding answer 4 March 1999]: The Sports Cabinet is chaired by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, and brings together the Ministers with responsibility for Sport in the four parts of the United Kingdom and, when appropriate, others who are closely involved in the development of sport.

  The Sports Cabinet last met on 26 November 1998 and is scheduled to meet next on 10 March. Officials of my Department have met their counterparts from the Home Country Departments on a number of occasions during this period and are in regular contact on a range of issues that relate to elite performance and of strategic priority for UK sport.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Biological Resources (Poorer Countries)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development in respect of their impact on poorer countries, what assessment her Department has made of the compatibility of Article 27 of TRIPS and Articles 8, 15 and 16 of the UN Convention on Biological Resources. [74844]

  Clare Short
  The World Trade Organisation Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement and the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) are complementary. They both seek to establish common international frameworks and obligations within which individual countries may develop legislative regimes appropriate to their circumstances.

  There are concerns about the way in which the two instruments can be implemented in a mutually supportive way. Given the interests of developing countries, many of which have indigenous and local communities which depend on local biodiversity for their livelihoods and welfare, we have funded an independent assessment of the implementation issues. This has been published and is being placed in the Library of the House.

  Articles 8, 15 and 16 of the CBD refer to the rights of indigenous people, access to genetic material and transfer of technology respectively. Article 27 of the TRIPS agreement deals with the application of intellectual property rights to plant and animal material. Regarding compatibility with Article 8 of the CBD on the rights of indigenous people, patents can protect only new technical contributions. Rights cannot be obtained which cover existing knowledge. Regarding Article 15 of the CBD on access to genetic material, it is for individual contracting States to the CBD to set the conditions for access and it is not a matter for TRIPS or intellectual property regimes. Regarding Article 16 of the CBD, both the CBD and the TRIPs agreement encourage the transfer of technology.

  Genetically Modified Organisms
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what representations she has received from developing countries on their attitude towards genetic modification issues; what assessment she has made of them; and if she will make a statement. [75105]
  21
  Clare Short
  I have received no direct representations on these issues. We will publish a paper later this month outlining our work on genetically modified organisms and how we propose to assist developing countries to strengthen their capacity to handle these important issues.

  Iran (Aid)
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the provision of aid to Iran. [75350]

  Clare Short
  We do not have a programme of assistance for Iran. We do provide support to Iraqi and Afghan refugees in Iran, both bilaterally and through contributions to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). Since April 1996, we have spent nearly £1.2 million bilaterally. We also provide emergency aid in response to natural disasters in the region.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Civil Aerospace Research
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what forms of Government support are available for civil aerospace research in(a) the United Kingdom, (b) France and (c) Germany; and what level of funding was provided by each in 1997–98. [74533]

  Mr. Battle
  In the UK, the Civil Aircraft Research and Technology Demonstration (CARAD) Programme supports long-term research in key aeronautics technologies by providing grants for industry and for funding work undertaken at the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) or placed by DERA in industry and universities. In 1997–8, funding totalled £24.6 million. Additionally, in the three years ending 1997–98, £12 million was targeted through the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council's (EPSRC) industrially led Innovative Manufacture Initiative (IMI) Aerospace Programme. For further information about the EPSRC programme, I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) on 7 December 1998,Official Report, columns 67–68.

  For France, our best estimate of expenditure in 1997 (calendar year) on CARAD—equivalent support is about £50 million. For Germany, our best estimate for 1998 (calendar year) is about £ 90 million.

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many companies and academic establishments have received funds through the CARAD programme in(a) 1997–98 and (b) 1998–99; what areas of research have been sponsored by the programme; and what assessment he has made of the benefits of the programme. [74532]

  Mr. Battle
  In 1997–98, 47 companies and 22 universities received CARAD funds; similar numbers are expected to receive funds for the financial year 1998–99. Areas of research sponsored include aerodynamics, propulsion systems, materials and structures, aircraft systems and rotorcraft (which was subject to a moratorium 22
  on new support from February 1998). Copies of the CARAD Annual Report for 1997–98 have been placed in the Library of the House.

  The research programmes supported by CARAD over the years have made a significant contribution to the technological competitiveness of our industry, including wider benefits outside aeronautics.

  Fire-retardant Chemicals
  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which fire retardant chemicals are authorised for use in consumer goods in the United Kingdom. [74956]

  Dr. Howells
  There is not an authorised list of flame-retardant chemicals used in consumer goods. The use of chemicals is governed by "The Chemical (Hazard Information and Packaging for Supply) Regulations 1994", as amended, and "The Dangerous Substances and Preparations (Safety) (Consolidation) Regulations 1994", as amended.

  A recent report by the University of Surrey for the Department of Trade and Industry on "Risks and Benefits in the Use of Flame Retardants in Consumer Products" gives an indication of the types and quantity of flame-retardant chemicals used in consumer products. A copy of this report is available in the Library.

  Researchers
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer of 21 January 1999,Official Report, column 547, on researchers, if he will make a statement on the outcome of the meeting of the new RCI steering group. [72896]

  Mr. Battle
  The new group has its first meeting on Thursday 18 March. I understand that the Minister for Science would be pleased to consider making a response to the meeting's outcome.

  Fireworks
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer of 22 February 1999,Official Report, column 89, when he expects to place the final firework safety figure for 1998 in the Library. [75183]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 5 March 1999]: A summary report of the 1998 injuries is being sent to the printers and copies will be placed in the Library of the House as soon as they are available. I will inform the House when this has been done. The full report, complete with analytical tables, should be available in mid-April and copies will be placed in the Library.

  Internal Market Council
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the outcome of the Internal Market Council held in Brussels on 25 February; and if he will make a statement. [74198]

  Mr. Wilson
  My noble Friend the Minister for Trade and Competitiveness in Europe represented the UK at the Internal Market Council in Brussels on 25 February.
  23
  The Commission introduced an open debate on the follow-up to the Single Market Action Plan since this expired at the end of 1998. There was general support for a follow-up which maintains political commitment by setting targets and deadlines for improving the operation of the Single Market, taking into account the needs of business and consumers. In an open debate on simplification, there was agreement that SLIM (Simpler Legislation in the Internal Market) was an important initiative, but more effort was required to deliver concrete results. The Council welcomed the Business Test Panel initiative, which is intended to improve consultation with business on the likely impact of selected legislative proposals.

  The Council agreed Conclusions on the economic reform process agreed at the Cardiff Council under the UK Presidency. These identify priority areas for further development of the Single Market and are also designed to assist ECOFIN in their consideration of Broad Economic Policy Guidelines. The Commission presented a study carried out by the National Economic Research Associates on parallel imports; a debate on this will take place at the June IMC.

  The Commission presented reports on: Community patents; a Green Paper on counterfeiting and piracy; and two directives on Third Country Nationals; and gave a progress report on Community design.

  Over lunch, Ministers discussed the environment and the Single Market, and the Artists' Resale Right Directive. The Presidency concluded that in view of the remaining difficulties some member states had with the proposed Directive on Artists' Resale Rights, COREPER should examine this further with the aim of reaching early agreement.

  Ente Poste Italiane
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has made, pursuant to European Communities State Aid Examination 1999/C 28/05, on Ente Poste Italiane; and if he will make a statement. [75083]

  Mr. Wilson
  My right hon. Friend has made no representations on this case. The Government intervene in cases only where substantive legal or policy issues are raised. The Commission has exclusive competence to take decisions on state aid.

  University Lecturers
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received on the ability of British university lecturers to find employment at French universities; and if he will make a statement. [74403]

  Mr. Wilson
  My Department has received no representations on this subject.

  Teachers
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received on the ability of British teachers to find teaching positions in German schools; and if he will make a statement. [74398]
  24
  Mr. Wilson
  Since 1 May 1997, my Department has received written representations from 10 teachers concerning difficulties involved in obtaining recognition in Germany of their UK Qualified Teacher Status.

  My officials have, where appropriate, taken up individual complaints with the German authorities and the European Commission, with a view to ensuring that Germany complies fully with its Single Market obligations in this respect. My officials also provide more general continuing advice, assistance and support to British-trained teachers in their dealings with the German authorities.

  Secondhand Goods (Sales)
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what(a) United Kingdom and (b) European legislation regulates the sale of secondhand goods; and if he will make a statement. [75010]

  Dr. Howells
  Consumers have the same rights in UK law when they buy secondhand goods as when they buy new ones. The Sale of Goods Act 1979 requires goods sold by traders to be of satisfactory quality. The test of quality is what a reasonable person would find satisfactory, taking into account the price, how the goods are described and other relevant factors such as age. If, taking account of these considerations, a buyer finds the goods are not of satisfactory quality when he initially examines or tries them out, he can reject them and seek a refund. If a fault, of which the buyer could not reasonably be unaware when he bought the goods, manifests itself after he has accepted the goods he is entitled to claim compensation (such as the cost of repair or money back). The buyer can claim compensation for up to six years after purchase in England, Wales and Northern Ireland and up to five years after the goods have caused loss in Scotland.

  Traders selling new or second hand goods must also comply with general consumer protection legislation, such as the Trade Descriptions Act 1968.

  The proposed EC Directive on the Sale of Consumer Goods, expected to be adopted later this year for implementation by 1 January 2002, applies to both second hand and new goods. If goods sold are not in conformity with the contract, the Directive will give consumers the remedies of repair or replacement whichever is more economical, in relation to defects, present when the goods were bought, for up to two years afterwards. The Directive gives additional remedies of price reduction or rescission of the contract when repair or replacement of faulty goods is not possible.

  In addition to Sale of Goods legislation, there is a considerable body of Community and domestic legislation setting out safety requirements for specific kinds of goods, including second hand goods.

  Unsolicited Faxes
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he plans to introduce legislation to prohibit the sending of unsolicited faxes. [75074]
  25
  Mr. Wills
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer to the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell) of 27 January 1999,Official Report, column 284.

  Plutonium Shipments (Japan)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer of 22 February 1999,Official Report, column 97, on plutonium shipments to Japan, when he expects the contracts for MOX shipments by BNFL to be signed; and what role his Department will play in the negotiations. [74972]

  Mr. Battle
  The timing and terms of contracts for the shipment of nuclear materials are linked to the operational and commercial requirements of customers and are matters for the companies concerned to agree. These are not matters in which the Government is directly involved.

  Ethical Trading Initiative
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) if he will make a statement on the actions his Department is taking to promote the Ethical Trading Initiative among UK companies; [75236]

  (2) what action his Department is taking to promote the establishment of internal systems in UK companies for the implementation and external verification of ethical practices. [75235]

  Mr. Wilson
  My Department has made it clear that, along with other interested departments, we fully support the aims of the Ethical Trading Initiative—as one of the important initiatives being taken currently by the voluntary sector—to promote a culture of social responsibility among British companies. We have enjoyed regular contacts, at both official and ministerial level, with the ETI and applaud their efforts to develop and promote corporate codes of conduct relating to companies' dealings with their overseas suppliers, and have given them all the support they have called for.

  Oil Exploration (St. Kilda)
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions his Department has had with the Scottish Office regarding the impact of oil exploration near St Kilda. [73929]

  Mr. Battle
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him on 2 March 1999,Official Report, columns 693–95.

  Genetic Resources Patenting
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what consultations he had with MAFF, the Department of Health and the Department for International Development on the formulation of Government policy on patenting genetic resources for food and agriculture. [74473]

  Mr. Battle
  The patenting of genetic resources for food and agriculture, as with all areas of technology, is governed by the Patents Act 1977. In July 1998, an EC Directive on the Legal Protection of Biotechnological Inventions was adopted with the aim of clarifying and harmonising the patent legislation of all Member States for such inventions. During the negotiations on this Directive my Department consulted closely with other 26
  Departments including MAFF, the Department of Health and the Department for International Development. These links have been maintained since the adoption of the Directive.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what official visits he, his ministers or officials have paid to Zimbabwe since May 1997; whom they met; and what was discussed. [73556]

  Mr. Straw
  No Ministerial visits have been paid to Zimbabwe over this period.

  One official visited Zimbabwe in August 1998 to assess a penal report project which the Department for International Development (DFID) had funded. He met senior Government legal officers and staff from non-governmental organisations.

  One official visited Harare in September 1997 and September and November 1998 to undertake carriers' liability training and made liaison visits to British Airways and Air Zimbabwe. Two Immigration Service officials paid similar visits to Air Zimbabwe in February 1999.

  One official provided consultancy services to the Zimbabwe police in October 1998 in relation to record keeping.

  One official is currently on a DFID-funded secondment to the Zimbabwe Police Department to review and advise on the collection of crime statistics in Zimbabwe.

  In addition, two police officers, from Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary, were attached to the Zimbabwe fraud and anti-corruption unit from 18 April 1997 for 18 days.

  Asylum and Immigration White Paper
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish a summary and analysis of the responses to the 1997 White Paper on asylum and immigration. [73890]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The White Paper published in July 1998 set out the Government's policy proposals and did not seek views on specific issues. In those circumstances, we took the view that the best approach was to publish a list of respondents and their full comments rather than attempt an extensive summary and analysis of the responses. A list of respondents, together with copies of their comments, was placed in the Libraries on 17 December.

  Elections (Sundays)
  Mr. Linton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce measures to allow(a) elections to be held on Sundays and (b) the European election to be held on Sunday 13 June. [74685]

  Mr. George Howarth
  We have no plans at present to introduce polling at the weekend for Parliamentary or European Parliamentary elections. We are, however, considering the possibility of pilot studies of this and other alternative electoral procedures at local elections.
  27

  Fire Engines (Accidents)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been(a) injured or (b) killed in each year since 1990 as a result of an accident involving a fire engine answering a 999 call. [74631]

  Mr. George Howarth
  This information is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Au Pairs
  Mr. St. Aubyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many au pairs were registered with the police under the terms of the au pair scheme in(a) May 1997, (b) July 1998 and (c) the latest month for which figures are available. [74488]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  [holding answer 5 March 1999]: Statistical information about the number of "au pairs" who registered with the police because of the imposition of such a requirement by an immigration officer on entry is not available. However, the table showing the number of "au pairs" given leave to enter the United Kingdom in the specified months gives a strong indication of the number who might have been expected to have a registration requirement imposed.

  As a result of the changes to the scope of the Police Registration Scheme which came into effect on 11 May 1998, only those foreign nationals from the countries or territories listed in Appendix 2 of the Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules will normally be required to register with the police from that date. This means that it is only "au pairs" from Turkey who will normally have been required to register with the police since then.

  Passengers given leave to enter the United Kingdom as au pairs, during given months and by given national, 1997 and 19986

  Nationality

  May 1997

  July 1998

  November 1998

  Cyprus

  4—

  4—

  4—

  Czechoslovak passport holders1

  10

  3—

  3—

  Czech Republic2

  230

  610

  360

  Slovakia

  190

  680

  190

  Hungary

  90

  190

  110

  Malta

  5—

  5—

  5—

  Switzerland

  10

  20

  10

  Turkey

  80

  100

  120

  Bosnia

  3—

  4—

  5—

  Croatia

  10

  20

  40

  Macedonia

  10

  30

  20

  Slovenia

  10

  10

  10

  Faroe Islands

  5—

  4—

  5—

  Total

  650

  1,680

  870

  1 Persons still travelling on passport issued by the former government

  2 1998 data include holders of Czechoslovakian passports

  3 Not available

  4 Negligible (i.e. five or fewer)

  5 Nil

  6 1998 data are provisional

  Note:

  The figures in this table have been rounded to three significant digits, or to the nearest 10 if fewer than 1000; because of this the sum of the constituent items may not agree with the total as shown.
  28
  Mr. St. Aubyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will estimate the costs saved since August 1998, following the relaxation of the rules requiring au pairs to register with the police after being in the United Kingdom for six months. [74489]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  [holding answer 5 March 1999]: The Police Registration Scheme is administered by the police on a cost recovery basis, with the current fee standing at £34. Until the scope of the Police Registration Scheme was amended on 11 May 1998 "au pairs" given leave to enter the United Kingdom for a period of over six months were required, as a condition of that leave, to register with the police within seven days of arrival. Since that date only foreign nationals from the countries or territories listed in Appendix 2 to the Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules should normally be required to register. The changes to the scope of the registration scheme in respect of "au pairs" have not resulted in any cost saving to the police or central Home Office.

  Juvenile Secure Accommodation
  Mr. Leslie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how the Government plan to take forward their programme of reform of juvenile secure accommodation; and if he will make a statement. [75814]

  Mr. Straw
  The Government set out their programme of reform of the current arrangements for the provision of juvenile secure accommodation on 29 July 1998,Official Report, columns 255–56. The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 provided the courts with more appropriate remand and sentencing powers to deal with the most serious and persistent young offenders, as well as giving the police and the courts new powers to deal with other young offenders more effectively in the community. To complement these provisions, the Government are seeking to establish a range of secure accommodation appropriate to the age and maturity of young people and with regimes which address offending behaviour, and to develop intervention programmes which will support the new multi-agency youth offending teams under the 1998 Act in working with young offenders in the community.

  Since July 1998, the Government have set up an 18-month pilot project in ten areas to pave the way for introducing youth offending teams across England and Wales in April 2000 and the final warning scheme and new court orders in 2000–2001. The Youth Justice Board for England and Wales was established in September and is responsible for administering a development fund of £85 million over three years from April 1999, which is being used to develop bail support initiatives and other community-based intervention programmes to support the final warning scheme and new court orders.

  The Government have also taken forward the necessary arrangements for implementing on 1 June 1999 the provisions in the 1998 Act for court-ordered remands to local authority secure accommodation of 12, 13 and 14-year-old boys and girls, 15 and 16-year-old girls and, where a place has been identified in advance, vulnerable 15 and 16-year-old boys. This will ensure that the courts have the powers they need in dealing with those young people the seriousness of whose alleged offending means that they cannot be dealt with safely in the community.
  29
  The Prison Service is finalising its plans for a distinct estate within its accommodation for 15 to 17-year-old boys remanded or sentenced to custody, with improved levels of care and regimes delivered within it. The Prison Service has also reviewed its arrangements for accommodating 15 to 17-year-old girls.

  The Youth Justice Board has provided initial advice on a range of youth custody issues and a copy of this has been placed in the Library. It will help to inform the Government's longer-term thinking about the provision of juvenile secure accommodation. The Board is now preparing more detailed advice on regime standards which, together with work being undertaken by the Prison Service, will help in preparing for the detention and training order under the 1998 Act.

  A key element in improved regimes and in the operation of the detention and training order will be better links between custodial facilities, where the first half of the sentence will be served, and the community, where the second half will be served. The new youth offending teams will have a vital role in managing these links—a member of the team will be expected to be involved in sentence planning and throughcare whilst the young offender is in custody and then supervise them when they return to the community. Given this connection, the Government have decided to accept the recommendation in the Youth Justice Board's advice that the detention and training order should be implemented at the same time as the local structure of youth offending teams, that is April 2000. Ahead of this, the Prison Service will put in place arrangements for the distinct estate for boys in its accommodation and for improved regimes.

  The Government have concluded that establishing distinct units for the very small number of 15 to 17-year-old girls held in Prison Service accommodation is not the best way forward, or in their best interests. The introduction of the detention and training order will allow for greater flexibility in the placement of sentenced young people. It is our intention to make use of this flexibility by placing sentenced 15 and 16-year-old girls in available non-Prison Service accommodation, when the detention and training order is in force. The first priority will be to place the youngest and most vulnerable young women outside the Prison Service. In the short term, arrangements within the Prison Service for holding 17-year-old women, and other young women for whom other accommodation is not available, will be improved by establishing discrete units for young women under the age of 21, with enhanced regimes within these.

  The Government are also taking forward detailed work on the proposed extension of the role of the Youth Justice Board to act as the commissioning and purchasing body for all forms of secure accommodation for children and young people on remand and under sentence. This should help to achieve the appropriate volume, type and spread of accommodation in the longer term, so that individual needs can be met more effectively.

  Life Prisoners
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many offenders sentenced to life imprisonment have been granted an oral hearing before the parole board in the last five years. [75351]
  30
  Mr. George Howarth
  The readily available information, which relates to the number of oral hearings held by the Parole Board, is published in the Board's annual reports. The most recent report, for 1997–98, records the number of such hearings as:

  Year

  Number

  1993

  265

  1994

  121

  1995–96

  216

  1996–97

  126

  1997–98

  278

  These figures include some second and subsequent hearings for life sentenced prisoners who were not released following their first hearing

  HMP Lewes
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) phone calls and (b) letters have been received at Her Majesty's Prison Lewes since 1 May 1997 from local residents complaining of noise nuisance. [75097]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Since 1 May 1997, Lewes prison has received 16 letters from local residents about noise disturbance. A telephone log only began on 23 October 1997. Since then, Lewes has received 18 calls from local residents about noise disturbance.

  Various measures have been taken to eliminate this problem, including the fitting of corrective brackets to cell windows. This work was undertaken on the advice of the Environmental Health Department and was completed in October 1998. Since this time no further written complaints have been received. Only one telephone complaint was received by the prison in the last month.

  Immigration
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the status of the Immigration Services Commissioner, indicating the regulatory powers which apply to him. [74752]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The status and regulatory powers of the Immigration Services Commissioner are set out in Part V of, and Schedules 5 and 6 to, the Immigration and Asylum Bill.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the fast-track immigration appeals system for weddings and funerals; and what plans he has to prevent abuse. [74754]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Immigration and Asylum Bill contains provisions which will allow applicants who are refused entry clearance to visit a family member in the United Kingdom to appeal against the decision.

  Applicants will have to pay a fee to appeal. The fee will depend on whether an applicant opts for a hearing on the papers or a full oral hearing. Applicants whose appeals are allowed will have their fee refunded.
  31
  In order to prevent abuse, the Bill also contains provisions to enable the Secretary of State to accept a security with a view to securing that an applicant will, if given permission to enter the United Kingdom for a limited period, leave at the end of the period.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department at what level the bond for those on family visits will be set. [74756]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We have not yet decided at what level bonds will be set. This will be one of the issues addressed in a consultation on a pilot bond scheme, which we shall issue later this year.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the provision of legal representation for those appealing against immigration detention. [74758]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Detainees who are challenging the legality of their detention by way of a writ of habeas corpus (judicial review in Scotland) are entitled to legal aid.

  Detainees may apply to the independent Immigration Appellate Authority for bail and can receive free representation from either the Immigration Advisory Service or Refugee Legal Centre under the grant in aid payments allowed for under section 23 of the Immigration Act 1971.

  A detainee who prefers to be represented at a bail or appeal hearing by a solicitor or other representative must fund the application themselves.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what rights of appeal defendants will have against decisions by immigration office officials. [74753]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Government's proposals for a new system of appeals in immigration and asylum cases are set out in Part IV of the Immigration and Asylum Bill.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has for judicial scrutiny of the Immigration Services Commissioner. [74757]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Any person aggrieved by a relevant decision of the Commissioner may appeal to the Immigration Services Tribunal against the decision. A determination of the Immigration Services Tribunal will be subject to judicial review.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans the Government have to pilot the payments in kind benefit system for asylum seekers; and what minimum standards will apply. [74755]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  No decisions have yet been taken on which aspects of the new support arrangements for asylum seekers it might be possible to pilot. However, we will be monitoring closely the non-statutory interim arrangements for dispersing asylum seekers which are being set up by the local government associations. There will be a statutory requirement that accommodation 32
  provided must be adequate for the needs of the asylum seeker and his dependants, if any, and that essential living needs should be met.

  Visas (Supply Teachers)
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the answer of 1 March 1999,Official Report, columns 598–99, on visas for supply teachers, what are the terms and conditions of the concession; when it was introduced; and for what reasons. [75292]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Young Commonwealth citizens, between the ages of 17 and 27 inclusive, may be admitted to the United Kingdom for an extended holiday of up to two years. Although working holidaymakers would normally be precluded from continuing their careers in the United Kingdom those in the teaching profession may do so provided such work is incidental to their holiday and the remainder of the Immigration Rules are met. This means that they cannot take full-time work for more than half of their stay here. For the purposes of the working holidaymaker scheme full-time work is more than 25 hours a week.

  I am making further inquiries about the other information requested and I will write to the hon. Member.

  Stephen Lawrence Inquiry Report
  Sir Norman Fowler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what checks his Department made prior to the publication of the now withdrawn appendices of the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry report to ensure that no member of the public was put in danger by the information provided; and if he will make a statement. [75283]

  Mr. Straw
  I refer the right hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) on 3 March 1999,Official Report, column 760.

  Sir Norman Fowler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish the report into unauthorised publication of extracts from the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry report ordered by his Permanent Secretary; and if he will make a statement. [75284]

  Mr. Straw
  No. It is not the practice to publish leak inquiry reports. I have undertaken to inform the House of the outcome of the investigation when they are known.

  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 1 March 1999,Official Report, column 567, on the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry, for what reasons it would not be in the interests of the investigation into the leak of parts of the Macpherson report to provide the information requested by the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire. [75409]

  Mr. Straw
  The details sought by the right hon. Member need to be established, along with other matters, by the independent investigator. It would not be appropriate for me to pre-empt that work.

  Remand Prisoners
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners are currently on remand; and what has been the(a) average, (b) median and (c) maximum period for which prisoners have been held on remand in each of the last three years. [75412]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Provisional information for 26 February shows that there were 12,627 persons held on remand in prisons in England and Wales. Information on the estimated average number of days in custody for untried and convicted unsentenced prisoners over the last three years is given in table 1. This information is also published in "Prison statistics England and Wales" (table 2.2 of the 1997 edition, Cm 4017), a copy of which is in the Library. Information on the estimated median time in custody is given in table 2. No information is collected centrally regarding the maximum time held on remand.

  Table 1: Estimated average time spent in custody for untried and convicted unsentenced persons in prisons in England and Wales,1996–1998

  Estimated average number of days in custody1

  Year

  Males

  Females

  Untried2

  1996

  53

  41

  1997

  51

  36

  19984

  47

  34

  Convicted unsentenced3

  1996

  34

  31

  1997

  37

  30

  19981

  38

  30

  1 Estimated from number of receptions and average population

  2 Time spent in Prison Service establishments before conviction

  3 Time spent in Prison Service establishments after conviction

  4 Provisional figures

  Table 2: Estimated median for time spent on remand on 30 June 1996–1998

  Type of custody/year

  Estimated median time

  All untried

  30 June 1996

  1 month 28 days

  30 June 1997

  1 month 26 days

  30 June 19981

  1 month 29 days

  All convicted unsentenced

  30 June 1996

  2 months 12 days

  30 June 1997

  2 months 7 days

  30 June 19981

  2 months 3 days

  1Provisional figures

  European Elections
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements he is making to scrutinise the counting of votes at the forthcoming European elections; how he intends to ensure that the votes across the country are verified and correlated; who will be in national charge of the election; and if he will make a statement. [75012]
  34
  Mr. George Howarth
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary hopes to be able to lay regulations to govern the conduct of European Parliamentary elections before the House very shortly.

  Our intention is that votes should be verified on a Parliamentary constituency basis as soon as practicable after the polls close on Thursday 10 June.

  Counting of the votes, however, may not begin until the polls have closed in the last European Union member state on the evening of Sunday 13 June.

  Counting will be conducted at Parliamentary constituency level though where the same person is the acting returning officer for two or more Parliamentary constituencies he or she will be able to combine them for polling and counting purposes. Local results will be communicated to the regional returning officers who will perform the seat allocation calculations for each of the 11 electoral regions.

  It is a long established tradition that local returning officers have responsibility for the conduct of the election in their areas and we do not propose to change that.

DEFENCE

  HMS Cromer
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what studies were carried out which led to the decision to dispose of HMS 'Cromer'. [71663]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 22 February 1999]: As we announced in the Strategic Defence Review, the modernisation of the mine countermeasures force will continue but the increase in the number of vessels should be limited to 22 rather than 25 as previously planned. This will be achieved by paying off three of the older or least capable ships. No decisions have yet been taken as to which vessels will be paid off, although HMS Cromer is a candidate.

  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list(a) the cost of construction of HMS 'Cromer', (b) the cost of the cancelled refit of HMS 'Cromer' and (c) the cost of the short refit planned for HMS 'Cromer' for February to July. [71676]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 22 February 1999]: The information requested is as follows:

  (a) The total cost of construction of HMS Cromer was £23.8 million plus an estimated £12 to £13 million for Government Furnished Equipment.

  (b) I cannot say what the cost of HMS Cromer's cancelled refit might have been, as this would have been dependent on the outcome of contract negotiations, the cost of materials and any additional work which might have emerged during the refit. However, the broad order costs for refits of vessels of the same class have been around £5 million.

  (c) The planned cost of HMS Cromer's reduced refit is about £2.5 million, but this does not include the costs of any unforeseen work.

  Aircraft (In-service Dates)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's definition of in-service date for(a) Eurofighter, (b) Merlin helicopters and (c) C130 aircraft. [72646]
  35
  Mr. Spellar
  The information requested is as follows:

  Eurofighter—delivery of first aircraft.

  Merlin HM Mk 1—delivery of twelfth aircraft.

  Merlin HC Mk 3—delivery of sixth aircraft.

  Hercules C130J—delivery of twelfth aircraft.

  Belize (Jungle Training)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the benefits of the jungle training exercises in Belize carried out between 1 April 1997 and 31 March 1998. [72783]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  This exercise, involving a Commando Group of Royal Marines, was intended to maintain and develop their capability to conduct operations in a jungle environment, and is assessed to have succeeded in its aim.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the jungle training exercises in Belize carried out between 1 April 1997 and 31 March 1998. [72784]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  These exercises are assessed as having succeeded in their aim of developing the jungle warfare capability of the infantry units which participated in them.

  Exercises (Canada)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what assessment he has made of the benefits of the six armoured battlegroup exercises in Canada carried out between 1 April 1997 and 31 March 1998; [72779]

  (2) how many personnel were deployed on the six armoured battlegroup exercises in Canada carried out between 1 April 1997 and 31 March 1998. [72780]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Due to the deployment to Bosnia of a unit scheduled to take part in the armoured battlegroup exercises in Canada, only five armoured battlegroup exercises, involving 6,005 personnel, were carried out between 1 April 1997 and 31 March 1998. These exercises were designed to train the participating units to a level where they can be deployed operationally through participating in high intensity operations using live firing and our assessment is that this objective was achieved.

  Infantry Exercise (Botswana)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) which countries had armed forces involved in the infantry exercise in Botswana carried out between 1 April 1997 and 31 March 1998; [72787]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the infantry exercise in Botswana carried out between 1 April 1997 and 31 March 1998; [72785]

  (3) what assessment he has made of the benefits of the infantry exercise in Botswana carried out between 1 April 1997 and 31 March 1998. [72786]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Exercise DIAMOND CUTTER, which took place in Botswana from 4 February to 20 March 1998, involved B Company 2 PARA and a Company of the Botswana Defence Force. This exercise was designed to enable these personnel to gain extensive 36
  and realistic training experience by practising their skills and conducting advanced arms training in a demanding environment, over extended lines of communication, and our assessment is that these objectives were achieved.

  Airborne Exercise (Ukraine)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many personnel were deployed on the airborne exercise in Ukraine carried out between 1 April 1997 and 31 March 1998. [72924]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The airborne exercise COSSACK STEPPE, involving troops from the UK, Poland and Ukraine, took place in Ukraine in September 1997. The UK contribution was a company (approximately 130 personnel) from the 2nd Battalion, the Parachute Regiment.

  Exercises (USA)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he had made of the principle benefits of the two infantry exercises in the USA carried out between 1 April 1997 and 31 March 1998. [72926]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  These exercises were designed to enable the units involved to gain extensive and realistic training experience by practising their skills and conducting advanced arms training in a demanding environment, and our assessment is that these objectives were achieved.

  Defence Analytical Services Agency
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people are currently employed by the Defence Analytical Services Agency; and what was the figure at its inception. [72819]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 25 February 1999]: This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Analytical Services Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Paul Altobell to Mr. Mike Hancock, dated 8 March 1999:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State on the number of people employed by the Defence Analytical Services Agency. As Chief Executive this falls within my area of responsibility.
  Defence Analytical Services Agency employed 148 permanent staff, (142 full time equivalents), plus 4 students on 1 April 1992. The Agency was launched on 1 July 1992. Precise figures are not available for that date but were not materially different from the 1 April position. On 1 January 1999 the Agency employed 112 permanent staff, (109 full time equivalents), plus 13 students.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Female Pilots
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many female pilots are currently serving in the(a) RAF and (b) Royal Navy; and how many are in training. [73789]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  As at 1 January 1999, there were 25 trained female pilots serving in the RAF, with 21 under training. In the Naval Service, at the same date, there was one trained female pilot, with two under training.

  Mr. Tony Geraghty
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the charges against Mr. Tony Geraghty. [74313]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  There are at present no charges outstanding against Mr. Tony Geraghty.

  Missiles
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much his Department has spent on missiles procured from the USA in the last 10 years, expressed in dollars. [74013]

  Mr. Spellar
  Expenditure at outturn prices on the procurement of missiles from the USA for the period 1 April 1988 to 31 March 1998 is as follows:

  $ million

  Advanced Medium Range Air to Air Missile

  98.0

  Harpoon

  70.7

  Sidewinder

  30.3

  Tomahawk

  24.8

  Trident

  866.1

  TCHD MK2—Unscheduled stops since 9 March 1998

  25 March 1998

  27 March 1998

  Location

  A428 west of Cambridge

  M25 Jn 15 adjacent to M4/M25 interchange

  Length of delay

  5 minutes

  5 minutes

  Circumstances

  ABS shows fault—System reset

  ABS shows fault—System reset

  No alterations or modifications have been made to these vehicles during this period. There have been 2 occasions on which the vehicles were obliged to make unscheduled stops to deal with technical problems. The circumstances are as follows:

  TCHD MK2 mechanical problems since 9 March 1998

  Mechanical Problems

  Spurious ABS electrical faults requiring system resets.

  Drivers door catch broken. New door catch fitted.

  Radiator coolant leak. Hose clip tightened.

  Punctures to road wheels. Road wheel changed.

  Headlamp inoperative. Wiring connection re-made.

  Air conditioning inoperative. Drive belts replaced.

  Water leak into cab. Seal to roof hatch replaced.

  Fuel leak. Fuel pipe union tightened.

  NATO Exercise (South Africa)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the benefits of the NATO joint exercise in South Africa carried out between 1 April 1997 and 31 March 1998. [72850]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 2 March 1999]: There were no NATO joint exercises in South Africa between 1 April 1997 and 31 March 1998.

  CR GAS
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what guidelines his Department has drawn up for the use of CR gas. [74255]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The use of CR gas by the Armed Forces is governed by prescribed rules of engagement, and the service personnel concerned are fully trained in how to use it. Both the rules of engagement and the training are operationally sensitive and I am withholding details in accordance with Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Mark II Vehicles
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will make a statement on the(a) mechanical problems with and (b) alterations made to truck cargo heavy duty mark II vehicles since 9 March 1998; [74254]

  (2) how many unscheduled stops there have been involving truck cargo heavy duty mark II vehicles since 9 March 1998; and if he will list the (a) dates, (b) location, (c) length of delay and (d) circumstances of each Stop. [74253]

  Mr. Spellar
  Since 9 March 1998, there have been 8 minor mechanical defects with Truck Cargo Heavy Duty, TCHD, Mk 2 vehicles, details of these are as follows:

  Jungle Training (Singapore)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what assessment he has made of the benefits of the jungle training exercise in Singapore carried out between 1 April 1997 and 31 March 1998; [72843]

  (2) what his assessment is of the value of the jungle training exercise in Singapore carried out between 1 April 1997 and 31 March 1998. [72981]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [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, and is assessed to have succeeded in its aim.

  Land Command
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the order of battle for Land Command(a) prior to and (b) following the Strategic Defence Review. [74057]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 2 March 1999]: The Order of Battle for Land Command before implementation of decisions taken in the Strategic

  39
  Defence Review, is two deployable divisions and six regional divisions. The deployable divisions are:
  1st (United Kingdom) Armoured division based in Germany, consisting of three armoured brigades (4, 7 and 20)
  3rd (United Kingdom) Division based in the UK, consisting of two mechanised brigades (1 and 19) and an airborne brigade (5).

  The regional divisions are:

  2 Division, consisting of 15 (North East) and 49 (East) brigades

  4 Division, consisting of 2 (South East) and 145 (Home Counties) brigades and the deployable 24 Mobile Brigade

  5 Division consisting of 42 (North West), 143 (West Midlands) and 160 (Wales) Brigades

  Scottish district consisting of 51 (Highland) and 52 (Lowland) Brigades

  London District

  United Kingdom Support Command (Germany).

  In addition to its deployable role, 3rd (United Kingdom) Division also commands 43 (Wessex) Brigade, a regional brigade. 107 (Ulster) Brigade is a stand alone regional brigade in Northern Ireland. There is also 2 (National Communications) Signal Brigade and nine deployable brigade sized formations:

  1 Reconnaissance Brigade

  Combat Service Support Group (United Kingdom)

  Combat Service Support Group (Germany)

  1 Artillery Brigade

  7 Air Defence Brigade

  12 (Air Support) Engineer Brigade

  29 (Corps Support) Engineer Brigade

  1 Signal Brigade

  11 Signal Brigade.

  In addition, there will be six overseas detachments:

  British Army Training Unit Suffield and British Army Training Support Unit Wainwright in Canada

  British Army Training Support Unit Belize

  British Army Training and Liaison Staff Kenya in Nairobi

  British Gurkhas Nepal

  Brunei Garrison.

  Following the Strategic Defence Review, the Order of Battle for Land Command will be two deployable divisions and four regional divisions, including three larger regional divisions in the UK. The deployable divisions will be:
  1st(United Kingdom) Armoured division based in Germany, consisting of three armoured brigades (4, 7 and 20)
  3rd (United Kingdom) Mechanised Division based in the UK, to consist of three mechanised brigades (1, 12 and 19).

  The regional divisions will be:

  2 Division, consisting of 15 (North East), 42 (North West), 51 (Highland) and 52 (Lowland) Brigades

  4 Division, consisting of London District and 2 (South East), 49 (East) and 145 (Home Counties) Brigades

  5 Division consisting of 43 (Wessex), 145 (West Midlands) and 107 (Ulster) and 160 (Wales) Brigades

  United Kingdom Support Command (Germany).

  There will also be two (National Communications) Signal Brigade and nine deployable Brigade-sized formations. One Reconnaissance Brigade unit will be
  40
  embedded with the brigades of 3rd (United Kingdom) Division. The nine deployable Brigade-size formations will therefore be:

  16 Air Assault Brigade

  Combat Service Support Group (United Kingdom)

  Combat Service Support Group (Germany)

  1 Artillery Brigade

  7 Air Defence Brigade

  12 (Air Support) Engineer Brigade

  29 (Corps Support) Engineer Brigade

  1 Signal Brigade

  11 Signal Brigade.

  In addition, there will be six overseas detachments:

  British Army Training Unit Suffield and British Army Training Support Unit Wainwright in Canada

  British Army Training Support Unit Belize

  British Army Training and Liaison Staff Kenya in Nairobi

  British Gurkhas Nepal

  Brunei Garrison.

  Submarines (Health)

  Submarines(Health)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the health effects of service on a submarine. [74950]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Royal Navy has a comprehensive strategy to monitor for the health effects of submarine service. It is based on a programme of selective and rigorous medical screening and regular occupational health surveillance of individual submariners including monitoring for radiation exposure. This is backed up by epidemiological studies performed by independent authorities and a comprehensive system of scientific evaluation conducted in collaboration with other nations operating submarines.

  As my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces announced in his written answer on 24 February 1999, Official Report, columns 300–01, medical studies have shown that some contaminants, which are present in the atmosphere of a submarine, exceed the levels which are considered safe for the foetus of a pregnant women. These contaminants pose no risk to adults.

  The results of an independent mortality study undertaken for the Royal Navy by the Medical Research Council and published in the Occupational and Environmental Medicine Journal in 1997 concluded that submariners are an occupational health group with an overall lower rate of mortality among workers than in the general population.

  Departmental Land
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current acreage of his Department's land holding; and what plans he has to reduce it. [74817]

  Mr. Spellar
  The total acreage of land that is held by the Ministry of Defence (both freehold and leasehold) stands at almost 593,000 acres (240,000 hectares). My Department recognises its responsibility to use and manage its estate effectively and our policy is to ensure that no more land is used than is needed to meet operational requirements.
  41
  There are currently some 32,000 acres (13,000 hectares) of surplus property scheduled for disposal, while the Strategic Defence Review set an ambitious target of £700 million in disposal receipts over four years. The Review also concluded that there should be more effective central strategic management of the estate. The Defence Estate Organisation and others are striving to ensure that the necessary processes are put in place to achieve this and we fully anticipate that further estate rationalisation will occur as a result.

  Veterans' Advice Unit
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current budget of, and how many civil servants and military personnel are employed in, the Veterans' Advice Unit. [74659]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 4 March 1999]: The Ministry of Defence Veterans' Advice Unit is currently staffed by three serving Warrant Officers (1 Royal Navy, 1 Army and 1 Royal Air Force).

  The budget for the Veterans' Advice Unit covers the employment costs of the Warrant Officers, telecommunications and publicity material. The cost of the unit in the current financial year is estimated to be £89,000.

  Chief of Defence Procurement
  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 Procurement after 1 April 2000. [74653]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 4 March 1999]: Detailed budgetary allocations to individual budget holders in the Ministry of Defence are made only one year in advance. In broad terms, however, our plans for the Chief of Defence Procurement's area of responsibility for the financial year 2000–01 envisage expenditure in the order of £5.5 billion on equipment and some £600 million in operating costs at 1998–99 constant prices. Staff numbers for that year are expected to be around 5,000.

  Unified Defence Logistics Organisation
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the key milestones and timetable for the implementation of the unified Defence Logistics Organisation. [74649]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 4 March 1999]: The Chief of Defence Logistics will assume full budgetary and management responsibility for the Defence Logistics Organisation from 1 April 1999 and will create a unified organisation from 1 April 2000.

  DERA
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to announce the extent and nature of the public/private partnership for DERA. [74640]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 4 March 1999]: Initial advice from a team studying the options on the future of DERA is expected at the end of this month. Following a
  42
  period of discussion and consultation, we would hope to make a decision and an announcement about the future of DERA later this year.

  Defence Company Mergers
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the implications for his Department's tendering policy of proposed United Kingdom defence company mergers. [74644]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 4 March 1999]: The implications for MOD procurement policies and practice of any merger activity within the United Kingdom defence sector is assessed by the MOD on a case by case basis and in accordance with the regulatory process.

  Nuclear Weapons Tests
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the basis of the methodologies used by(a) his Department and (b) consultants contracted by his Department to assess the effects of radiation exposure from atmospheric nuclear weapons tests upon servicemen and medical auxiliaries; what assessment he has made of their sensitivity to the available data; and what representation he has received in respect of them. [74960]

  Mr. Spellar
  Radiation exposure of servicemen who participated in the UK's atmospheric nuclear tests was subject to pre-set standards which were directly based upon the contemporary guidance issued by the International Commission for Radiation Protection. There were two basic regimes. First, those who were known to be at risk were issued with personal dosimeters (film badges) and, if necessary, protective clothing. Secondly, and for the majority, the protective arrangement was to ensure that all personnel were accounted for and located at safe distances from the detonations. Additionally, there were programmes of general environmental monitoring covering the range and domestic areas including the muster locations. Of the 22,000 veterans included in the studies, some 5,000 were issued with film badges. Only 1,716 of these had non-zero recorded radiation doses; of these only 483 received total doses of more than 5 mSv and only 80 received more than 50 mSv. These figures and the results of the environmental monitoring are strong evidence that the majority of test veterans had no radiation exposure as a result of their participation.

  The health of the test veteran population has been the subject of two epidemiological studies carried out by the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB). The reports were published in 1988 and 1993. These studies made statistically based comparisons of the mortality and cancer experiences of the test veterans, regardless of the cause of the illness, with levels seen in both a matched control group and in the general population. The studies concluded that participation in the tests programme had not had a detectable effect on the participants' expectation of life or on their total risk of developing cancer.

  Further and more detailed information about the methodologies used is given in the study reports copies of which are in the Library of the House. As regards representation, the British Nuclear Test Veterans Association (BNTVA) and their supporters have made clear their views on many occasions in recent years. However, the reports of these studies were peer reviewed,

  43
  published in the scientific press and have not attracted any serious scientific criticism. The statistical sensitivity of the results is fully addressed in the reports.

  Army Act 1955
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many cases involving soldiers sentenced by non-military courts to terms of imprisonment have been disposed of under the provisions of section 70 of the Army Act 1955 for each year between 1988 and 1998 indicating(a) the court which dealt with the offence, (b) the nature of the offence, (c) the sentence and (d) whether the convicted person was discharged from the Army. [74428]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 5 March 1999]: No Army personnel have been convicted by civil courts under Section 70 of the Army Act 1955, as this provides for soldiers to be dealt with by military court-martial or summary dealing only. A number of soldiers have, however, been convicted and sentenced to terms of imprisonment by the civil courts but detailed information relating to such cases is not held centrally and could only be provided at a disproportionate cost. Section 134(1) of the Army Act prohibits a soldier from being tried by a court-martial or dealt summarily by his Commanding Officer for an offence, or substantially the same offence, of which he has been convicted in a civil court.

  Territorial Army
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the number of(a) recruits enlisted into and (b) military personnel leaving the Territorial Army in each year since 1995–96. [74858]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 5 March 1999]: The information is not held in the form requested; however the number of personnel, soldiers and officers, entering and leaving the Territorial Army, including to and from Regular Army, in each year since 1995–96 is as follows:

  Inflow and outflow of TA Officers

  Intake

  Outflow

  1995–96

  554

  682

  1996–97

  613

  719

  1997–98

  779

  739

  Inflow and outflow of TA soldiers

  Inflow

  Outflow

  1995–96

  12,520

  14,973

  1996–97

  13,380

  14,291

  1997–98

  11,015

  11,709

  Notes:

  1.Figures exclude Non Regular Permanent Staff.

  2.Soldier Officer Inflows and Soldier Outflows include soldiers who have been promoted to TA officers.

  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what arrangements he has made to ensure that voluntary groups that use Territorial Army centres will not be adversely affected as a consequence of his TA review. [74862]
  44
  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 5 March 1999]: At present, it is generally the case that voluntary groups rent space in TA centres on a commercial basis. We will ensure that voluntary groups, who make use of TA centres that are affected by the reforms, are given adequate notice to enable them to make alternative arrangements where necessary.

  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what arrangements he has made for TA personnel who are studying for qualifications at TA centres which are closing to continue their studies. [74859]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 5 March 1999]: Where a unit or TA Centre is to close, we are making arrangements to transfer those TA personnel who are willing and able to an alternative unit where they may be able to continue their studies if required by the role of their new unit.

  US Visiting Forces
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the UK bases which have needed clean-up operations after US visiting forces have vacated them, indicating the nature of the pollution, the costs, and who paid for these costs in each case. [75117]

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

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the existing arrangements, agreements and memoranda of understanding between UK and US Governments in respect of the US visiting forces at Menwith Hill. [75114]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The presence of the US Visiting Forces at RAF Menwith Hill is governed by the NATO Status of Forces Agreement 1951 and other arrangements appropriate to the relationship which exists between the governments of the United Kingdom and the United States for the purposes of our common defence.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library a copy of the Cost Sharing Agreement 1973 between the UK and US Governments in respect of the US visiting forces. [75115]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  No. The 1973 Cost Sharing Arrangement is a confidential arrangement between the UK and US Governments and is being withheld under Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the cost-sharing arrangements agreed between the US and UK Governments in respect of the US visiting forces. [75113]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The 1973 Cost Sharing Arrangement is the principal covering general costs sharing matters in relation to the presence of the United
  45
  States Visiting Forces in the UK. A number of other arrangements exist which may contain cost sharing provisions but a record of these is not held centrally.

  Challenger 2
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to place an order for Challenger Tank 2 training rounds; what is the anticipated value of the contract; and if he will make a statement. [74759]

  Mr. Spellar
  An Invitation to Tender was issued in August 1998 for a new training round to replace the Discarding Sabot/Tracer round. As the order is currently the subject of a competition, its value is commercially confidential between the bidders and the Ministry of Defence. It is hoped to award a contract later in the year and I will make a statement at that time.

  Army Trucks
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the Land Rover TUL/TUM (HS), the Wolf, was brought into service with the Army; and how many are now in use. [75294]

  Mr. Spellar
  The current Trucks Utility Light, TUL, and Trucks Utility Medium (High Specification), TUM(HS), the Land Rover Wolf, were brought into service with the Army in April 1997. A total of 6,352 vehicles have been issued to units to date, including 152 ambulance variants. There are 1,323 vehicles awaiting issue, including 623 ambulance variants, making a total of 7,675 vehicles.

  Ministry of Defence Guard Service
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if members of the Ministry of Defence Guard Service carry arms. [74796]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  No.

  Military Road Traffic Accidents
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many road traffic accidents were reported involving the Land Rover TUL/TUM (HS), the WOLF, between April 1997 and March 1998; what were the (i) fatalities, (ii) serious injuries and (iii) slight injuries; and what were the estimated repair costs. [75007]

  Mr. Spellar
  311 road traffic accidents were reported involving the Land Rover TUL/TUM/(HS) the WOLF, between April 1997 and March 1998. These accidents resulted in one fatality and 52 injuries of all types. The estimated repair cost is £294k.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many military road traffic accidents resulted in(a) fatalities, (b) serious injuries and (c) slight injuries between April 1997 and March 1998. [75005]

  Mr. Spellar
  Between April 1997 and March 1998 there were a total of 9,075 road traffic accidents involving military personnel and MOD civilians. These resulted in 64 fatalities (17 on duty and 47 off duty), 63 serious injuries and 862 slight injuries.
  46

WALES

  Autism
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many autism specific places are provided in Wales within(a) residential provision, (b) mainstream services, (c) specialist autism spectrum disorder services, (d) pre school services and (e) higher education. [73749]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  The information on services for the disabled, which is collected centrally, does not include information on the number of autism-specific places provided by local and health authorities for residential provision, mainstream services and specialist autism spectrum disorder services.

  For pre-school services and higher education, information on autism-specific places is not collected centrally. However, the latest information available (at January 1998) shows that 475 pupils attending schools in Wales had statements of special educational needs specifying autism spectrum disorders. A breakdown by category of school is given.

  Type of school

  No. of pupils in Wales with statements specifying autism spectrum disorders

  Maintained Nursery Schools

  2

  Maintained Primary Schools

  168

  Maintained Secondary Schools

  41

  Maintained Special Schools

  252

  Independent Schools (including independent special schools)

  12

  Total

  475

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

  Schools (Repair and Maintenance)
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the amount of repair and maintenance work waiting to be done in Welsh schools; and if he will make a statement. [74902]

  Mr. Hain
  [holding answer 5 March 1999]: The information requested is not held centrally.

  I am fully aware of concerns expressed about the poor condition of many school buildings in Wales caused by under funding in previous years. We have moved quickly to assist local authorities by providing an additional £65 million over the lifetime of this Parliament for capital investment in schools; and we are maintaining, in cash terms, the normal capital allocations to local authorities for education for 1999–2000 at £43.939 million. Our plans provide nearly £200 million for capital expenditure in schools in Wales over the next three years.

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

  Social Services
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he intends to publish a White Paper on Social Services in Wales similar to Modernising Social Services (Cm 4169), published in England in November 1998. [74792]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  We hope to do so shortly.
  47

  Food Strategy for Wales
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the progress of the three industry-led food working groups which he has established under the Food Strategy for Wales. [75712]

  Mr. Michael
  The three industry-led Working Groups, set up by my Department and supported by the Welsh Development Agency, have completed their Action Plans for the Lamb and Beef, Dairy and Organic Food Sectors, which we are publishing today, 8 March. I welcome this important contribution by the industry to helping farmers secure the future of their industry and to developing the Food Strategy for Wales. I am grateful to the Chairmen and members of the Groups for their work in preparing the Plans. I have placed copies of the three Action Plans and the Executive Summary in the Libraries of the House.

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

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Minimum Pension Guarantee
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the number of pensioners in the Warrington, North constituency who will benefit from the minimum pension guarantee. [73052]

  Mr. Timms
  We estimate around 5,000 pensioners will benefit from the minimum income guarantee in the Warrington local authority district, when it is introduced in April.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to minimise fraud in the administration of housing benefit. [73053]

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the progress being made to combat housing benefit fraud. [73070]

  Mr. Timms
  We are committed to making all benefits secure against fraud and error. We will do this by getting payments right from the outset and by keeping them right for as long as the benefit is payable. For those cases which do go wrong, we will put them right promptly.

  We have made substantial progress in applying this approach to Housing Benefit. For example, we have made an extra £100 million available over the next three years for the Verification Framework. This will enable all councils to check Housing Benefit claims more thoroughly.

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on his future plans for housing benefit. [73068]

  Angela Eagle
  We are taking forward a wide-ranging review of housing benefit in consultation with local authorities and other interested parties. The aim of the review is to simplify and improve both the benefit itself and the way in which it is delivered. In the meantime, we have in place several measures to drive forward better delivery of housing benefit including the Benefit Fraud 48
  Inspectorate's programme of visits to local authorities, improved communications between the Benefits Agency and local authorities through the use of IT, and extra funding and support for local authorities to operate the verification framework.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what conclusions he has reached from his consideration of the case of Stephen Gilhooly of Bathgate in relation to the withdrawal of housing benefit under new regulations relating to attendance on courses for over 25 year olds at technical institutions. [73150]

  Angela Eagle
  There are no new regulations withdrawing Housing Benefit from over 25 year olds at technical institutions. Most full-time students are excluded from entitlement to Housing Benefit, although certain students in vulnerable groups, such as lone parents, can continue to claim this benefit.

  We are fully committed to helping unemployed people obtain the skills they need to improve their employability and, last June, introduced the New Deal for people aged over 25 to help the long-term unemployed undertake full-time education and training.

  Widow's Pension
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if, following the implementation of his reform proposals, widows aged between 45 and 60 years who were widowed before 45 years of age and who are not currently receiving a widow's pension, can continue to choose to claim(a) retirement pension or (b) widow's pension on reaching 60 years of age. [73055]

  Mr. Timms
  Current widows who are entitled to Widow's Pension can choose to continue receiving it up to age 65. A woman who was widowed before age 45 may qualify for a Widow's Pension when her Widowed Mother's Allowance ceased or because she was widowed before April 1988.

  These widows will continue to be able to receive Widow's Pension up to age 65 if they satisfy the qualifying conditions following implementation of our reforms.

  Pension Reform
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on progress with pension reform. [73056]

  Mr. Timms
  We are currently consulting on our plans for radical reform of the pensions system that we set out in the Green Paper "Partnership in Pensions". The framework for stakeholder pension schemes laid out in the Green Paper is being taken forward in the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill.

  Welfare Reform
  Mr. Cawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received about his recent proposals for welfare reform. [73057]

  Mr. Darling
  We have received numerous representations on our recent proposals for reform, towards our central aim of work for those who can security for those who cannot.

  Stakeholder Pensions
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to introduce(a) incentives and (b) negative disincentives to the self-employed to take out stakeholder pension contracts. [73058]

  Mr. Timms
  There are no such plans. Our proposals for stakeholder pension schemes were laid out in the Green Paper.

  The self-employed will be able to join stakeholder pension schemes. We expect that many of them will benefit from the improved security, flexibility and value for money offered by such schemes.

  Pensions Green Paper
  Dr. Ladyman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the responses so far to the Pensions Green Paper. [73059]

  Mr. Timms
  Our Pensions Green Paper is continuing to attract a great deal of interest. We have already received more than 100 written responses, and expect to receive many more by the closing date on 31 March.

  Pensions
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security by how much he expects the real spending powers of those dependent on the basic state old age pension to vary from that of those in employment in 1999–2000. [73060]

  Mr. Darling
  No one is expected to rely on the basic pension as their sole source of income. Short-term projections of the growth in pensioners' incomes are not available.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the cost of administration of(a) the current state pension and (b) the secondary pension proposed in the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill. [73063]

  Mr. Timms
  The administration costs charged to the National Insurance Fund for awarding and paying state retirement pension and collecting and maintaining records of National Insurance contributions were some £622 million in 1996–971. This represents about 1.5 per cent. of the Fund's income in that year1.

  The Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill contains provisions to enable the setting up of flexible, secure, value for money stakeholder pension schemes. Administration costs should be low; both because of the ways schemes will be set up and run, and because we propose to set a minimum standard for the charges that can be made.
  1 Source: Departmental Report 1998–99, CM3913, National Insurance Fund Account 1996–97, HC 465

  Dr. George Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the difficulties faced by those on low and modest incomes in making adequate provision for retirement. [73064]

  Mr. Timms
  The government recognise the difficulties faced by those on low and modest incomes. That is why we are guaranteeing a decent income in retirement for all pensioners through the Minimum Income Guarantee. We 50
  plan to replace SERPS with a new State Second Pension to ensure that everyone with a lifetime of work behind them will build up rights to a pension which will take them above a Minimum Income Guarantee; and the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill contains provisions to enable the setting up of flexible, secure value for money stakeholder pension schemes which will be particularly suitable for people on modest incomes.

  Dr. Naysmith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to improve the pensions of long-term disabled people. [73065]

  Mr. Timms
  I refer my hon. Friend to the Written Answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Mr. Cunningham) on 8 February 1999,Official Report, column 65.

  Ms Dari Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how he proposes to ensure better security in retirement for the poorest households. [73076]

  Angela Eagle
  The measures proposed in the Green Paper, A new contract for welfare: Partnership in Pensions are intended to ensure that people who have worked throughout their working life on a low income will still be able to retire on an income above the level of the Minimum Income Guarantee. For the poorest households, the Minimum Income Guarantee will provide a secure income, which we intend over time and as resources allow, to increase in line with average earnings so that all pensioners, including the poorest, can share in the rising prosperity of the nation.

  Benefit Claimants
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the upper limit permitted to benefit claimants for time spent writing material for publication before their benefit is reduced; and if he will make a statement. [73061]

  Angela Eagle
  The impact of time spent writing material for publication on entitlement to benefit depends on the claimant's circumstances and the benefit being claimed. For example, provided other conditions are satisfied Jobseeker's Allowance can be paid where work done for payment or in expectation is undertaken for less than 16 hours per week. Special rules apply to people on New Deal programmes.

  Social Security Budget
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the proportion of Government expenditure the social security budget will comprise in 1999–2000; and what it was in 1996–97. [73062]

  Mr. Darling
  Social Security expenditure accounted for 29.3 per cent. of public expenditure in 1996–97 and it is estimated to be around 28.2 per cent. in 1999–2000.

  Fraud
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what recent representations he has received on levels of fraud within the benefit system; and if he will make a statement. [73066]
  51
  Mr. Timms
  Consultation on the Green Paper, "Beating Fraud is Everyone's Business: securing the future", ended on 30 September 1998, and 165 responses were received. The great majority of responses supported the strategy and its governing principles.

  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social
  Security what action the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate is taking to deal with organised fraud in housing benefit; what action is proposed following the closure of the London organised fraud investigation team; and if he will make a statement. [74281]

  Mr. Timms
  The Benefit Fraud Inspectorate (BFI) was launched in November 1997 to examine and report to the Secretary of State on the administration of Social Security benefits by central Government agencies and local authorities with a particular emphasis on standards of counter-fraud and security performance. It examines and reports on local authority performance in administering Housing Benefit/Council Tax Benefit and countering fraud.

  Local authorities in London now refer cases of suspected organised Housing Benefit fraud to Benefits Agency organised fraud investigation teams.

  We are carrying out a review of how organised fraud within Social Security benefits, including fraud in those benefits that are administered by local authorities, can be countered.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what progress has been made in the reform of the Child Support Agency. [73067]

  Angela Eagle
  We are currently considering responses to the Green Paper "Children First: a new approach to child support" and will bring forward our final proposals for reform in due course.

  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to tackle the difficulties experienced by the Child Support Agency in assessing child maintenance due from self-employed parents. [75820]

  Angela Eagle
  Draft child support regulations have today been placed in both Houses. These will, from October 1999, allow self-employed parents to provide the figures, which they use for self assessment of their earnings for tax purposes, for use in calculating child maintenance. These provisions together with measures in the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill currently before the House which will enable Inland Revenue to provide earnings information for the self-employed where the parent fails to supply the information to the Child Support Agency, and other operational improvements being introduced by the Agency, will lead to a simpler and more effective basis for getting maintenance flowing. The draft regulations also contain provisions to extend the suspension of fees for the Agency's assessment and collection services until April 2001.

  British Pensioners Overseas
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what step he is taking to ensure that British pensioners living overseas receive up-rated pensions to which they are entitled. [73069]
  52
  Mr. Timms
  Over 380,000 British pensioners living overseas in around 30 countries are paid the up-rated UK State Pensions to which they are entitled. These are paid under European Community regulations, and certain long standing social security agreements which allow for the payment of upratings.

  Unclaimed Benefits
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the total amount of benefits administered by his Department unclaimed by those entitled to them; and what measures he proposes to encourage take-up. [73071]

  Angela Eagle
  Information relating to the total amount of unclaimed Social Security benefit is not available, because for most benefits, these data are not routinely collected. Estimates of take-up of income-related benefits published for the year 1993–94 (covering Income Support, Housing Benefit, Council Tax Benefit and Family Credit) indicate that the total amount unclaimed was in the region of £2.5 billion. More recent data are currently being reviewed following an error discovered in the data relating to take-up among pensioners, which suggests that the level of take-up is likely to be somewhat higher than previously thought.

  Recent initiatives to encourage take-up include a major publicity campaign to promote in-work benefits which was launched on 1 June last year. This campaign comprised TV and radio advertisements and a direct mailshot to lone parents. A special help line was established to handle telephone enquiries arising from the campaign.

  We are also planning measures to encourage take-up of the Minimum Income Guarantee by pensioners. These measures will build on the findings from research into the reasons why pensioners do not take up their Income Support entitlement, and the nine pilot projects which the Department undertook last year to test different methods of encouraging pensioners to claim. We expect to publish the results of the research and the pilots later this year.

  Child Poverty
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proposals he has to tackle the problem of child poverty. [73072]

  Angela Eagle
  Since November last year an extra £2.50 a week has been made available to less well off families with children under age 11, through the income-related benefits. From April this year we will implement the largest ever increase in Child Benefit, an extra £2.95 a week for the first or eldest child. A similar increase in the family premium will ensure that those on income-related benefits also gain.

  We consider that helping parents to work is the best form of assistance. The New Deal for Lone Parents and National Childcare Strategy will together make it possible for more parents to start work or increase their hours. Around two million children will be better off as a result of the introduction of the Working Families Tax Credit and Childcare Tax Credit and, along with the National Minimum Wage, will help to ensure that work pays for more families with children.
  53

  Millennium Compliance
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State
  for Social Security if he will make a statement on progress with the millennium compliance of computer systems involved in the provision of benefits. [73073]

  Angela Eagle
  All the computer systems used to assess and pay benefits were made compliant during 1998 (the majority before the end of August 1998). In addition, by the end of last year, we had successfully tested all these systems using dates before and after the Year 2000.

  Disabled People
  Mrs. Humble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what action his Department is taking to help disabled people into employment. [73074]

  Mr. Bayley
  Together with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment we have introduced the New Deal for Disabled People to help disabled people and those with long term illness move into, or remain in, work: piloting a voluntary personal adviser service in 12 areas throughout Great Britain, for claimants of incapacity benefits; and funding a number of innovative schemes to test different approaches. From June we will also be piloting the Single Work Focused Gateway in twelve areas. In these areas, where appropriate, people of working age who claim benefits will be given a Personal Adviser who will be able to access information and the opportunities for employment, training and rehabilitation, and will help them plan a route back to independence.

  In October 1998 we introduced a new 52 week linking rule for incapacity benefits and abolished the 16 hour limit for voluntary work. We have increased the therapeutic earnings limit from April 1999 and plan to pilot further changes to benefits from April. In addition the disabled persons tax credit, will be more generous than the Disability Working Allowance it will replace. We will also reform the All Work Test so that, as well as establishing the level of incapacity for benefit purposes, it will also provide information which will be potentially helpful to disabled people and their personal advisers when planning a return to work. The Department for Education and Employment has an extensive range of measures aimed at helping disabled people into employment.

  Second-tier Pensions
  Kali Mountford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proposals he has to encourage the spread of second-tier pensions. [73075]

  Mr. Timms
  The proposals in the pensions Green Paper for introducing stakeholder pension schemes, strengthening occupational pension schemes and providing a new State Second Pension will all encourage second-tier pension provision.
  54
  Legislation to provide for stakeholder pension schemes forms part of the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill introduced last month.

  Single Gateway
  Mr. Derek Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects to pilot the Single Gateway to Benefits for people of working age. [73077]

  Angela Eagle
  The pilots for the Single Work-Focused Gateway will commence from June 1999.

SCOTLAND

  Departmental Publicity
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for
  Scotland if he will estimate his Department's expenditure on (i) publicity, (ii) advertising and (iii) press operations in(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99, (c) 1999–2000, (d) 2000–01 and (e) 2001–02; and if he will make a statement. [69251]

  Mr. Dewar
  [holding answer 4 February 1999]: Details of expenditure on publicity, advertising and press operations are:

  £

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Publicity

  1,376,000

  1,031,000

  Advertising

  2,164,000

  2,231,000

  Press operations

  1,824,000

  1,545,000

  Figures for 1998–99 are for expenditure to date. Figures for subsequent years are not available.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the expenditure of his Department, its agencies and associated public bodies on publicity and advertising for each year since 1985–86. [69242]

  Mr. Dewar
  [holding answer 4 February 1999]:The details are:

  £

  The Scottish Office

  Agencies

  NDPBs

  1985–86

  677,000

  —

  —

  1986–87

  857,000

  —

  2,769,000

  1987–88

  1,094,000

  —

  2,318,000

  1988–89

  1,131,000

  —

  2,844,000

  1989–90

  2,251,000

  —

  4,318,000

  1990–91

  1,468,068

  —

  5,162,000

  1991–92

  2,323,653

  —

  6,474,000

  1992–93

  2,607,635

  —

  9,417,000

  1993–94

  2,361,085

  508,000

  9,173,000

  1994–95

  2,248,883

  869,000

  12,085,000

  1995–96

  2,241,189

  1,008,000

  13,910,000

  1996–97

  3,573,042

  1,026,000

  15,058,000

  1997–98

  2,740,072

  799,056

  15,000,000

  1998–99

  12,528,251

  1734,385

  —

  1 To date

  Expenditure by agencies prior to 1993–94 is not held centrally. Expenditure for NDPBs for the current financial year is not presently available. The figure for 1997–98 is the forecast outturn.
  55

  National Assets
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which assets, listed in the National Assets register, have been sold off since 1 July 1997; how much money has been realised as a result; and if he will make a statement. [69197]

  Mr. Dewar
  [holding answer 8 February 1999]: Those assets owned by The Scottish Office and its Associated Departments and Agencies which are listed under Scotland in the National Assets Register which have been sold since 1 July 1997 are as listed, together with the money realised.

  Information about property sold by other public bodies is not held centrally.

  £

  Department

  Scottish Office Core

  56 High Street, Lossiemouth

  25,000

  Land, Rosyth

  72,000

  Lowland Estate

  180,438

  Cars

  169,324

  Office Equipment

  13,395

  IT

  14,672

  Agencies & Associated Departments

  Scottish Prison Service

  29 Staff Quarters

  531,077

  88 Garages

  27,969

  2.85 ha of land

  631,000

  Vehicles

  90,985

  Plant and Equipment

  1,874

  Historic Scotland

  Cars

  11,432

  Office Equipment

  500

  IT

  4,500

  Fisheries Research Services Marine Laboratory

  Research Vessel

  600,000

  Registers of Scotland

  Plant and Machinery

  500

  Computer Hardware

  3,100

  Scottish Courts Administration

  Lanarkshire House

  1,340,000

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

  Estimated date for occupation/disposal

  Annual cost

  Department

  The Scottish Office

  Cloffinburn Cottage

  All of these properties are situated on land acquired for the M6 DBFO scheme. They are uninhabitable due to access problems during construction work. The scheme is due for completion in Spring 1999 with disposal expected during the financial year 1999–2000.

  £6,500pa

  Fairfield

  Glenevan

  Jocksthorn

  Longbedholm Cottage

  Middlegill Cottage

  Nether Howecleuch

  Nether Howecleuch Bungalow

  Raecleuch Farmhouse

  Upper Howecleuch

  56

  Departmental Properties
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his estimate of the total refurbishment bill for properties used by his(a) Department, (b) agencies and (c) related public bodies, for (i) 1996–97, (ii) 1997–98, (iii) 1998–99 and (iv) 999–2000; and if he will make a statement. [69201]

  Mr. Dewar
  [holding answer 8 February 1999]: The information set out relates to properties used by The Scottish Office and its Associated Departments and Agencies with the exception of the Scottish Prison Service for which figures could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  The total refurbishment cost for the years requested are:

  Refurbishment

  £

  Department

  Agencies

  1996–97

  55,896

  13,652,426

  1997–98

  56,323

  7,219,740

  1998–99

  5,130,000

  3,712,777

  1999–2000

  9,600,000

  9,526,520

  The refurbishment work has been carried out on a range of buildings, offices and specialist facilities and has been necessary either to preserve the fabric of the buildings or to bring systems up to a modern standard. Increased expenditure by The Scottish Office mainly relates to refurbishment of St. Andrew's House, and the buildings associated with the interim Parliament accommodation. The greater part of the expenditure under Agencies relates to the refurbishment of court buildings.

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

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the properties of his Department, agencies and public bodies which are currently vacant; how long he expects each to be vacant for; and what is the estimated annual cost of maintaining the properties in a vacant state. [69200]

  Mr. Dewar
  [holding answer 8 February 1999]: The information set out relates to vacant properties which are owned by The Scottish Office and its Associated Departments and Agencies.

  Information about vacant properties owned by other public bodies is not held centrally.

  The information is as follows:
  57

  Estimated date for occupation/disposal

  Annual cost

  Corsankell Farmhouse (A78)

  This scheme is subject to the Strategic Trunk Road Review, therefore it is not known at this stage when disposal will occur.

  Shore Street, Macduff

  October 2001

  £2,870pa

  Agencies

  SASA

  3 cottages

  Turnover of staff often results in short term vacancies

  £350 each

  Scottish Court Service

  Portcullis House, Glasgow (part)

  March 2001

  £83k in 1998–99 £79k in 1999–2000

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

  Schizophrenia
  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many patients with a primary diagnosis of schizophrenia psychoses were discharged from mental illness hospitals in Scotland in the last year; and how many were admitted for a hospital stay more than once during the year. [74388]

  Mr. Galbraith
  3,761 patients with a main diagnosis of schizophrenia psychoses were discharged from mental illness hospitals in Scotland during the year ending 31 March 1996, of which 675 were admitted more than once.

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

  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people discharged from mental illness hospitals in Scotland in the last year after a main diagnosis of schizophrenia psychoses, having been proved vulnerable homeless subsequently became voluntary homeless. [74274]

  Mr. Galbraith
  The information requested is not collected or held centrally.

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

  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many current occupants of National Health Service hospital and unit beds in Scotland have a main diagnosis of schizophrenia psychoses; and what these occupied beds represent as a percentage of(a) mental and (b) all beds in Scotland. [74270]

  Mr. Galbraith
  There were 1,751 patients with a main diagnosis of schizophrenic psychoses in mental illness hospitals and psychiatric units in Scotland at 31 March 1996, the latest year for which complete information is available. This represented 17.2 per cent. of the average available staffed mental illness beds, and 4.2 per cent. of all average available beds in Scotland for the quarter ending 31 March 1996.

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

  CS Sprays
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which police forces in Scotland(a) have and (b) have not equipped their officers with CS sprays since
  58
  August 1996; for what reasons they were issued; and how many police officers in Scotland currently carry CS sprays. [74199]

  Mr. McLeish
  CS incapacitant spray is not in general use by the police service in Scotland. The Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland (ACPOS) conducted a trial into the effectiveness of CS incapacitant spray as an item of police defence equipment during the period 1 October 1997 to 30 September 1998. The trial areas encompassed the City of Dundee in the Tayside Police area and a Division in the Strathclyde Police area. In total, 803 officers were trained to use the equipment in these pilot areas. An evaluation of the trial has been completed but ACPOS have deferred a decision on extending the use of the spray pending an independent assessment on the safety of the spray commissioned by the Department of Health. The spray continues to be used by officers in the 2 trial areas.

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

  Road Maintenance
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to improve road maintenance in Scotland; and if he will make a statement. [74404]

  Mr. Macdonald
  Maintenance of local roads is the responsibility of local authorities and details of their plans are not held centrally. Funding for road maintenance on the motorway and trunk road network in Scotland was increased following the recent Comprehensive Spending Review. This will enable us to tackle the backlog of maintenance and repair and ensure that our road network is maintained in a stable condition.

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

  M74
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to announce a decision on the proposed completion of the M74 from Tollcross to Kingston Bridge; and if he will make a statement. [74408]

  Mr. Macdonald
  The City of Glasgow and South Lanarkshire Councils agreed that the proposal to extend the M74 should be considered within the review assessing priorities for future trunk road investment in Scotland. The outcome of the review will be announced as soon as is practicable.

  From 1 July 1999 this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.
  59
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the estimated cost of changing the name of the M74 motorway to the M6; and if he will make a statement. [74410]

  Mr. Macdonald
  No estimate of the cost of changing the name of the Glasgow to Carlisle motorway to the M6 has yet been prepared. Such an estimate would require a detailed survey of signs on the existing road and connecting roads. This would be undertaken only as a precursor to initiating the proposal.

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

  Homelessness
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the estimated numbers of homeless people in each council area in Scotland. [74406]

  Mr. Macdonald
  The table gives information on the number of households in each council area in Scotland in 1996–97 who applied to the local authority for accommodation or assistance in obtaining accommodation and the local authority in question assessed the household as being homeless or threatened with homelessness. All figures are rounded to the nearest 10 and are based on those contained in The Scottish Office Statistical Bulletin HSG/1998/4 published in August 1998.

  Estimated number of households assessed as potentially homeless 1996–97

  Number

  Scotland

  30,690

  Aberdeen City

  1,470

  Aberdeenshire

  980

  Angus

  550

  Argyll and Bute

  390

  Clackmannanshire

  290

  Dumfries and Galloway

  650

  Dundee City

  640

  East Ayrshire

  360

  East Dunbartonshire

  370

  East Lothian

  530

  East Renfrewshire

  120

  Edinburgh, City of

  3,360

  Eilean Siar

  150

  Falkirk

  550

  Fife

  1,480

  Glasgow City

  10,540

  Highland

  670

  Inverclyde

  250

  Midlothian

  400

  Moray

  130

  North Ayrshire

  460

  North Lanarkshire

  1,010

  Orkney

  70

  Perth and Kinross

  430

  Renfrewshire

  440

  Scottish Borders, The

  570

  Shetland

  130

  South Ayrshire

  670

  South Lanarkshire

  1,200

  Stirling

  620

  West Dunbartonshire

  430

  West Lothian

  930

  From May 1999 this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.
  60

  Demographic Statistics
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the numbers of(a) young people under the age of 16 years and (b) retired people living in each parliamentary constituency in Scotland. [74407]

  Mr. McLeish
  The information requested is given in the table. The population figures have been prepared by a method which involves a certain degree of approximation and therefore should be treated with some caution.

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

  Parliamentary Constituency

  Estimate of population aged under 16 (as at 30 June 1997)

  Estimate of population of pensionable age1 (as at 30 June 1997)

  Aberdeen Central

  12,423

  11,717

  Aberdeen North

  12,723

  11,999

  Aberdeen South

  14,101

  13,299

  Airdrie and Shotts

  16,207

  12,807

  Angus

  15,406

  15,217

  Argyll and Bute

  11,666

  14,299

  Ayr

  13,612

  15,019

  Banff and Buchan

  16,058

  13,040

  Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross

  10,835

  10,438

  Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley

  17,320

  16,766

  Central Fife

  15,327

  13,964

  Clydebank and Milngavie

  14,014

  13,113

  Clydesdale

  16,716

  13,967

  Coatbridge and Chryston

  14,347

  11,223

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  14,116

  8,316

  Cunninghame North

  15,437

  13,050

  Cunninghame South

  13,890

  11,742

  Dumbarton

  16,008

  12,762

  Dumfries

  15,561

  16,475

  Dundee East

  14,237

  14,914

  Dundee West

  13,826

  14,483

  Dunfermline East

  14,015

  11,269

  Dunfermline West

  14,387

  11,389

  East Kilbride

  18,305

  13,656

  East Lothian

  14,814

  14,322

  Eastwood

  17,656

  15,302

  Edinburgh Central

  13,823

  14,144

  Edinburgh East and Musselburgh

  13,468

  13,611

  Edinburgh North and Leith

  13,334

  13,644

  Edinburgh Pentlands

  13,106

  13,410

  Edinburgh South

  13,764

  14,083

  Edinburgh West

  13,378

  13,688

  Falkirk East

  14,704

  12,984

  Falkirk West

  13,631

  12,037

  Galloway and Upper Nithsdale

  13,245

  15,075

  Glasgow Anniesland

  13,615

  12,427

  Glasgow Baillieston

  12,510

  11,418

  Glasgow Cathcart

  12,858

  11,736

  Glasgow Govan

  12,971

  11,839

  Glasgow Kelvin

  14,549

  13,279

  Glasgow Maryhill

  13,643

  12,453

  Glasgow Pollok

  12,316

  11,242

  Glasgow Rutherglen

  13,019

  11,883

  Glasgow Shettleston

  12,292

  11,220

  Glasgow Springburn

  13,623

  12,434

  Gordon

  17,180

  11,704

  Greenock and Inverclyde

  13,042

  11,793

  Hamilton North and Bellshill

  14,795

  11,985

  Hamilton South

  12,586

  9,765

  Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber

  17,290

  15,099

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  16,058

  14,863

  Kirkcaldy

  13,501

  12,301

  Linlithgow

  15,536

  9,440

  Livingston

  17,544

  10,659

  Midlothian

  12,792

  10,416

  Moray

  16,518

  14,136

  Motherwell and Wilshaw

  14,523

  11,963

  61

  Parliamentary Constituency

  Estimate of population aged under 16 (as at 30 June 1997)

  Estimate of population of pensionable age1 (as at 30 June 1997)

  North East Fife

  13,471

  15,202

  North Tayside

  15,701

  16,106

  Ochil

  15,399

  13,289

  Orkney and Shetland

  9,486

  7,122

  Paisley North

  13,198

  10,918

  Paisley South

  14,394

  11,907

  Perth

  15,170

  16,321

  Ross, Skye and Inverness West

  15,111

  12,744

  Roxburgh and Berwickshire

  11,032

  13,162

  Stirling

  13,051

  12,092

  Strathkelvin and Bearsden

  16,448

  13,875

  Tweedale, Ettrick and Lauderdale

  12,762

  12,858

  West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine

  17,445

  11,896

  West Renfewshire

  14,065

  12,005

  Western Isles

  5,714

  5,930

  1 Comprises males aged 65 and over, and females aged 60 and over

  Criminal Offences (Young People)
  Mrs. Laing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of people aged 15 to 25 years committed a criminal offence in each year since 1992. [74522]

  Mr. McLeish
  The available information is given in the table. It relates to the number of individuals who were convicted in Scottish courts at least once in a given year for conduct classified as a crime or for breach of the peace or simple assault, which are classified as offences. It therefore excludes convictions for motor vehicle and some minor common law and statutory offences. In addition to cases dealt with in court, children in Scotland who are suspected of committing offences are generally referred to the Reporter to a children's hearing. Each year an average of around 4,500 children aged 15 and over are referred to Reporters on offence grounds, equivalent to 7 per cent. of the 15-year-old population.

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

  Percentage of people aged 15–25 years with a charge proved in a Scottish court for a crime breach of the peace or simple assault1 on at least one occasion in the given year, 1992–97

  Year

  Percentage2

  1992

  3.8

  1993

  3.7

  1994

  3.6

  1995

  3.6

  1996

  3.7

  1997

  3.6

  1 Excludes convictions for most motor vehicle and some minor statutory offences

  2 Percentage of the relevant mid-year GRO(S) estimate of the 15–25 year old population

  Mrs. Laing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many and what percentage of people aged 15 to 25 years have been convicted of(a) two, (b) three and (c) four offences.
  62
  Mr. McLeish
  The available information is given in the table. It relates to the number of occasions between 1989 and 1997 on which people who were aged 15–25 years at June 1997 were convicted in Scottish courts for conduct classified as a crime, or for breach of the peace and simple assault, which are classified as offences. It therefore excludes convictions for motor vehicle and some minor common law and statutory offences.

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

  Number and percentage of people aged 15–25 years in 1997 with a charge proved in a Scottish court for a crime, breach of the peace or simple assault1 on 2–4 occasions in the period 1989–97

  Number of convictions in 1989–97

  Number

  Percentage2

  2

  13,712

  1.9

  3

  7,121

  1.0

  4

  4,577

  0.6

  1Excludes convictions for most motor vehicle and some minor statutory offences

  2Percentage of the mid-year GRO(S) estimate of the 15–25 year old population in 1997

  Criminal Offences
  Mrs. Laing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many and what percentage of criminal offences were committed by(a) 15 to 25, (b) 26 to 35, (c) 36 to 45 and (d) 46 to 60 year olds in each year since 1992. [74520]

  Mr. McLeish
  The available information, which relates to numbers of convictions in Scottish courts, is given in the table. In addition to cases dealt with in court, children in Scotland who are suspected of committing offences are generally referred to the Reporter to a children's hearing. Each year an average of around 4,500 children aged 15 and over are referred to Reporters on offence grounds.

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

  Persons with a charge proved in Scottish courts, by age 1992–97

  Age

  15–25

  26–35

  36–45

  46–60

  All1

  Number

  1992

  81,874

  49,944

  23,569

  14,449

  177,483

  1993

  74,971

  47,045

  21,911

  12,871

  162,806

  1994

  71,477

  47,855

  21,860

  12,847

  159,178

  1995

  69,497

  47,323

  21,857

  12,894

  156,707

  1996

  69,446

  45,845

  21,222

  11,879

  153,087

  1997

  67,463

  45,557

  21,247

  11,788

  150,450

  Per cent.

  1992

  46

  28

  13

  8

  100

  1993

  46

  29

  13

  8

  100

  1994

  45

  30

  14

  8

  100

  1995

  44

  30

  14

  8

  100

  1996

  45

  30

  14

  8

  100

  1997

  45

  30

  14

  8

  100

  1 Includes persons of all ages and companies

  NHS Funding
  Mrs. Laing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the distribution of new funding for the NHS in Scotland. [74518]
  63
  Mr. Galbraith
  Following the Comprehensive Spending Review, an additional investment of £1.8 billion is being made in the NHS in Scotland over the next three years. This will give cash growth over the original planned expenditure in 1998–99 of £300 million in 1999–2000, £590 million in 2000–01 and £910 million in 2001–02 or annual cash growth of £300/290/320 million respectively. The additional funding has been distributed as follows:

  £million

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Hospital and Community Health Services

  176

  200

  221

  Family Health Services

  119

  86

  99

  Other Health Services

  5

  4

  0

  Total

  300

  290

  320

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

  Victim Support
  Mrs. Laing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much public money has been allocated to Victim Support Scotland in each year since 1992 in(a) cash terms and (b) 1998–99 prices. [74517]

  Mr. McLeish
  The amount of public money allocated to Victim Support Scotland in each year since 1992 is as follows:

  £

  (a) Cash terms

  (b) 1998–99 prices

  1992–93

  659,140

  767,519

  1993–94

  784,781

  890,182

  1994–95

  915,550

  1,023,888

  1995–96

  1,018,229

  1,106,490

  1996–97

  1,297,669

  1,368,035

  1997–98

  1,536,559

  1,578,814

  1998–99

  1,551,500

  1,551,500

  1999–2000

  1,705,000

  1,663,411

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

  Local Government Boundary Commission
  Mrs. Laing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland with reference to the Local Government Boundary Commission for Scotland's conduct of the Third Statutory Review of Electoral Arrangements, in which local authority areas amendments to the draft proposals of the Commission were incorporated in the commission's final recommendations to him. [74526]

  Mr. McLeish
  In the case of every authority, amendments to the Commission's provisional proposals were incorporated in the Commission's final recommendations to the Secretary of State.

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

  Mrs. Laing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) with reference to the Local Government Boundary Commission for Scotland's conduct of the Third Statutory Review of Electoral Arrangements, in which local 64
  authority areas the Commission agreed to hold a local hearing into its draft proposals and any counter-proposals; [74528]

  (2) with reference to the Local Government Boundary Commission for Scotland's conduct of the Third Statutory Review of Electoral Arrangements, in which local authority areas the draft proposals of the Commission were amended subject to local hearings. [74527]

  Mr. McLeish
  No local inquiries were held.

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

  Mrs. Laing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland with reference to the Local Government Boundary Commission for Scotland's conduct of the Third Statutory Review of Electoral Arrangements, in which local authority areas detailed counter-proposals were lodged against the Commission's draft proposals, in part or in whole, by political parties, individuals or community groups. [74524]

  Mr. McLeish
  The Local Government Boundary Commission for Scotland received counter-proposals from political parties, individuals or community groups in respect of all 32 Scottish local authority areas.

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

  Mrs. Laing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) with reference to the Local Government Boundary Commission for Scotland's conduct of the Third Statutory Review of Electoral Arrangements, in which local authority areas detailed counter-proposals were examined and validated by consultants; and at what cost; [74525]

  (2) with reference to the Local Government Boundary Commission for Scotland's conduct of the Third Statutory Review of Electoral Arrangements, in which local authority areas consultants were engaged to complete, validate or otherwise examine the local authorities' initial proposals to the Commission; and what was the cost of such work to the Commission. [74523]

  Mr. McLeish
  No consultants were engaged by the commission for the purposes mentioned for any local authority area.

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

  Intensive Care Beds
  Mrs. Laing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many intensive care beds there were in each health board area in each year since 1992. [74519]

  Mr. Galbraith
  Information on the number of intensive care beds in each Health Board area in each year since 1992 is shown in the table.

  From 1 July 1999, this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.
  65

  NHS in Scotland—intensive care beds1 by health board

  Years ending 31 March

  Health Board

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1996

  19972

  19982

  1 April to 31 December 19982.3

  Argyll and Clyde

  4

  7

  12

  13

  13

  16

  26

  25

  Ayrshire and Arran

  7

  8

  8

  8

  9

  9

  11

  14

  Borders

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  4

  4

  4

  Dumfries and Galloway

  8

  8

  16

  14

  14

  13

  13

  14

  Fife

  —

  —

  5

  6

  6

  22

  22

  22

  Forth Valley

  9

  9

  9

  9

  7

  11

  16

  16

  Grampian

  10

  11

  10

  11

  10

  25

  25

  26

  Greater Glasgow

  77

  77

  75

  75

  85

  82

  112

  119

  Highland

  6

  6

  6

  6

  10

  10

  10

  10

  Lanarkshire

  37

  37

  37

  37

  37

  37

  38

  38

  Lothian

  38

  41

  41

  40

  47

  46

  47

  46

  Orkney

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Shetland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Tayside

  20

  24

  28

  25

  25

  27

  29

  29

  Western Isles

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Scotland

  219

  230

  250

  247

  266

  303

  353

  364

  1 Average available staffed beds

  2 Due to changes in recording practice, certain figures shown for year ending 31 March 1997 onwards are not fully comparable with those for earlier

  3 Provisional

  Source:
  ISD, Scotland

  Nurses
  Mr. Moore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many whole-time equivalent(a) bank, (b) agency and (c) contract nurses were employed, and at what cost, by health board area in each of the last 10 years. [74990]

  Agency nursing staff: average Whole Time Equivalent1 by health board: year ending 30 September

  Health board

  21988

  21989

  21990

  21991

  21992

  21993

  21994

  21995

  21996

  21997

  21998

  Scotland2

  238.6

  187.3

  317.4

  255.6

  249.4

  301.1

  195.3

  382.6

  459.3

  455.7

  50

  Argyll & Clyde

  —

  1.3

  0.2

  1.1

  0.1

  4.6

  11.6

  39.0

  39.8

  57.0

  6

  Ayrshire & Arran

  2.1

  7.2

  1.7

  3.0

  0.2

  0.5

  0.4

  0.4

  0.0

  3.0

  —

  Borders

  19.8

  4.4

  —

  —

  0.0

  0.1

  0.3

  0.0

  3.0

  —

  —

  Dumfries & Galloway

  —

  —

  —

  0.4

  0.4

  1.3

  0.1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Fife

  —

  —

  2.3

  1.3

  0.6

  —

  3.7

  0.2

  1.8

  6.5

  —

  Forth Valley

  —

  1.1

  10.3

  0.1

  0.0

  0.4

  0.0

  17.3

  63.1

  54.1

  2

  Grampian

  13.0

  6.1

  8.0

  11.9

  35.3

  33.6

  26.5

  46.2

  29.4

  21.8

  3

  Greater Glasgow

  80.2

  66.0

  179.8

  155.2

  148.7

  127.3

  76.8

  92.8

  67.7

  110.9

  13

  Highland

  —

  —

  0.8

  0.5

  —

  0.5

  0.1

  2.4

  4.1

  12.3

  1

  Lanarkshire

  —

  —

  0.2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0.2

  0.3

  0.3

  1

  Lothian

  123.5

  100.4

  111.2

  81.0

  64.0

  132.8

  75.8

  184.0

  249.0

  187.8

  20

  Orkney

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0.2

  —

  Shetland

  —

  0.8

  2.8

  0.9

  —

  —

  —

  0.0

  —

  —

  —

  Tayside

  —

  —

  —

  0.1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1.0

  1.8

  —

  Western Isles

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1 To calculate the average, 1 W. T. E. is taken as a contribution of 37.5 hours per week x 52 = 1,950 hours per year.

  2 Data for 1997 and 1998 are based on one six month period ending 30 September. Data for 1991 to 1996 are based on two six month periods ending 31 March and 30 September. Data for 1988 to 1990 are based on two three month periods ending 31 March and 30 September.

  Notes:

  1.Rounding of individual figures may produce slight differences between the sum of constituent items and totals.

  2.Provisional data.

  Source:
  ISD(M)

  Capercaillie (Protection)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what instruction he has given the Deer Commission concerning the use of deer fences within areas known to support the capercaillie; and what actions are proposed to remove existing fences where they are dangerous to black grouse and capercaillie; [72893]
  66
  Mr. Galbraith
  [holding answer 5 March 1999]: The information available for agency nursing staff is shown in the table. No cost data to match the staff numbers are available. Information for bank and contract nursing staff is not available centrally.

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

  (2) if he will add the capercaillie to Schedule 1 part II of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 in order to protect its lekking sites from deliberate disturbance. [72894]

  Mr. Macdonald
  The Deer Commission for Scotland has no powers either to erect or remove fences itself. However, the prevention of strikes on deer fencing by birds such as black grouse and capercaillie is always
  67
  considered by the Deer Commission for Scotland when advice is given to woodland managers, including the Forestry Commission, on forest protection and deer control. Where new planing is considered under the Forestry Commission's Woodland Grant Scheme, wide consultation takes place to ensure that any fences which are considered necessary are sited to minimise negative effects. In some cases, fences are marked in areas known to be used by birds and removed as soon as the trees are established. The Forestry Commission is removing about 200 km of existing fencing on its own land, and is contributing towards the cost of removing over 100 km of deer fencing on private land.

  My right hon. Friend has at present no plans to add the capercaillie to Schedule 1 part II of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Additional protection for the capercaillie, under the 1981 Act, is one of a number of issues currently under consideration by the Scottish Biodiversity Group's Capercaillie Species Action Plan Steering Group.

  As from 1 July these will be matters for the Scottish Parliament.

  Gaelic-medium Units
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 23 February 1999,Official Report, column 225, if he will name the schools which have Gaelic-medium units and state the number of pupils for each unit. [74566]

  Mr. Macdonald
  The information is set out in the table. In the current session there are 56 Gaelic-medium units in Scottish primary schools with a total of 1,816 pupils.

  School

  Total

  Gilcomstoun, Aberdeen

  57

  Acharacle

  33

  Aird, Lewis

  21

  Airidhantuim, Lewis

  21

  Back, Lewis

  44

  Balivanich, Benbecula

  28

  Barvas, Lewis

  26

  Bernera, Lewis

  6

  Bishopbriggs, Meadowburn

  48

  Bowmore, Islay

  16

  Breasclete, Lewis

  41

  Broadford, Skye

  39

  Carinish, North Uist

  22

  Carloway, Lewis

  35

  Castlebay, Barra

  30

  Condorrat

  21

  Cornaigmore, Tiree

  32

  Daliburgh, South Uist

  66

  Dingwall

  51

  Dunskellar, North Uist

  9

  Dunvegan, Skye

  21

  East Kilbride: Mount Cameron

  67

  Edinburgh: Tollcross

  61

  Forfar: Kirkriggs

  5

  Fort William: St. Mary's RC

  35

  Gairloch

  7

  Glasgow: Sir John Maxwell

  101

  Inverness: Central

  122

  Iochdar, South Uist

  45

  Kilmarnock: Onthank

  16

  Kilmuir

  12

  Knockianduie, Lewis

  12

  68

  School

  Total

  Laxdale, Lewis

  42

  Leverburgh, Harris

  20

  Lionel, Ness

  28

  Lochcarron

  17

  Morar: Lady Lovat

  18

  Newtonmore

  20

  Oban: St. Columba's

  11

  Paible, North Uist

  31

  Perth: Northern District

  21

  Plockton

  34

  Portree, Skye

  144

  Salen

  11

  Sandwick

  9

  Shawbost, Lewis

  6

  Sleat, Skye

  21

  Staffin, Skye

  22

  Stirling: Riverside

  3

  Stoneybridge, South Uist

  18

  Stornoway, Lewis

  47

  Tain: Craighill

  37

  Tarbert, Harris

  19

  Tongue, Sutherland

  17

  Uig, Lewis

  17

  Ullapool

  53

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

  A985
  Ms Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland
  what measures he will take to improve the safety of the junction on the A985 with the Limekilns road near Rosyth. [74797]

  Mr. Macdonald
  The National Roads Directorate are currently reviewing the effectiveness of the measures implemented at Limekilns junction in 1996 as part of the Route Accident Reduction Plan. Any further safety measures considered appropriate will be implemented as soon as possible this year.

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

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to his answer of 12 January 1999,Official Report, column 145, if he will list the expenditure incurred by (a) the Employment Service (b) his other agencies and non-departmental public bodies and (c) the Central Office of Information for relevant work carried out for his Department which is not included in the table. [67944]

  Mr. Mudie
  [holding answer 28 January 1999]: The figures for total expenditure are as follows:

  Employment Service (excluding New Deal)

  Public Opinion Research

  May 1997 until December 1998—£110,435

  Television, Radio and Newspaper Advertising

  May 1997 until December 1998—£698,503.

  69
  Therefore the total spend on research and advertising for the period May 1997 until December 1998 was £808,938 or an average of £40,941 per month. There were no direct marketing costs.

  This compares with a total spend of £2,843,282; (advertising £2,824,471; research £8,811), or an average of £236,940 per month, for the previous financial year 1996–97.

  New Deal

  Public Opinion Research

  May 1997 until December 1998—£117,177

  Television, Radio and Newspaper Advertising

  May 1997 until December 1998—£7,862,867.

  Therefore the total spend on research and advertising for the period May 1997 to December 1998 was £7,980,044 or an average of £399,002 per month. There were no direct marketing costs.

  Since New Deal was not in existence before May 1997, comparisons cannot be made with 1996–97 expenditure.

  Agencies and NDPBs

  The expenditure on behalf of agencies and non-departmental public bodies was included in the reply given on 12 January 1999, Official Report, column 145.

  COI

  The expenditure incurred by the Central Office of Information is included as appropriate in the reply given on 12 January and in the above figures for the ES and New Deal.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment 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. [69962]

  Mr. Mudie
  None of the advisory bodies sponsored by the DfEE admits members of the public to all meetings. The National Disability Council holds occasional consultation meetings. These are not statutory requirements.

  There is no statutory requirement to have lay or consumer representatives on the boards of the advisory non-departmental public bodies sponsored by the Department. The boards of these bodies reflect a wide range of knowledge, experience and expertise and include, amongst others, people with disabilities, people from ethnic minorities, education practitioners and employers.

  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment 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. [69985]

  Mr. Mudie
  (a) None of the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by this Department admits the public to all of its meetings. This is not a statutory requirement.
  70
  (b) For the Funding Agency for Schools; Further Education Funding Council; Higher Education Funding Council for England; the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority; Remploy Ltd.; and, the Teacher Training Agency, holding public meetings is not a statutory requirement.

  (c) The British Educational Communications and Technology agency; the Construction Industry Training Board (under a statutory requirement); the Engineering Construction Industry Training Board (under a statutory requirement); the Funding Agency for Schools; the Further Education Funding Council; the Higher Education Funding Council for England; Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, Remploy Ltd.; and, the Teacher Training Agency.

  (d) The British Education Communications and Technology agency; the Construction Industry Training Board (under a statutory requirement); the Engineering Construction Industry Training Board (under a statutory requirement); the Equal Opportunities Commission; the Education Transfer Council; the Funding Agency for Schools; the Further Education Funding Council; the Higher Education Funding Council for England; the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority; Remploy Ltd.; the Student Loans Company; and, the Teacher Training Agency.

  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment 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. [69905]

  Mr. Mudie
  The following executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by the DfEE have a statutory base:the British Educational Communications and Technology agency; the Construction Industry Training Board; the Engineering Construction Industry Training Board; the Equal Opportunities Commission; the Education Transfer Council; the Funding Agency for Schools; the Further Education Funding Council; the Higher Education Funding Council for England; Investors in People UK; the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority; Remploy Ltd.; the Student Loans Company; and, the Teacher Training Agency.

  Those currently within the jurisdiction of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration are:
  the Construction Industry Training Board; the Engineering Construction Industry Training Board; and, the Equal Opportunities Commission.

  In addition, the following will be brought within his jurisdiction shortly by means of an Order in Council:
  the British Educational Communications and Technology agency; the Further Education Funding Council; the Higher Education Funding Council for England; Investors in People UK; the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority; Remploy Ltd.; and, the Teacher Training Agency.

  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment 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. [69836]
  71
  Mr. Mudie
  The Advisory Committee for Disabled People in Employment and Training publishes minutes of meetings. This is not a statutory requirement.

  None of the advisory bodies sponsored by DfEE publishes the agendas and documents of meetings. This is not a statutory requirement.

  None of the advisory non-departmental public bodies sponsored by the Department publishes a register of members' interests. This is not a statutory requirement.

  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment 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. [69950]

  Mr. Mudie
  (a) The Education Transfer Council; the Funding Agency for Schools; the Further Education Funding Council; the Higher Eduction Funding Council for England; the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority; and, the Teacher Training Agency. The publication of minutes is not a statutory requirement.

  Education action zone

  Barnsley

  Barnsley Central; Barnsley East and Mexborough; Barnsley West and Penistone;

  Birmingham (Aston & Nechells)

  Birmingham, Ladywood;

  Birmingham (Kitts Green & Shard End)

  Birmingham Hodge Hill; Birmingham Yardley;

  Blackburn with Darwen

  Blackburn; Rossendale and Darwen

  East Brighton

  Brighton Kemptown; Brighton Pavilion;

  East Basildon

  Basildon; Billericay; Saffron Walden;

  North East Lincolnshire

  Great Grimsby; Cleethorpes

  Halifax

  Halifax;

  Herefordshire

  Hereford;

  Kingston upon Hull (Bransholme Area)

  Hull East; North Hull;

  Lambeth

  Dulwich and West Norwood; Streatham; Vauxhall;

  Leicester (South and West)

  Leicester South; Leicester West;

  Leigh

  Leigh; Worsley; Wigan; Makerfield;

  East Middlesbrough

  Middlesbrough; Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland;

  New Addington

  Croydon Central;

  Newcastle

  Newcastle upon Tyne Central; Newcastle upon Tyne North;

  Newham

  Poplar and Canning Town; East Ham; West Ham

  Nottingham (Bulwell)

  Nottingham North;

  Plymouth

  Plymouth Devonport; Plymouth Sutton;

  Salford & Trafford

  Manchester Central; Salford; Stretford and Urmiston;

  North East Sheffield

  Sheffield Attercliffe; Sheffield Central; Sheffield Brightside;

  South Tyneside

  Jarrow; South Shields;

  North Southwark

  North Southwark and Bermondsey

  Thetford

  South West Norfolk;

  North Somerset

  Weston-super-Mare

  An invitation to take part in a second round of EAZ applications was announced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 15 January.

  Pre-school Learning
  Mr. Maclean.
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will estimate the number of children who received pre-school learning in(a) 1997 and (b)1998. [73347]

  Ms Hodge
  The full-time equivalent number of pupils under compulsory school age receiving pre-school education was 773,693 in Spring 1997 and 811,958 in Spring 1998.
  72
  (b) The Teacher Training Agency. The publication of agendas and documents is not a statutory requirement.

  (c) The British Educational Communications and Technology agency; the Construction Industry Training Board; the Engineering Construction Training Board; the Funding Agency for Schools; the Further Education Funding Council; the Higher Education Funding Council for England; Investors in People UK; the Student Loans Company; and, the Teacher Training Agency. Publishing the members' register of interests is not a statutory requirement.

  Education Action Zones
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the parliamentary constituencies which he has allocated as education action zones broken down into(a) urban and (b) rural areas. [72057]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Education Action Zones are not allocated according to political constituencies, but reflect the groups of schools involved. The current 25 Education Action Zones occur mainly in urban areas; in two zones— Norfolk and North Somerset, the zone covers both urban and rural; and one—Hereford—covers a rural area. The associated political constituencies are as follows:

  The Government have ensured that a place is available from September 1998 for every four year old whose parents want one. In addition, the Government have set a target to double the national participation rate of three year olds in free early education places to 66 per cent. by 2002.

  Mathematics
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what minimum qualifications in mathematics are required to teach mathematics in(a) primary schools and (b) secondary schools; and what were the required qualifications 10 years ago. [74021]
  73
  Ms Estelle Morris
  The minimum requirement now, and also 10 years ago, for employment as a teacher in a maintained school is the holding of Qualified Teacher Status awarded by the Secretary of State after successful completion of an approved course of initial teacher training (ITT). Decisions about the suitability of a candidate to be employed to teach a particular subject or age range are a matter for the employer.

  All entrants to ITT courses since 1979 have been required to have attained at least a grade C in GCSE mathematics or a recognised equivalent. All current trainees on primary ITT courses must follow the national curriculum for primary mathematics. From this September, secondary trainees specialising in mathematics must follow the national curriculum for secondary mathematics.

  Our Green Paper on the modernisation of the teaching profession, published in December, made clear our determination to ensure that all new teachers have a thorough grounding in numeracy, literacy and information and communication technology. As a first step, we propose to pilot this summer a numeracy test which we intend all trainees would have to pass, from summer 2000, before they could be qualified as teachers.

  Education Expenditure
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much money has been spent since 1 May 1997 on improvements to school buildings; and what proportion of this expenditure has been generated through public private partnerships. [74790]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The following tables show the annual capital expenditure on school building repair and improvement in England of 1997–98 and the estimated outturn for 1998–99.

  The figures shown for Central Government allocations include capital grants to voluntary aided and special agreement schools, capital grants to non-maintained special schools and specialist schools and grants to grant maintained schools paid by The Funding Agency for Schools. In addition, these figures also include £84 million and £250 million in 1997–98 and 1998–99 respectively for New Deal for Schools and £90 million in 1998–99 for new capital support for schools—£35 million to remove outside toilets, £15 million to improve heating and £40 million to reduce Key Stage 1 class sizes.

  The figures shown for the Local Authority expenditure include credit approvals, receipts and other Local Authority funds.

  Capital expenditure on school buildings in England

  £million

  Central Government

  Local Authority

  Total

  1997–98

  191.5

  1,107.2

  1,298.7

  1998–991

  451.9

  1,128.9

  1,580.8

  1 The figures for 1998–99 show the estimated outturn for the period.

  74

  Public private partnership expenditure on school buildings in England

  £million

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Total

  Public Private Partnership (signed projects and in procurement)

  21.7

  160.9

  182.6

  National Grid for Learning
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on progress in the development of a national grid for learning. [74775]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Plans for the National Grid for Learning and developing in accordance with achieving the targets announced in the National Grid for Learning Challenge 'Open for Learning, Open for Business', launched in November 1998 by my right hon. Friend, the Prime Minister.

  To date, £216 million has been allocated for schools' purchase of ICT networking and infrastructure. A further £450 million remains to be allocated over the years 2000–2002. This funding will enable all schools to be connected to the Grid by 2002, and will provide them with online access to a wide range of educational and managerial resources.

  Student Grants
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what recent representations he has received about the changes to the student maintenance grant scheme. [74778]

  Mr. Mudie
  We have received a number of recent representations on the new arrangements for student support in higher education. We invited representations from key interested bodies, including the National Union of Students, the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, and the Local Government Association, in consulting them on the detail of the proposed changes to the arrangements in 1999–2000. We have also, outside those consultations, received representations from other interested bodies and individuals. We carefully considered all of these when finalising the Education (Student Support) Regulations which came into force on 3 March this year.

  University for Industry
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on progress of the new University for Industry. [74777]

  Mr. Mudie
  Considerable progress has been made towards the establishment of the University for Industry (UfI). A three year Corporate Plan for the UFI's development and implementation was recently agreed by Ministers as the basis for future planning. The UFI organisation intends to publish a summary of its plans shortly. Dr. Anne Wright, UFI's Chief Executive, and Lord Dearing, the newly appointed Chairman, will drive forward the UfI's development and implementation. The UfI is on target to launch nationally in the year 2000.
  75
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much had been spent from public funds on market research about the University for Industry by 28 February. [75290]

  Mr. Mudie
  The total amount that has been spent from public funds on market research about the University for Industry by 28 February is £317,900.

  A-levels and Vocational Courses
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Government's pilot schemes to(a) broaden A-levels and (b) upgrade vocational courses; and what plans he has to extend the pilot schemes nationwide. [74807]

  Mr. Mudie
  We expect to make an announcement shortly on the outcome of the consultation on taking forward the Government's commitment to support broader A levels and upgraded vocational qualifications, underpinned by rigorous standards and key skills. We have already made clear that the revised AS, A level and Advanced GNVQ—which are being developed in the light of a number of pilot schemes—will be introduced nationally for teaching from September 2000.

  GCSE Examinations (Entry Fee)
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to allow individual schools to charge parents entry fees for GCSE examinations where students fail to attend for the examination. [74701]

  Mr. Mudie:
  Under Section 453 of the Education Act 1996, maintained schools are already able to recover GCSE examination entry fees from parents where a student fails without good reason to attend an examination.

  Further Education Lecturers
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to resolve the dispute between further education lecturers who continued to retain silver book conditions of service in further education colleges after incorporation in 1993 and their employers. [74698]

  Mr. Mudie
  It is for individual colleges to decide the conditions of service and what pay increases they will offer their staff, within the resources available to each college and within the framework of the Government's policy on public sector pay. Ministers, however, have consistently emphasised the importance of partnership between employers and staff in delivering the vital contribution of Further Education to our lifelong learning vision. We have been encouraging the national representative bodies to collaborate in the interests of that agenda, and we warmly welcome the announcement by National Association for Teachers in Further and Higher Education (NATFHE) and the Association of Colleges (AoC) of the end of their dispute.

  European Funding
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment which countries have sent 76
  him copies of their EU Objective 3 Social Fund application forms; and if he will place translations of them in the Library. [74704]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  I have so far received copies of the current Objective 3 application forms from Denmark, Spain, Belgium, Finland, Sweden and Germany. These have already been placed in the Library and I will ensure translations in English are available there.

  NVQ Standards
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proportion of all those aged from 18 to 64 years, who are in employment or actively seeking employment, are qualified to NVQ(a) level 3 and (b) level 4 in (i) the United Kingdom and (ii) England; and what the figures were in each year from 1993. [75069]

  Mr. Mudie
  [holding answer 5 March 1999]: The information requested is contained in the following table.

  Proportion of economically active adults1 qualified to at least

  NVQ level 3 or equivalent

  NVQ level 4 or equivalent

  Year

  UK

  England

  UK

  England

  1993

  238.8

  38.2

  221.8

  21.7

  1994

  240.2

  39.6

  222.7

  22.6

  1995

  40.8

  40.4

  23.6

  23.5

  1996

  41.9

  41.6

  23.8

  23.9

  1997

  43.3

  43.0

  24.5

  24.4

  1998

  45.4

  45.0

  26.2

  26.0

  1 Adults consist of males aged 18–64 and females aged 18–59.

  2 Figures are for Great Britain only.

  Source:
  Labour Force Survey, Autumn quarters

  All-age Special Schools
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the(a) benefits and (b) disadvantages of all-age special schools; and if he will make a statement. [75490]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  When deciding statutory proposals to alter or establish special schools, my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State, takes account of professional advice from Ofsted, which will address issues such as the number and age range of the proposed pupil population and the suitability of provision to meet their special educational needs.

  Teachers (Pension Scheme)
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he expects to receive the Working Group's report on the long-term examination of the teachers' pension scheme. [75073]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I have received the Working Group's report and am currently considering its findings and recommendations.

  Foreign Language Teaching
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what plans he has to end the statutory requirement for 14 to 16-year-old pupils to be taught a foreign language; [75410]
  77
  (2) if he will make a statement on the requirement for compulsory foreign language study as part of the national curriculum. [75411]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  We have no plans to end the statutory requirement for 14 to 16-year-olds to be taught a modern foreign language. We recognise the importance of foreign language learning and are considering ways of strengthening its teaching in schools.

  Education Spending (Cumbria)
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) for what reasons his press notice LPN 41/99 is not available on the departmental internet; [75285]

  (2) for what reason departmental press officers telephoned media outlets in Cumbria asking them not to use the press release of 24 February which they had just issued; [75286]

  (3) what representations he has received from Cumbria county council since the issue of his press release on 24 February; [75287]

  (4) what powers he has to compel Cumbria county council to spend on education the moneys he has allocated to it; [75288]

  (5) what steps he will take (a) to monitor and (b) to enforce compliance with his request to Cumbria county council to spend their full standard spending assessment on education. [75289]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The central Government grant that supports Standard Spending provision is unhypothecated. Nevertheless, we have examined local authority budget proposals in the public domain, for evidence that they have reflected the increased funding in their education budgets. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State wrote to the Leader of Cumbria county council in February to urge them to consider their plans and use all of the increase to support education, and a press notice was drafted to that effect. I am pleased to say that, since then, we have been informed by the county council that they do intend to reflect their full education SSA increase of £9.4 million (5.0 per cent.) in their 1999–2000 education budget.

CABINET OFFICE

  Polling Organisations
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will establish an appropriate body, with a remit equivalent to the Advisory Committee on Advertising, to check the competence and propriety of polling organisations bidding for Government work. [75209]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  No. Decisions on awarding Government contracts to polling organisations are subject to the same strict requirements of value for money as any other category of Government procurement. In particular, the process of evaluating tenders includes an assessment of the competence of the tenderers to deliver the work required.
  78

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Mediation
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department what funding he plans to make available for the Surrey Mediation Forum. [74682]

  Mr. Hoon
  None. It has not been the Government's policy to provide core funding to individual or local mediation organisations, although some support is provided in family mediation to national representative organisations for the development of the family mediation function.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to assist the development of a national mediation council. [74683]

  Mr. Hoon
  None, although some support has been provided in family mediation to national representative organisations for the development of the family mediation function.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to ensure common standards of practice between the private and legally aided mediation sectors. [74681]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Government are not aware that there are distinct private and legally aided mediation sectors. Individual family mediators, however, undertake both private and publicly funded work. The standards of practice required for publicly funded family mediation work are set out in the contracts individual family mediators have with the Legal Aid Board.

  Woolf Reforms
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on the implementation of the Woolf reforms on the conduct of litigation. [74684]

  Mr. Hoon
  The first phase of civil justice reforms will be introduced on 26 April. Those reforms represent a modernisation of the civil justice system, which is aimed at making it quicker, simpler and less costly to its users. Judicial case management will control the conduct of litigation, directing the work to be done in preparing a case for trial. This will ensure the time is in proportion to the complexity of that case and the issues at stake.

  Civil Procedure Rules
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department if the Lord Chancellor will designate one particular publication of the new civil procedure rules as the official version to be used by judges and practitioners in court. [R] [74765]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Department has no intention of designating one publication as the preferred version.

  Conditional Fee Arrangements:
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department what assessment he has
  79
  made of the current availability of (a) contingent and (b) after-the-event insurance to cover conditional fee arrangements. [R] [74764]

  Mr. Hoon
  The discussions I and my officials have had with the insurance industry have clearly shown us that the provision of legal expenses insurance, both before the event and after the event, is diverse and considerable. Insurance aimed specifically at conditional fee agreements is almost exclusively after-the-event insurance, and the principal providers of insurance to underpin conditional fee agreements are well known. There is an increasing interest for insurance to underpin conditional fee agreements for proceedings other than personal injury cases. There are several well-known products in relation to personal injury cases, including the product developed jointly with the Law Society. All the indications are that good cases have no difficulty in obtaining insurance and that the market is maturing with the experience of nearly three and half years of operation. My officials keep in regular contact with the industry.

  Lord Chancellor
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department what was the cost to the public purse of printing and sending out the letters from the Lord Chancellor to promote the application by Mr. Andrew Patrick to re-join the Garrick Club; and if the Lord Chancellor intends to repay the cost. [75155]

  Mr. Hoon
  The approximate costs were:

  Additional resources for winter pressure 1998–99

  June 1998 allocation (Thousand)

  October/November allocation (Thousand)

  Total

  North Thames Has

  Barking and Havering

  540

  1,322

  1,862

  Barnet

  441

  1,080

  1,521

  Brent and Harrow

  679

  1,661

  2,340

  Camden and Islington

  715

  1,749

  2.464

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  1,021

  2,498

  3,519

  East and North Herts

  583

  1,427

  2,010

  East London and City

  1,042

  2,548

  3,590

  Enfield and Haringey

  706

  1,727

  2,433

  Hillingdon

  336

  821

  1,157

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  602

  1,474

  2,076

  North Essex

  1,051

  2,572

  3,623

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  657

  1,607

  2,264

  South Essex

  860

  2,105

  2,965

  West Hertfordshire

  667

  1,632

  2,299

  Total

  9,900

  24,223

  34,123

  South Thames HAs

  Bexley and Greenwich

  550

  1,547

  2,097

  Bromley

  385

  936

  1,321

  Croydon

  440

  1,061

  1,501

  Kingston and Richmond

  425

  1,087

  1,512

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  1,150

  3,010

  4,160

  Mertson, Sutton and Wandsworth

  1,070

  2,252

  3,322

  East Kent

  925

  2,009

  2,934

  Eastern Surrey

  409

  1,271

  1,680

  East Sussex

  855

  2,587

  3,442

  West Kent

  1,275

  2,824

  4,099

  Western Surrey

  900

  1,906

  2,806

  West Sussex

  995

  2,376

  3,371

  Total

  9,379

  22,865

  32,244

  80

  £

  Postage

  9.80

  Stationery

  7.84

  Typing

  6.98

  Total

  24.62

  The Lord Chancellor has repaid these costs.

  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will estimate the man-hours used by the Lord Chancellor's Diary Secretary in pursuing replies to the invitation sent out by the Lord Chancellor in connection with the re-election of Mr. Andrew Patrick to the Garrick Club; and what was the cost incurred. [75154]

  Mr. Hoon
  None. Most of those written to have already replied. The Diary Secretary will not be pursuing the outstanding invitations.

HEALTH

  Hospitals (Winter Pressures)
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the hospitals in the North and South Thames Regions which have received winter pressures money this winter, indicating the amounts received. [65491]

  Mr. Denham
  Information on winter pressures allocations by health authority is shown in the table. The information on individual hospitals is not available centrally in the form requested.

  NHS Staff (Pay)
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the cost of the proposed salary rises for NHS staff in England(a) in total and (b) broken down by category. [69992]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 8 February 1999]: Until the negotiations with non-Review Body staff groups have been completed it will not be possible to estimate the total cost of this year's pay awards. Estimates for the costs of the Review Body awards are set out as follows:

  £million

  Nurses

  370

  Professions Allied to Medicine

  60

  Hospital and Community Health Service

  Doctors and Dentists

  120

  Family Health Service

  Doctors and Dentists

  130

  Community Psychiatric Nurses
  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many community psychiatric nurses there were in each health region in England in each of the last three years. [73227]

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

  National Health Service hospital and community health services: Nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff in the community psychiatry area of work by regional office areas In England as at 30 September of each year

  Whole-time equivalents

  1995

  1996

  1997

  England

  9,540

  10,530

  10,720

  Anglia and Oxford

  900

  1,020

  880

  North Thames

  1,900

  2,040

  1,790

  North West

  1,110

  1,170

  1,280

  Northern and Yorkshire

  1,280

  1,260

  1,540

  South and West

  940

  1,050

  1,120

  South Thames

  1,510

  1,900

  1,960

  Trent

  1,180

  1,270

  1,270

  West Midlands

  730

  810

  890

  Other

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1 Less than five but more than zero

  Notes:

  1. Figures exclude any learners and agency staff

  2. Figures are rounded to the nearest ten

  Others include staff in Special Health Authorities, other Statutory Authorities, Directly Managed Units and some other organizations who employ NHS staff

  Source:
  Department of Health Non-Medical Workforce Census

  Schizophrenia Patients
  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people with a main diagnosis of schizophrenia psychoses were admitted for a hospital stay more than once during the last year in each health region in England. [73232]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information on the number of times patients have been admitted more than once during the year are not held centrally.
  82
  The following table shows the estimated number of finished consultant episodes by health region of treatment where the primary diagnosis was schizophrenia psychoses, 1997–98.

  Estimated finished consultant episodes with a primary diagnosis of schizophrenia, by health authority of treatment, 1997–98

  Health Authority

  Number

  England

  33,910

  Northern and Yorkshire

  3,780

  Trent

  1,800

  Anglia and Oxford

  2,810

  North Thames

  7,730

  South Thames

  4,060

  South and West

  4,590

  West Midlands

  3,130

  North West

  6,010

  Notes:

  1. Data have been rounded

  2. Figures for 1997–98 are provisional, no adjustments have been made for shortfalls in data (ie the data are ungrossed)

  Source:
  Hospital Episode Statistics

  Diabetes (Prescriptions)
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what is the average cost per week of prescriptions for sufferers from diabetes; [73317]

  (2) for what reasons diabetes sufferers are eligible for free prescriptions. [73315]

  Mr. Denham
  In 1997 the net ingredient cost of drugs used in the treatment of diabetes and dispensed in the community in England was £142.6 million, an average of £2.7 million a week. The net ingredient cost is the basic cost of a drug and does not take account of discounts, dispensing costs, fees or any prescription charge income.

  Diabetes sufferers are eligible for free prescriptions, except where treatment is by diet alone, as diabetes was identified in 1968 as one of a number of readily identifiable, permanent, life long conditions requiring regular or extensive medication.

  Speech Therapists (Cumbria)
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the number of speech therapists required in Cumbria; and how many were in post at the latest available date. [73480]

  Mr. Denham
  North Cumbria Health Authority has agreed with local National Health Service trusts and Cumbria Education Authority that the number of speech and language therapists should be increased by four. Recruitment to these posts is currently underway.

  22 whole-time equivalent staff classed as therapists working in the speech and language therapy area of work were in post in North Cumbria on 30 September 1997.
  Source:
  Department of Health Annual Non-Medical Workforce Census.

  Health Services Accreditation
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to maintain the work and methodology of Health Services Accreditation for use by the NHS. [73894]
  83
  Mr. Denham
  The health authorities which sponsor the work of Health Services Accreditation will be discussing with a range of interested parties including the National Health Service Executive how the work and methodologies of that body might be of use to the NHS in the future.

  Dental Services
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of dental contract holders in each health authority area have had(a) an increase in the number of registrations and (b) a decrease in the number of registrations in the most recent year for which figures are available. [74262]

  Mr. Denham
  Information on the percentage of dental contract holders having a National Health Service list which increased or decreased between January 1998 and January 1999 (the latest date for which information is available) has been placed in the Library. The percentage increases and decreases may not add to 100 because some dentists will have an unchanged list size. The comparisons are for dentists with contracts open at both January 1998 and January 1999 and exclude dentists with no registrations on both dates. Dentists with contracts in several health authorities are counted in each health authority in which they have a contract but only once in the England total. The comparisons between January 1998 and January 1999 are affected by the reduction in the registration period to 15 months.

  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what is the average length of time taken to process grant applications under the Investing in Dentistry Scheme; [74260]

  (2) Health what percentage of the Investing in Dentistry Scheme funding has been spent on (a) set up costs and (b) gross fees. [74261]

  Mr. Denham
  Each investing in dentistry funding request is dealt with as quickly as possible. The time taken to process a grant application depends on many factors, including the number of proposals received, the complexity of the request, and whether further information is required before a decision can be made.

  To date, just over £7.5 million of investing in dentistry grants have been approved to enable over 600,000 patients to register with an National Health Service dentist, giving rise to treatment costs estimated to be around £2.5 million in 1998–99.

  Tavistock Institute Research
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the NFM Tavistock Institute research project on mediation in public law and social services departments. [74680]

  Mr. Hutton
  In 1995 the Department funded a pilot project on child protection mediation. The report highlighted the advantages of effective dispute resolution as well as the difficulties of ensuring full inter-agency co-operation. The small number of cases involved suggest that further developmental work will be needed if advance dispute resolution is to make a major contribution in the handling of public law cases.
  84

  Fireworks
  Mr. Sawford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many injuries resulting from accidents involving fireworks were reported in Great Britain for each year from 1990 to 1997, broken down by hospital casualty unit. [74635]

  Dr. Howells
  I have been asked to reply.

  The DTI's annual census of fireworks injuries is conducted over a four week period taking in the run-up to 5 November and a few days afterwards. Details of injuries recorded at each NHS Trust are available only for the years 1996 and 1997. Information for the years 1992 to 1995 is recorded by regional and district health authorities but no information on a regional basis is recorded for 1991. Copies of the annual reports of firework injuries for each of these years were placed in the Library as soon as they were published. A breakdown of the injuries recorded by each A&E unit for the years 1992 to 1995 could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  No reliable estimates of fireworks injuries outside the census period can be made because the numbers are too small to be extrapolated from data in the Home Accident Surveillance System.

  Appointments
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list by region the appointments he has made since his appointment; and if he will list the known political affiliations of appointees. [75027]

  Mr. Denham
  Information on the political activity of those appointed to National Health Service boards is contained in the Department of Health's Public Appointments Annual Report. This Report is currently being prepared for all those in post at 1 March 1999 and will be published in June. Copies of last year's report, giving details of all those appointed at 1 March 1998, are available in the Library.

  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the NHS trust and health authority appointments which were not made by the due date; and which remained outstanding on 1 March. [74833]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 5 March 1999]: The information requested is shown in the table.

  List of Health Authority and National Health Service Trust Appointments which expired in 1998 and for which no appointment had been made by 1 March 1999

  Region/body

  Number of Chairs

  Number of non-Executives

  Eastern

  Essex Rivers Healthcare NHS Trust

  0

  1

  Horizon NHS Trust

  0

  1

  North West

  Chester and Halton Community NHS Trust

  1

  2

  Christie Hospital NHS Trust

  1

  2

  Clatterbridge Centre for Oncology NHS Trust

  1

  2

  Liverpool Women's Hospital NHS Trust

  0

  1

  Manchester Health Authority

  0

  1

  Mancunian Community Health NHS Trust

  0

  1

  Tameside and Glossop Community and Priority Services NHS Trust

  0

  1

  Warrington Community NHS Trust

  0

  2

  Wirral Hospital NHS Trust

  0

  1

  85

  List of Health Authority and National Health Service Trust Appointments which expired in 1998 and for which no appointment had been made by 1 March 1999

  Region/body

  Number of Chairs

  Number of non-Executives

  Northern and Yorkshire

  Calderdale and Kirklees Health Authority

  0

  1

  London

  BHB Community Healthcare NHS Trust

  0

  1

  City and Hackney Community Services NHS Trust

  0

  2

  Croydon Community Health NHS Trust

  0

  1

  Enfield Community Care NHS Trust

  0

  1

  Hillingdon Hospital NHS Trust

  0

  2

  Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Trust

  0

  1

  North Middlesex Hospital NHS Trust

  0

  1

  Pathfinder Mental Health Services NHS Trust

  0

  1

  Trent

  Central Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust

  0

  1

  Grantham and District Hospital NHS Trust

  0

  1

  South East

  East Surrey Health Authority

  0

  2

  South West

  Bath Mental Healthcare NHS Trust

  0

  1

  Gloucestershire Ambulance Service NHS Trust

  0

  1

  Gloucestershire Royal NHS Trust

  1

  0

  Royal United Hospital Bath NHS Trust

  0

  1

  West Midlands

  Birmingham Heartlands and Solihull (Teaching) Hospitals NHS Trust

  0

  1

  Walsall Community Health NHS Trust

  0

  1

  Total

  4

  35

  Human Vaccines (Bovine Material)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how those human vaccines which contained bovine material prohibited for use in the human food chain were disposed of when a ban was introduced on the use of those vaccines; [75095]

  (2) on what date it was decided to discontinue use of human vaccines which contained bovine materials prohibited for use in the human food chain; [75094]

  (3) if he will make a statement on the use prior to 1996 in human vaccines of bovine material prohibited for use in the food chain. [75096]

  Ms Jowell
  Vaccines licensed for use in the United Kingdom do not contain, in the finished product, bovine materials prohibited for use in the human food chain. However, bovine material is used in the early stage of manufacture of some vaccines which are subject to rigorously controlled purification processes.

  In March 1989, the Committee of the Safety of Medicines issued guidelines regarding the controls on the sourcing of bovine material used in the manufacture of pharmaceuticals. These were superseded by 'Guidelines for Minimising the Risk of Transmitting Agents causing Spongiform Encephalopathies via Medicinal Products' from the Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products in 1992. The guidelines have been updated to reflect developments in scientific knowledge and require animal-derived materials to be sourced from countries with no reported cases of bovine spongiform encephalopathy.
  86

  Children Act 1989
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will introduce legislation to amend section 4 of Children Act 1989 to provide for a duty to assist. [74726]

  Mr. Hutton
  As announced in the Response to the Children's Safeguards Review on 5 November 1998, the Government intend legislating to replace the current power to assist under Section 24 of the Children Act 1989 with a duty to assess and meet the needs of care leavers up to the age of 18 and will study the costs, limitations and affordability of extending this duty until the young person reaches the age of 21.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will assess the impact of Quality Protects plans on inter-departmental co-ordination between housing and social services departments; and if he will make a statement on the enforcement of existing rules under the Children Act 1989. [74723]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Quality Protects programme is directed at the local authority as a whole, including housing and social services departments, and is intended to promote corporate commitment to delivering improved services for children. Management Action Plans submitted to the Department by local authorities are currently being evaluated, and progress in implementation will be monitored by the Government. The Government have also stated in the White Paper "Modernising Social Services" their intention to place a duty on the local authority as a whole in planning children's services and for all parties to participate in and take responsibility for their delivery.

  Post-care Provision
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to ensure local authorities provide written guidance to persons leaving care. [74724]

  Mr. Hutton
  Every local authority should provide an easy to read guide to its services for young people when they leave care. The Government will address this subject in the guidance on leaving care they intend issuing later this year.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what(a) advice and (b) amenities are available to persons leaving care at 18 years; and if he will make a statement. [74725]

  Mr. Hutton
  Local authorities have duties and powers under the Children Act 1989 to advise, befriend and assist care leavers up to the age of 21. Extensive guidance on the exercise of these responsibilities was issued to accompany the Children Act but further guidance will be issued later this year, as announced in the Government's Response to the Children's Safeguards Review.

  Quality Protects Action Plans
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the Quality Protects action plans submitted by local authorities; and if he will make a statement. [75299]
  87
  Mr. Hutton
  All local authorities submitted their Quality Protects Management Action Plans by the closing date of 31 January 1999. These are currently being evaluated by the Department's Social Services Inspectorate. The Department will publish a national overview report of the Management Action Plans when these evaluations have been completed.

  Foster Care
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if, following the review of safeguards for children living away from home, he will ensure that children in all forms of foster care are protected from corporal punishment. [75156]

  Mr. Hutton
  Corporal punishment is not permitted by law, with the exception that a parent or someone acting in loco parentis is entitled to administer corporal punishment that is reasonable in all the circumstances. Legislation prohibits corporal punishment in children's homes, foster care and registered care homes.

  Current legislation does not prevent the use of corporal punishment by private foster carers. Children Act guidance on assessing the suitability of private foster carers states that social workers should explore the (private) foster carers' views on discipline, including their preparedness to accept that corporal punishment is inappropriate for children who are privately fostered. A consultation document will be issued shortly on how the law can be improved in order to better protect children.

  Medicines (Children)
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment the Government have made under the licensing process of the side-effects of medicines used on children; [75473]

  (2) if he will assess the applicability for the United Kingdom of the system for licensing medicines for children in the United States, which will compel pharmaceutical companies to provide information about the effects of their drugs on children; [75474]

  (3) what is the incidence of adverse reaction of children to (a) unlicensed and (b) off-label treatments. [75472]

  Ms Jowell
  There is no centrally held record of suspected adverse reactions to medicines and the incidence is not therefore known. However, the Yellow Card Scheme exists for health professionals to report suspected adverse reactions to the Medicines Control Agency and Committee on Safety of Medicines on a voluntary basis. This scheme has been successful in identifying new hazards to medicines so that prescribers may be informed about the safe use of medicines. In addition, a pilot scheme has been set up in the Trent Region, with funding from the Medicines Control Agency, to monitor the safety of medicines in children. This includes suspected adverse reaction reports associated with unlicensed and off-label usage of medicines in children.

  When an application is made for a licence for a medicine for use in children, the evidence submitted in
  88
  support of the quality, safety and efficacy of the medicine is evaluated. The side-effects occurring during the paediatric clinical trials are assessed as part of this evaluation. A final decision regarding the grant of a licence for use in children is made after weighing the potential benefits of the proposed treatment against the potential risks.

  Currently in the United Kingdom the decision to undertake appropriate trials to support an application for a licence for use of a medicine in the treatment of children rests with pharmaceutical companies. A recently adopted European guideline encourages the pharmaceutical industry to undertake appropriate clinical trials on products with anticipated therapeutic benefits in children. However, if the guidance does not have the effect of increasing the availability of appropriate medicinal products for children, there is scope for the UK and other Member States to raise with the European Commission the question of whether legislation similar to that in operation in the United States should be introduced to strengthen the European regulatory framework.

  Nurses (Training)
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what perecentage of nurses' training takes place in hospital wards; and if he will make a statement. [75009]

  Mr. Denham
  Pre-registration nurse education programmes consist of a minimum of 4,600 hours theoretical and practical instruction of which no less than 50 per cent., or 2,300 hours, are spent in clinical placements dealing directly with patients. The large majority of placements will take place in hospital wards although community, primary care and other clinical settings are also used.

  Residential and Nursing Care
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the cost to(a) nursing and (b) residential home owners of the implementation of the new national required standards for residential and nursing homes over the next five year period. [74565]

  Mr. Hutton
  We intend to publish the proposed standards for older people in residential care, produced by the Centre for Policy on Ageing, for consultation shortly. We will also consider the detailed cost implications for nursing home and residential care home owners of introducing the standards prior to taking any decision about their implementation.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what provision will be made in National Health Service funding 1999–2000 to independent providers of residential and nursing care to meet the cost of pay increases awarded to nurses and auxiliary nurses; and if he will make a statement. [73981]

  Mr. Hutton
  None. Independent providers of residential and nursing care homes are free to decide on the pay rates for their staff according to their particular requirements and circumstances.

TREASURY

  Agenda 2000
  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the effect on the British rebate under the Fontainebleau Agreement of the implementation of the Agenda 2000 proposals for co-financing the Common Agricultural Policy in the event of(a) an increase in overall support to British agriculture and (b) an increase in agricultural support provided from UK domestic funds. [71648]

  Ms Hewitt
  Cofinancing of the CAP would not affect overall support to agriculture, in the UK or other member states. It would increase support provided directly by member states, but reduce the support provided by the EC.

  Any increase in agricultural support from UK domestic funds would, of itself, have no effect on the UK rebate. Any such increase which resulted from cofinancing would be more than matched—even after the abatement—by a reduction in UK contributions to the EU. The Commission has estimated (in its report on Own Resources) that cofinancing of 25 per cent. of CAP direct aids would reduce the UK net contribution by £146 million in 2006.

  Arms Exports
  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what significant inaccuracies there have been in HM Customs and Excise data relating to the value of arms exports to individual countries; [71659]

  (2) what factors underlie the significant inaccuracies found in HM Customs and Excise data relating to the value of arms exports to individual countries. [71660]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answers 16 February 1999]: HM Customs and Excise collect data on exports from the UK as an input to the Balance Of Payments estimation, and to meet the needs of the UK government and business users for trade information. An extensive validation programme is undertaken on the information received by Customs to ensure suitability of the data for those purposes, but it would not be feasible thoroughly to check all export declarations under £3 million. Information specifically relating to arms exports has never had its accuracies questioned in the past.

  But when the detailed arms exports data were examined, errors of country or commodity code were found which would have made the information unreliable. This information therefore had to be re-checked.

  Minimum Wage
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many workers he expects to benefit from the introduction of the national minimum wage in the constituency of Glasgow, Govan. [74882]

  Ms Hewitt
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Director of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to reply.
  90
  Letter from Dr. M. P. G. Pepper to Mr. Mohammad Sarwar, dated 8 March 1999:
  In the absence of the Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your recent question on the number of people who will benefit from the introduction of the proposed national minimum wage (NMW).
  The New Earnings Survey (NES) can provide earnings data for small geographical areas. However, the release of NES data is restricted to figures which are derived from a sufficiently large sample of employees, and have an acceptable level of accuracy.
  Estimates of the proportion of people who are currently earning below the proposed minimum wage for a range of geographical areas have been placed in the House of Commons Library under the title of 'New Earnings Survey 1998—National Minimum Wage Distribution Tables'. These include available information for the Glasgow Govan constituency. The tables provide an historical position against the 1998 values of the proposed NMW, and make no judgement on whether its introduction will have any effect on the number of jobs.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what percentages of suspect BSE cases were subsequently confirmed in each year from 1988 to 1997. [75062]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  For the years 1988–97 inclusive, the percentage of animals restricted in Great Britain as BSE suspects and subsequently confirmed as having BSE are given in the following table:

  Year

  Restricted

  Confirmed

  Percentage confirmed

  1988

  2,516

  2,184

  86.80

  1989

  8,447

  7,137

  84.49

  1990

  17,323

  14,181

  81.86

  1991

  30,009

  25,032

  83.41

  1992

  44,846

  36,682

  81.80

  1993

  42,931

  34,370

  80.06

  1994

  30,261

  23,945

  79.13

  1995

  17,946

  14,302

  79.69

  1996

  10,701

  8,016

  74.91

  1997

  5,607

  4,312

  76.90

  Foie Gras Production
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on his policy in respect of foie gras production within the EU. [74832]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 5 March 1999]: We are opposed to the force feeding of ducks and geese to produce foie gras—a practice which is not followed in the United Kingdom. We have therefore been glad to have the opportunity, in the Standing Committee of the European Convention for the Protection of Animals Kept for Farming Purposes, to join in the negotiation of a Recommendation on the welfare of ducks and geese. We

  91
  are pressing there for the highest standards that can be negotiated, as Recommendations adopted by the Council of Europe in this way subsequently serve as the basis for EU Directives.

  Genetically Modified Foods
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what powers the Government have to ban the import of genetically modified food. [74828]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 5 March 1999]: Under Article 12 of the EC Novel Foods Regulation (258/97), a Member State may act to either temporarily restrict or suspend the trade in, and the use of, an approved novel food or food ingredient in its territory if as a result of new information, or a reassessment of existing information, it has detailed grounds for believing that its use endangers human health or the environment. In such cases it is required to immediately inform the European Commission of its decision. The European Commission then has three months from the date of referral to resolve the matter or adopt the Member State's proposed measure. Under the World Trade Organisation Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, WTO members have the right to take measures necessary for the protection of human, animal or plant life or health, provided that these are based on scientific principles and are not maintained without sufficient scientific evidence.

  Milk Quotas
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the progress made on the abolition of milk quotas in the EU. [75047]

  Mr. Rooker
  In the negotiations which are continuing in the Agriculture Council my right hon. Friend is continuing to press for a substantial reform of the dairy regime including a clear end date for milk quotas.

  Lobbyists
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the role of professional lobbyists in formulating policy in his Department. [74353]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 1 March 1999]: Any contact with lobbyists by Ministers and civil servants in this Department is conducted in accordance with the "Ministerial Code and Guidance for Civil Servants: Contact with Lobbyists".

  Decommissioning
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on what projects Spain spent the funding it received under the EU scheme to reduce fishing levels. [74505]

  Mr. Morley
  We do not have details of actual spending by Spain under Council Regulation 3699/93 during the current structural programme (1994–99). However their planned spending on measures to reduce fishing effort 92
  during this period, as set out in their fisheries aid programme approved by the European Commission, was as follows:

  Measure

  Projects

  EU aid1

  National aid1

  Decommissioning

  Objective 1

  700

  275.0

  118.0

  Non Objective 1

  200

  35.9

  35.9

  Joint Enterprises

  Objective 1

  55

  70.0

  30.0

  Non Objective

  4

  3.5

  3.5

  Temporary Joint Ventures

  Objective 1

  30

  11.0

  5.0

  Non Objective 1

  6

  1.5

  1.5

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) how many vessels have been scrapped under the EU scheme to reduce fishing levels by(a) the United Kingdom, (b) Spain, (c) Italy, (d) Portugal, (e) Greece, (f) France, (g) Germany, (h) the Netherlands and (i) Denmark; [74502]

  (2) what the funding received by the UK under the EU scheme to reduce fishing levels was spent on. [74534]

  Mr. Morley
  Under the current EU scheme provided for in Council Regulation 3699/93, 547 vessels have been decommissioned in the UK at public expense. In recognition of their historical significance, a small number of these were placed in the care of registered museums rather than scrapped. My Department does not have this information for other member states, although information on changes in the tonnage and power of all member states' fleets up to the end of 1996 was published in the European Commission's report on the outcome of the third Multi-Annual Guidance Programme. This was the subject of MAFF Explanatory Memorandum Number 9893/97 submitted on 28 July 1997.

  This accounts for all of the £14,375,370 received by the UK in reimbursement from the EU towards the cost of permanent reductions in fishing capacity.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if decommissioning money received by the United Kingdom under the EU scheme to reduce fishing levels was made available in the United Kingdom to vessels fishing outside the EU waters; [74503]

  (2) what proportion of vessels scrapped under the EU scheme to reduce fishing levels were fishing outside the EU waters. [74504]

  Mr. Morley
  UK decommissioning schemes under Council Regulation 3699/93 have been limited to vessels holding licences authorising them to fish in Community waters. Although this has included certain vessels also authorised to fish outside EU waters, no vessels with material records of fishing outside EU waters have been decommissioned at public expense.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what determined the levels of funding received by(a) Spain and (b) the United Kingdom under the EU scheme to reduce fishing levels. [74506]
  93
  Mr. Morley
  Funds for measures covered by Council Regulation 3699/93 were allocated by the European Union to Member States on the basis of programmes for structural aid for 1994–99. Account was taken of a number of factors including respective fleet sizes and the relative development of the regions concerned. Funding actually paid by the EU to Member States is determined by the amount of eligible expenditure that has been incurred.

  Local Authority Inspections (Restaurants)
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what national statistics are compiled by his Department in respect of local restaurant inspections carried out by local authorities. [74538]

  Mr. Rooker
  Statistics on inspections of restaurants and other caterers (as a single category) are compiled by the Ministry from returns submitted by local authorities in the United Kingdom as part of the information for the annual return we are required to make to the Commission under article 14 of the Council Directive on the official control of foodstuffs (89/397/EEC).

  A copy of the latest return and summary statistics for the United Kingdom and for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland separately were recently placed in the Library of the House.

  Imported Meats (Antibiotics)
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the use of antibiotics in imported meats. [74695]

  Mr. Rooker
  The use of antibiotic feed additives outside the EU and the consequences for imported meats was considered by the Council of Agriculture Ministers and the EU Commission following the recent decision to ban the use of certain antibiotic growth promoters. The Council and Commission issued a joint declaration which emphasises the importance of protecting consumers' health and the need not to prejudice the competitive position of European producers, whilst complying with the Union's international commitments. The Council called for a report from the Commission before 30 June 199 which will examine how to ensure that third countries comply with rules for feed additives, in particular antibiotics, which are at least equivalent to those laid down at Community level.

  Live Animal Exports
  Mr. Prosser
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to persuade EU partners, when undertaking the review of Council Directive 91/628/EEC required by Article 13 of that Directive, to abandon the long distance transport of live farm animals throughout the European Union and replace such transport with a trade in meat and carcases; and if he will make a statement. [74324]

  Mr. Morley
  We attach great importance to this review, which is required to take place this year. We will be pressing the European Commission to bring it forward to time. In contacts with other Member States in the run-up to the review, we shall continue to press the case for reduced journey times to slaughter, for the highest 94
  welfare standards to be set and our view that a carcase trade is preferable to long distance live transports for slaughter.

  Mr. Prosser
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in respect of what proportion of consignments of live sheep exported from the UK he has requested in the last year the competent authorities in other Member States to confirm that the arrangements set out in the route plan for giving animals rest, liquid and food are adhered to; and if he will make a statement. [74322]

  Mr. Morley
  Monitoring compliance with route plans once sheep have left Great Britain is the responsibility of the Member States concerned. Officials of this Department maintain contacts with their opposite numbers in the other Member States to try and ensure that there is effective enforcement and that information concerning contraventions is sent back to us. We cannot expect the competent authorities concerned to check on large numbers of consignments nominated by us, but they have helped us on a case by case basis on a small proportion of consignments in the last year. We also look to the European Commission to fulfil its responsibility to ensure that Member States implement and enforce the requirements.

  Animals (Religious Slaughter)
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will list the major outlets for religiously slaughtered meat not consumed by adherents, indicating how many tonnes entered the food chain for the last year for which figures are available; [73324]

  (2) what tonnage of animals religiously slaughtered in Britain in the last year for which figures are available was exported overseas; and to which countries. [73321]

  Mr. Morley
  Figures on these matters do not separately distinguish meat produced by the religious slaughter of animals.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many slaughterhouses there are in the UK; how many undertake religious slaughter; and what is the average number of times that(a) slaughterhouses undertaking religious slaughter and (b) other slaughterhouses have been inspected in each of the last two years. [73686]

  Mr. Morley
  Details of licensed slaughterhouses in England and Wales are published in the Meat Hygiene Enforcement Report, which is placed in the Library of the House each month. Information is not held on those adopting religious methods of slaughter or the average number of times these methods are used. A member of the Meat Hygiene Service inspection team is present every day during operating periods.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to label religiously slaughtered meat. [73346]

  Mr. Morley
  We have no such plans at present.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list for each species the total
  95
  number of animals religiously slaughtered in the UK for the last year for which figures are available. [73484]

  Mr. Morley
  Information is not kept separately for the numbers of animals slaughtered by the religious or by other approved methods. The next biennial review of welfare at slaughter standards by the Meat Hygiene Service, which will take place later this year, has been designed to provide information on slaughter practices.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list(a) the breaches of the approved killing methods his inspectors have discovered over the last two years in slaughterhouses undertaking religious slaughter and (b) the penalties imposed on the operators in each case. [73498]

  Mr. Morley
  Official Veterinary Surgeons of the Meat Hygiene Service monitor compliance with welfare at slaughter legislation in licensed slaughterhouses daily during operation and take on-the-spot action to put right any problems found. Figures that are available relate to prosecutions, and none of the prosecutions taken under the Welfare of Animals (Slaughter or Killing) Regulations 1995 relates to breaches of approved killing methods for religious slaughter.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the approved killing method for each species undergoing religious slaughter. [73320]

  Mr. Morley
  When slaughter is by the Jewish or Muslim method the Welfare of Animals (Slaughter or Killing) Regulations 1995 provide an exemption from the general requirement for animals to be stunned. Slaughter must be carried out without inflicting unnecessary suffering: in the case of cattle, sheep and goats by the severance of both carotid arteries and both jugular veins by rapid, uninterrupted movements of a knife and, in the case of turkeys, domestic fowl, guinea-fowl, ducks, geese or quail by the severance of both carotid arteries by rapid and uninterrupted movements of a knife.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the proportion of an animal carcase religiously slaughtered which is consumed by adherents of the religion concerned; and what use is made of remaining edible parts of the carcase. [73483]

  Mr. Morley
  The acceptability for consumption of carcases and parts of carcases is a matter for the religious authorities.

  Genetic Material
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food who(a) commissioned and (b) carried out the tests conducted on Ciba-Geigy maize gluten feed to establish the effects of processing on modified and non-modified genetic material. [74429]

  Mr. Rooker
  In 1996, the Ministry commissioned tests at the Laboratory of the Government Chemist on samples of maize gluten feed, specifically to determine the effect of processing on DNA.

  Japanese Whaling
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to the letter from the Parliamentary Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), ref 123733, on Japanese whaling, if he will make a statement on the bilateral meeting with Japanese officials held on 8 February. [72895]

  Mr. Morley
  Whaling was only one of the issues discussed at the meeting in question; a large number of other environmental issues were discussed. The UK delegation made clear the UK's opposition to Japan's whaling activities, stressing in particular, our disappointment that Japan continues to whale under special permit and to ignore all IWC calls to halt scientific whaling in the Southern Ocean Sanctuary. We emphasised that the UK view does not consider that there is any scientific justification for Japanese scientific whaling and called upon Japan to restructure its research programmes so that its objectives could be achieved by non-lethal means. We also drew attention to the fact that the UK was not alone in expressing these views; a large majority of IWC members have also made clear their opposition to Japanese scientific whaling. Japan reiterated its formal position on this issue. I can assure my hon. Friend that we shall continue to raise this issue with Japan at every appropriate opportunity.

  Hops
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the advice given by the EU Commission with regard to payment to hop producers under Regulation 1098/98 for hops planted during the winter 1997–98; and what discussion he has had with the Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce concerning the interpretation of that advice. [75282]

  Mr. Rooker
  MAFF has undertaken extensive discussion with the Intervention Board about payments to hop growers under the new EU special temporary measures for hops. Advice from the Commission has been sought and further clarification is awaited before any final decisions arsssse taken.

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

Mergers: Protection of Employees' Rights
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether it is possible for companies intent upon merging to avoid the obligations in the Transfers of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations by conducting a "merger" by way of share transfer, and, if so, what further steps should be taken to protect employees' interests.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Simon of Highbury): My Lords, the regulations are designed to safeguard employees' interests when the business in which they work is transferred to a new employer. They do not apply in cases of takeover by share transfer as these involve no change in the employer's legal identity or contractual relationship with the employees. The employees' rights are unaffected and the employing company, if it wishes to seek changes to terms and conditions or to make redundancies, is in exactly the same position after the takeover as it was before.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Is he aware of the situation in which employees have been affected by a merger as a result of share transfer and the superior rights which exist under the regulations referred to in my Question have not applied? As a result, their union is pursuing the matter in the courts. It appears that a loophole exists
2
which should be closed; otherwise the union is likely to pursue the matter beyond the courts in this country, possibly to Europe, involving a great deal of time, energy and money. Would it not be better if the regulations were suitably amended?
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, I am aware of situations in which share transfer has led to redundancies. However, I would make it clear that there are two separate circumstances. In the first, the legal ownership changes; in the second, it does not. In the latter case of share transfer, there is the collective redundancies directive under which recourse could be taken for unsatisfactory dismissal. That remains the most effective recourse to justice.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that when two companies merge in this way the redundancy provisions favour the employees to the extent that considerable consultation must take place and the larger the firm the more extensive the degree of consultation? Will he also confirm that the Government do not support the view currently expressed by London Underground, as opposed to every other employer, that employees should be guaranteed their jobs for 15 years?
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, I confirm the noble Baroness's contention that under normal circumstances there is extensive consultation by companies, as is required under merger conditions. That is well protected by the existing law and frequently takes place. However, there are circumstances in which it does not, which is why a sound and effective law must stay in place. I make no statement about London Underground because I am not aware of the circumstances.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, is it the case that such regulations and laws do not exist in the United States? Is not that part of the reason why, as the Prime Minister explained, the United States is far more effective in creating jobs and expanding the economy than our sclerotic economies in Europe? If there is a loophole,

3
would it not be correct for the Prime Minister to ask Ministers to expand it so that we can become more like America? After all, that is his policy.
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, I point out again that there is no loophole. There are two different legal circumstances; change of ownership, which is a takeover circumstance, and share transfer, which is a merger circumstance. They are differently treated in law and that is successful. Although we are consulting, at this time we see no reason to change the basic legal principle which applies. As regards differences between Europe and the United States, I know that the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, is fully aware of the different circumstances which apply in the markets.
Lord Brookman: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the 1980s was a most unfortunate period for working people in the United Kingdom, being unregulated and unfair? Are not the Government trying to be fair to employers and employees?
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that question. It is exactly the spirit which lies behind our new Bill which will soon come to this House. I hope that it is received in exactly the spirit which I then detected in the air.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, without going into the hyperbole of the previous question, does the Minister agree that there is no evidence whatever that the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations have had the remotest influence on unemployment, as was suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit?
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, we agree.

Public Roads: Prevention of Accidents
2.40 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they are taking to improve arrangements for applying salt and grit to public roads in the United Kingdom, including those for which local authorities have responsibilities, in order to reduce accidents in winter conditions.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, arrangements for applying salt on trunk and national roads in the United Kingdom are reviewed on a regular basis in the light of changed circumstances, usage and technological developments. We encourage local highway or roads authorities to do the same.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his reply. Are the Government concerned about reports that some local authorities have
4
been reducing the resources needed to keep roads safe? Does he agree that our climate produces sudden changes in temperature to below freezing in different parts of the country and that that often happens, most unfortunately, at holiday periods and at weekends?
Lord Ampthill: My Lords, it is all the last government's fault!
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the situation under the last government, as under this Government, is dealt with through their operation of the Highways Agency in England and the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales in relation to their roads. There is a fairly firm code of practice as to what is required in terms of salt application in that it should be undertaken before the ice forms or snow settles on the roads. We give similar advice to local authorities. However, it is not part of our interpretation of the law or that advice that it is the responsibility of the highways authorities to keep open all roads at all times.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, if the Government were to ignore the back-slidings of such local authorities, would they not find themselves on a slippery slope? Moreover, in trying to defend them, would not the noble Lord find himself on very thin ice?
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, the House will sympathise with anyone who must try to predict the vagaries of the wonderful climate which we enjoy in the United Kingdom. Is the Minister satisfied that the arrangements for distributing funds to local authorities in the United Kingdom are satisfactory to meet the needs of that particular variable in their responsibilities?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for intervening before I had to conjure up a meterological riposte to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy. In normal circumstances, the allocations which we give to local authorities to cover maintenance of the highway and the removal of obstructions to the highway, which include snow and ice, are adequate. Clearly, there are other means whereby the national government may assist in emergency situations.

Genetically Modified Food
2.46 p.m.
Baroness Ludford Baroness Ludford asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will impose a five-year moratorium on commercial growing of genetically modified food until adequate independent research and testing of its health and environmental consequences has been carried out, and whether they will seek a similar moratorium throughout the European Union.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, no genetically modified crops are grown in the United Kingdom commercially. Therefore, there is no need to introduce a moratorium on commercial growing either in the UK or in the EU. There are some carefully controlled, limited-scale trials

5
taking place. The Government believe that there is no evidence to justify demands for those to be stopped on environmental grounds.
Baroness Ludford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Will he accept that a freeze of several years—English Nature suggested three but preferably five—is pro-science in that it allows more research and field trials to be carried out? That would help to convince consumers that the health and environmental risks have been fully explored as the Consumers Association believes that at present consumers are not convinced.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, two points arise in relation to that. First, as regards the growing of crops, I agree with the noble Baroness that caution is necessary. That is why we have hitherto limited it to fairly small-scale crops being produced in the United Kingdom and why we are giving a very limited approval to field farm-scale experiments. However, we need to engage in such experiments for the very reason which English Nature drew to our attention; namely, that it is not possible to assess the environmental effects of commercially grown crops without growing them on that scale and measuring that impact on the surrounding habitats and biodiversity.
As regards consumers, I agree with the noble Baroness that consumers need to be aware that there are products which have been approved which contain genetically modified organisms.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that there is serious concern about the possibility of the rapid development of herbicide-resistant crops, on the ground that there is already enough poison within the English countryside? While I am sure that the Government will maintain careful consideration of the matter, will they take the point that leadership from Britain in that area may be extremely relevant within the wider Europe?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, it is very important indeed that the European Union acts as a whole in relation to this matter. The structure of permission is Europe-wide. The way in which we are approaching permission to grow genetically modified crops on that very limited basis takes account of the possible danger to the wider environment—plants, insects, other species and habitats which may be affected. We are adopting a cautious approach. It is necessary to test out those effects on a substantial scale but in limited locations, and in circumstances which are controlled extremely carefully.
Viscount Addison: My Lords, in his reply the Minister said that experiments were carefully controlled. Does he agree that to have only one gentleman, who is a doctor, to keep an eye on the 333 sites in the United Kingdom is not the way to control them carefully? I talk in particular about agricultural crops.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am not sure to which resources the noble Viscount refers. Perhaps I may write
6
to him to clarify the situation in terms of resources. All experimental areas are now monitored by the Health and Safety Executive, which has powers to act if necessary.
Lord Taverne: My Lords, does the Minister agree that herbicide-resistant crops can reduce the use of herbicides and thereby benefit the environment? Will the Government ensure that any moratorium is not used to prevent the development and prosperity of an industry which, subject to vigorous safeguards, is not only economically important but can also benefit greatly the environment and health?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, we are not, of course, advocating a moratorium in the sense the noble Lord proposes. We believe that potentially there will be great benefit to the world as a whole if we can produce crops that do not require the number of herbicides that current technology requires. Nevertheless, there are a lot of unknowns in this. As the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, indicated, we all need to be very careful. We do not know the full consequences of the new technology. While there is great potential, we must be protective of the environment as well as consumers.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, on the assumption that Her Majesty's Government may consider it advisable to ask for a moratorium, as inferred by the Question, have the Government ever considered the means of practical enforcement of such a moratorium, not only in the United Kingdom but also in Europe as a whole where there is, of course, a widespread disregard of the law in any event?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as always, my noble friend has turned the subject into a more general argument. By and large, I would defend the regimes of our partners in the European Union. Everyone in the European Union is concerned that we do not open up problems that the unknown consequences of genetically-modified organisms may produce. Throughout the European Union we are equally convinced that there is some scientific and potentially substantial economic benefit if such organisms can be produced safely. I submit that it is better that we act co-operatively with our European partners in this matter rather than each taking separate decisions.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford: My Lords, while accepting that there is nothing wrong with genetic modification by the most advanced scientific methods— indeed there may be huge benefits—does the Minister share my concern that we may be driven faster down that road by commercial considerations than is desirable? Is he confident that we have adequate safeguards in place to prevent that happening?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, undoubtedly, there are commercial pressures and money to be made in this area. It is the responsibility of the national and the European authorities to ensure that the interests of the consumer and the long-term interests of the environment are protected. We have mechanisms and physical

7
controls in place to ensure that that happens. However, we are looking carefully at a number of areas, including consumer labelling, where perhaps we need to take some further measures.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, may I help the Minister? The point that my noble friend was making, and which I think he misunderstood in an earlier Question, was that it is public knowledge, so far as I know, that there is but one inspector to look after all 300-odd sites where the experimental crops are grown. Whatever the resources are that have been allocated in financial terms, it comes down to one man who clearly cannot adequately monitor all those sites.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as I indicated in reply to the earlier question, I shall need to check on the exact level of resources both for the Health and Safety Executive and for the agricultural side. Clearly, resources for inspection in these areas are always scarce. It is our belief that we allocate them to the best advantage. Indeed, as noble Lords will know, there have already been prosecutions in this area as a result of commercial outfits not completely observing the protections. I believe that that is a good sign and indicates that our inspections are working.
Baroness Castle of Blackburn: Will the Government ensure that research institutes which are inquiring into the implications of genetically modified foods do not become so dependent on funds from commercial interests like Monsanto that any scientist employed by them who enters doubts about these foods is liable to be suspended and his research vilified?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I note what my noble friend says. In relation to the particular example to which she is no doubt alluding, that is primarily a matter between the institute and the scientists concerned. Our main concern is to broaden the knowledge in this area; and to ensure that it is not driven by particular interests. The Government will approach the advice that they take in that way. It is hoped that that will be me case throughout Europe as well.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, in view of all the pressure being brought to bear on the Government, can the Minister say why they are not considering delaying the experiments that are being conducted? Last week we heard that the water companies are concerned about them. The general public are not in favour of them. In regard to pollen being transferred, there are great areas of uncertainty. Will the Minister clarify the position for us?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I should have thought from most of what I have said that it is clear the Government recognise that there is widespread concern; and that we need to know more about the effects of growing such crops on the food chain. In order to do that, experiments must be carried out—not only small-scale experiments, which already exist, but also large-scale ones—so that
8
the effects on die wider environment can be judged were we to move to commercial production. My objective, and that sought by the noble Baroness, namely that we do not proceed to commercial operations without knowing the answers to all those unknowns, can be met only by some degree of experimentation. It is that carefully controlled experimentation that is permitted by the Government.
Baroness Ludford: My Lords, my Question differed from that of the noble Baroness, Lady Byford. I was not seeking to postpone research. Indeed, I sought further research and a moratorium on commercial growing. It is only by further research that we can reassure consumers. At the end of the day it is the people who will have to accept them.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I note the clarification of the noble Baroness's Question. In this country we are not at the stage of giving permits to commercially grown crops. That will depend on the outcome of the trials that we are currently conducting.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, will the Minister say whether the experimental crops will ultimately be destroyed? If so, will that not be to the great satisfaction of the consumer?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the outcome of those tests has yet to be assessed. It is not normal practice for us to destroy the evidence, positive or negative, that the trials yield. Currently, the intention is not to destroy the experimental crops; nor do I think it would be scientifically sensible to do so.

Cyprus
2.59 p.m.
Lord Harris of Haringey Lord Harris of Haringey asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress they are making in securing a peaceful settlement in Cyprus.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, we remain determined to find a solution to the Cyprus problem. The best means of achieving this is through the United Nations Secretary-General's mission of good offices on the basis laid down in Security Council resolutions for a bizonal, bicommunal federation. United Nations Security Council Resolution 1218 of 22nd December 1998 is an important step forward. It sets out clear objectives for reducing tension and for progress towards a comprehensive settlement. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister has made clear that Britain is committed to working for its full implementation alongside other members of me international community.
Lord Harris of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that Answer, and in particular for

9
her confirmation of our support for the United Nations resolutions. I take it that it is recognised that the only satisfactory route to a long-term settlement is on the basis of that UN resolution on a bicommunal, bizonal federation. However, I should be grateful if my noble friend would confirm her support for Cyprus's application for membership of the European Union. What is the timetable for that likely to be and will that application be affected by the search for a settlement?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I had hoped that our position on Cyprus had been made clear by what my right honourable friend said in December when he called for a sustained effort towards securing a just, comprehensive and lasting settlement in Cyprus, based on a bizonal, bicommunal federation, and by his strong endorsement of Security Council Resolution 1218. I confirm that the United Kingdom is looking forward to the eventual accession of Cyprus. As I am sure that my noble friend and the whole House know, this process involves discussion under the various chapters of the acquis. We are hoping that that will go ahead on the basis of the conferences which are due to take place at the end of this presidency and then as we work towards the end of the year.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, in considering this very difficult question, will the Government bear in mind the difficulties between the two communities and the fact that the Turks feel that they have suffered from the majority Greek population, particularly in the 1970s? Will some sensitivity be shown to the Turkish community in this matter, particularly in relation to the accession of Cyprus to the European Union, otherwise the second stage may be worse than the first?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I think that we can draw some comfort from the current process, under the aegis of Dame Ann Hercus who is discussing Cyprus with both sections of the community. Those discussions were resumed at the beginning of February and we have to hope that they will bear some fruit. It is important to draw the attention of the House to the fact that some of the tensions on the island were reduced by the decision not to have S-300 weapons on the island. That is an enormously important step. When I was in Turkey before Christmas, my interlocutors made it clear to me that they regarded the possible placing of those weapons on the island with considerable disfavour. The fact that that has not happened must reduce the tension. Perhaps I may also draw the noble Lord's attention to the fact that there is a certain amount of bicommunal activity, notably in the current meetings between businessmen.
Lord Monson: My Lords, following the question from the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, does the Minister agree that one of the best contributions that Her Majesty's Government could make would be to remind the Greek Cypriot Government that the Zurich and London Treaties, entered into almost exactly 40 years ago, are still in force and legally binding and that,
10
therefore, if the Greek Cypriots want to join the EU, they must first reach some peaceful and permanent accommodation with their Turkish Cypriot neighbours?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: Yes, my Lords. We urge both sides to discuss the possibility of joining the EU. I hope that the measures that I announced in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, have gone some way towards that. However, it is enormously important that the two communities talk not only to Dame Ann, but also to each other. I remind the noble Lord that President Clerides has invited Mr. Denktash to have some discussions about the way forward with regard to the Cypriot application for EU membership.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, bearing in mind that economic problems usually underlie social conflict, can my noble friend assure the House that if a bipartisan solution can be arrived at and if Cyprus's accession to the European Union can be successfully negotiated, the European Union will engage in a major effort with regard to the economic development of the whole of the island of Cyprus?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: Yes, my Lords. We are working on the whole question of trying to resolve the difficulties of dealing with what is an essentially divided island with an application to join the EU. The Vienna Council agreed that its objectives with regard to the accession of a united island must involve concentrating on a political settlement. We must look to the leaders of both Cypriot communities to co-operate with the United Nations and its desires to that end as represented by UNSCR 1218, to which I have already referred. The United Kingdom is working with our EU partners to ensure that the technical difficulties, which undoubtedly exist and which were caused by the division of the island, are not overlooked in the accession negotiations. We believe that it is better to identify those obstacles now than to allow them to develop into more serious obstacles further down the track.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, is the Minister in a position to confirm press reports concerning allegations by Turkey that the PKK leader, Abdullah Ocalan, was carrying a Greek Cypriot passport when he was arrested? To what extent does the Minister consider that the assistance given by the Greek Government to Abdullah Ocalan has adversely affected the current initiatives to secure a just and lasting settlement that will end the long-standing division of Cyprus?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I regret that I am not in a position to confirm the press reports to which the noble Lord refers although, as I am sure that he will appreciate, press reports are not always reliable. I shall check whether any reliable information is available on that point, and I shall contact the noble Lord because I realise that that is an area in which the temperature can be raised. However, the important point

11
is to concentrate on having a dialogue on the island, as well as on lowering the tensions which exist between Greece and Turkey on this issue.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, does the Minister agree that 18 years of Greek membership of the European Union has, sadly, not helped to improve relations between Greece and Turkey as much as one might have expected, and that the importation of Greek Cyprus into the European Union without a settlement of the conflict might exacerbate relations with Turkey rather than ease them? Therefore, is it not extremely important to ensure that the issue is resolved before Cyprus joins?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, it is very important to work for peace in Cyprus in any case. The possible accession of Cyprus to the EU focuses the attention not only of the friends of Cyprus—I would hope that we would all count the United Kingdom Government among that number—but also of our partners in the EU on working to that end. Rather than cast our minds back over 18 years, we should look forward. As I said earlier, tension has been lowered by not siting the S-300 missiles on the island. In addition, the UNSCRs are now in place and a United Nations envoy, Dame Ann Hercus, is now talking to both sides. We also have an opportunity to get the people of the island together, notably in some of the initiatives now taking place among the business community. I hope that the noble Lord will agree that we should now be looking forward, not back.

Business
3.8 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., my noble friend Lord Whitty will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement being made in another place on access to open countryside.

Business of the House: Debates, 11th March
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Leader of the House, I beg to move the Motion standing in her name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order 38(4) (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be dispensed with on Thursday next to enable the Motion in the name of the Baroness Blatch to be taken immediately after the Disability Rights Commission Bill. — (Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Road Traffic (NHS Charges) BUI
Read a third time.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
I begin by thanking all noble Lords who have taken an interest in this Bill. Notwithstanding the perhaps sparse attendance during much of the deliberations on the Bill, we had some interesting and detailed discussions on the issues. I am grateful to all those who took part in our deliberations and particularly acknowledge the contributions of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. We had a most constructive debate. I am also grateful for the agreement reached, again with particular thanks to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, which allows this Bill to proceed today. The noble Earl is to be congratulated on his identification of a drafting point in Clause 3(2) and I am glad that we were able to agree to his amendment.
The main aim of the Bill is to simplify the arrangements for the collection of NHS charges for all the parties concerned and to raise additional income for the National Health Service. The Bill will undoubtedly bring benefit to the NHS, and the co-operation of noble Lords during the passage of this Bill is much appreciated.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Hunt of Kings Heath.)
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with an amendment.

Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Bill [H.L.]
3.12 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 40 [Restriction on evidence or questions about complainant's sexual history]:
Lord Ackner Lord Ackner moved Amendment No. 55A:
Page 28, leave out line 24.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, in moving Amendment No. 55A, I shall also speak to the other amendments in this group which are tabled in my name. They are all designed to achieve one specific end; that is, to ensure that the status quo remains.
The subject matter of Clause 40 is the restriction on evidence or questions about the complainant's sexual history. The issue arising out of the amendments that I seek to put forward is whether the statutory provision restricting that material—it was brought into force over 25 years ago and runs to two short paragraphs in the legislation—should be supplanted by a new clause that

13
takes over a page in the Bill before us; it is convoluted, difficult to follow and is otherwise in many respects undesirable. I hope that I put the matter dispassionately.
On the third day of Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Cope, said this:
"These are difficult matters. Many of the legal profession, the judiciary and the public feel strongly about them. However, ultimately we have to try to make a judgment as to whether the courts should decide what evidence it is proper to bring out in the interests of justice rather than bowing to the clamour of those who have misunderstood proceedings as they take place at the moment. Clearly, complainants should be defended. But defendants have the right to have their interests override those of complainants as it is their freedom and they who are on trial". —[Official Report, 8/2/99; col. 57.]
That very much reflected the views of the Lord Chief Justice on Second Reading at col. 1270. The observation of the noble Lord, Lord Cope, for which I have considerable respect, was misquoted twice in a rather important way by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn. Again, on the third day in Committee he said this:
"I emphasise 'subject to the parliamentary structure'—which is incorporated in the Bill. Indeed, we return to the point of principle of the noble Lord, Lord Cope, of whether it is to be left to a discretion which many believe has been inappropriately exercised". —(col. 60.)
And at col. 62 he said:
"I hope that I have dealt with the main themes here. I do not apologise for repeating the fact that I think the noble Lord, Lord Cope, identified the position correctly. Is this to be a matter for the courts' discretion or for parliamentary structure?".
In referring to the judge's discretion, that was quite incorrect, as I shall indicate when referring to the judgment of my noble and learned friend, the former Chief Justice, Lord Lane, who is happily sitting on my right.
I suppose in some respects one must not be too censorious about that error because it was somewhat supported by the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Hemet Hill. At col. 47 he said:
"Pace the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner—with great respect and friendship—Clause 40 does not remove judicial discretion. It builds on Section 2. Its provisions seek to structure, guide and narrow the discretion exercised by a judge in deciding when a victim may be questioned about her sexual behaviour".
Comment was made when that was before your Lordships about the absence of guidance, so it was said, which was given in relation to the clause in the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976, which imposes restrictions on evidence at trials for rape. Section 2(1) provides quite simply as follows:
"If at a trial any person is for the time being being charged with a rape offence to which he pleads not guilty, then, except with the leave of the judge, no evidence and no question in cross-examination shall be adduced or asked at the trial, by or on behalf of any defendant at the trial, about any sexual experience of a complainant with a person other than that defendant".
Subsection (2) provides the guidance:
"The judge shall not give leave in pursuance of the preceding subsection for any evidence or question except on an application made to him in the absence of the jury by or on behalf of a defendant; and on such an application the judge shall give leave if and only if he is satisfied that it would be unfair"—
I stress those words—
"to that defendant to refuse to allow the evidence to be adduced or the question to be asked".
14
The matter came before the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, in 1982 in the case of Viola. I need not bother your Lordships with the special facts of that case, but I go straight to the judgment of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice. This clear guidance was given on the point on which I sought to criticise the Minister, at page 128:
"It is, we think, apparent from those words—
from Section 2 that I quoted—
"without more, that the first question which the judge must ask himself is this: Are the questions proposed to be put relevant according to the normal common law rules of evidence and relevant to the case as it is being put?…The second matter that the judge must consider is this. If the questions are relevant, then whether they should be allowed or not will of course depend upon the terms of section 2, which limits admissibility of relevant evidence".
Then the noble and learned Lord refers to the case of Lawrence, in which Lord Justice May said:
"The important part of the statute which I think needs construction are the words 'if and only if he [the judge] is satisfied that it would be unfair to that defendant to refuse to allow the evidence to be adduced or the question to be asked', and, in my judgment, before a judge is satisfied or may be said to be satisfied that to refuse to allow a particular question or a series of questions to be asked in cross-examination would be unfair to a defendant he must take the view that it is more likely than not that the particular question or line of cross-examination, if allowed, might reasonably lead the jury properly directed in the summing up, to take a different view of the complainant's evidence from that which they might take if the question or series of questions was or were not allowed".
Then the Lord Chief Justice refers to a case in the Court of Appeal Criminal Division—Mills (Leroy) (1979). The decision was given by Lord Justice Roskill as he then was, and his Lordship said this:
"This section has not as yet. as far as this Court is aware, been considered by this Court…we pointed out to Mr. Hunt in the course of argument, [that this is] essentially a matter for the exercise of discretion by the trial judge within the framework of the Act, bearing in mind that statutory provision is designed to secure protection for complainants. The learned judge here exercised his discretion after having had that decision of May J. quoted to him. Mr Hunt found himself unable to say that this was not a matter for the exercise of the learned judge's discretion, but argued that this Court should substitute its own discretion for that of the learned judge…With respect, it would be entirely wrong for us to do so".
There, the suggestion that it was at the discretion of the judge to decide, once satisfied that the evidence or questions were relevant, to allow or disallow them was fairly stated. However, the Lord Chief Justice, giving the judgment of the court in Viola, continued:
"We would further like to say this about the judgment in MILLS, and say it with the greatest possible deference to that Court. It has been agreed on all hands, not only by the appellant and by the Crown but also by Mr. Green who has assisted us as amicus curiae, that it is wrong to speak of a judge's 'discretion' in this context. The judge has to make a judgment as to whether he is satisfied or not in the terms of section 2. But once having reached his judgment on the particular facts, he has no discretion. If he comes to the conclusion that he is satisfied it would be unfair to exclude the evidence, then the evidence has to be admitted and the questions have to be allowed".
He continued:
"Having said that, when one considers the purposes that lay behind the passing of this Act as expounded by Roskill L. J., it is clear that it was aimed primarily at protecting claimants from cross-examination as to credit, from questions which went merely to credit and no more".

15
This is the part that I want to stress:
"if the proposed questions merely seek to establish that the complainant has had sexual experience with other men to whom she was not married, so as to suggest for that reason she ought not to be believed under oath, the judge will exclude the evidence. In the present climate of opinion the jury is unlikely to be influenced by such considerations, nor should it be influenced. In other words questions of this sort going simply to credit will seldom be allowed. That is borne out by the cases to which we have been referred…On the other hand, if the questions are relevant to the issue in a trial in light of the way that the case is being run, for instance relevant to the issue of consent, as opposed merely to credit, they are likely to be admitted, because to exclude a relevant question on an issue in the trial as the trial is being run will usually mean that a jury are being prevented from hearing something which, if they did hear it, might cause them to change their minds about the evidence given by the complainant".
Almost finally, the Lord Chief Justice said:
"Inevitably in this situation, as in so many similar situations in the law, there is a grey area which exists between the two types of relevance, namely relevance to credit and relevance to an issue in the case. On one hand evidence of sexual promiscuity may be so strong or so closely contemporaneous in time to the event in issue as to come near to, or indeed to reach, the border between mere credit and an issue in the case…The second matter is, is this Court entitled to differ from the conclusions of the learned judge? As already pointed out, this is the exercise of judgment by the judge, not an exercise of his discretion. This Court is in many respects in as good a position as the judge to reach a conclusion".
And it did, and it departed from the view mentioned below.
The only other reference that I want to make is to the later case of Brown, in which their Lordships followed Viola and concluded their judgment this way:
"The question was whether, on the facts of a particular case, the complainant's attitude to sexual relations could be material upon which a jury could reasonably rely to conclude that the complainant might indeed have consented to sexual intercourse on the material occasion, despite her evidence to the contrary".
I stress the next words:
"It was a question of degree in every case".
Then, the final paragraph of the judgment concludes that,
"although we have not found it easy to reach a decision on this appeal, in the end we do not think that the 'evidence of sexual promiscuity' of the complainant was 'so strong or so closely contemporaneous in time to the event in issue as to … reach the border between mere credit and an issue in the case'".
Your Lordships will have seen that there are two factors relative to the evidence of promiscuity which can make the questions admissible: the evidence must be so strong, or so closely contemporaneous.
In Clause 40, which seeks to replace the statute to which I have made detailed reference, there is no provision for allowing in evidence of past promiscuity because of its strength. It is only allowed in if there is closely contemporaneous evidence. In so far as it is unfair to refuse to allow questions in regard to previous sexual activity where that evidence is particularly strong, I should explain that the defendant is then obliged to subject himself to a situation which is unfair—the very words of the 1975 statute. It is unfair because of the strength of that evidence; it is not a question of discretion. Once you find that it is unfair as matters stand at present, the questions must be allowed.
However, there is no provision for that in Clause 40 as now drafted. For that reason, I suggest that it cannot possibly, with fairness, take the place of the 1925 statute. I beg to move.
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, I should like to speak to Amendment No. 58, which has been grouped with the amendments of the noble and learned Lord. To stop a judge who is presiding over a trial of a man accused of rape from allowing questions to be asked or evidence to be given which he, the trial judge, considers to be relevant, potentially probative and necessary in the interest of justice to ensure a fair trail of the accused, is, in the moderate language of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice (speaking on the amendment in Committee in this House on 8th February),
"not a recipe for the good administration of justice". —[Official Report, 8/2/99; col. 55.]
In my less measured language, this is total lunacy; indeed, this is the very stuff of which false convictions are made.
In relation to Clause 40 we are, I believe, in the very greatest danger of passing legislation through this House to deal with a situation which in fact no long exists, because the pendulum has already swung to correct an imbalance that certainly used to exist. I do not believe that I am being complacent. The days of insensitive judicial comment and the permitting of unjustified cross-examination, which was irrelevant, insulting and gratuitously intrusive, are, in my personal experience, ones which relate to a bygone age. Things have moved on a great deal.
The noble and learned Lord referred to the case of Viola, which set the framework of restrictions for a judge, and what he could permit to be asked, as long ago as 1982. But a great deal has happened in the courts, and elsewhere, since then. Today, only judges who have been specially chosen, nominated to try cases of this nature, are permitted to do so. Public attitudes have undergone a mammoth change, too. Rape is now rightly seen as a serious offence of violence and not a joke. Those convicted of rape now face long sentences and a lifetime on the sex offenders' register.
In my experience, judges are acutely aware of the need to protect the complainant as he gives her evidence. No judge trying such a case today can be unaware of the personal consequences for him or her of a tactless or inappropriate observation from the Bench or a failure to protect the witness from oppressive and unnecessary questioning. A media field day would result and the telephone from the Lord Chancellor's Department would be incandescent.
However, it is not just judges who have changed; indeed, juries have also changed. When the charge is read out at the start of a trial and jurors hear that the defendant is accused of rape, the looks that are directed at the dock before any evidence is heard are the most eloquent testimony as to how far public attitudes have shifted. An alleged sex offender starts his trial before a word of evidence is given with the presumption of guilt to overcome.

17
When the Minister replies, he need not repeat his speeches given earlier in the course of the proceedings on the Bill on the horrors of rape, the right of a woman to say no at any time, or the importance of getting women to come forward and complain. Those arguments have been universally accepted for a long time and we are all agreed about them. Despite that fact, and in some ways because of it, the acquittal rates in rape cases are high. There are many theories about the reasons for that. I suspect that some cases which should have been dropped well before trial because the evidence is not sufficiently strong to sustain a conviction are, nonetheless, pursued because the prosecuting authorities fear criticism if they do not allow them to run—a criticism that they have not sufficiently backed the victims.
Serious rape cases are too often prosecuted today by very junior counsel instructed by the Crown Prosecution Service. The knowledge of jurors that a rape conviction, whatever its nature and circumstances, must result in a long prison sentence, may make them unwilling to stigmatise as rape episodes, especially those between parties who know one another, which, although they are technically rapes in law, seem to jurors more akin to incidents of bad manners, drunken misconduct or youthful misjudgment. It should not be forgotten that a significant proportion of false allegations are also made. Cases of this type usually mean that the evidence consists of one person's word against that of another, with no witnesses. The decision as to who is telling the truth in these cases is often almost impossible to make. However, Clause 40 proposes that jurors should in future be given less information, not more, to enable them to reach that decision. It is proposed—and we should not forget this—to keep from them even more of the background to the case which may enable them to reach the right decision than they are now allowed to hear.
In Committee, I put to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, a hypothetical illustration of a case where, under his proposals, no evidence would be allowed and no questioning permitted about matters which I ventured to suggest most right thinking people would consider necessary to reach the right verdict. In the amendments which follow in the next group, I am grateful that the noble Lord has responded positively in that respect. The Ministers's amendment, Amendment No. 57, has been framed to permit questioning about other incidents which are so similar that they cannot reasonably be explained as coincidence.
I say I am grateful to him for those changes which I anticipate he is about to propose. But I find the following difficulty. In accepting, as he has, that the clause as drafted, in some circumstances which had not been foreseen when this Bill first came before the House, would prevent questioning and evidence which is necessary to ensure a fair trial, he makes the argument for Amendment No. 58, which I propose, with great eloquence himself. Neither those who drafted this Bill originally, nor noble Lords, nor those in the other place who will examine this Bill later, can possibly anticipate
18
every factual situation which may arise, in particular because human behaviour is infinite in its variety. We cannot anticipate every eventuality.
The trial judge must retain a degree of discretion over each aspect of the evidence to ensure a fair trial when the unforeseen arises. Clause 40, even as the noble Lord proposes to amend it, makes—I am sorry to say this— a dog's dinner of the law in this area. It creates complications and uncertainty for prosecution, defence and for the judges. We should surely be trying to make new legislation both simple and certain, and Clause 40 does neither. If the Minister is still insisting on Clause 40 in some form, will he at least indicate that he will look at Amendment No. 58 and, if necessary, take it away and return with a provision, strengthened, if he likes, with the words, "in exceptional circumstances", which the Court of Appeal has just conveniently defined in relation to other legislation? But I ask him not to let this House, however well intentioned, pass legislation which may well raise the conviction rates in these cases, but do so by adding people who are not in fact guilty to the prison population.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I support the noble Baroness in her Amendment No. 58 for all the reasons which she has given and, if I may be allowed to do so without presumption, congratulate her on the way in which she put forward her case. As regards the amendments to Clause 40 of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, I support them for the way in which they were presented. As the noble and learned Lord said, contemporaneity is no substitute for strength of evidence. That carries forward into the reasoning of Amendment No. 58 in the name of the noble Baroness. It is absolutely crucial that there should be sufficient information and the right information to enable the jury to make the right decision. I accept, if I may, the noble Baroness's criticism that she so cogently presented of Amendment No. 57. That was well conceived and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, can take it into account in the spirit in which it was tendered.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, my Amendments Nos. 59 to 61, which are grouped with the one we are discussing, are designed to throw out the whole of the suggested machinery in Clause 40 and subsequent clauses, as put forward by the Government. The issue is quite clear: should the judge in court have a discretion to admit cross-examination of a complainant on her sexual history in every conceivable and possible circumstance, and in every eventuality—as the noble Baroness Lady Mallalieu, put it; that is the purport of her amendment—that may arise in any particular case? Or, on the other hand, should there be a statutory strait-jacket, as I would call it—the noble Lord, Lord Williams, referred to it as a parliamentary structure—which guides and constrains the judge in the exercise of his decision whether or not to permit such cross-examination?
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, has already quoted Section 2 of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976 and set out the test that a judge applies

19
currently. He will permit such cross-examination of the sexual history of a complainant only if he is satisfied that it would be unfair to the defendant to refuse to allow the evidence to be adduced or the question to be asked. Miss Aileen McColgan in Volume 16 of the Oxford Journal of Legal Studies has helpfully analysed the most frequent categories in which previous sexual history is now admitted. I have only to refer to those categories for your Lordships to realise the nature of the circumstances which can arise in different cases. For example, sexual history may be admitted to rebut good sexual history called by the Crown if the prosecution suggests that the complainant is a woman of little or no previous sexual experience. In such circumstances the defendant may be permitted to adduce evidence to rebut that. Secondly, it may be admitted to show that the complainant has behaved in earlier sexual encounters in a way very similar to the facts of the current allegation, and that she has made previous false allegations of a similar nature. Thirdly, it may be admitted to show bias or malice borne out of previous sexual conduct on her behalf. Fourthly, it may be admitted to attribute physical evidence to another man, such as the presence of disease or presence of semen which may explain those particular pieces of evidence. Finally, it may be admitted to give support to the defendant's belief that she was consenting. I referred to that when I spoke on this amendment in Committee.
The report, Speaking Up for Justice, of June 1998, on which this Bill is based, stated that there is evidence that the practice of the courts in interpreting Section 2 is widely variable. The odd thing is that we have never heard precisely what that evidence is. It is contrary to the experience of practitioners such as the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, myself, and judges who have addressed your Lordships in relation to this Bill, that there is a widely variable practice. It is difficult to obtain leave, if one is defending in a rape case, for the sexual history of the complainant to be subject to cross-examination.
It was suggested in Speaking Up for Justice that Scottish or New South Wales models should be followed. Indeed the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, in speaking in reply to this amendment in Committee, also said that regard had been had to Canadian, New South Wales and Scottish models. The fact of the matter is that experience in those jurisdictions has not been satisfactory because the legislative frameworks that have been imposed have not been successful. In Scotland the rules to restrict sexual history were enacted in 1986 and were consolidated in Sections 274 and 275 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995. That prevents evidence being called except to rebut prosecution evidence of good sexual character, or for sex on the same occasion as the charge, or anything it would be contrary to the interests of justice to exclude. That discretion was left in Scotland and the Scottish Office report, Sexual History and Sexual Character Evidence in Scottish Sexual Offence Trials stated that the statutory framework that had been enacted made little difference to the admission of such
20
evidence. Indeed in Scotland 85 per cent, of applications for the admission of such evidence have been successful.
In New South Wales in 1981 a rape shield provision was added to the Crimes Act by Section 409B, and statutory exceptions of a similar nature were added, but there was no general discretion left to the judge at trial. It is true that the conviction rate went up and that only 29 per cent. of claimants were cross-examined under these provisions. However, as has been pointed out by Miss Vera Baird in a pamphlet that she has produced entitled, Rape in Court—I am extremely grateful for her research in this matter:
"there is mounting criticism that the provision leaves no discretion at all to a trial judge to enable him to admit evidence outside the specified categories in a case in which it might be fair to do so … no legislature has the prescience to foresee every eventuality".
That is the exact point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, a few moments ago. The leaflet continues:
"The Standing Committee of the state Attorney General drafted a model penal code which was published with explanatory notes in November 1996. They now propose"—
this is New South Wales—
"to reintroduce a judicial discretion which will allow the introduction of evidence eiusdem generis with the statutory categories if otherwise there would not be a fair trial".
The statutory strait-jacket has been attempted in New South Wales but has failed. A general discretion to meet all eventualities will now be introduced.
My noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill referred to Canada in Committee. Canada introduced a rape-shield provision in 1985 which permitted no residual discretion outside the fixed categories set out in that legislation. In the case of Seaboyer, that was held to violate Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and it was struck down as being inconsistent with that part of the Canadian Charter. In his judgment, Mr. Justice McLachlin quoted Professor Vivian Berger's article, Man's Trial, Woman's tribulation, and said:
"The problem is to chart a course between inflexible legislative rules and wholly untrammelled judicial discretion: The former threatens the rights of defendants; the latter may ignore the needs of complainants".
So in Canada, this statutory strait-jacket having been struck down as inconsistent with the Canadian Charter, fresh legislation was introduced which not only followed the principles set out by Mr. Justice McLachlin in that case, where he offered a model of such legislation, but also introduced a new procedure whereby if there is such an application for cross-examination as to sexual history there follows a private hearing—which the complainant is not required to attend if she does not wish to do so—and the whole matter is then examined in private. The judge gives a reasoned decision as to why that history should be admitted, if he so decides, and then the matter is heard further in public.
It may be that something along those lines would be a way forward, but the way in which this clause is now drafted does not admit of a general judicial discretion. Rather like the evangelist who starts by persuading you that you are mired in sin, it is no good the Government

21
attacking judges in order to justify introducing a strait-jacket of this kind. That only undermines public confidence in the judiciary and does nothing practical to assist in the resolution of the problem. And it is a difficult problem which faces the courts.
For those reasons, I fully support the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, and my own amendments.
Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, it seems to me that if Clause 40 is to survive at all, the case for either the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, or the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, is over-whelming. I can give my reasons for saying that very simply and without, your Lordships will be pleased to hear, any citation from cases.
Subsection (2) of Clause 40 provides that evidence or cross-examination of this kind can be allowed only where the court is satisfied of two things—and it has to be satisfied of both of them. One is that to refuse to allow such evidence might have the result of rendering unsafe the conclusion of the jury or the court. So the first gateway is, "If I exclude this evidence, may it render a decision against the defendant unsafe?" On top of that, there is then a second requirement; namely, that one fulfils the requirements of subsection (3)—or subsection (3) as sought to be amended by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn—or subsection (5).
There are two gateways. Where there are two gateways, by definition one may get through the first but not the second. So one could have a situation where the judge says to the defendant, "Yes, I am quite satisfied that unless you are allowed to adduce this evidence or to ask these questions there is a risk that if you are convicted that conclusion may be unsafe. But, I am sorry, you do not get through one of the other gateways and therefore you cannot ask the questions or give the evidence. "There the judge is faced with saying to the defendant, "You need to ask these questions to have a safe and fair trial but I am not allowed to let you ask them." What does a judge do in such circumstances? Does he allow the case to go on, having told the defendant that the way it is being conducted will probably render his conviction unsafe? Or does he say, "I am not allowed to let these questions be asked, but unless these questions are asked there cannot be a fair trial, and therefore the trial must stop"?
An Act of Parliament which states that one may not ask questions even though the judge has decided that unless one asks these questions there cannot be a fair trial is the most amazing legislative concept I have ever heard.
4 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I think I am the first person to say anything in favour of Clause 40 and against this group of amendments. I am conscious that I spoke in Committee and I shall try not to repeat what I said. It would be unfortunate if there were to be a polarisation of attitudes between, on the one hand, judges, with great experience of the criminal trial
22
process and rape cases, and criminal law advocates, and the Government and their lay supporters, including many women and men, on the other. I do not believe that there needs to be that degree of polarisation.
In many ways the Government have not done themselves a great favour in the way in which they have described, or failed to describe, the background to what is now Clause 40. As I understand the position—the Minister will, I hope, correct me if I am wrong—the Government have modelled Clause 40 on precisely the Canadian compromise referred to by my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford. As my noble friend indicated, in Canada a very rigid and extreme rape-shield law was introduced which totally fettered the court's power to strike a fair balance between the rights of the complainant and the rights of the accused and to ensure a fair trial. That law was struck down by the Supreme Court of Canada as being unduly rigid and depriving the accused of the right to a fair trial. Very sensibly, all the political parties in Canada then got together with judges from the Supreme Court and over several years fashioned a fair compromise respecting the dignity, privacy and equality of treatment rights of complainants, and the paramount right of the accused to a fair trial.
That is what Clause 40 does. Leaving aside the question about a private procedure to deal with this category of sexual offence in a different kind of way, Clause 40 seeks to limit the discretion, or judgment, or both, of the courts in admitting evidence of the complainant's previous sexual history as evidence of consent in most cases. It seems to me that in most cases evidence of previous sexual promiscuity is irrelevant, or should be irrelevant, and is inadmissible or should be inadmissible in relation to the issue of consent as distinct from honest belief in consent.
I know that that view is not taken by everyone. Having listened to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, and to my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford, I do not think that they agree with my remarks. I think they believe there is a wider category of cases in which evidence of the complainant's previous sexual history is relevant, ought to be able to be admitted, and is not greatly prejudicial to the dignity and other rights of the complainant. So there is a disagreement in principle. With respect, it does not do to cite existing case-law on that subject if the disagreement is within the attitudes displayed in that case-law on the one hand and what the Government seek to do in Clause 40 on the other, which is indeed to change the unsatisfactory status quo.
If I thought that the way in which the Government were going about the matter was the old Canadian or New South Wales way, I should join my noble and learned friend and others on all sides of the House in opposing the amendment. However, I believe that Clause 40 is clear and structured and strikes a fair balance. At any rate, it does so if your Lordships accept Government Amendments Nos. 56 and 57, which we shall debate shortly, since Amendment No. 56 would remove the somewhat arbitrary reference to the 24-hour limit. I greatly welcome the fact that the Government are now more flexible. The amendment seeks to reach a compromise following the "Romeo and Juliet" example

23
given last time by the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu. Like the noble Baroness, I greatly welcome what the Government are doing in that regard.
As I said previously, I do not support a continuation of the present unsatisfactory status quo. As a matter of principle and practice, I believe that women have been subject for too long in some cases to a whole slew of irrelevant and inappropriate questions posed by the defence about their past sexual practices, past sexual partners and past medical history. I gave some examples in Committee where senior practitioners of great experience had made clear that, in their determination to do what they could for the accused, they would seek to damnify the character of the complainant, and often succeeded in doing so. Admittedly, those examples were based on a limited but important sample of practitioners who had been interviewed by a professor.
Such questions play on prejudices and myths about what is good and bad behaviour for women. To allow such questions in evidence disregards a woman's right to a fair trial, her right to privacy and dignity and her right to personal autonomy in making her own decisions about her sexual activities. That is a very high price to pay to defend the rights of the accused. I do not believe that it is a necessary price, as the recent Canadian reforms indicate. To ensure the fairness of a trial, we are right to prohibit evidence of an accused's past convictions from going before a jury. That is only fair since such evidence would be highly prejudicial. But surely the same logic should apply to the admission of sexual history evidence. In most rape cases, sexual history evidence has little probative value, and certainly not enough to overcome its highly prejudicial effect upon the alleged victim's rights. For those reasons, I support the Government's plan to introduce statutory guidelines placing the court's discretion within narrower limits. I do not go so far as to support the position taken by Women Against Rape. I do not support an absolute bar on the admissibility of sexual history evidence. I accept that in limited cases sexual history evidence can be relevant. Its admission should not, however, be the exception rather than the rule; hence the need for statutory guidelines.
During previous debates on this Bill we have heard much about consent. But consent to engage in sexual relations in the past does not give a blank cheque for consent to engage in sexual relations in the future. If that were so, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lane, when Lord Chief Justice, would never have recognised that rape can occur within a marriage. That was a great landmark decision.
Consent, by its very nature, is to a person, not to a circumstance. As the Heilbron Committee pointed out as long ago as 1975, evidence of a woman's sexual experiences with partners of her own choice is not indicative of a general willingness to consent.
For those reasons, and for the reasons given by the Supreme Court of Canada only a couple of weeks ago—in a landmark decision in Regina v. Ewanchuk, the Supreme Court pointed out in what has become known as the "no means no" case that the honesty of a belief cannot be seen in a vacuum in cases of this kind—an
24
honest but mistaken belief in consent must be genuine. A man cannot wilfully or recklessly disregard anything that was said or done which would lead an ordinary person to believe that a woman was giving her consent to engage in sexual relations. The obvious example is if the woman says no. How can a man have an honest but mistaken belief in consent if the woman says no? Nor can there be consent if a woman's actions show that she is being forced to give her consent, or that she fears for her safety or is being pressured to do something that she does not want to do.
Past sexual history may be a factor, but it is one of many, and its admission should be weighed against any indication that such evidence is being sought to impugn the woman's credibility or to jeopardise the fairness of the trial to all concerned. These are, rightly, hurdles which Clause 40 seeks to establish as part of our law. For those reasons, I oppose the amendments and support Clause 40 as it stands.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I wonder whether he will tell me whether he disagrees with two propositions, both of which were mentioned in Committee. The first is from Viola. I quote:
"as in so many similar situations in the law, there is a grey area which exists between the two types of relevance, namely relevance to credit and relevance to an issue in the case. On one hand evidence of sexual promiscuity may be so strong or so closely contemporaneous in time to the event in issue as to come near to, or indeed to reach, the border between mere credit and an issue in the case".
Is that accepted by the noble Lord as a perfectly valid proposition? If not, perhaps he will tell the House why.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, of course I accept that proposition, as do the Government in their approach in Clause 40. That is why they would limit evidence of previous sexual history, initially within the 24-hour rule, and now replaced by something less rigid but still placing the evidence within very direct contact with the issue in the case.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, although I have had a keen interest in criminal justice since I first joined your Lordships' House over 25 years ago, I have hitherto not had the opportunity, alas, to take part in the debates on the Bill. That is because I have not had the time to give it the attention that it rightly deserves. I therefore did not intend to participate in the debate on Clause 40 until it had commenced and I had heard the argument.
I support the Government in the introduction of Clause 40 into the Bill. There have been a number of cases, particularly when the accused has represented himself, in which a complainant has been harassed, humiliated and embarrassed to a quite unacceptable degree in rape trials. It is possible that on those occasions the trial judge did not exercise the type of judicial decision making that he should and that he did not sufficiently restrain the questions. Nevertheless, those events have taken place. Therefore, I believe that the Government are entirely right and I support my noble friend on the introduction of Clause 40 into the Bill.

25
However, thereafter it is important to ascertain whether there is sufficient judicial discretion. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. I believe he said that the Bill as drafted, even with Amendments Nos. 56 and 57 tabled my noble friend Lord Williams, still did not admit a general judicial discretion. The point was also made by the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe.
The Minister will remember the debates on the Crime (Sentences) Bill. We joined together as strongly as we could in opposing the measures of mandatory sentencing in that Bill, precisely because it did not give enough judicial discretion. My noble friend will remember that we were victorious. Voting against the government of the day, we managed to have inserted into the Bill sufficient judicial discretion over mandatory sentencing.
Therefore, we must consider the amendments introduced by my noble friend, with the encouragement of my noble friend Lady Mallalieu, in Amendments Nos. 56 and 57. Amendment No. 57 puts the introduction of the evidence into a tight compass. It must be
"so similar to any sexual behaviour of the complainant"
—that is the first restraint—
"took place at or about the same time"
—that is the second restraint; and it must be of such similarity that it,
"cannot reasonably be explained as a coincidence".
My noble friend practised much in the English courts when he was a member of the Bar, both as a junior and as a Queen's Counsel. He is wholly familiar with the criminal trial and with cases involving sexual allegations. I ask him therefore to consider how he would make a successful submission on behalf of a client who wished to use the extension of discretion that is set out or who wished to ask the court to use the discretion set out in Amendment No. 57. If my noble friend applies his mind to the conduct of the trial, he will see the difficulties that he will face in advancing the argument that evidence may be introduced in order to ensure a fair trial.
I hope that I shall be forgiven for not participating earlier in debates on the Bill. For that reason, I ask my noble friend to have another look at Amendment No. 57, together with Amendment No. 58 proposed by my noble friend Lady Mallalieu and to adopt the latter. It seems to me that Amendment No. 58 gives sufficient judicial discretion. That is what we seek: a fair trial with a judge who has sufficient room to make a fair and right decision on whether to admit evidence.
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, the debate so far has concentrated on the views of judges and lawyers. I believe that I am the first non-lawyer to take part in the discussion. I do not wish to consider the issue from the point of view of whether judges have sufficient discretion to enable them to carry through a fair trial. I wish to consider it from the point of view of women. It is women who are most likely to be the victims of rape.
26
There is no way in which a woman who has suffered from rape can be compensated. She can get nothing out of the trial of the defendant. She has been raped and no matter what happens, that experience remains with her and will remain with her for the rest of her life. My noble friend Lady Mallalieu said that there was no need for the Minister to talk any more about the abhorrence we all have of rape and the suffering which some women have experienced in the past when they have reported it and have taken a case through to prosecution. We all know that that should not now happen. Therefore, the woman is not likely to be subjected to that distress. My noble friend said that we were all agreed about it.
However, there is still much apprehension and disagreement, even about the Bill as at present drafted. Some 200 women's organisations have made representations to the Home Secretary about the Bill because it did not go far enough from their point of view. They wanted a woman's previous sexual experience to be completely excluded from the Bill. So there are two sides to the argument.
Certainly, women who have been victims of rape do not want to be put on trial or perceived to be put on trial for having been a victim and to have their past sexual experience taken into account. It is not only a question of whether it is good administration of the law, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice said earlier; it is also a question of whether it is perceived to be a good law. If women do not perceive it to be a good law and if they feel that it does not give them sufficient protection, they will not use it. No matter how we might argue about legal niceties in this House, women will not press their case so that it can be brought to trial.
I believe that we must be careful about the argument of a judge's discretion. We must also consider it from the point of view of the woman who is or has been a victim of such a crime. We want a law that will protect women against rapists. That is the whole purpose of the law: to provide protection against such crimes. I suggest that the import of the amendments to be moved by my noble friend—whether or not noble Lords agree that he has the wording just right—is as far as we can go if we are to provide justice for both women and the very few people who are brought before the court as a result of unfounded allegations of rape being made against them.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, this is the first occasion on which I have spoken in the debates on this Bill. I do so now with some reluctance because I have not been able to attend as many of the previous debates as I would have wished. Part II of the Bill has given rise to very important divisions of opinion on both the Government Benches and these Benches. That was obvious in the debate at Committee stage on the cross-examination of complainants by the accused in rape cases. Had I then been present I would have been in complete agreement with what was said by my noble friends Lord Lester of Herne Hill and Lord Russell.
As to the issues covered by these amendments, there has been a similar division of opinion. I agree that the evidence of the previous sexual history of a complainant

27
should not be admitted unless it is relevant. I also agree that evidence that a complainant has had sex with other men, even promiscuous sex, is not in itself relevant.
I also agree, however, that evidence which can reasonably be regarded as relevant to the defence must be admitted even if it involves the complainant's sexual conduct with other people. Any defendant must be entitled to rely on all relevant evidence that may help his case if miscarriages of justice are not to occur. That is particularly true in a rape case, because a wrongful conviction for such an offence will have consequences that are even more devastating than wrongful convictions for other types of crime. The noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, has just said—I am in entire agreement with her—that nothing in a trial can provide adequate compensation for a complainant who has been raped. But equally, although in an entirely different way, I believe that there can be no adequate compensation for anybody who has served a sentence of imprisonment as a result of a wrongful conviction for rape. I am therefore unwilling to support Clause 40 in its present form.
There is, however, one matter that concerns me: the one-sided nature of leave to consider evidence of the sexual history of the complainant under the present law. Frankly, it appears to me to be only fair that if leave is given to cross-examine a complainant on her sexual history the defendant's own sexual history should become open to investigation if that is relevant. There is a long-standing principle that if a defendant attacks the character of a prosecution witness his own previous record becomes admissible.
It was also held in Hudson's case in, I believe, 1943 that to raise a defence of consent was not ipso facto an attack on the character of the complainant. I accept that as a correct decision and I do not seek in any way to change that rule. But I find it unacceptable that a defendant should be barred from raising the sexual history of the complainant if it is relevant. I find it equally unacceptable and unfair that a defendant with a long history of sex offences can go into the history of the complainant's sexual relationships with other men without having to disclose his own record to the jury. Fairness demands that leave to investigate the previous sexual history of the complainant with other people should make it possible to open up the previous sexual history of the defendant where that can be regarded as relevant. I believe that that would discourage applications for leave to go into the sexual history of the complainant unless the results of that investigation were thought likely to be persuasive.
I hope, therefore, that the Government will accept the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu. If not, I shall support that amendment or the amendment in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, if that is moved. But I also hope that the Government will consider amending the Bill to allow the issue of a defendant's sexual history to be raised where leave has been given to raise the issue of the complainant's sexual history.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down perhaps I may put a question so that I understand
28
what has been said. Is the present position under the Bill that there is no right to expose the sexual history of a defendant if he asks questions of the complainant?
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, as I understand it that is the position.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, although I speak from the Dispatch Box on these Benches this is not a matter of party policy, any more than it is on the Liberal Democrat Benches, as has been demonstrated in the past few minutes. In what I say I express my own views on the matter.
Although it is a little premature, I welcome Amendments Nos. 56 and 57 which the Government intend to move a little later to introduce the proximity in time and similarity rules in substitution for the 24-hour provision. I was one of those who criticised the 24-hour provision in the debates at Committee stage. I am not satisfied that the new formulations will end all argument on the matter. We have heard enough in the past hour to understand that.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, quoted my words in the earlier debate and said that in paraphrasing what I had said the Minister had misrepresented me. On 8th February I said:
"The underlying question before us is whether we, in Parliament, can, in framing legislation of this sort, judge better what is in the interests of justice than can the court at the time".—[Official Report, 8/2/99; col. 56.]
That is a different quotation from the one read out by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, but it makes the same point.
I do not think that it was therefore unfair for the Minister (paraphrasing my words) to state the point of principle as being whether it was to be left to a discretion or was to be the subject of a parliamentary structure. But he inserted after "left to a discretion" the words "which many believe to have been inappropriately exercised". I believe that that was intended to be the opinion of the Minister rather than a quotation from me. Certainly, I did not express that view and did not wish to make that claim. Provided that the noble Lord was, by that phrase in the middle, expressing his own view—he nods to indicate that he was—I have no objection to what he said.
The question that has bothered many noble Lords who have considered this matter over the past few weeks— indeed, years—and has figured in this debate is what is and what is not relevant. The Minister said very firmly in earlier debates that sexual history was not relevant to consent. However, a letter that has attracted some recent publicity written on behalf of the Women's Unit, which I understand the noble Baroness the Leader of the House chairs, appears to take a different view, judging from the press. It suggests that sexual history could be relevant to belief in consent. I am very grateful to the noble Lord the Minister for having sent me a copy of that letter and also a long explanation of what the Women's Unit intended to say. I believe that he has sent copies to those other noble Lords who spoke in the debate in Committee and also placed a copy in the Library of the House. Therefore I shall not dwell upon it.

29
However, it makes an important difference as to whether we are talking about what is relevant to the consent of the complainant at the time or what is relevant to the accused's belief in her consent at that time. I believe, with the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Lester, that a woman's consent is hers to give or to withhold on each occasion, regardless of her previous sexual history.
That still leaves the question, which will be an issue in many trials of this kind, as to whether or not she is telling the truth to the court about her state of mind at the time of the offence. I am concerned about the meaning of the word "consent" in Clause 40(3)(a) which says:
"that issue is not an issue of consent".
I believe, from what has been said and from what the Minister said in his letter, that the word "consent" there does not include belief in consent. The noble Lord has been kind enough to nod in confirmation of that. I think it is extremely important that this should be said in the course of our debates, as having come from the Minister, not least in case there should be any issue on this in the future. It is also important for us to understand exactly what the Government are proposing.
I do not think that the new wording will necessarily prove to be entirely satisfactory, as I have mentioned, and it seems to me that the Law Commission was right to suggest a little while ago an amendment to Section 2 of the 1976 Act so as to modify a potential defence against a charge of rape. The key aspect of their proposal—I put it in layman's terms because I am not sure that I would get it entirely correct in legal terms— is that it should not be an offence to say that the accused believed in the victim's consent unless it was reasonable for him to believe it.
It is the opinion of the Criminal Bar Association and others—
4.30 p.m.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord but could he tell us where the Law Commission has expressed that opinion? I ask because I was in touch with the Law Commissioner who specialises in the criminal side. In, as I recall, the 1995 discussion paper, the Law Commission took the view that the present situation was the correct one. One had to look at the behaviour of the accused subjectively, not objectively, and it was not right to consider putting in the defence that he "reasonably" believed that she was consenting. I may be entirely wrong but I did bother to check it with Mr. Silver, the commissioner dealing with this; and that is what he told me.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I certainly defer to the noble and learned Lord's legal contacts in getting these matters accurate. I am relying on the Criminal Bar Association's response to Speaking Up for Justice, in which they quoted an extract from the consultation paper of 1995 mentioned by the noble and learned Lord. That paper contained a proposal to insert the word "reasonable"; I am paraphrasing. But whether the Law
30
Commission subsequently supports that, is a matter of great importance, on which I cannot authoritatively comment, at least at this point.
However, judging by this more recent document, the Criminal Bar Association apparently believes that such a change would significantly reduce the problem in the operation of Section 2. I am also unwilling to be too dogmatic as to whether the Criminal Bar Association is correct in that view, but it is certainly an authoritative view which is worth drawing to the attention of the House. I mentioned this matter in our earlier debates and the noble Lord the Minister did not comment on it, although he did comment on it in his letter to me, which I mentioned earlier. He said, in short, that this question is being reviewed at the moment to determine whether this is a good idea and whether it would help. It seems to me that it might have been better to wait until that question had been determined before entering into changes in evidence, such as are being put forward in this Bill at this time.
In any case, the real point before us is whether we need to make any new statutory rules about sexual history at all. Most of your Lordships who have spoken in this debate—most from very great experience of the law—are concerned that if we do so in the terms suggested here in the Bill as it is proposed to amendment it, there may be miscarriages of justice in the cases that come to court. I accept that, and none of us wants to see miscarriages of justice in cases that come to court, but I am concerned also about miscarriages of justice as a result of cases not coming to court.
I believe it is true to say that quite a large number of women are deterred—not unreasonably deterred in my view—from pursuing their complaints. That in itself leads to miscarriages of justice. Like the noble Lord, Lord Lester, I do not support all the recommendations of Women Against Rape, but in its paper they make the point that only one in 200 reported rapes results in a conviction. I have no means of establishing whether that figure is entirely accurate, and perhaps it is a great exaggeration, but, even if it is, it still leaves a very worrying position.
This Bill helps in a number of ways. Earlier clauses of the Bill set out provisions to protect vulnerable witnesses through screens, video links and other arrangements which we have already discussed. The part of the Bill that we are discussing today also attempts to help. Although the Bill does not go as far as some would wish, these clauses as well as the earlier ones do help. I think they will mitigate the perceived ordeal of victims when they come to court, and if that leads to more cases being decided by the courts—either way, whether the accused is found guilty or not guilty—to me that would increase the possibility of justice being done in more cases.
It is important that we should do our best to lessen the fears of women in bringing cases, given the imbalance that has been suggested to us. That, in my judgment, is the bigger miscarriage of justice: at the

31
present time. Therefore, I am prepared to support these clauses remaining in the Bill in order to deal with that bigger miscarriage of justice.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, normally your Lordships speak of the language of debate as being moderate. Therefore, it is something of a surprise to be accused of operating in total lunacy and, by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, of having no argument apart from attacking the judges. I believe that no one could accuse me of attacking the judges. The first comment I made at the Despatch Box as a Home Office Minister was that we always hoped to give a decent regard to the opinions of the higher judiciary. I hope that I have demonstrated that. Even though I have not on every occasion agreed with every syllable pronounced, I can say that we always listen with care. If I may have corroboration of my "non-guilt", witness the amendments that I have tabled.
Plainly, this is not an easy area of the law. There has not been unanimity of approach, first, as to the nature of the problem and, secondly, as to the nature of the solution. For instance, the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, in seeking a more equitable trial of these difficult charges—I believe that I paraphrase him fairly— proposed that if there were an inquiry into a complainant's sexual history there ought also to be a consequential and equivalent inquiry into the defendant's sexual convictions. That is not possible at present. If there is an attack on the credit of the witness, the only cross-examination allowed is under the appropriate subsection of the Criminal Evidence Act 1898. That, if it is properly analysed (which it is not always) relates to whether the defendant, if he gives evidence—and I underline that—is worthy of belief; in other words, whether he has relevant convictions of dishonesty. Sexual convictions are not always convictions in respect of dishonesty, although they could be if sexual intercourse were procured by fraud.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I am aware that in order to give such evidence a change in the law would be required. I suggested it was analogy rather than directly applying the law to different circumstances.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I accept that. I referred to the noble Lord's contribution only to underline my point that it is difficult in this area to come to a conclusion of absolute certainty.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cope, for supporting the fact that I was indicating that an approach which he had outlined in earlier debates was different from the approach I was coming to. He is right. One cannot say "parentheses", but my comment was plainly in parentheses by way of gloss on his view. He asked particularly for the definition of the phrase "an issue of consent" in Clause 40(3)(a) and (b). I nodded in
32
response to his query. It is clearly set out in Clause 41 (l)(b), which states:
"'issue of consent' means any issue whether the complainant in fact consented to the conduct constituting the offence with which the accused is charged (and accordingly does not include any issue as to the belief of the accused that the complainant so consented)".
There, the definition is made plain beyond dispute.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, commended the Canadian experience, which was further accurately amplified by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Heme Hill. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, in particular indicated that in his view Canada got its legislation wrong the first time. The noble Lord, Lord Lester, indicated the same and said that Canada changed it. When I said on an earlier occasion that we had paid attention to the experience of Canada, it was to the fact that there was a challenge on the human rights basis. The ruling by the Canadian Supreme Court led to the new scheme which we believe is not dissimilar to our present one. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, referred to the detail of the Canadian legislation about hearing applications. Our Clause 42 deals with procedure on applications under Clause 40. That scheme, as we think it appropriate to our jurisdiction, is set out in Clause 42.
The amendments are not all the same. If mishap struck and, for instance, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, succeeded in his amendment, it would not have the same effect as the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu. Her amendment is quite wide, stating:
"Notwithstanding the other provisions of this section, the court may, on application by or on behalf of any accused",
and then these important words,
"give leave for any evidence to be adduced or [any] question to be asked if and to the extent that the court considers such evidence or question to be necessary in the interests of justice to ensure a fair trial of the accused".
In that approach, as contrasted with our approach in Clause 40, one comes to the nub of the question properly identified by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. He spoke of guides and constraints. We believe that the guides and constraints in this area of the law ought to be embodied in statute. There is that clear difference of approach between us.
In some circumstances, the question of relevance has been elided. Under Clause 40 as it presently stands, if an issue is relevant the questions can be asked. The clause provides that questions may be asked and evidence adduced only if subsections (3) or (5) apply. Subsection (3) relates to a relevant issue in the case, other than consent, and the 24-hour saver which has been expanded, but I will not develop that theme because it is contained in the next block of amendments. Subsection (5) relates to rebuttal evidence which is to be allowed in appropriate circumstances. Therefore, under those subsections the questions can be asked and the evidence adduced if it relates to the relevant issue.
I believe—and I hope that I am speaking carefully and courteously—that on some occasions some of the heat engendered in the debate misunderstands because of a misreading of the scheme of Clause 40. We are saying, plainly and shortly, that if subsections (3) or (5)

33
apply, the questions may be asked upon an application which is determined by the procedure in Clause 42. If the issue is not relevant, the questions cannot be asked. The question of fairness to the accused, which is the second question, arises only if the evidence in question is relevant. That is a perfectly sensible, prudent way of approaching the conduct of criminal litigation in this country.
We come to a further difference. I assert again—and I am sorry if I am annoying my noble friend Lady Mallalieu—that the fact that a woman has consented to sexual activity on an earlier occasion, with perhaps another man in different circumstances, is not relevant to whether she consented to sexual relations with the defendant on a particular occasion. That is a matter that one either accepts or does not accept. I shall not apologise either to the noble Baroness, who is my friend, or to your Lordships, who are listening so patiently to this long debate. I shall not resile from that proposition.
In certain circumstances, as the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, correctly elicited from the letter of my noble friend Lady Jay and from what I have said on a number of occasions, a complainant's previous sexual behaviour can be relevant, but those circumstances are restricted. That is the point of Clause 40. It is not a misunderstanding; it is intended and designed to introduce restrictions and criteria which judges will be obliged to bear in mind. I go back to the phrase of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, "guides and constraints" and I add to it, "included in the statute".
We believe that the outcome of some previous case law was not satisfactory and that we have the right to set down the statutory guides and constraints in this Bill. That will mean the achievement of more consistency of approach and complainants will feel that they have the protection of consistency and certainty. Again, I recognise that some wish to leave it to the discretion—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, prefers to call it judgment—of the individual judges but we prefer and have reached the policy conclusion that it should be on the face of the Bill.
I flag up the rebuttal of prosecution evidence. It is plainly there. We are not driven by the belief that all complainants are true victims. We do not believe that every complainant is honest and truthful nor that every accused is guilty. We are providing a proper regime. Rebuttal of prosecution evidence has hardly been mentioned in this context but there is provision for it in the Bill.
The Bill seeks to focus on the true issues at trial, not irrelevant fishing nor suggestions that because a woman had sex on one occasion with another person, perhaps, or even the person in question, it is relevant to the issue of consent.
Under the provisions of Clause 40, in this difficult class of case we wish to focus on the true issues at trial and the determination of the facts on the occasion in question. We do not want unjust convictions nor unjust acquittals. Juries should not be allowed to make moral judgments about the complainant's character on the basis of her sexual habits, which, I repeat, are matters of her decision and personal property, and simply acquit the defendant because of it.
34
I repeat that Clause 40 allows the evidence that we have been discussing to be introduced only when it is relevant to an issue. It must relate to specific alleged instances of sexual behaviour, not vague allegations nor fishing expeditions which are looking for something with which to blacken the complainant's character. It must be of such significance that it may affect the jury's determination of the true issue in the case.
I do not believe that information about a complainant's previous sexual behaviour is directly relevant to credibility unless it directly undermines something claimed explicitly at trial. To allow otherwise derives from the basis that if a woman has had previous sexual experience, it suggests that she is untruthful or unreliable as a witness. I dispute that.
The noble Lord, Lord Hacking, referred to experience in criminal trials. We wish to be careful that evidence is not introduced on one apparent basis simply to impugn credibility. Of course a complainant's previous sexual behaviour may be relevant to credibility in some circumstances; for example, if she has made a statement about her sexual past which is not true. That is why we have not adopted the absolute position that in no circumstance may other previous sexual activity be relevant. A history of false complaints or false complaints about sexual behaviour is admissible because it goes to credibility. But it is not evidence about sexual behaviour; it is about untruthful conduct on prior occasions. There is a very clear difference.
We do not believe that a complainant's attitude to sexual relations should be admissible unless it is very closely linked in time to the offence or—and this is the basis of the government amendments—is so unlikely and so similar to the defendant's version that it could not reasonably be considered a coincidence.
It is not fair to say that we have not listened. My noble friend Lady Mallalieu developed her Capulet scenario. I found it a shade unlikely as a prospect; nevertheless, it is reasonably possible and therefore I tabled my amendments to meet her concerns. But it does not include general evidence of promiscuity or having sex with someone of a different race or age. Consent on one occasion does not mean consent on another, and consent to one man does not mean consent to a different one.
There have been unfairnesses in the trials we have been discussing. I am conscious that one does not wish to do injustice to defendants. But defendants are not the only ones who have a legitimate interest in the conduct of trials. Of course, complainants do, and there is the wider public interest in securing not only the acquittals of those who are not guilty but also the convictions of those who are.
The one thing which has emerged from this debate is that there is a difference between belief in consent and consent. There is nothing in Clause 40 which will limit evidence which truly goes to belief in consent so long as one makes the rigorous analysis which is called for in those circumstances.

35
I do not believe that the worries and concerns which have been put forward are justified. The noble Baroness said that juries will be given less background information. They will certainly be given less information which, properly analysed, is not relevant. I agree with her.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, spoke about a history of past promiscuity if it is particularly strong. Such a history does not go to credibility and it does not go to consent, except in the limited circumstances I have described. If the defendant knew of it, it may well go to a belief in consent or not.
At the end of this debate, which has gone on a little while now, we are coming to stances which have been fully described and which will not change. I recognise and, I hope, pay honourable regard to the concerns that practitioners, judges and lawyers have had. The voice of the complainant has been heard but from only three noble Lords. I do not suggest in the slightest that those who take a contrary view to mine are contemptuous of the fears expressed by women and those who speak on their behalf. It is a case in which one can honourably disagree with others who have an honourable stance. I believe that we have got this right. If one distinguishes between consent and belief in consent and between sexual activity and credibility, then one reaches the conclusion that with Clause 40 we have it right.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, an important point was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley. He mentioned Women Against Rape and the issue that was raised with the Women's Unit at the Cabinet Office. Does the reply from the Women's Unit reflect consultation with women's groups or is the Government's position reflected in that particular letter from the Women's Unit?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, it is both, in fact. There has been consultation. It reflects the Government's position. I did not expand on that because I have placed a copy of the letter in the Library and I have sent a copy to noble Lords who were interested on the last occasion.
We have not reached a conclusion about the amendment to the law which may or may not have been proposed as a final stance by the Law Commission. My noble friend Lady Jay was saying that previous sexual history may sometimes be relevant. I believe it is. It is relevant in the circumstances which I have described; namely, a belief in consent or the contemporaneous sexual behaviour which I described. As I said earlier, I cannot adopt the absolutist view that in no circumstance in any criminal trial in this context is the previous sexual history of the complainant not relevant. It is necessary to define what is truly relevant on sustainable grounds.
Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may ask whether he accepts, on the construction of subsection (2) and the use of the word "and", that there will necessarily follow, at least in logic, situations where the judge considers that to exclude the
36
evidence would render the conclusion unsafe but, nonetheless, he is debarred from admitting it by subsection (3) or subsection (5).
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, we need to turn our minds to the proper analysis of Clause 40.
5 p.m.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, we have had a long debate so I shall be relatively short. I have listened with great care to what the Minister has said and I have not yet followed what is his criticism of the law as it stands and the law as it is being administered.
I did not interrupt him, but I expect that he will agree with the concession made by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, about the observation in the Court of Appeal in the Viola case:
"there is a grey area which exists between the two types of relevance, namely relevance to credit and relevance to an issue in the case. On one hand evidence of sexual promiscuity may be so strong"—
that is something that he has not accepted—
"or so closely contemporaneous in time to the event in issue as to come near to, or indeed to reach, the border between mere credit and an issue in the case".
Nor have I heard any criticism of the final observation made in the Brown case, which is in these simple terms:
"The real inquiry is whether on the facts of the particular case the complainant's attitude to sexual relations could be material upon which in these days a jury could reasonably rely to conclude that the complainant may indeed have consented to the sexual intercourse on the material occasion, despite her evidence to the contrary".
In every case it is a question of degree. That does not seem to have been faulted at all. If that is the case, this long, complex amendment is totally unnecessary and it leaves potential situations in which the judge can be satisfied that it is unfair not to permit questioning and yet is obliged not to permit it. An example of that is where he takes the view that the promiscuity was so strong as fairly to be relevant to the issue of credit.
I do not propose to seek to divide the House in relation to my Amendments Nos. 55A and 55B. Unless the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, divides the House on Amendment No. 58, I propose to divide the House on Amendment No. 59. In those circumstances, and bearing in mind what I have said about Amendment No. 59, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 55A and I shall not move Amendment No. 55B.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 55B not moved.]
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 56:
Page 28, line 32, leave out from ("alleged") to first ("the") in line 34 and insert—
("(i) to have taken place at or about the same time as").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it was intended, when we finished the substantive discussion on the

37
previous group of amendments in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, that we should break and take the Statement.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I hear noble Lords saying "Hear, hear!". I understand, of course, that my Amendment No. 56 is earlier than the amendment on which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, wishes to test the opinion of the House. I am perfectly happy to develop Amendment No. 56 because I can do it in less time than on the earlier amendment.
I hope that your Lordships will not think me discourteous, but it is an open-minded, open-hearted, full, generous concession to everything that the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, urged last time. I listened with care. The noble Baroness says that she accepts it. If the noble Baroness accepts it, no further argument is needed. I beg to move.
Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, I wish to place on record my gratitude to my noble friend. Although in his reply to the last group of amendments he has given no hope to those who moved them, he did the same on the previous occasion but has come back with these changes, which I fully acknowledge are wholesome and, to some extent, meet many of the concerns that I expressed. I am grateful to him.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I have already expressed my gratitude, particularly for the abolition of the 24-hour rule, and I do so again. That just about improves the Bill to the position of acceptability.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 57:
Page 28, line 35, at end insert (", or
(ii) to have been, in any respect, so similar to any sexual behaviour of the complainant which (according to evidence adduced or to be adduced by or on behalf of the accused) took place at or about the same time as that event that the similarity cannot reasonably be explained as a coincidence. ").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 57A not moved.]
Baroness Mallalieuhad given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 58:
Page 29, line 16, at end insert—
("( ) Notwithstanding the other provisions of this section, the court may, on application by or on behalf of any accused, give leave for any evidence to be adduced or question to be asked if and to the extent that the court considers such evidence or question to be necessary in the interests of justice to ensure a fair trial of the accused. ").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I do not intend to press this amendment. However, I was profoundly disappointed by the Minister's remarks. I totally agree with him that irrelevant questions should not be asked. I totally agree with him that general or vague allegations
38
of promiscuity should not be permitted. I totally agree with him that fishing expeditions are wrong and I totally agree with him that the true issues should be explored.
However, those are the considerations which judges currently apply when an application is made. Clause 40 causes me great concern because I am afraid that one will find that there are questions that a judge considers relevant to the issues which it would be unfair to the defendant to exclude, but which do not fit the narrow profiles that the clause currently contains.
That said, I do not propose to move the amendment in the hope that the Minister and those who advise him will consider the matter further, having heard expressions of concern from all sides of the House, including from some who support the principle of Clause 40, but are concerned about the complete removal of discretion in this respect.
[Amendment No. 58 not moved.]
Lord Thomas of Gresford Lord Thomas of Gresford moved Amendment No. 59:
Leave out Clause 40.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have heard everything that has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, in relation to Clause 40 and I do not accept it. The issue, quite straightforwardly, is that a judicial discretion must remain in order that the court can properly deal with the particular circumstances of a case. Those circumstances are infinite and cannot be guessed by this House. Provisions of this sort, as I have indicated, have completely failed in New South Wales and they failed initially in Canada. I have listened carefully to the noble Lord to see whether there is a general judicial discretion in Clause 40. I have failed to find it. Accordingly, I seek the opinion of the House on this clause. I beg to move.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I support that. I pray in aid everything that the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, has just said and I need take the matter no further.
5.8 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 59) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 56; Not-Contents, 143.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Ackner, L. [Teller.]

Elliott of Morpeth. L.

Ailesbury, M.

Foley, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Glanusk, L.

Anelay of St. Johns, B.

Gray of Contin, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Harrowby, E.

Biddulph, L.

Holderness, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Craig of Radley, L.

Lane, L.

Davidson, V.

Lauderdale, E.

Dearing, L.

Layton, L.

Denham, L

Leigh, L.

39

Liverpool, E.

Saatchi, L.

Lyell, L.

Shannon, E.

McNair, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Mersey, V.

Tenby, V.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L. [Teller.]

Monson, L.

Waddington, L.

Moore of Wolvercote, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Morris, L.

Weatherill, L.

Mountevans, L.

Westbury, L.

Ogmore, L.

Wigoder, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Wilberforce, L.

Pender, L.

Wilcox, B.

Renton, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Rotherwick, L.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Hamwee, B.

Addington, L.

Hanworth, V.

Ahmed, L.

Hardie, L.

Alli, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Amos, B.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Haskel, L.

Barnett, L.

Hayman, B.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Berkeley, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Birdwood, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Blackstone, B.

Hoyle, L.

Blease, L.

Hughes, L.

Blyth, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Bragg, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Brentford, V.

Bridgeman, V.

Islwyn, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Brookman, L.

Jeger, B.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Burlison, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Calverley, L.

Lockwood, B.

Carlisle, E.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Longford, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Ludford, B.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

McCarthy, L.

Chorley, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Christopher, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

[Teller.]

Clement-Jones, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Maddock, B.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Colville of Culross, V.

Marlesford, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Marsh, L.

Courtown, E.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

David, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Molloy, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Monkswell, L.

Dholakia, L.

Montague of Oxford, L.

Diamond, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Dixon, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Donoughue, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Nicol, B.

Dubs, L.

Northesk, E.

Eatwell, L.

Norton, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Evans of Watford, L.

Orme, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Patel, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Peston, L.

Gilbert, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Goudie, B.

Puttnam, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Rea, L.

Grenfell, L.

Redesdale, L.

Hacking, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

40

Russell-Johnston, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Sawyer, L.

Thornton, B.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Tordoff, L.

Shepherd, L.

Tryon, L.

Simon, V.

Uddin, B.

Simon of Highbury, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Warner, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Swinfen, L.

Whitty, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Thomas of Macclesfield, L.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Access to Open Countryside
5.19 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Minister for the Environment. Documents referred to in the Statement as being available in the Vote Office are available in the Printed Paper Office. The Statement is as follows:
"In our manifesto we gave a commitment to give people greater freedom to explore our open countryside, balanced by the need to protect the environment and avoid any abuse of greater access. I am pleased to announce to the House today the Government's plans—for England and Wales—to honour our commitment. A number of documents, including our Framework for Action, will be available in the Vote Office when I have completed this Statement.
"Securing greater access to open countryside will bring new opportunities for improving people's health—physical and mental. It will enable everybody to experience the wonders of wildlife and beautiful landscapes.
"Over the past 50 years a voluntary approach has delivered relatively little and, despite some commendable initiatives, there is little prospect of much new access being provided voluntarily in future. Even if much more access could be secured by voluntary means, the access would not be permanent and the costs would be high. Only a new statutory right will deliver cost-effectively the extent and permanence of access we are seeking. There has been much ill-informed speculation that the Government would not introduce a statutory right of access. Today I can confirm that we have decided to bring forward legislation, as soon as parliamentary time allows, to provide for a general statutory right of area access, coupled with responsibilities for walkers to respect the rights of landowners and managers.
"The legislation will include improvements to the rights-of-way system. This comprehensive package will provide fresh opportunities for walking and other recreational pursuits, while taking the legitimate interests of land managers fully into account.

41
"The new statutory right of access will apply to mountain, moor, heath and down, subject to mapping by the new countryside agency and Countryside Council for Wales, and to registered common land. That amounts to about 4 million acres. The right may be extended to other types of open country, such as some woodland. It will apply to access on foot for open-air recreation.
"The Government studied over 2, 000 responses to our consultation document; we talked to a wide range of organisations; we visited key sites; and we commissioned research into the costs and benefits of different approaches. We are now convinced that legislation is the only way to make sure people will be free in perpetuity to explore open countryside.
"But we accept that there are real concerns about the impact of a new statutory right. The statutory right will therefore be subject to proper and reasonable limitations and there will be codes of practice. It will not apply to developed land or to agricultural land, except that used for extensive grazing. There is no question of giving people a right to trample over crops or through other people's gardens. There will be strict restrictions on dogs. Land may be closed when necessary for health, safety or defence reasons. Further, the new countryside agency, the Countryside Council for Wales and national parks authorities will be able to authorise closures or restrictions to protect wildlife or historic interest or for land management reasons, as long as the landowner can demonstrate that restriction is necessary.
"We attach considerable importance to local agreement being reached whenever possible and will be promoting local access forums, with all the main interests represented, to advise on the details of any local limitations before the right comes into force. The aim of the forum will be to achieve consensus. But no member of the forum will have a final veto. The forums will be advisory; the decisions will be for the statutory agencies.
"In addition, land managers will be able to close land temporarily without prior consent for a number of days each year. We propose to set the annual limit initially at 28 days, primarily for land management purposes, though landowners will also be able to close land for other reasons for up to 12 of the 28 days. If necessary, provision will be made to ensure that access is not restricted unreasonably at peak times.
"I now turn to rights of way. We want to strengthen and develop the rights of way network to enable it to respond to the changing requirements of recreational use and the needs of land managers. Before concluding on the detail of new legislation, we will consider recommendations from the Countryside Commission and seek further views. There is no question of failing to secure the proper recording and maintenance of rights of way, or of reducing the overall value of the rights of way network.
"Experience in Scotland and in Wales has shown that much consensus can also be achieved at national level. We therefore propose to ask the countryside
42
agency to establish a national access forum in England. In Wales, the Countryside Council for Wales will be asked to consider how best to develop its existing informal arrangements.
"It will be clear from what I have said so far that the new countryside agency will play an important role in implementing the new statutory right, as well as promoting sustainable rural development and protecting our finest landscapes. I can today announce that Ewen Cameron has been appointed to chair the agency. He has made clear that he enthusiastically supports the Government's access proposals. We have also appointed Pamela Warhurst, currently leader of Calderdale Council, as deputy chair. She will be playing a leading role in the agency's implementation of the access package.
"Though there will be some extra costs for local authorities and statutory agencies, for which we will make provision, we do not expect our legislative proposals to have major financial consequences. Nevertheless, the benefits of the basic statutory right and of the rights of way network will be much enhanced by further expenditure on, for example, the provision of additional routes and readily available information. The lottery has already made a considerable contribution to improving access to the countryside. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Spoil will be asking lottery distributors to look at how their funding might contribute further. We are also considering what part the New Opportunities Fund, through the proposed green spaces initiative, might be able to play. My right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will make sure that the targeting of the access elements of agri-environment schemes contributes to the overall strategy. In Wales that will be a matter for the National Assembly for Wales.
"Almost exactly 50 years ago, a Labour government introduced legislation to safeguard our finest countryside and to open it to the nation. The largely voluntary approach to access of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 has proved inadequate. Glorious parts of our heritage are still the preserve of the few, not the delight of the many. As soon as parliamentary time permits, we will bring forward legislation to remedy that. We look forward to discussing widely the details of this package, but we are firm on the principles. This balanced package fully meets the commitment we gave in our manifesto and will be a lasting tribute to the memory of John Smith. I trust that Members on both sides of the House will support it".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
5.17 p.m.
Lord Luke: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made today by his right honourable friend in another place.
We on this side of the House are disappointed in the Statement, which seems to confirm that the Government's intention is to ramrod through legislation which, if the Statement is a guide, will be ill-considered,

43
misguided, contradictory and likely to cause an even greater divide between town and country. While we accept that the national parks authorities generally welcome the announcement, their position is different from the everyday practice of farmers and landowners.
Our primary concern at this stage is that the co-operation between many private and public bodies to provide more access for the public to the countryside in recent years is put in jeopardy. One could ask many questions, and I must first ask how it was that the BBC radio seemed to be so singularly ill-informed this morning, though I know that the Government are not responsible for BBC radio?
Four million acres was mentioned by the Minister, and he suggested that the right might be extended to other types of land, such as woodland. That is conveniently open-ended. Will the Minister define how much other land and what sort of woodland is being considered? What is "extensive grazing"? How does the Minister define "extensive", and what are the classes of grazing? What about deer and other wild animals? Another problem has been raised by those who farm on downland. How will the public be expected to tell the difference between land on which they can roam and land on which grass is being grown for silage?
I am glad to read about the proposed strict restrictions on dogs. Are the Government aware that it must apply to dogs on short leads only—not long ones—as ground-nesting birds often make their nests close to the sides of paths? Who will finance the insurance required for personal and public liability? The Statement refers to access being available at peak times. What is considered a peak time? How will people get to these places? They are way out in the wilds. Will vast car parks be created? Who will be responsible for cleaning the sites and enforcing the regulations? There seems to be the opportunity for a lot of pollution to be created in places where there is little, if any, now.
The Statement refers to the need for land managers. Will the Minister expand on that? It is said that much consensus can be achieved at national level. To a great extent that has been done already in the past 10 years, in the present provision for access, but that is now at serious risk. The Statement also refers to "some extra costs". We believe that there will be many. Have the Government taken into consideration the possibility that they may be faced with court challenges and legal costs?
If the Government intend to use lottery money, as the Statement seems to say, I understand what they mean by the lack of major financial consequences. Is the Minister committing money to extra access provisions when such money may not be there? He referred to monies from agri-environment schemes but they may not yet be available and could be subject to the outcome of common agricultural policy reforms that have yet to be agreed. In a recent survey about access, a large majority stated that they wish to walk within a short distance of their homes and along well-marked linear routes. I fear the result will be no co-operation and no compensation. The message to farmers and landowners is clear. The
44
Government are not interested in their views. I fear that the result will be most unsatisfactory from all points of view.
5.31 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement, which is about the extent to which I agree with the noble Lord who spoke for the Official Opposition. The Liberal Democrats will support legislation provided—I emphasise that word—there is a fair deal for all stakeholders. I was pleased at the use of word "balanced" early in the Statement. It seems that the debate has suffered from the language. Talking about the right to roam suggests an extreme right. I am glad that in their proposals the Government are endeavouring to bring the pendulum back somewhere near the centre.
My first question follows from the Minister's comment that there will be legislation as soon as parliamentary time allows. The whole House would be glad if he could say more this afternoon. If the Government cannot state that they anticipate legislation within the lifetime of this Parliament, the Statement is less of a commitment than we would like.
The Statement makes reference to the need for the new countryside agency and the Countryside Council for Wales to undertake mapping. It would be interesting to know the extent of that exercise. It sounds ambitious and detailed and may delay the effects of the legislation once enacted.
The Statement also refers to codes of practice and we will undoubtedly spend time considering how the legislation can be policed and enforced. I anticipate that it may be easier to enforce the legislation against a landowner who blocks a right of way than against a walker who deliberately or carelessly defaces the countryside. I do not suggest that the problems created for landowners by careless or thoughtless walkers should be ignored or underestimated. In both cases, funding enforcement will be an important part of the legislation.
Increasing access will undoubtedly have an environmental impact and cost implications for the owners of land. We support local forums and agreements, although we are well aware that with difficult issues such as access, consensus is not necessarily achieved by legislation. We will need to consider the detail of land closure—how it will work, what indications will be given to the public and what alternative routes will be provided.
To return to that part of the Statement dealing with rights of way, I welcome that there is no question of failing to secure the proper recording and maintenance of rights of way, but the Government should be in no doubt that such will be a costly exercise for local authorities. I have seen that at local level and know how temperatures are apt to rise over small details.
We note the appointment of the chair of the new agency. No doubt the Government have given careful thought to the signals that that particular appointment will send.

45
Returning to the financial consequences, I was surprised that the Government confidently state that they do not expect major financial consequences. I was concerned to read of the role of lottery funding. The question of additionality is one in which the House will no doubt be most interested. The Government are right to observe in the Statement that,
"Glorious parts of the heritage are still the preserve of the few".
We hope that legislation will provide the opportunity to ensure access for disabled people and others to all country parks and heritage sites that are maintained with public funding. We look forward to the legislation. We realise that the well-known devil who makes life so difficult for the Government will be in the detail.
5.37 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Luke, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for their comments. I regret that the noble Lord was unable to give even a qualified welcome to our approach and that the official Opposition are stuck in an argument that the facts do not justify. I welcome the qualified support from the Liberal Democrat Benches, which more accurately reflects the feeling of the country—both the nation as a whole and the countryside itself.
I shall briefly repeat the arguments against a purely voluntary approach. We have not only made our manifesto pledge clear but promised action because of the unsatisfactory nature of the voluntary approach over the past 50 years. It is also true that since the Government's approach and intent have been known, the voluntary alternative has not delivered significantly further progress. Research confirms that a voluntary approach, even with high incentive payments, is likely to produce less than one quarter of the additional area of access that would be obtained by a general statutory right. To achieve more would require such a dramatic change of behaviour on past trends that, we believe, the voluntary approach would not work or would work slowly.
The quality of access available under existing voluntary agreements varies enormously. Hours of access can be limited, access can be confined to linear routes or allowed only to certain groups of people. Under a general statutory right, everyone will be clear that is their right to roam on the open part of our countryside. It will also give greater clarity to the confusing plethora of voluntary arrangements, which are difficult to map or otherwise record. A statutory right will make mapping nationally easier and cover all open countryside. People need to know that they have the right to walk over certain types of countryside in most types of circumstances. The limitations of that must be clearly set out; for example, for limited periods they will be required to have consent from the statutory authorities.
The noble Lord, Lord Luke, asked a number of questions in that respect. It may well be important for me to repeat that this right of access does not cover agricultural, cultivated land; it covers mountain, moor, heath and down and registered common land. The reference to extensive grazing means essentially that—
46
in other words, rough grazing on open countryside. The noble Lord also asked what the reference to "extension" meant. We have asked the countryside agency and the Forestry Commission to look at the possibility of including access at a later stage to other land, especially woodland. Indeed, cliff land also probably falls into that category. However, the manifesto commitment was to the areas defined and the statutory right will extend to those areas in the first instance.
The noble Lord appeared to believe that the latter would lead to vast numbers of charabancs turning up in the remotest part of our countryside. A large proportion of this land is, as other speakers have said, not particularly accessible. It will require a serious dedication to walking and rambling to gain access to most of it. We expect the level of usage to be low in most areas. The impact will be limited in terms of damage to the land, or whatever.
The noble Lord and the noble Baroness both asked whether facilities would be provided. The noble Baroness also referred to the role of lottery money. We shall be looking at those areas where there might be some pressure of demand for lottery money to be used for non-statutory facilities, in order to ease any pressure that might arise. However, as I said, that will arise in very limited areas.
We were attempting to achieve a fair deal on the proposals. Therefore, we are looking to local fora—or, "forums" as set out in the Statement—to consider mapping the totality of England and Wales so as to make it clear which areas are covered by the definitions in the statute. We are asking the countryside agency and the Ordnance Survey to look at this area in order to produce a comprehensive mapping system so that everyone will be clear in that respect.
Reference was also made to dogs. It is clear that these rights relate to walkers. They do not relate to motorcyclists, bikers, cyclists, horses or anyone letting a dog off the leash. If there are problems in relation to access and the detailed application of it, we believe that the local forums that we propose to establish will help meet them. They are all stakeholders there; they will be local and the local authority will have a major role in the process. I agree with the noble Baroness that offences created under the legislation and those which are already on the statute book can apply to the ramblers themselves, as well as to landowners prohibiting access. There is a responsibility on everyone to ensure that these rights are not abused. However, they should be genuinely open.
The noble Lord referred to assessment as regards where people wanted to walk. It is true to say that the desire to walk is not universal among the majority of our citizenry—indeed, if they perambulate at all. I have in mind my experience in my other capacity of trying to get people off the roads. However, there is now a growing and important element who want to walk in our countryside and enjoy its facilities. In fact, surveys carried out by both landowners and the Ramblers' Association show over-80 per cent, support for a right to roam in open countryside. Therefore we are doing the nation's will in this respect. We believe that the

47
legislation can be introduced with some understanding, with a degree of local consensus and without, I hope, obstruction.
As far as concerns rights of way, there are indeed some problems about the present network. We do not envisage a massive extension in costs to local authorities in mapping properly the rights of way, but some degree of flexibility may be needed on all sides. It is not true that the Government have taken no notice of the views of landowners in that respect; indeed, we have taken them on board. As the noble Baroness said, we wish to reflect the interests of landowners as we do in regard to the countryside agency. In the machinery that we are setting up for this, we believe that the views of everyone need to be taken into account. However, we cannot compromise on what we promised in the election; and, indeed, what the statute will provide is a right to roam for the majority of our citizenry, albeit that only a relatively small minority will take advantage of it. The benefit to them and to the well-being of the nation as a whole, together with a feeling that the countryside does not just belong to a few people, represents an important democratic step and one that I hope will receive at least some support from all sides of the House.
I turn now to the query of the noble Baroness regarding the legislation. Of course, I cannot pre-empt any future declarations in the Queen's Speech, or anywhere else. No doubt my colleague Michael Meacher, and other colleagues, will be considering when best we can introduce it. In terms of implementation, there will be a slight delay in that the requirement for mapping will provide some technical problems. They will no doubt be dealt with as rapidly as possible, but it will not be instantaneous. I trust that I have answered most of the questions raised by both Front Benches.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, the Minister set out to answer a question about the legislation put by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, but did not give a very thorough answer. However, did not the manifesto commitment refer to this Parliament?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, yes, it was a manifesto for this Parliament. But, of course, all manifesto commitments are subject to parliamentary time and to decisions regarding the Queen's Speech. I therefore simply maintain the convention of stating that any announcement on legislation should be left to the Queen's Speech.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, is it not clear that the Government are seeking to marry their social commitments and political obligations with their environmental responsibilities? Would it not be appropriate for the Government to accept that all the local forums to which my noble friend referred will be fully aware that the Government accept their continuing obligations to the conservation of species and the adequate protection of habitat? Further, does my noble friend accept that while the majority of ramblers are
48
caring and act responsibly, a minority of them will not do so? Surely, therefore, the code of practice will have to be observed. Will the Minister ensure that the Government seek to harness the responsibilities and energies of those who are responsible? Will they seriously consider the role and capacity of the police to take action where that code of conduct is seriously breached?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I said earlier that it is most important for us to recognise that there are responsibilities on those who take advantage of the right to roam, as well as responsibilities on landowners. That clearly includes the need to protect wildlife and the environment. As I indicated when repeating the Statement, where there are serious problems in relation to potential environmental damage or threats to wildlife, the countryside agency and the other authorities will be able to authorise restrictions or closures in order to protect wildlife or areas of historic interest. The provisions that we propose will meet the conservation and wildlife protection objectives that my noble friend seeks.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I must declare an interest as a landowner in Northumberland whose land would fall directly within the criteria that has been established. I should point out that I, and many of the landowners in Northumberland, would support the legislation. One of the problems experienced so far is the fear regarding how wide this legislation will be. However, consultation about the legislation and, indeed, the legislation itself will clear up some of those difficulties.
There appears to be no mention of compensation in the Statement. It seems to be implicit that no economic damage can be done to such areas. Two years ago I spent a very uncomfortable afternoon fighting a fire on heatherland which wiped out a large amount of heather. That fire had been started by walkers on the Pennine Way who had knocked over a burner which had caught fire. Those walkers were never found and much economic hardship was caused to the farmers concerned. Is compensation being considered in this legislation?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the answer to that is no. Opening up the countryside is not considered by this Government to be subject to compensation. Clearly it remains important to enforce existing statutory offences of trespass and causing damage to property. It will possibly be more important to enforce them once there is more general access to open countryside. However, no new compensation is provided.
Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, I have two questions about liability. First, will it be possible for an owner occupier to be excluded from normal occupier's liability as regards people being given compulsory access to his land? If not, will the Government recompense owner occupiers for the additional cost of insuring against that liability? Secondly, if damage is caused by a walker or his dog who cannot be identified or is impecunious, will

49
the Government compensate an owner for the damage done by those whom the Government have sent onto an owner's land against his will?
Lord Whitty: No, my Lords. Occupier liability applies irrespective of the statutory right of anyone to be present on one's land. Therefore there is no case for compensation. In the latter case there is arguably a default argument for compensation. However, were that to be adopted generally throughout British law, I think the Government would have to provide compensation on a wide front. There is no intention to provide an exception in this case.
Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, did the Government take advice from the access forum established by Scottish Natural Heritage which persuaded all parties harmoniously to adopt a voluntary code of practice which would be generally acceptable throughout Scotland? That shows that a voluntary system would work if everyone accepted it. Does the Minister agree with Scottish Natural Heritage's prime recommendation that any statutory right of access must be exercised responsibly and must be subject to land use requirements? Will the Government put that into English legislation?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, certainly we recognise that the provision is subject to responsible use. Land management requirements will permit access to be restricted subject to the authority of the appropriate statutory authorities, principally the countryside agency. We believe, however, that that provision could be invoked on a relatively limited number of days per year. As regards the voluntary approach, we have certainly taken note of the developments in Scotland and the general consensus on how that system would operate. There is, of course, also an intention to legislate in Scotland on this matter, but this is subject to other developments in Scotland over the coming months. As regards drawing up the code of practice, we hope that we shall reach a harmonious degree of consensus on how that will operate. It is certainly our intention to include in discussions everyone on the landowning side as well as the users of land.
Lord Murray of Epping Forrest: My Lords, can my noble friend give any indication of the Government's thinking on how we can enable disabled people to share the great benefits of the move forward which has been announced today? Does he, like me, welcome the increased emphasis in recent years on the part of the Ramblers' Association and others on improving access for disabled people, through the use of wheelchair walkways, sensory trails and so on? Will he ensure that National Lottery grants that are made in this area are made subject to the provision of adequate access for disabled people? Or, even better, will the Minister ensure that part of the National Lottery grants are ring-fenced for this purpose?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the terms of National Lottery grants are, I fear, beyond the scope of this
50
Statement. I have already indicated that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Culture will consider the way in which Lottery grants could be made to improve access to the countryside, which includes access for the disabled and providing facilities for the disabled. Frankly, it is not possible to legislate to provide general access for wheelchair users. Nevertheless local fora, aided by local authorities and lottery grants, could probably improve significantly access to some of our more beautiful parts of the country where at present access is denied to those who cannot walk. However, there is not a general right of wheelchair access, but we hope that some improvements could be made in certain parts of the country in this respect.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: My Lords—
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I remind noble Lords that they may speak once only and then briefly in the form of a comment or a question.
Lord Jopling: My Lords, what will the Government's attitude be to the Bill which has been proposed in another place on this matter? Will they encourage the sponsor to withdraw it, or will they block it? Will the Minister give us an undertaking that the Government will not attempt to tag their proposals onto the Private Member's Bill which is pending in another place and turn that into a government Bill?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am not at all sure that it would be proper for me to mention discussions which are continuing between the sponsor of the Bill and my right honourable friend as to how we proceed from here. That is a matter primarily for another place. I suspect that all will become clearer at a later stage. As I said, how that Bill is dealt with is primarily a matter for the other place.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, the Minister said that forestry was included in the scope of the Bill. Does that include areas that used to be owned by the Forestry Commission that the previous government sold off? The Forestry Commission, of course, allowed public access, but many of the new owners have forbidden this. Will that land be included in the open access provision in the Bill?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, not in the first instance. The intention is for open access to apply to mountain, moor, heath and down. We shall consult on extending that to forestry land. There will be consultations between the countryside agency, the Forestry Commission and other forestry owners as to how far open access could be extended to forestry areas. However, that land is not included in the initial definition and the initial mapping. It was not included in our manifesto commitment. Nevertheless we hope that over time we shall see greater access to forestry land.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that a burning cigarette end can cause damage to a large

51
area of moorland and even to woodland? Will the Government bear that in mind and prevent people, for example, from making bonfires just because they want to have a picnic?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, substantial bylaws already exist in relation to bonfires. That matter would certainly be a consideration as regards any additional access to woodland.
Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, I think everyone agrees there is a need for more access in general for people. The argument concerns how we achieve that. I would like to be a little clearer on the Government's proposals as to whether or not they believe that there are times during the year when people should not be allowed access to common land, moorlands, etc., to enable breeding seasons to commence without disturbance. That leads me to my next question. At the moment in many cases codes of practice are scarcely followed. There are certain associations which are good at sticking to the codes of practice. However, as a landowner, just this Sunday I had two groups of three people and dogs in a sensitive area where duck breed. Also this weekend, believe it or not, a green 4 by 4 car was driven into a lake some two miles off a public highway. Do the Government expect the landowners to fund these codes of practice—it would be quite difficult—or will they be funded by the Government?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, nothing in the Statement, or nothing that is likely to be in the legislation, gives any greater access to open countryside by 4 by 4 vehicles than is the case now. I repeat: this relates solely to access by foot.
We envisage a national code of practice to be agreed, we hope by consensus, and issued in effect under the statute. There will no doubt be local codes of practice produced by the local forum. It would not be expensive for the landowner to produce such codes or to enforce such codes. We would expect the organisers of substantial rambles to observe those codes and to urge all their members to observe them.
The noble Lord asked about closed periods. As I indicated in the Statement, for land management purposes—that would include the protection of the breeding season in certain respects—application to the countryside agency or the other authorities would be possible and closures could take place. We would not envisage that being a very lengthy period. Short of obtaining prior consent, the landowner would be able to close the area for up to 28 days. That would probably cover most of the situations the noble Lord has in mind.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, that access should be as wide and as reasonable as possible, especially as the landowning classes—I count myself as one of them— seem to be in receipt of vast amounts of subsidies from Europe. In return for subsidies one ought to give something back. I have no difficulty with the concept of the widest possible access. It is what I practice at home.
52
It is not those who are responsible who make the difference; it is all those people who are irresponsible. It is the people who drive 4 by 4 cars into lochs four miles from a road who are irresponsible. No one in his right mind would give them the right to do that. Not even this Government would do that. But in the upland areas—unfortunately I do not have any—there are large amounts of grouse shooting. Someone may have come over from, say, the United States of America, paid £70 or £80 a brace to shoot grouse, and his whole joy is ruined by a general right to roam of some nerds in anoraks.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, will the noble Earl come to his question? Other noble Lords want to speak.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, even though I support the right to roam, will it be controlled in such a way that other people's interests are not harmed?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as to subsidies to landowners from the European Union, I cannot possibly comment. Access can be limited in the sense that if the landowner has a shoot he could close the land for a limited period of up to 28 days. That would, as the noble Earl puts it, ensure that at that point "nerds in anoraks" would not be present or in danger during the shoot. However, that would be a limited period of closure and would have to fall within the 28 days' closure without prior consent which relates to all purposes.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, will safeguards be placed on very fragile land? I am thinking of heath land in southern England, which is now extremely rare and very fragile from an ecological point of view. Being sandy, when one walks over it one denudes it of growing matter. Will there be special protection for such land; and will the legislation enable owners and managers of it to ensure that access is, as at present, along paths rather than by roaming?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, not in that generalised sense. This is open access; it is not confined to linear paths. We regarded that as too great a restriction on access to the countryside as a whole. However, the statutory authorities and the national parks will be able to authorise restrictions to protect fragile land and the management of it, just as they will be able to invoke the restrictions I mentioned previously as regards the protection of wildlife and other aspects of conservation. But the essential element is that it is open access; it is not simply linear access.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, the Statement relates purely to England and Wales. Can the noble Lord say whether there are similar proposals for Scotland?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, there has been an indication that there will be a substantial right to roam in Scotland

53
which will be, if anything, somewhat wider than this. However, the delivery and exact form of that will now be a matter for the Scottish Parliament, not for me.
Viscount Addison: My Lords, perhaps I may add to the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, about forestry and fires. Although there may be a 28 day holding period to keep people away from forestry or other land that is likely to burn up in very dry conditions if we have a drought—which we do from time to time— will the Government make sure that there is an ability to keep people away from areas that are likely to catch fire very easily?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, to generalise such a requirement could lead to an abuse of the position. The statutory authorities would be able to authorise closures if there were a serious danger of fire in a drought situation. That would be clear from the statute and from the code of practice. I am sure that the countryside agency would wish to pursue a closure or a restriction if that danger were clear.

Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Bill [H.L.]
6.9 p.m.
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
Clause 41 [Interpretation and application of section 40]:
[Amendment No. 60 not moved.]
Clause 42 [Procedure on applications under section 40]:
[Amendment No. 61 not moved.]
Clause 43 [Restrictions on reporting alleged offences involving persons under 18]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 62:
Page 30, line 28, leave out from ("where") to ("against") in line 29 and insert ("a criminal investigation has begun in respect of—
(a) an alleged offence").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 62, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 63 to 65, 67, 67A, 69, 70 and 120. This is a quite large group of amendments. They are both Government and Opposition inspired and have generally the same purpose. Perhaps I may set out briefly why we think mat some changes are necessary and the best way that we may attain our common purpose.
We want to protect the most vulnerable members of our society from unwarranted publicity and irresponsible reporting, in particular when those in question are children and young people who may be involved in a criminal trial in the near future. As the law now stands, once proceedings have begun in a youth court restrictions on reporting automatically apply. We think that in the pre-proceedings stage it cannot be right that there are no such safeguards. Therefore we want to put the appropriate mechanism in place to prevent the
54
authority of the court being bypassed and the lives of innocent youngsters ruined. We also appreciate that there have been quite deep concerns about how the new measures will apply to situations in which it is not clear whether an offence has been committed or who has been involved.
I have been happy to listen to representations about how the policy objective could be best achieved. We are continuing to listen to representatives, in particular from the press and broadcast media, and we have made a number of changes to reflect concerns about which we have been told.
Perhaps I may deal first with the changes suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, and the noble Viscount, Lord Astor. They propose amendments to die way in which the restrictions on reporting will apply. In Amendments Nos. 69 and 70 they suggest the introduction of two new clauses which would apply a differential approach to suspected offenders on the one hand and alleged victims and witnesses on the other. The new clauses introduce a number of interesting ideas. However, we do not think that in their present form they meet the bill. First, the new restrictions would apply only from the point of arrest, thus leaving a loophole of time. Secondly, the mandatory ban on restrictions would apply only to those suspected of committing an offence; those who may have been victims or witnesses would have to apply to the court or have someone apply on their behalf to have restrictions put in place. That could mean a race between the news organisation and the child concerned to see if the former could print a story before the latter had obtained a court order.
The new clauses contain lists of the factors that a court or the Home Secretary might consider before lifting or varying the restrictions. The list is neither exclusive nor exhaustive and at times appears unduly skewed in favour of lifting the ban. There is no requirement in the list to consider the welfare of the child. There is, however, the seed of an interesting idea in producing statutory criteria as a starting-point for the courts.
The final amendment in this group, Amendment No. 120, would remove from Schedule 5 all the transitional provisions which apply to the reporting restrictions under Amendments Nos. 43, 44 and 45. That would not help the successful introduction of these new provisions and therefore, on that basis alone, the amendment is not welcome. It would have the effect of applying the new provisions to proceedings instituted before their commencement date. I am not sure that that was the intention. Having reflected gratefully on the indications from the noble Lord, Lord Cope, and the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, and on comments from representatives of the press, I believe that in our amendments we have gone a long way towards dealing with some of the concerns expressed.
In government Amendments Nos. 62, 63, 64 and 67 we hope to provide greater clarity as to when the restriction will apply. That is now identified as the beginning of a criminal investigation, whether by the police or another investigative authority. That is more easily ascertained than the "point of allegation" yet still

55
effectively closes a large proportion of the legal loophole to which I referred. I do not believe that Amendment No. 67A, which adjusts our definition of criminal investigation, is necessary.
We have also included, I hope to your Lordships' satisfaction, a specific consideration of the welfare of the child when a court is considering whether to lift or vary the restrictions. That should be a key element of any decision when one is thinking about the potentially harmful effects of negative publicity. That is achieved by way of a new subsection introduced by Amendment No. 65.
I repeat: it is difficult to get these matters absolutely right. I am perfectly happy to listen with an open mind to reasoned, considered arguments. For the moment, I invite the House to accept government Amendments Nos. 62 to 65 and 67, and invite noble Lords to withdraw their amendments on the basis that we have a common purpose and it may be that our amendments fit the bill better. I beg to move.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for responding to the calls we made earlier, which came from the press and electronic media, for improvements in the clauses that are now the subject of debate.
The amendments before us deal in part with the definition of the time from when the new reporting restrictions will start. Amendment No. 62 and Amendment No. 67 in particular mean that the reporting restrictions start when an investigation begins into whether a person should be charged with an offence. I am sure it is not necessary for a particular person to be identified before these provisions will be triggered. Often, in the early stages, it will be a person unknown who has apparently, or may have, committed an offence.
My contacts with the news media suggest that there may still be some difficulty with the definition as to when the investigation begins. Perhaps I may give an example. I ask your Lordships to consider what happens when a child is missing. The main effort in the early stages of police involvement in such a case is to find the child. It may be, as everyone in these cases hopes, that the child will be found unharmed and will merely have strayed. But from the first moment that the police are involved they will be looking for any hint or possible evidence that a crime has been committed. I am not sure whether that counts as "investigating" within the terms being inserted by the amendments. At that stage the nature of the crime that may have been committed will be completely unknown. It could be murder, abduction, sexual offences or all sorts of other crimes. The police are likely to say that they hope that no crime has been committed; but at the same time it will be in the forefront of their minds, and they will be actively looking for any indication of that as part of their investigation. Does that mean that, from the moment a child goes missing, the police should be considered to be investigating an alleged offence to see whether a person unknown should be charged with it, or is there a window
56
for reporting between the disappearance of the child and the criminal investigation being thought to have commenced?
Amendment No. 67 introduces the question of the police investigation. It refers to,
"persons charged with the duty of investigating".
I realise that that is intended to include in the definition Customs and Excise and various authorities mentioned in Committee which might also be investigating in a particular case. However, the phrase might also be held to cover private detectives. It would not be very satisfactory if only private detectives were involved. How would any authority know, and hence how on earth could the press be expected to know, that a private investigator was investigating what might turn out to be a crime? I have therefore suggested in Amendment No. 67A that the words "by law" should be inserted, so that the provision would read, "other persons charged by law with the duty of investigating offences." That might confine the provision to the official investigating authorities, the police, Customs and others.
The later amendments in this group, Amendments Nos. 69 to 70 and Amendment No. 120 were suggested to my noble friend Lord Astor and myself by representatives of the news media. They are worth consideration. The concern remains that the same event triggers a ban on the alleged offender, the victim and any witnesses being identified. The provision is broad. I am glad to hear from the Minister that he is continuing to discuss it with the news media.
There remains some awkwardness in the wording. We are agreed in all parts of the House that an extension of the reporting restrictions is desirable but, as the Minister acknowledged, definition is difficult. We are all struggling to find the right words in which to phrase the matter in law so that there are no unreasonable difficulties placed in the way of the news media. The news media are one of the bulwarks of the freedom of our society. They should not be unreasonably restrained by the law from reporting things which are of public interest. That is public interest in the sense of the interests of the public and also in the sense that the public are interested in such matters. One has more sympathy with the former than the latter; nevertheless they both have their importance.
Lord Windlesham: My Lords, I also took part in the debate in Committee on reporting restrictions. I am pleased to see the changes that the Government have tabled as a result of the discussion we had on a whole series of amendments at that stage.
My noble friends Lord Cope and Lord Astor have received representations from the news media. However, the standpoint from which I spoke, as the Minister will recall, was that of the organisations, Justice and the NSPCC. Of course, the news media have a very important role in reporting what will now be criminal incidents, although not according to the first amendment tabled at Report stage. The news media also have an important role in the paramount interests of the child. From that viewpoint, Amendment No. 65 put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn,

57
inserts a specific obligation on the court when considering whether to lift reporting restrictions. It states that:
"when deciding whether to make such an order dispensing (to any extent) with the restrictions imposed by subsection (2) in relation to a person, the court shall have regard to the welfare of that person".
It seems to me that the addition of that wording to the Bill more accurately reflects the international obligations to which I referred in Committee than the Bill as originally drafted. It should be welcomed accordingly.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, can the Minister clarify a question which was partly raised by my noble friend Lord Cope? The situation of a child going missing would not initially come under Clause 43 because there would not necessarily be any offence committed and no criminal investigation. There would be a search for the missing child. However, at a later stage it could become a criminal investigation if the search were abortive and it became the view, presumably of the police, that a criminal offence had occurred. In the first part, presumably, there would be no restriction on the media reporting the missing child. They could publish photographs of the child which would undoubtedly be helpful so that the public could look for him or her. However, presumably at some stage it would become a criminal investigation, there would be an offence, and restrictions would be imposed. Can the Minister clarify how it would work out in practice on the present basis?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful for the response, not least that of the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham. His earlier intervention was a useful trigger to see whether we had got the balance right. It is a balance. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, that the press is a bulwark of freedom and one cannot simply pay lip service to it and say, "Oh, by the way, but. "I hope we are demonstrating that we want everyone's interests borne in mind.
The question of the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, overlaps with that raised by the noble Lord, Lord Cope. It concerns the situation of a missing child. At that stage the child could have run off, fallen asleep in a garden shed or whatever. Both noble Lords are right. At that stage it is a search for a missing child. There is no indication or presupposition that an offence has occurred. It is not until it is clear that an offence has taken place that the new provision starts to bite. Obviously, if the help of the press is required in the early stages, then the powers within the clause to lift reporting restrictions can be employed. There will be a point at which perhaps there is a degree of uncertainty, where the press are regularly genuinely helpful in assisting in the context of young children who have gone missing.
The noble Lord, Lord Cope, asked about the definition of,
"persons charged with the duty of investigating offences".
That does not include private detectives. They have no duty to investigate offences. It comes from precedent and is intended to include law enforcement agencies, as
58
the noble Lord rightly surmised, other than the police. It is taken from Section 51 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. What we have tried to do is tighten up the circumstances to refer to a criminal investigation so that those in the press have, a greater opportunity of certainty as to what they can print and what they are in danger of printing unlawfully. I am obliged for the contributions that have been made and commend the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendments Nos. 63 to 65:
Page 30, line 32, leave out ("that a") and insert ("an alleged').
Page 30, line 33, leave out ("has been").
Page 31, line 21, at end insert —
("( ) However, when deciding whether to make such an order dispensing (to any extent) with the restrictions imposed by subsection (2) in relation to a person, the court shall have regard to the welfare of that person. ").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 66:
Page 31, line 31, at end insert —
("( ) In the case of a decision of a magistrates' court in England and Wales, or a court of summary jurisdiction in Northern Ireland, to make or refuse to make an order under subsection (6), the following persons, namely—

(a) any person who was a party to the proceedings on the application for the order, and

(b) with the leave of the Crown Court, any other person,

may, in accordance with rules of court, appeal to the Crown Court against that decision or appear or be represented at the hearing of such an appeal.
( ) On such an appeal the Crown Court —

(a) may make such order as is necessary to give effect to its determination of the appeal; and

(b) may also make such incidental or consequential orders as appear to it to be just. ").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment is to deal with the concerns of the media who have represented to me their anxiety that the clause as drafted would prevent them properly reporting events of potentially national significance. They have given examples which they recognise as high profile cases such as the Dunblane tragedy or the events and the heroic conduct of the nursery nurse, Lisa Potts.
Amendment No. 66 has therefore been introduced to give an appeal procedure under Clause 43 which would allow any interested party, with the leave of the court, to appeal against the making or the failure to make an order lifting mandatory reporting bans. This would allow a further stage of discussion about whether or not it would be in the interests of justice to lift the reporting restrictions. It applies equally to all involved in the case—any person who is a party to the proceedings on the original application to have the restrictions lifted, although he may appeal. And the Crown Court has the option of allowing any other persons to appeal if they

59
have the leave of the court. I hope that your Lordships will agree that the amendment is an important safeguard for the interests of all those involved. I beg to move.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I support the amendment but for the avoidance of doubt I believe that "any other person" could include the news media. I am glad to see that the Minister confirms that from his sedentary position.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, yes. Perhaps I ought to have said that the appeal to the Crown Court offers the opportunity of a speedy appeal, bearing in mind that the media often say, rightly, that news is a fragile and perishable commodity.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 67:
Page 31, line 35, at end insert—
("( ) any reference to a criminal investigation, in relation to an alleged offence, is to an investigation conducted by police officers, or other persons charged with the duty of investigating offences, with a view to it being ascertained whether a person should be charged with the offence;").
[Amendment No. 67A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 67, not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 67 agreed to.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 68:
Page 31, line 42, at end insert—
("( ) Nothing in this section shall impose any restriction on the police or any prosecuting authority from publishing information in the course of their duties, nor on the reporting of any such publication. ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 68 returns us to the position of the police that we discussed briefly at Committee stage. The amendment seeks to give the police permission to release information on their own behalf. The intention of Clause 43 and the clauses that follow is to restrict the publishing activities of the news media, but I believe that they have the additional effect of restricting the activities of the police in their investigations. I am concerned as to what the police are to do when a crime involving a child as either a victim or suspect is under investigation and they need help from the public. One example is the case of a missing child. The Minister has just said that the clauses that restrict the giving of information bite only when a crime is believed to have been committed. However, as I said a few moments ago, I believe that the police will at least be looking out for evidence from the first moment that they come on the scene. There may be some evidence of a possible crime at an early stage which may merely be the circumstances in which the child has disappeared.
As the Bill stands at present, the police would have to go to court to get permission to appeal for public assistance in looking for the child or perhaps to identify the red car which was outside the school at the time of the disappearance, or shortly before it, etc. This can
60
occur in all kinds of ways. As it happened, I was with my local police a couple of years ago and found myself involved with them in the search for a missing person in the middle of the night. That case involved an elderly person, not a child, who had suffered memory loss. However, it could presumably have been either. The police encountered a great deal of difficulty in collecting sufficient policemen in a short time to search parkland and woodland to look for the missing person. I am glad to say that the individual turned up on his or her own account satisfactorily before too long. If the police had wanted to make an announcement I do not believe that it would have been desirable if they had had to be distracted by the need to find a court to get permission to seek public assistance.
We all realise—if we do not we were reminded of it the other day—that duty judges and magistrates are available at short notice for these purposes. The Home Secretary made use of that facility the other weekend when seeking an injunction following the leak of the Lawrence report. The delay involved in getting that injunction illustrates very well the problems that may be encountered. The delay was only a few hours but, given the way that it worked, it was important for the newspapers. It had the rather nice effect that we provincials were able to read something of importance in the papers that those in London could not. Looked at solely from that point of view, it was a rather pleasurable experience. If only it had made much better reading on that particular occasion. That turned out to be a somewhat pointless injunction. I do not develop it except to illustrate the fact that it can take time. Perhaps it is only a matter of hours, but that can be important both for newspapers and the investigation if someone is missing or if it involves other types of crime for which the police require assistance.
It is important therefore that whatever restrictions we decide to place on the media, with the various safeguards that are available, we should not place on the police in the course of their duties. I have tried to phrase the amendment, no doubt imperfectly, so that there is no
"restriction on the police or any prosecuting authority from publishing information in the course of their duties".
It is only in the course of their duties that this applies. It does not give the police carte blanche but it assists them with their duties and it is an important safeguard to place in the Bill at this point. I beg to move.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, I support my noble friend's amendment. Like him, about three or four weeks ago I was at a local police station one night during which three cases involving missing persons arose. Speed was very much of the essence. There was then no question of any great publicity. I am glad to say that those missing persons, all of different ages, turned up before I left the police station in the early hours of the morning. I believe that this is a simple measure that will facilitate the work of the police so that they do not have to go to a court if they believe that publicity will help and press restrictions should be lifted. Anything

61
that facilitates the very professional job that they normally carry out is to be welcomed. I support the amendment.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I sympathise with the spirit of the amendment, but I hope to be able to reassure noble Lords that it is not necessary on two bases. The evening occurrences to which the noble Lord and the noble Viscount have referred would not be relevant in the context of Clause 43 except in certain circumstances. Clause 43(1) starts to bite only where an allegation has been made that an offence has been committed, or that a civil offence has been committed. That is the important context of this discussion. The prohibition on publication that one finds in Clause 43(2) is:
"No matter relating to any person involved in the offence"—
therefore, it is not simply, "Please can you help us to look for someone?"—
"when a minor shall while that person is under the age of 18 be included in any publication".
Therefore, here one is considering a subsequent stage to that identified by the noble Lord and the noble Viscount.
But I concede that there may well be some circumstances in which courts are of the view that this is a criminal investigation and they need to publish certain information. The point of the provision as presently drafted—this is why I say that I hope to provide reassurance—is that in Clause 43(6) it is provided:
"Any appropriate criminal court may by order dispense … with the restrictions … if it is satisfied that it is necessary in the interests of justice to do so".
Very importantly—I take the point about speed and flexibility—the power of a magistrates' court in England and Wales under subsection (6) may be exercised by a single justice. Therefore, one has the opportunity of speed on the fair analogy that if the police need to swear out a warrant at very short notice they can always get hold of a magistrate within their area by administrative arrangements. The point is a fair one to raise, but I hope that I have satisfied any doubts.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, unless I misheard him the Minister has just read out a bit of the clause that we amended a few minutes ago. He read out Clause 43(1):
"This section applies where an allegation has been made—
(a) that an offence has been committed".
We have knocked out those words and, by Amendment No. 62 and other amendments, replaced them with the words
"where a criminal investigation has begun in respect of—
(a) an alleged offence".
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, we have moved on. Whether it is described as an allegation made or a criminal investigation begun, we have moved on— I believe that I used the words "criminal investigation"—from the factual situation which the noble Lord and the noble Viscount identified; namely, we are looking for someone who is missing. I believe that on the illustrations given a crime has not been
62
committed; there is no criminal investigation. My point is that however those circumstances are defined—I hope that we have helped the press by giving a more precise definition—there is still power to go to the court in the form of a single justice to get a relaxation of the restrictions.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I accept what the Minister says, but there will be other instances where it is apparent from the first moment that a crime has been committed. In the case of a missing child it may not be so, and in that case the noble Lord relies on going to a single justice to get permission to release information to the press.
Frankly, that shows a distrust of the police in the course of their duties, which I do not share. I think the police should have the ability, without the added complication of having to go and find a justice in order to get permission, to tell the press what is happening. I think me police should have that ability. It may be that my amendment is not perfectly drafted, but I should like to test the opinion of the House on it and press the point that the restrictions we are trying to introduce are not restrictions on the police—or they should not be— but restrictions solely on the way the news media operate.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I wonder if I might take up that last point, to be helpful and not tedious. The amendment says:
"Nothing in this section shall impose any restriction on the police or any prosecuting authority from publishing information in the course of their duties".
Absolutely. But this is not restricted to the police. The amendment goes on to say:
"nor on the reporting of any such publication"—
and that is the media.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: Yes, my Lords, but there is no point in the police publishing something if it cannot be picked up by the newspapers. All that the newspapers or, for that matter, television and so on could report would be what the police had said. It is only that information supplied by the police or the other authority which would be permitted to be published. So the police would be able to put out an appeal if, for example, they were suspicious of a red car seen outside a school. In that case the police would be able to pass on information to the press and the press would be able to report that, but nothing else.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, of course they can report that. The prohibition on reporting refers to any publication if it is likely to lead members of the public to identify a man as a person involved in die offence.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, exactly so; and that would be overridden if this amendment were to be inserted. That is what I am trying to achieve: to permit the police to override the restriction in the interests of their investigation.
6.42 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 68) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 48; Not-Contents, 132.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Anelay of St. Johns, B.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Luke, L.

Attlee, E.

Lyell, L.

Baker of Dorking, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Blatch, B.

Mancroft, L.

Boardman, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Brentford, V.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Burnham, L. [Teller.]

Monson, L.

Caithness, E.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Morris, L.

Chesham, L.

Mountevans, L.

Colwyn, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Northesk, E.

Crickhowell, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Denham, L.

Prior, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Rawlings, B.

Elton, L.

Renton, L.

Fookes, B.

Rotherwick, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Seccombe, B.

Geddes, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Henley, L. [Teller.]

Stewartby, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Wilcox, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Evans of Watford, L.

Addington, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Ahmed, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Fitt, L.

Alli, L.

Goodhart, L.

Amos, B.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Goudie, B.

Barnett, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Grenfell, L.

Berkeley, L.

Hacking, L.

Blackstone, B.

Hamwee, B.

Blease, L.

Hanworth, V.

Bragg, L.

Hardie, L.

Brookman, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Burlison, L.

Harrowby, E.

Carlisle, E.

Haskel, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Hayman, B.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Chandos, V.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Christopher, L.

Hoyle, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Hughes, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Islwyn, L.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Jeger, B.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

David, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Kennet, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Dholakia, L.

Lawrence, L.

Dixon, L.

Lockwood, B.

Donoughue, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Dubs, L.

Ludford, B.

Evans of Parkside, L.

McCarthy, L.

64

Macdonald of Tradeston, L,

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

[Teller.]

Sawyer, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

McNair, L.

Simon, V.

Maddock, B.

Simon of Highbury, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Marsh, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Molloy, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Monkswell, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Montague of Oxford, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Thomas of Macclesfield, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Nicol, B.

Thornton, B.

Orme, L.

Tordoff, L.

Patel, L

Uddin, B.

Peston, L.

Varley, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Warner, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Weatherill, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Puttnam, L.

Wharton, B.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Whitty, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Rea, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Redesdale, L.

Winston, L.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.51 p.m.
[Amendment No. 69 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 70 not moved.]
Clause 44 [Power to restrict reporting of criminal proceedings involving persons under 18]:
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 71:
Page 32, line 11, at end insert—
("( ) In determining whether to make a direction under subsection (3), the court shall consider—

(a) whether it would be in the interests of justice to do so having regard to all the circumstances of the case including, in particular the desirability of avoiding the imposition of a substantial and unreasonable restriction on the reporting of the proceedings;

(b) whether there is good reason to do so, and in assessing whether there is good reason neither the age nor the welfare of the child shall in itself be considered sufficient or good reason to do so, such that it overrides other relevant factors, including the public interest;

(c) whether it would be contrary to the public interest to do so, having particular regard to the special importance of the public interest in freedom of expression; and

(d) the extent to which the matter has already been made available to the public or previously published.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Astor and I have received representations from the news media and have embodied them in the amendments in the group which carry our names. The Minister indicated that since Committee he has been engaged in discussions with the news media, but I detect that they are not entirely satisfied with the reporting restrictions under Clause 44. I shall be grateful to know how matters stand in that respect.
Amendments Nos. 76 and 78 have a different provenance. It has been suggested to me by the Law Society of Scotland that a standard approach should be taken by the courts when dealing with a direction under Clause 44(3). A test is already established for courts to apply when they are restricting such directions. The society believes, and I think it has a good point—that it is appropriate that the courts should apply the same test when taking the final step of revoking such a direction. The same arguments apply to Amendment No. 78, which puts the same test into the Bill at a later point in the clause. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 71, 73 to 76 and 78 attempt to impose a more stringent test for imposing restrictions under Clause 44. Clause 44 seeks only to replicate Clause 39 of the 1933 Act for criminal cases. We believe that that worked well in its previous guise. The Government's Amendment No. 74 simply mirrors changes already made to Clause 43.
The amendment suggested by the noble Lord would completely change the emphasis of a clause which has protected juveniles since 1933. If there is reason, in the interests of justice or now in the public interest if the restrictions are substantial and unreasonable, the restrictions may be lifted or varied. I know that the amendments are well intentioned, but their consequence would be to downgrade the interests of the welfare of the child in favour of the interests of public clamour for information which we believe should be protected. That is a substantial shift in policy which runs contrary to our stated intention of protecting the most vulnerable members of society when they are involved in court proceedings.
The noble Lord asked about our discussions. They are continuing and there are difficult issues, but the thrust of the amendment would be much more than I could sensibly agree to. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw it.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, in the light of the Minister's reply, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 72:
Page 32, line 11, at end insert—
("( ) A court shall not exercise its power under subsection (3) above (or revoke or vary an excepting direction) without affording any person affected by any direction, if made, an opportunity to make representations.
In this subsection a person affected by a direction includes a person whose publication might be restricted by such a direction. ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment is intended to ensure that the press would be enabled to make representations to the court when considering making restrictions. However, Amendment No. 74 has the same effect. Provided that the Minister can confirm that, I shall not press it. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, there is no reason why representations cannot be made to the court
66
within the legislation as it stands; in other words, that an interested party has the right to ensure that his point of view is adequately communicated.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, in that case, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 73 not moved.]
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 74:
Page 32, line 15, at end insert—
("(4A) The court or an appellate court may also by direction ("an excepting direction") dispense, to any extent specified in the excepting direction, with the restrictions imposed by a direction under subsection (3) if it is satisfied—

(a) that their effect is to impose a substantial and unreasonable restriction on the reporting of the proceedings, and

(b) that it is in the public interest to remove or relax that restriction;

but no excepting direction shall be given under this subsection by reason only of the fact that the proceedings have been determined in any way or have been abandoned.
(4B) When deciding whether to make—

(a) a direction under subsection (3) in relation to a person, or

(b) an excepting direction under subsection (4) or (4A) by virtue of which the restrictions imposed by a direction under subsection (3) would be dispensed with (to any extent) in relation to a person,

the court or (as the case may be) the appellate court shall have regard to the welfare of that person. ").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 75 to 79 not moved.]
Clause 45 [Power to restrict reports about certain adult witnesses in criminal proceedings]:
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 80:
Page 33, line 12, at end insert ("and
(c) that the administration of justice in the proceedings would otherwise be frustrated or rendered impracticable, ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Clause 45 takes us away from the issue of those aged under 18 and points us in the direction of vulnerable witnesses, the quality of whose evidence might be affected by the potential publicity given to their evidence. We can all think of such cases and have some sympathy with the thought behind the clause.
Once again, the news media were of the opinion, not entirely unfounded, that the clause went a long way in trying to achieve that objective and left few loopholes within which the public interest could be considered. Although government amendments in the group go some way to deal with the points which were raised with us, it would be useful to know how the Minister's discussions with the news media are progressing and whether we can expect further amendments to the clause. I beg to move.
7 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the discussions are continuing. Much of it is fine tuning. We are mindful and I hope constantly take account of the need for open justice. That is why subsection (8) already

67
requires the court to have regard to the desirability of avoiding a substantial and unreasonable reporting restriction.
Before making a direction, the court must consider that it would be in the interests of justice to do so, given all the circumstances of the case, including the desirability of avoiding such restrictions. Subsection (9) goes on to give protection to the press because it enables the court to dispense with any restrictions to the extent it thinks it necessary if it is satisfied that it is in the interests of justice to do so.
Following my amendment, the court will be able to lift a restriction if it is unnecessary in the interests of justice; and the court is satisfied that the restrictions impose a substantial and unreasonable restriction on reporting; and that it is in the public interest to remove or relax the direction.
I believe that that gives the court a very substantial discretion indeed for the true protection of the public interest, which is not single in its facets. Although the press interest is extremely important, it is not always paramount. Other vulnerable people in our court system have an interest in the matter. I believe that we have the balance about right here. I have not closed my mind. If the media can produce an alternative form of wording which I am convinced is legitimate, my mind is open. But the press has quite substantial protection here if one looks at subsections (8), (9) and my amendment. I ask the noble Lord not to press the amendment.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that response. I apologise to your Lordships that I omitted to refer specifically to Amendments Nos. 94 and 95. Those amendments result from suggestions by the Law Society of Scotland that a standard approach should be adopted by the courts in dealing with those directions.
As the Minister said, a test has been established for the courts to apply when determining whether it is appropriate to make a reporting direction. Therefore, it seemed appropriate that the court should apply the same test when taking the step of revoking or varying such a direction. Therefore, the two amendments seek to insert the "interests of justice" test into subsections (10) and (11) in the same way as it exists already in subsection (9). I wonder whether that is necessary or whether the same test would be applied automatically. However, as I said, it has been suggested to me on good legal authority that the amendments may be necessary and I thought it important to put them before your Lordships. Perhaps the Minister will respond to that.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, strictly on the noble Lord's supplementary remarks on Amendments Nos. 94 and 95, we believe that the restrictions may be revoked or varied in the interests of justice implicit in subsection (10), which provides that a restriction may be revoked if the grounds for it have gone, and explicit in subsection (9), to which I referred earlier.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, in that case, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 81 to 88 not moved.]
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 89:
Page 34, line 10, leave out from ("so") to end of line 11 and insert ("and the public interest in").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 90 and 91 not moved.]
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 92:
Page 34, line 17, at end insert ("or
(b) it is satisfied—

(i) that the effect of those restrictions is to impose a substantial and unreasonable restriction on the reporting of the proceedings, and

(ii) that it is in the public interest to remove or relax that restriction;

but no excepting direction shall be given under paragraph (b) by reason only of the fact that the proceedings have been determined in any way or have been abandoned. ").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 93 to 96 not moved.]
Clause 46 [Restrictions on reporting directions under Chapter I or II]:
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 97:
Leave out Clause 46.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment refers to reports relating to directions under the earlier Chapters I and II. As I understand it, the clause prevents the reporting of the fact that there is a reporting restriction. It will be a little difficult to report a reporting restriction without reporting something which is restricted by the reporting restriction, if your Lordships follow me. But at the same time, it does not seem to me that it is obvious that the press should not be able to report a reporting restriction. Therefore this amendment may commend itself to your Lordships.
I realise that the Government believe that it is necessary to restrict reporting restrictions but I am not sure why. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising this matter. The short explanation is that the use of special measures should not be reported until after the trial is over or has been abandoned. If those matters are reported before or during the trial, there is a danger that the accused's case may be prejudiced. In many cases, that is a devastating harm to those who are already vulnerable. That is the reason for it.
However, I remind your Lordships that the court may lift or vary the extent of any restrictions imposed under this clause. Therefore, I believe it is necessary to have that prohibition until after the trial is over or has been abandoned.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, the Minister did not make clear whether there is a power analogous to

69
this which covers existing restrictions on reporting. One reads frequently that there are reporting restrictions in various cases. I presume that either there is no restriction on reporting reporting restrictions or, alternatively, the courts must, fairly frequently, lift that particular ban. Perhaps the Minister will assist me by telling me whether existing reporting restrictions are covered by restriction.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the answer is that one needs to draw a distinction between reporting restrictions and a special measures direction. There is no restriction on reporting the fact that reporting restrictions have been restricted but there is a restriction on reporting the fact that a special measures order has been made. That is the difference.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for making that clear and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Carter: My Lords, there is general agreement that if we go straight through, we should be able to finish the Report stage no later than eight o'clock. There are a number of speakers on the Unstarred Question and it would not be fair to keep them beyond eight o'clock. If I have your Lordships' agreement that we can finish by eight o'clock or a little earlier, we should now go straight through.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, we shall do our best to facilitate that.
Schedule 2 [Reporting restrictions: miscellaneous amendments]:
[Amendment No. 98 not moved.]
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 99:
Page 52, leave out line 8 and insert ("For subsection (3) substitute—
"(3) This section—

(a) does not apply in relation to a person by virtue of subsection (1) at any time after a person has been accused of the offence, and

(b) in its application in relation to a person by virtue of subsection (2), has effect subject to any direction given under section 3. ").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment seeks to make it explicit that before anyone is charged with a sexual offence under the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992, no one, other than the alleged victim, can instruct that information should be published which would lead the public to identify the individual as the complainant in a sexual offence.
The 1992 Act contains a 'two tier' test. The first imposes reporting restrictions over the identification of a complainant of a sexual offence from the moment of allegation. The second provides for reporting restrictions over the identification of a complainant of a sexual offence after someone has been charged.
The Act provides that the courts are allowed a discretion to lift the restrictions which effectively anonymise the complainant only once someone has been accused of the offence. The court can lift the restrictions on the following grounds: before the trial, to encourage witnesses to come forward without whom the defence case is likely to be substantially prejudiced; and during the trial, to avoid a substantial and unreasonable restriction upon the reporting of proceedings, and to serve the public interest.
The Act also provides that at any time after an allegation is made the complainant himself or herself can give written permission which waives any redress against the publication of information which leads to their identification.
I know that the media are concerned that the amendments will have the effect that they will no longer be able to publish details of incidents in ways that actually help the police because we have widened the list of details about the complainant which should not be published if it serves to identify the complainant to the public as a complainant of a sexual offence.
Sometimes printing details of the victim and his or her movements at the time of the alleged offence, without disclosing that it is a sexual offence that is being investigated, can help to jog memories or encourage witnesses to come forward. When this type of coverage is organised—coverage for which the police are often most grateful—the victim may be identified, but often the exact details of the offence which occurred are not.
Once a suspect has been charged, and the details become known, what is known as a "jigsaw identification" occurs quite often and putting two and two together to make four is sometimes possible. In cases where there has been such collaboration between the police and the press, special care is needed in reporting the fact that a suspect has been charged. We have no intention of disturbing any arrangements between the police and press in those circumstances.
The amendments made to the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992, like those made to Section 49 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, are simply intended to bring the terminology used to describe reporting restrictions in that legislation in line with the terms used in this Bill, in other words, to bring them up to date. I believe that this is of assistance to the press in producing clarity and consistency. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 100:
Page 52, line 27, at end insert—
("( ) In subsection (2), after paragraph (m) insert—
"(n) section 17 (abduction of woman by force)."").
The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 100 and 101 extend the list of offences covered by the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 in order to protect women who are abducted against their will for the purposes of marriage or unlawful sexual intercourse from identification.
The amendments add Section 17 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956—of abduction of a woman by force—and Section 53 of the 1861 Offences Against the Person Act—abduction of a woman against her will— which still applies to Northern Ireland. These offences were omitted from the original Act, but they contain a sexual element which means that it is appropriate to include them. Section 17 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 is included in the list of sexual offences for the purposes of the Bill in Clause 57(1)(b). I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 101:
Page 52, line 35, at end insert—
("( ) section 53 so far as it relates to abduction of a woman against her will;").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 102:
Page 54, line 18, at end insert—
("( ) After subsection (5) insert—
"(5A) Where—

(a) a person is charged with an offence under this section, and

(b) the offence relates to the inclusion of any matter in a publication in contravention of section 1(1),

it shall be a defence to prove that at the time of the alleged offence he was not aware, and neither suspected nor had reason to suspect, that the allegation in question had been made."").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this group includes Amendments Nos. 102, 104, 105, 106 and 108. Some of them are government-inspired and some opposition-inspired amendments. We want to look after and protect the most vulnerable members of society, particularly when they are children or young persons who may be involved in a criminal trial in the near future. I repeat that we remain happy to listen to representations from all those who are interested—not simply the media— about how we obtain the policy objective.
The Government propose to introduce two new defences for those accused of committing an offence by publishing or broadcasting in defiance of the restrictions. Amendment No. 102 in my name introduces a change to the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 allowing a defence of not suspecting or having reason to suspect that an allegation was made.
To an extent that is paralleled by part of Amendment No. 106, which provides that it is a defence to show that the publisher or broadcaster did not suspect or have reason to suspect that a criminal investigation had begun. That applies in relation to Clause 43.
A further defence differentiates between alleged offenders and victims and witnesses. In the case of victims and witnesses, a public interest defence is included which applies when the reporting restrictions were substantial and unreasonable. That will allow greater scope for reporting news stories of national
72
importance which often, of course—I take the point made by our colleagues in the media—are fast-breaking stories.
The noble Lord, Lord Cope, and the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, tabled Amendment No. 105, rewording Clause 48. They might feel that the government amendments meet their points.
In Amendment No. 108 there is the proposal that amendments may be instituted only by consent of the Attorney-General. In all the circumstances, I do not think that the Attorney-General's personal attention in cases such as these is required. Having conversed with the Law Officers on many occasions, the burden of personal attention is already substantial.
I understand the concern that lies behind this amendment; in other words, that any such decision to proceed is taken only after full and serious consideration. It may be possible to ensure that the decision to prosecute is taken at a sufficiently high level in the Crown Prosecution Service to satisfy the spirit of this amendment. I am happy to tell your Lordships that I have discussed this with our colleagues in the press and I have told them that I am content to consider this in some detail.
The amendments that have been raised, and the thoughts behind them, have given us the opportunity to think further on the Bill. Therefore, I beg to move government Amendment No. 102 and, in due time, Amendment No. 106. On the basis of what I have said I ask the noble Lord and the noble Viscount not to move their amendments.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, as the Minister says, he has taken the point to some degree. Amendments Nos. 102 and 106 in particular fulfil some of the matters that we were seeking. Sometimes it will be difficult for the news media to know that such restrictions are supposed to have started. That was one of the criticisms that we made at an earlier stage. Therefore, I am grateful to the Minister for moving Amendment No. 102 and speaking to Amendment No. 106. In those circumstances I shall not pursue the other amendments in the list.
On Amendment No. 108, if the Minister can give an assurance—not today, but in due course—that prosecutions of this nature will be taken at a higher level in the Crown Prosecution Service that will go at least some way to fulfilling the purposes of Amendment No. 108. I am not aware whether there is a precedent for that kind of arrangement, but it may be more satisfactory than drawing the Law Officers into these matters.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 48 [Offences under this Chapter]:
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 103:
Page 35, line 40, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
("(1) It is an offence to include in a publication—

(a) any matter in contravention of section 43(2) or of a
direction under section 44(3) or 45(2); or

(b) a report in contravention of section 46. ").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Law Society of Scotland has suggested to me that Clause 48, as it presently stands, does not actually create an offence. If there is an ambiguity in this matter it is desirable to remove it, and that is the purpose of Amendment No. 103.
Amendment No. 107 has the same provenance and suggests that the fines alone may not be sufficient deterrent in some cases. I am unsure about the reasoning behind this amendment, but I thought it worth placing before your Lordships for consideration. Some of the news media would be less concerned about fines than about one of their number receiving a custodial sentence. On the whole, given that the benefit to the news media of breaking such a restriction is likely to be financial, a financial penalty may be adequate. As I have said, I thought it worth putting this proposition before your Lordships, given that it has been suggested to me. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, this group of amendments comprises Amendments Nos. 103 and 107. I cannot see the value of the proposition that Clause 48 does not provide an offence. I think that it is absolutely plain that it does create offences. If this has been suggested by the Law Society of Scotland, I think that the society has nodded on this one rare occasion because if one reads Clause 48, one sees the offences there constituted. The point is a bad one. I think that the Government's amendments make Amendment No. 103 unnecessary.
Amendment No. 107 raises the happy spectre of having editors and journalists sent to prison. I am instinctively against that— not least on the basis that one of my clients was an editor and was threatened with imprisonment and I was able to guarantee that he would not go to prison because if he had had to share a cell with someone, that would have been a cruel and unusual punishment for the person with whom he would have shared the cell! I am not sure that he was entirely convinced, but at least he was happy to receive a fine. I think that the levels of punishment are sufficient. I am happy once more to be the protagonist of the rights of the free press in indicating that I do not think that members of the press should go to prison.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, in view of the Minister's forensic skill in these matters, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 104 and 105 not moved.]
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 106:
Page 36, line 16, at end insert—
("(5A) Where—

(a) a person is charged with an offence under this section, and

(b) the offence relates to the inclusion of any matter in a publication in contravention of section 43(2),

it shall be a defence to prove that at the time of the alleged offence he was not aware, and neither suspected nor had reason to suspect, that the criminal investigation in question had begun.
74
(5B) Where—

(a) paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (5A) apply, and

(b) the contravention of section 43(2) does not involve the person by whom the offence mentioned in that provision is alleged to have been committed,

it shall be a defence to show to the satisfaction of the court that the inclusion in the publication of the matter in question was in the public interest on the ground that, to the extent that they operated to prevent that matter from being so included, the effect of the restrictions imposed by section 43(2) was to impose a substantial and unreasonable restriction on the reporting of matters connected with that offence. ").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 107 not moved.]
Clause 49 [Offences committed by bodies corporate]:
[Amendment No. 108 not moved.]
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 108A:
After Clause 55, insert the following new clause—
(". Schedule (Restriction on use of answers etc. obtained under compulsion), which amends enactments providing for the use of answers and statements given under compulsion so as to restrict in criminal proceedings their use in evidence against the persons giving them, shall have effect. ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendments in this group essentially speak for themselves. They derive from the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Saunders v. United Kingdom on 17th December 1996. Mr. Ernest Saunders had been one of the defendants in the first Guinness trial. He complained that the prosecution at his criminal trial had used statements which he had given under legal compulsion to inspectors appointed under Section 432 of the Companies Act 1985. He said that that was an infringement of his right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the convention. The court concluded that the admission of his statements in those, circumstances meant that he had been deprived of a fair trial and that there had been a violation.
The Government responded with the Guidance Note for Prosecutors, issued by the Attorney-General on 3rd February 1998. He said that the Government would bring forward legislation to implement the judgment when a suitable opportunity arose. A similar assurance was given to the Committee of Ministers in the Government's response. These amendments fulfil that undertaking by amending Section 434(5) of the Companies Act 1985— the point at issue in Mr. Saunders's case— and by amending a number of similar provisions. We thought that we ought to meet the principle of our undertaking by also including such amendments. I beg to move.
Viscount Colville of Culross: My Lords, I recognised this when I saw it, as being Saunders The noble Lord said that a large number of cognate matters have been taken in in the world of commerce, as may be seen. I have not had an opportunity previously to ask the Minister about this, but will he apply his mind to the situation that confronts very many motorists in this country? If they commit a moving traffic offence and the police do not stop them, the owner of the vehicle is required to say who was driving. If he says that he

75
himself was driving, he is, of course, prosecuted; if he fails to say who was driving, he is prosecuted for failing to say who was driving. I think that the relevant provision is Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. It appears to me that that is on all fours with the self-incrimination which was held by the Strasbourg court to constitute a breach of Article 6(1) both in terms of lack of a fair trial and in terms of presumption of innocence. Are there not other cases on the statute book where such provisions apply? Would it not be wise for the Government to look rather further afield now that the Human Rights Act is coming into force and given that the noble Lord used to advise his clients, in advance of it coming into force, of what would happen to them and of their possible remedies? Could the Government look a little further afield?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I can certainly do that. I am grateful to the noble Viscount for raising that question. I do not think that provisions such as that to which he refers are caught; nor, for instance, is the requirement, on pain of criminal sanction, to provide a sample of breath or blood in breathalyser cases. However, as I have said, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for asking that question, which I shall certainly have researched. The research may be extensive, but, for the moment, I commend the amendment to the House.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 109:
After Clause 55, insert the following new clause—

Chapter VIA
  Use of Defence Statements

    Accused's statements: disclosure
    . — In section 11 of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 (faults in disclosure by accused), after subsection (4) there is inserted—
    "(4A) Except as provided by this section no part of a statement given under sections 5(6) or 6(2) may be disclosed at a stage in the trial after the jury have been sworn without the consent of the accused. "").
    The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks to insert a new clause on the use of defence statements— a wholly new matter with regard to this Bill. I have tabled this amendment at the suggestion of the Law Society.
    The Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 provided for defence statements to be given which were intended to assist with the early identification of issues: the weeding out of cases which should never have come to court because the defendant had a good answer to the charges; to allow the police the opportunity to confirm genuine alibis as soon as possible and to prevent guilty defendants using ambush defences which cannot properly be tested in court. All of those aims are entirely desirable, but none is achieved if the defence statement is inadequate. At the moment, defence statements are thought to be inadequate. I understand that not only the Law Society but, in some respects, the police and the Crown Prosecution Service have expressed concern at different times about the inadequacy of defence
    76
    statements. Apart from damaging the aims which I set out, a further consequence is that the prosecutor is unable to provide adequate secondary disclosure to the defence. The question is why the defence statements are inadequate. I understand that, in the Law Society's view, a significant reason for this state of affairs is that a defence solicitor does not want to run the risk of the prosecutor using concessions made in a defence statement as evidence in support of the prosecution case. At present, it seems that the prosecutor can put the defence statement in evidence as part of the prosecution case. Obviously, that makes solicitors extremely careful when drawing up statements. The Law Society believes— this seems to me to have validity— that the aims of the statements can be met without allowing the prosecutor to use the defence statement as part of the prosecution case. Allowing such a use of a defence statement is an unnecessary dilution of the principle that the Crown has the burden of proving the accused's guilt. It also discourages the giving of adequate defence statements and therefore has an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings as a whole. It seemed to me that that argument had sufficient validity to make it worth putting before your Lordships' House so that we could hear the Minister's response. Clearly it is in everybody's interests that the defence statement should be adequate and if they are being deterred from that by the fact that it may be used by the prosecution, then an amendment on the lines suggested would seem to be necessary. I beg to move.
    7.30 p.m.
    Viscount Colville of Culross: My Lords, I hope that the Minister will not accept this amendment. I have seen hundreds of defence statements and the problem with them is not that to which the noble Lord, Lord Cope, referred. He must talk to solicitors, who take these matters extremely seriously. The difficulty is that they are produced by a word processor and contain absolutely no information at all. Therefore anything that would tend to support those who put as little as possible in defence statements would not meet with my approval, and I hope it will not meet with the Government's either.
    The idea is that we should have some idea what the defence is. In most cases that does not happen in defence statements.
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I agree with the noble Viscount and am not inclined to accept the amendment. I understand that the Law Society wants the quality of defence statements improved and that some defence solicitors are afraid that statements may be adduced in evidence in support of the prosecution case. But the noble Viscount is right. One does not simply want a word processor churning out defence statements which not only are of no benefit to the courts but also in many cases are a positive disadvantage to the orderly, efficient and expeditious conduct of court cases.
    It is important, as the noble Viscount said, that defence solicitors should provide adequate statements. A failure to comply for one reason or another may well affect secondary disclosure by the prosecution which

    77
    ought to be made. We are concerned with enforcing a system—the noble Viscount has rightly spoken of this on many occasions—that is not being used and is not being driven in the way intended. This prohibition is much too restrictive. The interests of justice should not be fettered in the way suggested. The admission of defence statements is governed by the normal rules of evidence and the courts' powers to ensure that defendants receive a fair trial, not least by virtue of Section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act.
    However, there may be some situations where defence statements could pass the test of relevance. It may be rare, but the opportunity should be there. We should not fetter the ability of the court, for instance, to examine the accused's alibi. It is difficult for the prosecution sensibly to deploy its case to a jury without adducing the defence statement. The question of admissibility should not be conditional upon the consent of the accused because, echoing the approach of the noble Viscount, that gives a premium to not producing a proper statement.
    Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I suggest that his officials take a look at the pro forma which is the basis upon which many defence statements are made. It is in the barest skeleton form and if defence statements are to be made use of in this way, then broader directions should be given on the sort of information that is expected.
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I shall certainly have that looked into. It may be that the noble Lord has a good point and, if so, the remedy may be to expand the pro forma but still leave the power of admissibility with the trial judge.
    Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, we are all agreed that the present defence statements are inadequate, particularly if they come duplicated off a word processor. But we are not agreed as to the reasons why they are inadequate. The Law Society's view, as expressed to me, is that part of the inhibition of putting adequate information in them is as I described. However, other people have different views. Clearly the inadequacy of defence statements is a matter to which we will have to return. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause 58 [General interpretation etc. of Part II]:
    Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 110:
    Page 40, line 38, after ("V") insert ("or subsection (2))").
    The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment ensures that subsection (1) of Clause 58 does not affect subsection (2). As currently drafted, it might. I beg to move.
    On Question, amendment agreed to.
    Clause 62 [Minor and consequential amendments, repeals and transitional provisions]:
    Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 111:
    Page 42, line 24, at end insert—
    ("( ) Schedule (Youth justice: pre-consolidation amendments) (which contains pre-consolidation amendments relating to youth justice) shall have effect. ").
    The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 111 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 112 to 114 and Amendment No. 124.
    Amendment No. 112 introduces a new Schedule 3A. It is a technical amendment, part of a series relating to the Law Commission's continuing consolidation exercise regarding the powers of criminal courts. Amendments Nos. 111, 113, 114 and 124 are all consequential. We hope to make these changes now so that the consolidation exercise can go on smoothly and help the effective implementation of these policies.
    There are three main areas of amendment: supervision orders in the Children and Young Persons Act 1969; detention and training orders in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998; and reparation and action plan orders from the same Act. They do not alter any of the original policy intensions; they simply clarify the legislation and ensure consistency. I beg to move.
    On Question, amendment agreed to.
    Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 111A:
    Before Schedule 3, insert the following new schedule—

SCHEDULE

  RESTRICTION ON USE OF ANSWERS ETC. OBTAINED UNDER COMPULSION
  Insurance Companies Act 1982 (c. 50)
  1. The Insurance Companies Act 1982 is amended as follows.
  2. In section 43A (general investigations into insurance companies), after subsection (5) (use of statements made under the section) add—
  "(6) However, in criminal proceedings in which that person is charged with an offence to which this subsection applies—

  (a) no evidence relating to the statement may be adduced, and

  (b) no question relating to it may be asked,

  by or on behalf of the prosecution, unless evidence relating to it is adduced, or a question relating to it is asked, in the proceedings by or on behalf of that person.
  (7) Subsection (6) above applies to any offence other than—

  (a) an offence under section 71(l)(b) or (3) below;

  (b) an offence under section 5 of the Perjury Act 1911 (false statements made otherwise than on oath); or

  (c) an offence under section 44(2) of the Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 1995 (false statements made otherwise than on oath)."

  3. In section 44 (obtaining information and documents from companies), after subsection (5) (use of statements made under the section) insert—
  "(5A) However, in criminal proceedings in which that person is charged with an offence to which this subsection applies—

  (a) no evidence relating to the statement may be adduced, and

  (b) no question relating to it may be asked,

  by or on behalf of the prosecution, unless evidence relating to it is adduced, or a question relating to it is asked, in the proceedings by or on behalf of that person.
  (5B) Subsection (5A) above applies to any offence other than—

  (a) an offence under section 71(1)(b), (3) or (4) below;

  (b) an offence under section 5 of the Perjury Act 1911 (false statements made otherwise than on oath); or

  (c) an offence under section 44(2) of the Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 1995 (false statements made otherwise than on oath)."

  Companies Act 1985 (c. 6)
  4. The Companies Act 1985 is amended as follows.
  5. In section 434 (production of documents and evidence to inspectors conducting investigations into companies), after subsection (5) (use of answers given to inspectors) insert—
  "(5A) However, in criminal proceedings in which that person is charged with an offence to which this subsection applies—

  (a) no evidence relating to the answer may be adduced, and

  (b) no question relating to it may be asked,

  by or on behalf of the prosecution, unless evidence relating to it is adduced, or a question relating to it is asked, in the proceedings by or on behalf of that person.
  (5B) Subsection (5A) applies to any offence other than—

  (a) an offence under section 2 or 5 of the Perjury Act 1911 (false statements made on oath otherwise than in judicial proceedings or made otherwise than on oath); or

  (b) an offence under section 44(1) or (2) of the Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 1995 (false statements made on oath or otherwise than on oath)."

  6. In section 447 (production of company documents to Secretary of State), after subsection (8) (use of statements made under the section) insert—
  (8A) However, in criminal proceedings in which that person is charged with an offence to which this subsection applies—

  (a) no evidence relating to the statement may be adduced, and

  (b) no question relating to it may be asked,

  by or on behalf of the prosecution, unless evidence relating to it is adduced, or a question relating to it is asked, in the proceedings by or on behalf of that person.
  (8B) Subsection (8A) applies to any offence other than—

  (a) an offence under subsection (6) or section 451;

  (b) an offence under section 5 of the Perj ury Act 1911 (false statements made otherwise than on oath); or

  (c) an offence under section 44(2) of the Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 1995 (false statements made otherwise than on oath). "

  Insolvency Act 1986 (c. 45)
  7.— (1) Section 433 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (admissibility in evidence of statements of affairs etc.) is amended as follows.
  (2) That section is renumbered as subsection (1) of that section.
  (3) After that subsection insert—
  "(2) However, in criminal proceedings in which any such person is charged with an offence to which this subsection applies—

  (a) no evidence relating to the statement may be adduced, and

  (b) no question relating to it may be asked,

  by or on behalf of the prosecution, unless evidence relating to it is adduced, or a question relating to it is asked, in the proceedings by or on behalf of that person.
  (3) Subsection (2) applies to any offence other than—

  (a) an offence under section 22(6), 47(6), 48(8), 66(6), 67(8), 95(8), 98(6), 99(3)(a), 131(7), 192(2), 208(1)(a) or (d) or (2), 210, 235(5), 353(1), 354(1)(b) or (3) or 356(1) or (2)(a) or (b) or paragraph 4(3)(a) of Schedule 7;

  (b) an offence which is—

  (i) created by rules made under this Act, and

  (ii) designated for the purposes of this subsection by such rules or by regulations made by the Secretary of State;

  (c) an offence under section 2 or 5 of the Perjury Act 1911 (false statements made on oath otherwise than in judicial proceedings or made otherwise than on oath); or

  (d) an offence under section 44(1) or (2) of the Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 1995 (false statements made on oath or otherwise than on oath).

  (4) Regulations under subsection (3)(b)(ii) shall be made by statutory instrument and, after being made, shall be laid before each House of Parliament."
  Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 (c. 46)
  8.— (1) Section 20 of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 986 (admissibility in evidence of statements) is amended as follows.
  (2) That section is renumbered as subsection (1) of that section.
  (3) After that subsection insert—
  "(2) However, in criminal proceedings in which any such person is charged with an offence to which this subsection applies—

  (a) no evidence relating to the statement may be adduced, and

  (b) no question relating to it may be asked,

  by or on behalf of the prosecution, unless evidence relating to it is adduced, or a question relating to it is asked, in the proceedings by or on behalf of that person.
  (3) Subsection (2) applies to any offence other than—

  (a) an offence which is—

  (i) created by rules made for the purposes of this Act under the Insolvency Act, and

  (ii) designated for the purposes of this subsection by such rules or by regulations made by the Secretary of State;

  (b) an offence under section 5 of the Perjury Act 1911 (false statements or made otherwise than on oath); or

  (c) an offence under section 44(2) of the Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 1995 (false statements made otherwise than on oath).

  (4) Regulations under subsection (3)(a)(ii) shall be made by statutory instrument and, after being made, shall be laid before each House of Parliament."
  Building Societies Act 1986 (c. 53)
  9. In section 57 of the Building Societies Act 1986 (use of answers given to inspectors conducting investigations into building societies), after subsection (5) (use of answers given to inspectors) insert—
  "(5A) However, in criminal proceedings in which that person is charged with an offence to which this subsection applies—

  (a) no evidence relating (o the answer may be adduced, and

  (b) no question relating to it may be asked,

  by or on behalf of the prosecution, unless evidence relating to it is adduced, or a question relating to it is asked, in the proceedings by or on behalf of that person.
  (5B) Subsection (5A) above applies to any offence other than—

  (a) an offence under section 2 or 5 of the Perjury Act 1911 (false statements made on oath otherwise than in judicial proceedings or made otherwise than on oath); or

  (b) an offence under section 44(1) or (2) of the Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 1995 (false statements made on oath or otherwise than on oath). "

  Financial Services Act 1986(c. 60)
  10. The Financial Services Act 1986 is amended as follows.
  11. In section 105 (powers of Secretary of State to investigate affairs of person carrying on investment business), after subsection (5) (use of statements made under the section) insert—
  "(5A) However, in criminal proceedings in which that person is charged with an offence to which this subsection applies—

  (a) no evidence relating to the statement may be adduced, and

  (b) no question relating to it may be asked,

  by or on behalf of the prosecution, unless evidence relating to it is adduced, or a question relating to it is asked, in the proceedings by or on behalf of that person.
  (5B) Subsection (5A) above applies to any offence other than—

  (a) an offence under subsection (10) or section 200(1) below;

  (b) an offence under section 5 of the Perjury Act 1911 (false statements made otherwise than on oath); or

  (c) an offence under section 44(2) of the Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 1995 (false statements made otherwise than on oath). "

  12. In section 177 (investigations into insider dealing), after subsection (6) (use of statements made under the section) insert—
  "(6A) However, in criminal proceedings in which that person is charged with an offence to which this subsection applies—

  (a) no evidence relating to the statement may be adduced, and

  (b) no question relating to it may be asked,

  by or on behalf of the prosecution, unless evidence relating to it is adduced, or a question relating to it is asked, in the proceedings by or on behalf of that person.
  (6B) Subsection (6A) above applies to any offence other than—

  (a) an offence under section 200(1) below; or

  (b) an offence under section 2 or 5 of the Perjury Act 1911 (false statements made on oath otherwise than in judicial proceedings or made otherwise than on oath); or

  (c) an offence under section 44(1) or (2) of the Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 1995 (false statements made on oath or otherwise than on oath). "

  Banking Act 1987 (c. 22)
  13. The Banking Act 1987 is amended as follows.
  14. In section 39 (power of Financial Services Authority to obtain information etc. from authorised institutions), after subsection (12) (use of statements made under the section) insert—
  "(12A) However, in criminal proceedings in which that person is charged with an offence to which this subsection applies—

  (a) no evidence relating to the statement may be adduced, and

  (b) no question relating to it may be asked,

  by or on behalf of the prosecution, unless evidence relating to it is adduced, or a question relating to it is asked, in the proceedings by or on behalf of that person.
  (12B) Subsection (12A) above applies to any offence other than—

  (a) an offence under subsection (11) above;

  (b) an offence under section 5 of the Perjury Act 1911 (false statements made otherwise than on oath); or

  (c) an offence under section 44(2) of the Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 1995 (false statements made otherwise than on oath). "

  15. In section 41 (investigations into authorised institutions by Financial Services Authority), after subsection (10) (use of statements made under the section) insert—
  "(10A) However, in criminal proceedings in which that person is charged with an offence to which this subsection applies—

  (a) no evidence relating to the statement may be adduced, and

  (b) no question relating to it may be asked,

  by or on behalf of the prosecution, unless evidence relating to it is adduced, or a question relating to it is asked, in the proceedings by or on behalf of that person.
  (10B) Subsection (10A) above applies to any offence other than—

  (a) an offence under subsection (9)(c) above;

  (b) an offence under section 5 of the Perjury Act 1911 (false statements made otherwise than on oath); or

  (c) an offence under section 44(2) of the Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 1995 (false statements made otherwise than on oath)."

  16. In section 42 (investigations by Financial Services Authority into suspected contraventions of sections 3 and 35), after subsection (5) (use of statements made under the section) insert—
  "(5A) However, in criminal proceedings in which that person is charged with an offence to which this subsection applies—

  (a) no evidence relating to the statement may be adduced, and

  (b) no question relating to it may be asked,

  by or on behalf of the prosecution, unless evidence relating to it is adduced, or a question relating to it is asked, in the proceedings by or on behalf of that person.
  (5B) Subsection (5A) above applies to any offence other than—

  (a) an offence under subsection (4) above; or

  (b) an offence under section 5 of the Perjury Act 1911 (false statements made otherwise than on oath); or

  (c) an offence under section 44(2) of the Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 1995 (false statements made otherwise than on oath). "

  Criminal Justice Act 1987(c. 38)
  17. After subsection (8) of section 2 of the Criminal Justice Act 1987 (use of statements made in response to requirements imposed by the Director of the Serious Fraud Office) insert—
  "(8AA) However, the statement may not be used against that person by virtue of paragraph (b) of subsection (8) unless evidence relating to it is adduced, or a question relating to it is asked, by or on behalf of that person in the proceedings arising out of the prosecution. "").
  Companies Act 1989(c. 40)
  18. In section 83 (powers exercisable for purposes of assisting an overseas regulatory authority), after subsection (6) (use of statements made under the section) insert—
  "(6A) However, in criminal proceedings in which that person is charged with an offence to which this subsection applies—

  (a) no evidence relating to the statement may be adduced, and

  (b) no question relating to it may be asked,

  by or on behalf of the prosecution, unless evidence relating to it is adduced, or a question relating to it is asked, in the proceedings by or on behalf of that person.
  (6B) Subsection (6A) applies to any offence other than—

  (a) an offence under section 85; or

  (b) an offence under section 2 or 5 of the Perjury Act 1911 (false statements made on oath otherwise than in judicial proceedings or made otherwise than on oath); or

  (c) an offence under section 44(1) or (2) of the Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 1995 (false statements made on oath or otherwise than on oath). "

  Friendly Societies Act 1992(c. 40)
  19. In section 67 of the Friendly Societies Act 1992 (supplementary provisions about inspections carried out at the behest of the Friendly Societies Commission), after subsection (5) (use of statements made under the section) insert—
  "(5A) However, in criminal proceedings in which that person is charged with an offence to which this subsection applies—

  (a) no evidence relating to the statement may be adduced, and

  (b) no question relating to it may be asked,

  by or on behalf of the prosecution, unless evidence relating to it is adduced, or a question relating to it is asked, in the proceedings by or on behalf of that person.
  (5B) Subsection (5A) above applies to any offence other than—

  (a) an offence under section 2 or 5 of the Perjury Act 1911 (false statements made on oath otherwise than in judicial proceedings or made otherwise than on oath); or

  (b) an offence under section 44(1) or (2) of the Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 1995 (false statements made on oath or otherwise than on oath). "

  Criminal Law(Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 1995 (c. 39)
  20. After subsection (5) of section 28 of the Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 1995 (use of statements made in response to requirements imposed by a nominated officer) insert—
  "(5A) However, the statement may not be used against that person by virtue of paragraph (b) of subsection (5) unless evidence relating to it is adduced, or a question relating to it is asked, by or on behalf of that person in the proceedings arising out of the prosecution. "").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Schedule 3 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
  Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 111B:
  Page 55, line 37, at end insert—
  ("Children and Young Persons Act 1933(c. 12)
  —(1) The Children and Young Persons Act 1933 has effect subject to the following amendments.
  (2) In section 37(1) (power to clear court, where child or young person giving evidence, of persons other than bona fide representatives of newspapers or news agencies), for "newspaper or news agency" substitute "news gathering or reporting organisation".
  (3) In section 47(2)(c) (bona fide representatives of newspapers or news agencies entitled to be present at sitting of youth court), for "newspapers or news agencies" substitute "news gathering or reporting organisations". ").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 112:
  After Schedule 3, insert the following new schedule—

  SCHEDULE

    Youth justice: pre-consolidation amendments
    Children and Young Persons Act 1969(c. 54)
    1. The Children and Young Persons Act 1969 has effect subject to the following amendments.
    2. In section 12A (requirements that may be included in supervision orders), at the end add—
    "(14) In this section "make reparation" means make reparation for the offence otherwise than by the payment of compensation."
    3.—(1) Section 15 (variation and discharge of supervision orders) is amended as follows.
    (2) In subsection (3)(b) (magistrates' powers of re-sentence on breach of supervision order), for "relevant court" substitute "magistrates' court".
    (3) After subsection (8) insert—
    "(8A) Where a supervision order has been made on appeal, for the purposes of subsection (3) above it shall be deemed—

    (a) if it was made on an appeal brought from a magistrates' court, to have been made by that magistrates' court;

    (b) if it was made on an appeal brought from the Crown Court or from the criminal division of the Court of Appeal, to have been made by the Crown Court;

    and, in relation to a supervision order made on appeal, subsection (3)(b) above shall have effect as if the words "if the order had not been made" were omitted and subsection (5) above shall have effect as if the words "if it had not made the order" were omitted. "
    4. —(1) Section 16 (provisions supplementary to section 15) is amended as follows.

    (2) In subsection (3A), for "(3C)" substitute "(4A)".

    (3) Omit subsections (3B) and (3C).

    (4) In subsection (4), at the beginning insert "Subject to subsection (4A) of this section,".

    (5) After subsection (4) insert—

    "(4A) Where a supervised person has attained the age of eighteen at the time when he is brought before a justice under subsection (3) of this section, or has attained that age at a time when (apart from this subsection) a youth court could exercise its powers under subsection (4) of this section in respect of him, he shall not be remanded to local authority accommodation but may instead be remanded—

    (a) to a remand centre, if the justice or youth court has been notified that such a centre is available for the reception of persons under this subsection; or

    (b) to a prison, if the justice or youth court has not been so notified.

    (4B) A court or justice remanding a person to local authority accommodation under this section shall designate, as the authority who are to receive him, the authority named in the supervision order."
    Crime and Disorder Act 1998(c. 37)
    5. The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 has effect subject to the following amendments.
    6. —(1) Section 74 (duties and powers of court in relation to detention and training orders) is amended as follows.
    (2) For subsection (2) substitute—
    "(2) Subject to subsections (3) and (4A) below, a court making a detention and training order may order that its term shall commence on the expiration of the term of any other detention and training order made by that or any other court."
    (3) After subsection (4) insert—
    "(4A) A court making a detention and training order shall not order that its term shall commence on the expiration of the term of a detention and training order under which the period of supervision has already begun (under section 76(1) below).
    (4B) Where a detention and training order ("the new order") is made in respect of an offender who is subject to a detention and training order under which the period of supervision has begun ("the old order"), the old order shall be disregarded in determining—

    (a) for the purposes of subsection (3) above whether the effect of the new order would be that the offender
    86
    would be subject to detention and training orders for a term which exceeds 24 months; and

    (b) for the purposes of subsection (4) above whether the term of the detention and training orders to which the offender would (apart from that subsection) be subject exceeds 24 months. "

    (4) After subsection (5) insert—
    "(5A) Where a court proposes to make detention and training orders in respect of an offender for two or more offences—

    (a) subsection (5) above shall not apply, but

    (b) in determining the total term of the detention and training orders it proposes to make in respect of the offender, the court shall take account of the total period for which he has been remanded in custody in connection with any of those offences, or any other offence the charge for which was founded on the same facts or evidence.

    (5B) Once a period of remand has, under subsection (5) or (5A) above, been taken account of in relation to a detention and training order made in respect of an offender for any offence or offences, it shall not subsequently be taken account of (under either of those subsections) in relation to such an order made in respect of the offender for any other offence or offences. "
    (5) In subsection (6), for "The reference in subsection (5) above" substitute "Any reference in subsection (5) or (5A) above".
    (6) In subsection (8), omit "this section or".
    7 In section 75(5) (alteration of release of offender subject to detention and training order) for "the youth court" substitute "a youth court".
    8. In section 77 (detention and training orders: breach of supervision requirements) after subsection (4) insert—
    "(5) An offender may appeal to the Crown Court against any order made under subsection (3)(a) or (b) above. "
    9. In section 79 (interaction of detention and training order with sentences of detention), after subsection (2) insert—
    "(2A) Subsection (l)(a) above has effect subject lo section 78(3)(a) above and subsection (2)(a) above has effect subject to section 40(4)(b) of the 1991 Act. "
    10.—(1) Paragraph 3 of Schedule 5 (failure to comply with reparation and action plan orders) is amended as follows.
    (2) In sub-paragraph (2)(b), for "youth court" substitute "magistrates' court".
    (3) Omit sub-paragraph (3).
    (4) After sub-paragraph (8) insert—
    "(9) Where a reparation order or action plan order has been made on appeal, for the purposes of this paragraph it shall be deemed—

    (a) if it was made on an appeal brought from a magistrates' court, to have been made by that magistrates' court;

    (b) if it was made on an appeal brought from the Crown Court or from the criminal division of the Court of Appeal, to have been made by the Crown Court;

    and, in relation to a reparation order or action plan order made on appeal, sub-paragraph (2)(b) above shall have effect as if the words "if the order had not been made" were omitted and sub-paragraph (5) above shall have effect as if the words "if it had not made the order" were omitted. "
    11. —(1) Paragraph 4 of that Schedule (presence of offender in court, remands, etc.) is amended as follows.
    (2) In sub-paragraph (5)(b), for "(6)" substitute "7A)"
    (3) Omit sub-paragraph (6).
    (4) In sub-paragraph (7), at the beginning insert "Subject to sub-paragraph (7A) below,".
    (5) After sub-paragraph (7) insert—
    "(7A) Where the offender is aged 18 or over at the time when he is brought before a youth court other than the appropriate court under sub-paragraph (4) above, or is aged 18 or over at a time when (apart from this sub-paragraph) the appropriate court could exercise its powers under sub-paragraph (7) above in respect of him, he shall not be remanded to local authority accommodation but may instead be remanded—

    (a) to a remand centre, if the court has been notified that such a centre is available for the reception of persons under this sub-paragraph; or

    (b) to a prison, if it has not been so notified. "

    12. Omit paragraph 5(6) of that Schedule.").
    On Question, amendment agreed to.
    Schedule 4 [Repeals]:
    Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendments Nos. 113 and 114:
    Page 60, line 11, at end insert—

    ("1969 c. 54.

    Children and Young Section 16(3B) and Persons Act 1969.

    (3C).")

    Page 61, line 38, at end insert—

    ("1998 c. 37.

    Crime and Disorder Act 1998.

    In section 74(8), the words "this section or".

    In Schedule 5, paragraphs 3(3), 4(6) and 5(6).")

    The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall move Amendments Nos. 113 and 114 en bloc. I beg to move.
    On Question, amendments agreed to.
    Schedule 5 [Transitional provisions and savings]:
    Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 115:
    Page 62, line 9, after first ("proceedings"") insert ("(except in paragraph 3)").
    The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 115 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 116 to 119, 121 and 123.
    We laid these amendments relating to transitional provisions for the special measures provided in the Bill. We are aware that not every measure is likely to be made available on the same date to every eligible witness in every court area in the magistrates' court as well as the Crown Court. Implementation plans are being considered by the project groups established under the supervision of the interdepartmental steering group, which is devising an integrated implementation programme for all 78 recommendations of the Speaking Up for Justice report. Advice on this programme is likely to be with the Minister by the end of April.
    We do not want to lead witnesses to believe that they will benefit from the new measures in Chapter I of Part II of the Bill, especially before a training strategy has been implemented, guidance produced and the necessary equipment is in place. It may be necessary to commence this chapter early to allow for pilot arrangements. I emphasise that no detailed decisions about timetables and approaches have yet been taken; we simply want to provide all the flexibility we may need.
    Until full implementation we will have to continue to rely on existing statutory provisions such as Sections 32 and 32A of the Criminal Justice Act 1991—that is, video and live link evidence from children. We will also continue to rely on the courts' common law powers to arrange for such measures as the taking off of wigs and gowns, screens, sign language, interpreters and signboards. The amendments ensure that initially the new arrangements and the old will need to run side by side.
    The amendments also provide for the situation when a notification that a measure is available to a court is withdrawn by the Secretary of State. The amendments provide that witnesses who had been awarded the measure through a special measures direction before the measure was withdrawn would still be able to benefit from them. We also provide for making rule and order-making powers in both parts of the Bill before commencement of the substantive provisions to which they relate. That is an administrative device but is needed for measured implementation of the Bill's substantive provisions when the time comes. I beg to move.
    On Question, amendment agreed to.
    Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendments Nos. 116 to 119:
    Page 62, line 30, leave out ("commencement date for Chapter I of Part II") and insert ("specified date").
    Page 62, line 39, leave out ("commencement date for Chapter I of Part II") and insert ("specified date").
    Page 62, line 44, leave out ("that commencement") and insert ("the specified").
    Page 62, line 45, at end insert—
    ("(4) In this paragraph—

    (a) "continuing proceedings" means proceedings instituted before the specified date;

    (b) "the specified date", in relation to a witness in any proceedings, means such date as may be specified by the Secretary of State in a notice given to the court in question under section 18(2), where the date is expressed to apply—

    (i) for the purposes of this paragraph, and

    (ii) in relation to any description of witnesses and proceedings within which the witness and the proceedings fall. ").

    On Question, amendments agreed to.
    [Amendment No. 120 not moved.]
    Clause 63 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
    Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 121:
    Page 42, line 30, leave out ("Apart from section 61 and this section, ") and insert ("Subject to subsection (2A), ").
    On Question, amendment agreed to.
    Viscount Colville of Culross Viscount Colville of Culross moved Amendment No. 122:
    Page 42, line 32, leave out ("or") and insert ("and with respect to").
    The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Carter, need not be alarmed about his timetable, but I want to return to the question of cross-examination and re-examination on video recordings.
    The Minister just said that various items in Chapter I of Part II will be introduced gradually. There is a particular difficulty about Clause 27(2), where there is an elaborate requirement for the presence of people during the course of any cross-examination and re-examination that will be pre-recorded and used in court. At an earlier stage in the Bill, the Minister said that that would not cause any great difficulty because there were lots of police stations where that was done. I made inquiries because the court in north-west London where I sit was a pilot for the admissibility of evidence-in-chief by children in the form of video recordings under Section 32 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.
    I do not know whether this is typical but in north-west London, the police have two or three suites available where they can record the evidence of a vulnerable witness. I extend that term beyond children because that is what the Bill is about. The facility consists of a room equipped with a video recorder into which goes the witness and the skilled interviewers—who by this time have been well trained, at least as regards children. There is another room into which the video signal goes and where sits a policeman or somebody else in charge of matters as a safeguard—to see that nothing obviously goes amiss during the examination-in-chief or, technically, the taking of the interview.
    There is no contact between the room where the interview is taking place and the overseer in the further room. In some cases an earpiece is available but frequently is not used because it makes the witness suspicious or nervous. That is the existing system and, in my experience, it produces high-quality videotapes. They may have to be edited but the raw material is there. That system is not susceptible to adaptation, to allow all the people to take part in an exercise under Clause 27(2). For that, one needs the facilities of a videolink court. Such a court has a room in which the witness sits, connected to the court by a videolink. In that room there can be a companion, an accompanier, somebody to look after the witness and so on.
    In the court itself there are at least four videos— one each for the judge, defence counsel, prosecution counsel and jury. One for the jury will not be required under Clause 27(2). If the judge or magistrate is to control matters, he must be able to switch on and off the various videos. If, for instance, it becomes apparent that the vulnerable witness is becoming tired or there is some other reason for an interruption, a button can be pressed and the videolink to the witness is turned off. Then the judge or magistrate can talk to the other people in the court and sort the matter out. Similarly, when it comes to cross-examination and re-examination, the necessary buttons are pressed. There is a video recorder as well as a receiver at the place of each counsel so that the witness can see who is asking the questions. In fact, the witness can be told by the judge or magistrate in advance who the questioner will be.
    That system involves complicated and elaborate equipment and, as I well know, is not that easy to use. One has to get it right and become accustomed to it. Is the Minister saying that police stations will be equipped in that way into which the entire court, presumably as a result of one of its own directions, may move to undertake the cross-examination and re-examination—so that a video recording can be produced under the control of the judge or magistrate for use in court? If so, when will that arrangement be in place and how much will it cost? In my part of north-west London at least, such a system does not exist. This part of the Bill should not be brought into effect, even on a pilot basis, until the facilities have been made available. I tabled the amendment simply to ask the Minister to explain the situation and the Government's proposals for putting the provision in place. I beg to move.
    7.45 p.m.
    Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Viscount on raising the practicalities of the proposals for video cross-examination. I had always assumed that, although the interview might take place in the police station, which would form the evidence-in-chief, there would undoubtedly have to be a move to the court for the purposes of recording the cross-examination. I cannot see that being done any other way.
    In earlier discussions, it was put to me that the problem revolved around a witness knowing that he or she had to go to court on a particular day and be available for cross-examination as if it were by live videolink before a jury. My response was, "I don't see the difference". If the court building has to be used for a recording, the witness giving evidence will know that there is a judge, counsel for the prosecution and defence, and presumably the defendant at the other end. The circumstances are exactly the same for that witness in another room as though the jury or a magistrate were present. Why have pre-recording? It cannot make any difference to the stress and strain placed upon the witness. The same buildings, for practical reasons, will have to be used.
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, not for the first time I am most grateful to the noble Viscount for the practical questions that he has raised. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, will forgive me for observing that the thrust of his points relates to an earlier discussion. Therefore, perhaps I may concentrate on the noble Viscount's amendment.
    As this is a special measure, it would only be capable of being introduced in accordance with Clause 18; in other words, it cannot come into force: so that it is available to the court until the court has; been notified by the Secretary of State that it is in fact available. We can implement by area, by measure or even by type of witness. Indeed, it may be a combination of those factors. As I said, the Secretary of State has to notify the court that it can make relevant arrangement measures available by virtue of Clause 18.

    91
    I shall deal now with one or two of the details raised by the noble Viscount. We have the steering group which is advising on how most of Part II should be implemented. It is looking at various options for staged implementation, bearing in mind many of the points—probably all of them—made by the noble Viscount. For example, how can you bring the measures into force? The noble Viscount rightly said that one needs training in the use of the equipment and one needs guidance about that use. That may mean rules of court. Moreover—and here I revert to a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas and by the noble Viscount—accommodation and equipment will need to be found.
    The noble Viscount is quite right to say that some of the measures will need more equipment, which will need to be purchased. Video recorded evidence is already produced and shown in court in respect of child witnesses. I agree with the noble Viscount's theme: we will need to have an audit of existing equipment before we can determine what additional facilities are needed to implement this legislation in a phased and staged way. The group is examining these problems. I am not attempting to minimise them because I well recognise the force of what the noble Viscount said. If, as he indicated, the purpose of his amendment was to flag up such concerns, I can only repeat my gratitude to him. If I have any further particulars as the weeks develop, I shall write to the noble Viscount, sending copies to interested noble Lords in the usual way. I shall also place a copy of the letter in the Library of the House.
    Viscount Colville of Culross: My Lords, I am very glad to have received that rather full reply. Plainly the Minister and his advisors have absorbed the necessity to have the equipment and the training. The only comment that I would add is this. If it turns out, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, indicated, that this will be able to be done only in the court itself—because it will not be worth while installing facilities for the comparatively limited number of occasions that it will be used anywhere else—that will have to be fitted into the timetable of the court centre.
    The video room or the video court in a court centre is a very valued commodity. It is used on a strict basis for the cases that need it. It is very much used and very much desired. The listing office in any court which has one will find that it is bombarded with cases that will have to be fixed in order to use that particular equipment. If, in addition to the existing use that is made of it, we are to have the extra demands envisaged by Clause 18, I believe that the Court Services Agency, as well as everyone else, should be fully engaged in the consultations; otherwise, we shall only find that the whole matter comes to grief because of the lack of ability to use the court facilities. I shall leave the matter with the Minister. Indeed, he has entirely taken my point.
    92
    Nevertheless, there is a great deal of work to be done before this particular special measure can be implemented. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 123:
    Page 42, line 32, at end insert—
    ("(2A) The following provisions come into force on the day on which this Act is passed—

    (a) section 6(4);

    (b) the provisions of Chapters I to IV of Part II for the purpose only of the exercise of any power to make rules of court;

    (c) section 39(1);

    (d) sections 55(5) and 56(2) for the purpose only of the exercise of any power to make an order;

    (e) section 56(1) and (3), sections 57 to 61 and this section. ").

    On Question, amendment agreed to.
    In the Title:
    Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 124:
    Line 4, after ("proceedings;") insert ("to make pre-consolidation amendments relating to youth justice;").
    On Question, amendment agreed to.

  Business
  Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, as consideration on this Bill has now been concluded, the Unstarred Question is no longer restricted to the one hour which would have been allowed during the dinner break. Therefore, the one-and-a-half-hour limit now applies. That does not affect the time allowed for my noble friends Lady Uddin and Lady Amos, but it increases the time available for all other speakers from three to five minutes.

  World Poverty Elimination: Role of Women
  7.54 p.m.
  Baroness Uddin Baroness Uddin rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what action they have taken to strengthen the role of women in the elimination of world poverty.
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I must confess to a feeling of extreme pleasure at being able to open this debate to mark the occasion of International Women's Day, particularly on the eve of the new millennium. I look forward to hearing the eminent speakers on the list, especially the maiden contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Patel.
  The UN estimates that up to 70 per cent. of the world's poor are female. Gender discrimination is the world's most widespread form of social exclusion. Women's inequality is an obstacle to development and a major cause of social injustice. Women are frequently the victims of violence, and they are very poorly

  93
  represented in positions of political power. This is the backdrop to our lot in the world, be it in Britain or Bangladesh.
  To accord proper justice to the work of worldwide development is a task well beyond one woman. Therefore, with your Lordships' indulgence, I wish very much to focus on one small aspect of what is a big agenda and look specifically at some of the development programmes and their impact on Bangladesh.
  The vanguard of the Bengali nationalist movement was indebted to and dependent upon the ongoing support of the international community for bringing it to victory. NGOs emerged during this period to provide relief and rehabilitation as well as during the floods, famine and cyclone devastation following the violent struggle for independence. Over the next two decades they gained influence for organising the rural disenfranchised and the poor and for disseminating both social and economic resources to a dispersed population.
  The early programmes were initiated to reduce fertility, provide literacy and skills training for women, and basically to work alongside the government in meeting those goals. Changes in policies of aid assistance have triggered a new demand, based on export-led growth thus leading to the creation of an industrial working class. In that context, NGO training schemes have provided important institutional resources in building a class of industrial women workers by providing training in sewing and handicraft production. The other effect has been to provide a venue for women and/or their daughters to enter the garment industry in the emerging export-producing enclaves of the capital and the port area. Women now represent more than 90 per cent. of the workforce of the garment industry in Bangladesh.
  Since the early 1980s, much of the development assistance has concentrated on denationalisation and the development of the private sector in the shift away from rural co-operatives and village development programmes to a new pattern of provision, assisting individualised credit and promoting self-reliance. Hence the birth of the central theme and the success of the internationally renowned Grameen Bank project. Micro-enterprises have provided a point of entry from which a number of visible changes have occurred without appearing to threaten the existing roles of women and family structures.
  Those projects afford and create innovative opportunities to interact within a group and to initiate educational programmes as well as pursue other dimensions of social change. In particular, women—and this will be no surprise to your Lordships—have proven to be efficient managers of micro-credit programmes. Today in Bangladesh women are the recipients of over 75 per cent, of the credit by NGOs and they have maintained an 85 per cent, loan repayment rate.
  The development of women's programmes for literacy, skills training and provision for credit as well as population planning in Bangladesh is now well established. Currently, the activities of NGOs are acknowledged to have played a crucial role in providing an environment for the construction of the current
  94
  female labour force. Today women are an increasing force among the entrepreneurs in small and cottage industries and in the export of garment manufacturing as well as taking part in public rallies.
  Another example of what is happening is the Bangladesh Rural Advancement Committee—shortly put, BRAC—which is probably the world's largest indigenous non-governmental development organisation. It has acquired worldwide status among health professionals for its path-breaking nationwide programme to teach oral rehydration for the treatment of diarrhoea to 13 million women in the 68, 000 villages of Bangladesh. That is a staggering figure. Its experimentation in primary healthcare is also well known. The measure of its success was apparent during the recent flood disaster when it reduced the numbers of those struck by diarrhoea and other fatal diseases. BRAC has also acquired an international reputation for its innovative and successful approach to primary education for the poorest rural children, in particular girls.
  Bangladesh is emerging as an increasingly confident country in the south-east Asia region with steady economic growth and continuous reform of its social infrastructure. Equally impressive is its response to political representation, or lack of it. In this context the alarm at the absence of women in political and public life in the early 1970s received a prompt political response in reserving—this was one of the first world quota systems for women in public life—10 per cent, of parliamentary seats for women. This practice is now being improved to ensure all political parties are representative of women right across their structures. The Government also have a policy to support free education for all girls up to secondary level.
  Of course all international intervention has its critics and neither the Department for International Development nor local NGOs are free from them. When I last visited Bangladesh and met representatives of various small women's organisations I was told in no uncertain terms that indigenous women's groups are increasingly questioning the accountability and organisational legitimacy of externally funded NGOs. This is a positive development and demonstrates the confidence which now exists in the country. Many international NGOs can rightly be proud of the current state of women's development.
  In this context the experience of Oxfam's model of working needs to be highlighted. Oxfam in Bangladesh has developed a new way to practise what it preaches with regard to gender and provides support to partners to integrate gender issues into their management structures as well as their programmes. It has helped to set up and resource a forum for women in management positions in partner organisations in a way that breaks new ground.
  It is not just an international duty but a moral obligation on every organisation and NGO to ensure that, whether it is a question of empowerment or social engineering, it is done with the consent and involvement of women at grassroots level. Many initiatives focus on educating women, often from a western perception of empowerment. Creating awareness through education is

  95
  not sufficient to achieve social empowerment. Women's economic vulnerability is at the centre of their powerlessness, and improvement in their economic status has a positive impact on other dimensions of empowerment. The current British annual allocation of assistance to Bangladesh is approximately £40 million a year. If we are to examine what is happening to that money and what is happening to our sisterhood globally, we can cite Bangladesh as a good example of what can be achieved and what we can be proud of.
  The emancipation of women is an integral part of social progress; it is not just a women's issue. I pay homage to those whose relentless effort and vigour have ensured our freedom in this century and our standing in society today. DfID's commitment to women's equality is clear in the White Paper. It is a commitment that I hope we can all support and endorse. It states that the development approach is based on principles of human rights and social justice and that poverty cannot be estimated until men and women have equal access to the resources and services necessary to achieve their individual potential and fulfil their obligations to household, community, society, and more importantly— this is my point—to themselves.
  I know that we have a long way to go. I conclude by asking my noble friend the Minister to respond to the following questions. Can my noble friend tell the House what specific measures DfID is taking to encourage women to participate in political and public life? Will my noble friend assure the House that the department is monitoring the distribution of aid to Bangladesh to ensure that it is distributed widely and is not concentrated solely on the area surrounding the capital? Will my noble friend perhaps write to me on the proportion of aid programmes that are based in or distributed to the Sylhet region?
  8.4 p.m.
  Lord Patel: My Lords, I am privileged to have this opportunity to speak in your Lordships' House for the first time, and for this I beg your indulgence. First of all, I thank all your Lordships, members of the administration and the doorkeepers for the warm welcome I have had.
  As has already been mentioned, today is International Women's Day, and taking part in a panel discussion on the theme of equality for women, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Dr. Kofi Annan, and the First Lady of the United States of America, Hillary Rodham Clinton, called for renewed efforts to promote women's rights as human rights. Among the issues they identified was equal opportunity to healthcare for all women.
  For over 30 years now, I, as an obstetrician, have tried to improve women's health, not only in our country but internationally through my association with the International Federation of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. Over 500, 000 women—one every minute—die from complications of pregnancy every year; tens of millions more suffer long-term severe disability and hundreds of millions more suffer some form of disability. This appalling mortality and morbidity—mostly in
  96
  developing countries—from easily treatable causes, affects family, society and nation, and is a major cause of poverty. Complications of pregnancy account for 18 per cent. of the disease burden in women of childbearing age.
  Ms. Ann Tinker of the Human Development Network of the World Bank clearly stated why policy makers and others should invest in safe motherhood programmes. They are cost-effective and not only help women, their families and society, but will help to alleviate poverty. WHO and the World Bank estimate that the cost of a standard package of maternal and child health service will be three dollars per person per year.
  Successive British governments, and DfTD now, have supported safe motherhood programmes—I have been involved in some of these—in many parts of the world and these have been examples for other countries to follow. These programmes not only help to reduce maternal mortality but improve family health and reduce poverty. Reproduction and sexual health is a right for both men and women, but there is a need to recognise the reproductive rights of women as human rights.
  The education of girls up to a certain standard is one of the ways to empower women to exercise these rights. There is a significant relation between the level of education of girls and the causes of poverty, population growth, family size and maternal and infant mortality. Helping to support and develop educational programmes in developing countries directed towards girls would reduce poverty levels and ensure a greater involvement of women in decision making subsequently.
  My instructions today were to stick to time and be non-controversial. I hope that today I have been both, but I do not always promise to be the latter in the future.
  8.10 p.m.
  Baroness Goudie: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Patel, on his speech. I look forward to hearing from him and to him joining with us in debates in the House. I know about his work in Dundee and in the World Health Organisation. It gives me great pleasure to congratulate him.
  I should like to thank my noble friend Baroness Uddin for instigating this very important debate on the anniversary of International Women's Day. In 1857 the women who worked in appalling conditions in the garment and textile factories marched through New York to demand better wages and improved working conditions, a march which ended in violent struggles with the police and was to set alight the women's rights campaign in the United States. In Europe this day was celebrated for the first time in 1911, with rallies in many countries attracting more than a million people.
  International Women's Day was first celebrated in the United Kingdom in the year of the General Strike and was officially recognised by the United Nations in 1977. The United Nations decade for women helped focus attention on women's issues internationally. Countries in Africa and Latin America then joined in and the number of women involved worldwide increased.

  97
  Women make up more of the world's poor than men. Often their work is unrecognised and unpaid. They rarely have control over assets such as land. This means that they cannot become economically independent and it makes them particularly vulnerable in widowhood and old age. Poor women find it particularly difficult to obtain credit, despite having a better track record than men in repaying loans. Credit programmes specifically for women have recently been developed in Bangladesh, India, Kenya and Swaziland.
  The Department for International Development is supporting a group of non-governmental organisations which is working with the Vietnamese government to reduce poverty in the Ha Tinh province. The programme includes a scheme for increasing women's access to credit. In East Africa, DfID is supporting an organisation, the Kenyan Women's Finance Trust, providing credit and other services to poor women. It is making financial services available to thousands of poor rural women in western Kenya. DfID is providing technical assistance to a Tanzanian self-help company, which enables poor women to lease essential equipment to start up small enterprises such as dressmaking, tailoring, office services and retail food services.
  I am proud of this Government's commitment to women and in particular in strengthening the role of women in eliminating world poverty. Yesterday, Sunday 7th March, marked 300 days until the new millennium. The Chancellor has announced the millennium target: the debt relief of £50 billion to the world's poorest countries by the end of 2000. I hope and believe that the Government will be able to lead the nations of the world to eliminate this debt. This has increased the overseas aid budget by the largest amount ever, and for the first time in two decades, after years of that budget declining as a percentage of our national income.
  I look forward to the day when more women across the world will be taking the lead in government and in civil societies. International Women's Day plays an important role in reminding us of the issues affecting the women of the world. But this is but one day out of 365. The issues we discuss today must not be forgotten tomorrow, because the women in poverty today will still be in poverty tomorrow. We must ensure that our Government continue to work to improve the position of women to fight against poverty and to persuade other nations to redouble their efforts in this fight.
  8.14 p.m.
  The Lord Bishop of Oxford: My Lords, in the short time available I should like to stress three points. Before I do so, I should like to say how good it was to hear the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and to say how much we look forward to drawing on his experience in future debates in this House.
  The first point I should like to emphasise is the extent of the problem that is faced. Despite the Government's public commitment to gender equality and to recognition of women's and girl's rights, in developing countries female wages are still only 75 per cent. of male wages, 60 per cent. more women than men are still illiterate, and female primary school enrolment is still
  98
  13 per cent. lower than male enrolment. Although its forms differ between rural and urban contexts, and according to the society in question, women's disadvantage remains a constant throughout the developing world. There is still a huge problem to be tackled.
  Secondly, I should like to emphasise the valuable role that is being played by churches and NGOs in strengthening the role of women. At the Lambeth Conference last year about 700 bishops' wives were present, the majority from the developing world. They were not just there for the ride. In many developing countries the wives of bishops have a key role as leaders in their own right. So it was appropriate that at Lambeth they had their own carefully organised programme. Part of their leadership role is exercised through their presidency of their diocesan Mothers Union. In this country, mention of the Mothers Union can sometimes raise a laugh. But a country like Nigeria now has more practising Anglicans than the Church of England and the Episcopal Church in the United States put together. There the Mothers Union plays a crucial role in empowering and educating women in literally thousands of local communities.
  Then there is the role of all NGOs, characterised by their long-term commitment to strengthening the role of women and their comparative advantage in relation to governments in reaching the poorest and weakest people in society and, in particular, hearing the women's voices among them. It was particularly good to hear the stress which the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin—to whom we are all very grateful for initiating the debate, put upon the particular role of NGOs in Bangladesh. Perhaps I may emphasise that most NGOs these days—I think of Christian Aid, of which I am privileged to be a board memberwork through local partners. Therefore they can be sensitive to all the nuances of properly empowering local groups according to their lights rather than western imposed lights. I very much hope that the Government will bear in mind the particularly valuable role that NGOs can play, and are already playing, in this area.
  Finally, I should like to give an example of what is possible. As part of the Anglican Peace and Justice Network, I paid a visit to the south of Brazil. There the church is actively helping the rural landless poor and is trying to create sustainable life in the countryside for some of the 4 million landless people so that they do not merely migrate to the rubbish dumps on the edge of the big cities. We visited a group of 30 families who had erected some simple shacks on open land. As we arrived, they came over to visit us in procession, singing a simple religious song and giving us each a posy made from flowers from the heath. The dirt floors of their simple shacks were brushed, their few pots were polished and their clothes were washed with home made soap. One hut had recently burned down with the loss of the family's few possessions. The other families had rallied round and shared the little that they had. Although this group of families had now acquired some land, some seed and a few cows, they still struggled in solidarity with the other millions of rural landless poor in the movement, a good few of whom have been shot

  99
  dead in the struggle simply to live. What came across above all was the dignity of this group of families, their moral and spiritual strength and their joy. Their leader, inspirer and spokesperson was a women in her early thirties. I shall never forget her.
  That pattern can increasingly become a reality in the developing world if we are truly serious about righting the present imbalances.
  8.20 p.m.
  Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lady Uddin for initiating this important debate. I wish also to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Patel, on his superb maiden speech. I was particularly interested in his comments on safe motherhood programmes, in which I have some personal interest.
  I received briefing for this debate from a number of NGOs, in particular from One World Action. They all make broadly similar points to the Government and to DfID. Perhaps I may repeat their three main points.
  The first relates to mainstreaming gender analysis throughout all development co-operation, from project or programme conception through to monitoring and evaluation and throughout other government ministries. The second point made by all the NGOs related to fostering women's participation in local decision-making and in national and international politics. The key to that lies in improved education and training opportunities. That point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Patel. The third point made by all NGOs was that DfID should concentrate its efforts on supporting independent women's organisations and institution building.
  A huge amount of work has been done on this issue by DfID, and also by international organisations such as the OECD, the UN, the EU and others. A stream of policy statements have come from those institutions. So why, in the light of all this work, is poverty increasing, and in particular women's poverty?
  When I sat down to write my remarks for this debate, I wanted to find a stirring example of success. All four speakers have given good examples of success in the types of projects that DfID and other organisations have undertaken. But I would argue that part of the answer as to why poverty, and women's poverty in particular, is increasing lies with us here in this Chamber tonight. There are no speakers from the party opposite; and there are no Ministers on the Front Bench from the donor ministries—finance, trade, agriculture and defence. I doubt very much whether those ministries consider gender issues in their approach to their work.
  I believe I am right in saying that all noble Lords who are contributing to this debate have NGO backgrounds and experience and care passionately about this subject. I am not criticising the groups I have mentioned; I am criticising us for not properly getting our message across and for "preaching to the choir". The message needs to go wider.
  100
  When I heard that I had an extra two minutes in which to speak, I immediately rushed back to my computer and called up Alta Vista, the search engine, and typed in, "International Women's Day", in an attempt to find two minutes' worth of material. I found 10, 011, 743 web pages, many of them concerned with development issues. So while we are preaching to the choir, there is a very large choir out there of those who are interested in development issues.
  In conclusion, my noble friend's Qustion is addressed to Her Majesty's Government, not only to DfID. I should be very pleased if my noble friend would give examples of the promotion of women's development issues outside DfID but within Her Majesty's Government.
  8.24 p.m.
  Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I wish to add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Patel, on his maiden speech. The noble Lord brings with him wide experience in the field of health. I hope that this House will benefit from his contributions on future occasions. Unlike most noble Lords, he shares with me my country of origin, and it therefore gives me added pleasure to congratulate him.
  Perhaps I may also congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay, on extending the time limit for speakers in this debate from three to five minutes. At least it gives me a breathing space between sentences.
  I welcome this debate. I am a trustee of the Save the Children Fund. That charity has already submitted written evidence to the International Development Committee of the House of Commons inquiry into Women and Development. I am glad that we have the opportunity to discuss the subject in this House.
  Poverty is not just about the lack of fulfilment of basic needs. It is also about the reasons for that lack, which vary widely and may also require cultural interpretation affecting different communities throughout the world. If poverty were about economics, then money would solve most of the problems. But it is not. Poverty is also about power and control. It is about ownership of property and legal rights. It is about political, social and cultural priorities. It is easy to talk about education and health. But if we strip the subject to its bare essentials, we need to address power relationships. The gap is still growing between the rich and the poor and between men and women—but, more importantly, between men and women in third world countries.
  In essence, what is needed is training to support effective policies and programmes which take into account women's needs and which enable people, once they are trained, to put their knowledge into practice. Programmes must be based on gender awareness and gender analysis. We need to support civil society networks in raising public and state commitment to gender equality. We need to examine the non-economic aspects of poverty, which often pertain to women. We must channel resources to those who are working to improve women's participation in the political decision-making structures.

  101
  We should undertake a gender assessment of British trade policy as a matter of priority. We must also seek to eliminate the inconsistencies that leave Britain supplying military technology to overseas governments who use it against their own people or against those in areas where Britain at the same time seeks to support the elimination of poverty.
  The non-economic aspects of poverty include insecurity and social isolation—whose special meaning includes domestic violence and sexual abuse, which disproportionately affect women. Added to that is displacement from conflict zones. These are the sorry tales that we hear and read about on a daily basis.
  It is time that women and children were at the top of the agenda in the battle for the elimination of poverty. Women and children must be at the forefront, because they are at the centre of family life in every civilisation.
  8.28 p.m.
  Baroness Thornton: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on initiating this debate at such an opportune time and on such an important day. Perhaps I may also say how much I enjoyed the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Patel. Along with other noble Lords, I welcome him as a Member of this House. As a relatively "new girl" myself, I assure the noble Lord that he will find only friendship here.
  I wish to address two issues regarding women at an international level. I declare an interest. I am a lifelong and passionate co-operator—and, the last time I looked, I was a woman. I wish to take this opportunity of combining those two aspects of my life.
  The success of international co-operation is a testament to the strength of the philosophy of co-operative principles. Millions of people throughout the world work and belong to co-operative enterprises. Millions among those are women. In 1999, the United Nations, on the occasion of the International Day of Co-operation, has recognised the achievements of co-operation in stressing that women have found adequate means to improve their economic situation through co-operatives. It pointed out that co-operatives have not only allowed many women to overcome poverty—often by offering favourable conditions of employment and access to credit—but have also made a considerable contribution to the achievement of equality with men by improving education and training opportunities. One of the most important factors concerning women's participation in co-operatives is the presence of women in the decision-making process at every level of the enterprise. The United Nations acknowledges other contributions of co-operatives too, such as promoting women's self-reliance, helping to eliminate violence and integrating gender equality dimensions into policy-making.
  As a lifelong co-operator, I grew up understanding that an important and integral aspect of the co-operative movement was international solidarity and support. Solidarity and mutual support are also at the core of feminism. That is my second point. I make no apology for using the term on this day.
  102
  At a micro level, I gained enormous strength from the support of the noble women friends whom I have met in this House. I tell my male colleagues here that in the Earl Marshal's room, where we meet, we get enormous support from each other on a daily basis. I have found that a huge help in my time here. For women over the years—suffragettes, women in Ireland, women in need of protection, women during the struggles that they have had—women supporting women have helped to make the changes and progress that we have achieved. For example, a suffragette visited women in Turkey when the suffragettes received the vote in the early part of the century and there is a plaque to commemorate it.
  I have communicated by e-mail with sisters around the world: women oppressed by the Taliban, women in the Highlands of Scotland—they may not be oppressed, but they are there—women in poverty and pain. I take this opportunity to rejoice at the mutual support that women gain from each other around the world. I say that on this day in particular.
  8.31 p.m.
  The Earl of Sandwich: My Ladies and Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, and congratulate her on achieving the first gender balance I have seen in this House. I hope she proves to be a pioneer. I also congratulate my noble friend Lord Patel, who hales from Dunkeld, where I went to school a long time ago.
  The poorest people, it is said, are women and to escape from poverty women and girls need more education. I used to believe that that was the first priority, but in my experience it is not as simple as increasing the enrolment of girls in school or improved access to health. Women living in deprived economic conditions already know exactly what they want from life. They would escape from poverty tomorrow if they had the ability to overcome the constraints of gender, religion and culture which hold them back.
  I am always surprised—perhaps because of the propaganda of aid, which suggests the answers come from outside—how much wisdom exists in every society, at every level of development. In eastern Uganda last October I attended a women's group who were mourning their losses from AIDS in their villages. I asked them, if this was the cause of so much sadness, what made them happy? The clear answer was their unity, the unity of women, the participation of the whole community in their development; their ability to improve hygiene; the reduction of social stigmas about HIV; the training of health workers.
  How would they afford to set about these things?— mainly through agricultural activities, the sale of vegetables, herding cattle if they could afford to; making mats, other craft objects and baskets, if they could find a market. Later I joined a self-help group in which men dominated. One man said that they needed to get more children into school, but another man, a health worker, said: "It's no good having children if you can't look after them". He was expressing a universal sentiment. The group leader lamented: "In the past it was easier to support children, things weren't so expensive". He said that meeting needs today would mean change.

  103
  The reality is that the poorest people have fewer choices and the women even less. I have seen some excellent programmes which sustain women's education and development. They break down some of the barriers of dependence. They are programmes which reflect the Beijing agenda of empowerment, enlarging the traditional caring role into a political and economic responsibility.
  In Afghanistan, through a trust, I have supported a project which enables girls to receive appropriate informal primary education in practical skills—until the Taliban closed it down. In Orissa I visited a CARE programme which skilfully combines health and microfinance, giving women independence through small business credit schemes. In Bangladesh, as we have heard, the repayment rate is a success and a challenge to other countries.
  But the question today is whether governments like ours can support such programmes in the climate of enhanced structural adjustment in which the demands of the IMF and the World Bank inevitably promote the interests of a traditional hierarchy. To put it in simple terms, there is evidence that while women and children do the bulk of agricultural work, when it comes to cash crops, when they go to market, the men seem to have the lion's share of the management and profits.
  I know that that is a simplification and I do not want to imply that governments are more insensitive than NGOs. There are some excellent examples of good practice in the UK bilateral aid programme. We have heard the example of the Bangladesh Rural Advancement Committee and there are many other examples of agencies with a proven track record. Governments have recognised that microlending works and that loans to the very poor and to women in particular are a highly efficient means of eliminating poverty and supporting women's rights to greater economic influence.
  I congratulate the Government on their renewed emphasis on gender equality and their programmes for women, as declared in their new publication Breaking the Barriers. I wish to ask one question of the Minister. I note that on page 19 it says that the Lome Convention now pays more attention to gender, apparently with UK encouragement. I would like to ask her whether she accepts that international trade and economic liberalisation can discriminate against and marginalise women. Echoing what has already been said, can the Minister confirm that the Department of Trade and Industry shares DfID's understanding of gender equality and that, as the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, said, the DTI too will promote gender awareness and equality in its own programmes?
  8.36 p.m.
  Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, this Question today is appropriate on International Women's Day. It is also apposite. In February a series of conferences began in The Hague, leading to a special session of the United Nations General Assembly in June, which will review
  104
  and appraise the implementation of the programme of action agreed at the International Conference on Population Development in Cairo five years ago.
  At that conference, 180 countries agreed recommendations for sustainable development strategies to eradicate poverty and to guarantee human rights. The programme of action put people at the centre of development and focused on action seeking to stabilise world population. In this, the position of women is pivotal: their education and their right to reproductive health are the two sides of the one coin, facilitating women's contribution to world economic and social development and the eradication of poverty.
  The concept of population control to reduce the rate of world population growth, with all its human and environmental consequences, was replaced by the right to reproductive health services and facilities; in other words, the right to have access to reliable information and education on healthcare, on personal relations, sex and contraception. Consequent upon that is the ability, as well as the right, to choose the number and spacing of one's children.
  As the noble Lord, Lord Patel, indicated in his excellent maiden speech, the extent to which that right is exercised is determined by the level of women's education. So, too, is the extent of family health and well-being and women's contribution to wealth creation.
  What is the score five years after Cairo? My noble friend Lady Uddin made reference to successful programmes in Bangladesh. Others have also referred to such programmes. While globally progress has been made there are areas in which the position of women has deteriorated. In sub-Saharan Africa and parts of east Asia the proportion of girls in education has declined. In sub-Saharan Africa earlier efforts to get children into primary school have stalled. The total number of children out of school has increased and is projected to rise from 41 million in 1980 to 83 million by 2015. This is not altogether due to lack of activity. Indeed, in some areas there has been an increase in enrolment, with the number of girls in schools keeping pace with boys. However, because of the rise in population the proportion of girls in schools has declined.
  This patchy and disappointing progress can be put down to many factors: world depression; more wars; the appalling growth in AIDS, which has put women at even greater risk; but, above all, the failure of governments to provide the necessary funding to carry forward the programme. One honourable exception to this is the United Kingdom. The UK Government are one of the few to increase their international development programme and put women at the centre of it. Therefore, this evening perhaps I may ask my noble friend the Minister whether there is anything that the Government can do to put pressure on other countries, particularly in the EU, to increase their aid in order to fulfil the expectations of Cairo.
  8.42 p.m.
  Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I begin by apologising most sincerely to the noble

  105
  Baroness, Lady Uddin, for missing the first minute or so of her speech. I am afraid that I was watching the clock and not the monitor. I should know better by now.
  I gained my experience of poverty, in what was then called the third world, when helping in a clinic in one of the barriadas in Lima 30 years ago. There we were trying in a very small way to counter dehydration and other medical problems about which noble Lords have spoken. Witnessing abject poverty in the coastal urban slums and the rural areas in the high Andes, I learnt about the dead weight of poverty and ignorance, and their disproportionate impact on the life of women. Interestingly, although it is extremely important to have in mind how to help people in their traditional communities, many of the world's poor do not live in such communities any more; they live in large cities and must be helped in very different circumstances.
  My experience led to a long interest in development issues in general and the impact of poverty upon women in particular. I was convinced that to educate and assist women should be an essential part of any aid programme: first, for women's sake; and, secondly, for the sake of healthier and smaller families and a healthier economy. We should not forget that in our communities there are women who cannot speak English and cannot properly participate in the political and civil life of our country.
  At that time and for some time after not everyone shared that approach. At a meeting of the Liberal Policy Committee (as it was then) some time in the early 1980s I was able only to insert a sentence into a development paper on the importance of educating women as a result of the trenchant support of the late and greatly missed Lady Seear. "Susan Thomas is absolutely right", clinched the argument in my favour.
  Later, time spent in Cuba confirmed my views. Education and health have been priorities of the revolution almost since the assault on the Moncada Barracks. Whatever criticisms one may make of the Cuban regime—and there are many—it is clear that the provision of universal literacy and equal employment rights has greatly benefited women and enhanced their contribution to society. But things have now changed even in the centres of power in the world of development aid. A recent seminar/discussion arranged for parliamentarians by the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, and DfID civil servants demonstrated the social, economic and physical subservience still suffered by women and the importance of women's contribution to the health and economic wellbeing of their communities and countries. The data that they produced and the sound theoretical and factual basis were of great interest to all of us.
  The noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, told an interesting story about how in Bangladesh local women now had the confidence to challenge the NGOs themselves. That really is progress. But there are still difficulties in providing education and health to the poorest people in the world, particularly women. Fertility, genital mutilation, the education of women and the general role of women in society are all matters in dispute. I look forward to hearing what the Minister is able to tell us
  106
  about the new approaches to the delivery of aid, or assisting NGOs to do so, to enable women in those areas where custom and religion assist poverty to escape from it.
  8.46 p.m.
  Lord Watson of Invergowrie: My Lords, first, I commend my noble friend Lady Uddin for introducing this debate. Secondly, I commend the noble Lord, Lord Patel, on his excellent maiden speech. He and I have more in common than simply being participants in this debate. He is a distinguished physician in my home city of Dundee and practises at the hospital where my sister works, though she is not a doctor. Thirdly, perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, will comment on the wide open spaces behind her and her colleague and the fact that not a single Conservative Back-Bencher has put down his or her name to contribute to the debate or found the time to attend to listen to it. I believe that that is shameful. I hope that we shall hear some explanation for it at the appropriate time.
  "The last International Women's Day of this century will not be cause for celebration for the hundreds of millions of women who make up 70 per cent. of the world's poor and who are caught in a vicious circle of discrimination, lack of education, violence and poverty, which they pass on to their children".
  These are not my words but the words of Bernard Coppens, director of the European Office of the United Nations Development Programme. I believe that that comment was made with some effect. The contrast between the developed and the developing worlds, north and south, rich and poor—however it is phrased—could not be more pronounced than in women's reproductive rights. To compare the country at the top of the: league, Japan, with the country at the bottom, Sierra Leone, I offer three statistics that I find shocking and horrifying. In Japan the life expectancy for women is 82 years; in Sierra Leone it is 37 years. In Japan each woman on average has one child; in Sierra Leone the average is seven children. In Japan five out of 1, 000 children are stillborn or die in the first week of life; in Sierra Leone the figure is 80 out of 1, 000.
  UNICEF reports that complications of pregnancy and delivery are the leading cause of death among reproductive-age women in developing countries. As the noble Lord, Lord Patel, eloquently illustrated, the appalling extent to which women die in pregnancy and childbirth is now reaching record levels. Most of these deaths could be prevented with better reproductive healthcare, and they have a cumulative multiplier effect which is in itself frightening.
  They leave behind them 1 million motherless children who are themselves up to 10 times more likely to die in early childhood. Families lose the mother's crucial role in childbearing, household management and care for children and other family members. That is crucial because these roles are almost exclusively women's roles in the developing world. If they are not there, those: left behind suffer and go on suffering.
  Marie Stopes International, a widely respected organisation, has identified four interventions which it says are needed to improve radically reproductive healthcare for women in developing countries. These

  107
  are, first, improved access to basic health, family planning services and adequate nutrition; secondly, attendance at birth by either a skilled midwife or doctor; thirdly, the provision of essential obstetric care for complications and emergencies; and, fourthly, the provision of postnatal and basic neonatal care.
  Crucial to the achievement of women's empowerment and equality for girls so that they can realise their full potential is not only access to reproductive health services but also general as well as health education. Perversely, these are precisely the factors which are least available in the poorest countries. They are often countries which still have underdeveloped democracies, little representation of women in senior positions and a prevalence of socio-cultural attitudes which prevent the empowerment of women.
  I know that the Government are giving priority to funding formal and informal education programmes for girls and women in the most needy countries. I would ask that they continue to support movements to remove legal, social and cultural barriers: those which prevent women in the poorest countries from fully participating in society and, crucially, in policy-making.
  The next International Women's Day will be the first day of the new millennium. I hope that we can report that some of the figures which I and others have quoted tonight will at least begin to improve so that women's health and women's empowerment will be among the first signs of the new millennium and we will be making progress.
  8.51 p.m.
  Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, for initiating this debate. It takes a great deal of skill to manage to coincide a debate of this importance on a day which happens to be International Women's Day. This shows her success in manipulating our parliamentary system. I should also like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Patel, on his maiden speech. I would have to admit that if I had only been given three minutes for my maiden speech it would have been a disaster. It shows how skilful he has been in making a speech of such importance in such a short period of time.
  I should like to go on and commend the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, because I feel that she has slightly undermined the tenor of my speech by the unfortunate ability to pre-empt my usual 20 questions by putting forward an awareness briefing for MPs on gender development and poverty a couple of weeks ago. If the quality of my speech is slightly low it is because I went through the whole of it suffering from concussion. I have to admit that it was one of those briefings which are incredibly impressive because we on the Opposition Benches like to think that we are the only ones who ask these questions. It is rather annoying to find that DfID has not only asked the questions we wanted to have answered but that it has also gone a great deal further in questioning the whole precept of gender and sex, putting forward the supposition that gender is
  108
  not a static position and that the role of women is changing in different societies in different ways at a constant rate—not just backwards but also forwards.
  The developed world is often guilty of arrogance in thinking that it has actually succeeded. Many statistics on employment and pay show that equality is not something which has reached the developed world. However, this Chamber, as shown by the debate, is one of the very few places where we almost have equality.
  Examples from the developing world and emerging democracies show that we have a number of lessons to learn. Many are extremely positive. The central message is that an economy depends on the position of women in that society. Noble Lords have commented on the role of education. It seems strange that it should have taken such a long time for people to understand that the only way to combat destructive population growth is through women's literacy, and not by trying to combat it through men's sexual habits or other means.
  The debate has shown the need for empowerment in all sections of society, but especially the empowerment of women by providing for them the means to conduct business and support themselves. I wish to refer to the issue of micro credit. It is important to realise that without the money to buy the tools and plant the seeds, the local economy is very damaged.
  The role of women in developing economies is often under-rated, as revealed in the briefing we received. My own experience is of seeing women, mostly in Africa, in the field, usually with two or three babies. This is rarely stressed in any figures put forward by the World Bank. It is the women who till the fields and provide the food for the family as well as doing many other jobs.
  There is also the extremely important area of politics. Without a change in the political make-up and composition of the gender of politics, most of the other areas will fail. I wish to mention one positive aspect which my noble friend Lady Williams brought to my attention following her recent visit to India. One-third of all seats in local councils, including committee chairs, must be held by women. That situation is soon to be taken forward to parliament. It is perhaps something we should think seriously about in our own political system.
  I conclude with a question. Can the Minister say, within World Bank and IMF evaluations of economies, whether the farm role of women in producing food for the family on local plots of land is to be quantified for future evaluation of the role of women in the economy?
  8.57 p.m.
  Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, for initiating this debate, a timely and interesting one, on a topic of fundamental importance. I too should like to add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Patel, on his maiden speech, even though I know it is not customary to add further congratulations after the first person has done so. However, I believe that his speech was truly outstanding, as maidens go.
  As the diverse contributions show, this topic is immense, as it is intertwined with all aspects of development—in itself a complex topic. It is also a

  109
  delicate subject, as it touches the heart of human relations, as we heard in the most moving speech of the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich.
  Women in what was called in 1985 the third world have a potentially pivotal role in combating poverty, as was recognised then by the Nairobi Conference. Women perform 53 per cent. of all economic activity in developing countries. These women, as almost everywhere else, are also in charge of the household. As a result they have deeper roots in the community, greater stakes in the proper management of natural resources and they make a crucial contribution in bringing up the next generation. Often, however, they are hindered in building a better future for themselves and their families because they lack the confidence and the education. The role of women in eradicating poverty will be strengthened only as their level of education improves, a point which several speakers have stressed and with which I agree.
  This may be a banal point, but what do we mean by "improving education"? Here the problems start. I recently re-read the section on education in the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action. I was struck by its high idealism; its relatively low emphasis on participation; and its lack of concern for any respect for cultural differences. Although there is a broad international consensus behind this platform, we as Conservatives would like to question how realistic this is; whether its implementation will not create a larger number of "educated derelicts", in the words of Calvin Coolidge; or whether it is correct to equate western secular values with universal values.
  Although we recognise the importance of eliminating gender disparities in primary and secondary education, we question the Government's priority, as the vast majority of illiterate women are currently over the age of 17. We believe that non-formal education and training for older women should be given greater support. It has to fit with the pattern of their lives; their family commitments and the agricultural cycle. Although numeracy and literacy are important, women also need a much wider range of education.
  In practice, we see a fine example in the work of Seva Mandir in Rajisthan; the local women are encouraged to articulate their needs and identify a leader. This local leader is then trained in many skills, from the management of natural resources to health education and the importance of contraception. She then shares her skills with other local women.
  In that way women take the responsibility upon themselves, as was so rightly said by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, for the improvement of their lives and play an important role in the elimination of world poverty.
  9.2 p.m.
  Baroness Amos: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Uddin for initiating today's debate and for having the foresight to hold the debate on International Women's Day. I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Patel, on his maiden speech. I look forward to his continued contributions to debates in this House. I am
  110
  pleased that the short time available for today's debate did not prevent noble Lords from making a significant contribution.
  Today is a day for the celebration of women's achievements but it is also an opportunity to pause to reflect on the status of women internationally. Gender equality is indispensable to the elimination of world poverty and is one of the most challenging issues in international development. Women already play the key role in the struggle against poverty, but they are fighting an uphill battle. Removing barriers to women's equality will release a massive, undervalued stock of human potential, with benefits for all.
  This Government's commitment to women's equality is clearly spelled out in the White Paper on international development. Gender equality is at the heart of the Government's programme and underlines the direct link we see between gender inequality and poverty. It also explicitly recognises the link between the realisation of human rights and the elimination of poverty.
  This is a development debate, but in the light of the comments made by my noble friend Lord Ponsonby I must briefly set out our other priorities in relation to gender. We have established a women's unit which is working across government. It has clear priorities and is developing a clear agenda for women, including looking at women's incomes over a lifetime. I assure my noble friend that the expertise which we have gained in the Department for International Development has been acknowledged and the department will make a presentation at the next meeting of the Whitehall-wide group of Ministers who are looking at women's issues on the subject of mainstreaming.
  Given the short time available to me tonight, I intend to focus on three key areas: violence against women; education for women and girls; and women's role in the economy. Women's role in the elimination of world poverty needs to be addressed in the context of wider social and cultural norms which impact on women's day-to-day lives. The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, touched on the wider social issues affecting women. Poverty is not just about lack of income; it is also about wider issues of disadvantage, powerlessness and social exclusion.
  The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, talked about the abuse of women. One of the most shocking manifestations of women's inequality is violence in peacetime as well as war, in the home as well as in the wider community, regardless of women's economic or social positions. Violence against women is a major violation of their human rights, so we must make every effort to stamp out the world-wide attitudes which lead to the abuse and exploitation of women across the world. Practices such as female genital mutilation and other forms of physical disfigurement remain a serious threat to many women around the world. Infanticide and sex-selective abortions also violate female rights in early life, or even before birth.
  The DfID is increasing its work in this area through its bilateral work and through international partnerships. The department is already working closely with UNIFEM and making a substantial contribution to the

  111
  work it is doing through its Global Trust Fund to Eliminate Violence Against Women. The department currently funds more than 20 initiatives around the world targeted at ending violence against women. We are also developing a gender focus in our wider approach to conflict prevention and humanitarian assistance which is seeking to mitigate the costs to women as well as men of natural disasters and the human tragedy of conflict. More importantly, we are looking for longer term solutions which will help prevent these events occurring in the first place.
  I now turn to education. Investing in education for girls is the single most effective means of reducing poverty. Almost two out of every three illiterate people are women. Even a few years of basic education empowers women; they are economically more productive, have smaller, healthier families and are more likely to ensure that their own children go to school. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford drew our attention to the problems that are still being faced in education. The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, my noble friends Lord Patel and Lady Lockwood and the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, also mentioned education.
  I should say to the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, that our policy approach is founded on international agreements which virtually all countries in the world have signed. We respect the right of people to their own culture but we believe that discrimination against women cannot be justified on any grounds. We are explicit about our values in that respect and hope to persuade others to join us.
  Gender inequality in education is costly and undermines development. In sub-Saharan Africa, it is estimated that gender inequality in education has reduced economic growth by 0.7 per cent. every year for the last 30 years—opening up a gap where countries which deny girls a fair share of educational opportunities have gross national products roughly 25 per cent. lower than those where they get a better chance.
  In DfID we have made education for girls a top priority. We are putting resources behind international efforts to eliminate gender inequalities in education. We are committed to specific global targets to eliminate gender disparities in primary and secondary enrolment by 2005, and to achieve universal primary education in all countries by 2015.
  My noble friend Lady Goudie and the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, talked about women's role in the economy. Sustainable human development means enabling people to have opportunities to secure their economic needs through access to assets, markets and economic institutions which are efficient and properly regulated so that the poor can work and prosper. In Africa, it is estimated that women do 80 per cent. of agricultural work—the main source of livelihood for poor people. DfID's support for research and action to help improve rural livelihoods and the sustainable use of natural resources is increasingly focusing on the different needs of women and men.
  112
  If poor women want to go it alone, they find it almost impossible to obtain credit and other support to set up on their own account, in spite of having a better track record than men in repaying loans. In Latin America, the Caribbean and Africa fewer than one in 10 of the beneficiaries of credit programmes are women.
  That means working specifically to support women's interests by funding credit programmes, a point raised by many noble Lords and by my noble friend Lady Uddin. We need to fund credit programmes which directly serve the needs of poor women and work with governments to change land and inheritance laws to protect women's livelihoods.
  We have also been at the forefront of ground-breaking work to bring a gender perspective into economic analysis and policy making. This includes collaboration with the Commonwealth Secretariat in supporting work on a "women's budget" in South Africa which is already bringing benefits through changes in welfare spending and the availability of credit to women. Similar work is now being done in Tanzania, Mozambique, Sri Lanka and the Caribbean.
  We are working closely with the governments of developing countries, the World Bank, and other development agencies, to develop new approaches to poverty analysis. These directly involve poor women and men in working out a deeper understanding of the causes and consequences of poverty and what needs to be done about it. I should like to say to my noble friend Lady Lockwood that we shall continue to work with the European Union on the priorities of the development aid budget.
  We recognise that poverty is a global and not just a local phenomenon. The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, talked about the gender assessment of trade policy. We are funding research on the effects of world trade on women and helping to identify policy instruments to make globalisation work in the interests of the poor, particularly women because globalisation and world trade create both opportunities and threats for women. That is a government commitment and I assure the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, that DfID is working in partnership with other government departments, including the DTI, on those matters.
  We are also building partnerships with the private sector and the trade union movement world-wide to improve labour standards, including health and safety, and to promote ethical trading. Of course, there is our on-going work with NGOs in a range of areas; a number of noble Lords have drawn attention to their specific contribution.
  The noble Lord, Lord Patel, focused on health, as did other noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Watson. A key target for the 21st century is to reduce maternal mortality rates by three-quarters. That is a huge challenge and DfID has developed a four-point plan for safer motherhood, including the provision of information and good quality services.
  My noble friends Lady Uddin, Lord Ponsonby and Lady Thornton all mentioned political participation and the role of women in decision-making. Political participation is a human right, recognised in the

  113
  Universal Declaration of Human Rights. DfID is involved in training for prospective women candidates in Kenya and in a women voter education project which has led to a higher turn-out among women and more women being elected in project districts.
  A new project is under way in Pakistan to work through civil society to help women gain more access to political and economic decision-making. My noble friend Lady Uddin also mentioned Bangladesh and she asked me three questions. Our assistance to Bangladesh is country-wide and by no means confined to Dhaka. I shall write to her with details of how much of our assistance goes to Sylhat, although it may be difficult to give a precise breakdown because of the broad-based nature of our approach.
  I would like to thank noble Lords for their support of the work of DfID. I shall write to noble Lords whose specific questions I have been unable to address. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, that I am sorry that
  114
  I pre-empted him but I look forward to his regaining his questioning style in future. I shall write on the specific points that he raised in relation to the World Bank.
  We do not see women as victims. Equal rights for women will bring equal rights for all and bring about a major breakthrough in the struggle against poverty. Women's equality is in everyone's interests, just as the elimination of poverty is in the interests of the rich as well as the poor. Women who are powerful will lead the way out of poverty. We seek to play our part in a global coalition to help them sweep aside the barriers that stand in their way.

  Road Traffic (NHS Charges) Bill
  Returned from the Commons with the amendment agreed to.
  House adjourned at a quarter-past nine o'clock.

  Security Cameras
  Security Cameras
  Genetically Modified Animals
  Genetically Modified Animals
  Channel Islands and Isle of Man: UK Powers
  Channel Islands and Isle of Man: UK Powers
  Scottish Prisons: Disinfecting Tablets
  Scottish Prisons: Disinfecting Tablets
  Salah Idris
  Salah Idris
  Prison Inmates: HIV, ADDS and Hepatitis
  Prison Inmates: HIV, ADDS and Hepatitis
  Juvenile Secure Accommodation
  Juvenile Secure Accommodation
  Cyprus
  Cyprus
  Iraq: Oil for Food Programme
  Iraq: Oil for Food Programme
  Abdullah Ocalan
  Abdullah Ocalan
  Chittagong Hill Tracts: Visit of European Heads of Mission
  Chittagong Hill Tracts: Visit of European Heads of Mission
  European Convention on Human Rights: Article 14
  European Convention on Human Rights: Article 14
  Separatist Conflicts within Sovereign States
  Separatist Conflicts within Sovereign States
  Nuclear Weapons in Russia
  Nuclear Weapons in Russia
  Sudan
  Sudan
  International Development Aid: GNP Targets
  International Development Aid: GNP Targets
  Unmanned Aerial Vehicles
  Unmanned Aerial Vehicles
  Kosovo: Accommodation Units
  Kosovo: Accommodation Units
  NHS Trusts: Financial Arrangements on Dissolution
  NHS Trusts: Financial Arrangements on Dissolution
  Human Cloning
  Human Cloning
  Joint Consultative Committee with Liberal Democrat Party
  Joint Consultative Committee with Liberal Democrat Party