Sitting of 23 March 1999

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  PRIVATE BUSINESS
    CITY OF WESTMINSTER BILL [Lords]
    Read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.
    CITY OF WESTMINSTER BILL [Lords]
      UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON BILL
      Considered; to be read the Third time.
Oral Answers to Questions
  SCOTLAND
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  SCOTLAND

    Food Standards Bill
    Mrs. Ray Michie: What discussions he has had with the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food regarding the impact on Scottish retailers of the levy proposed under the draft food standards Bill. [76305]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Sam Galbraith): My right hon. Friend has had a number of discussions with the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food regarding the nature and possible impact of the levy-raising powers proposed under the food standards Bill.
    From 1 July, that will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.
    Mrs. Michie: Has the Minister's right hon. Friend made it clear that in Scotland we cannot agree to a flat-rate levy? Why should a little shop on the island of Lismore or Gigha in my constituency pay the same as a large, wealthy supermarket? Will the Minister confirm that the Scottish Parliament will be able to reject that "poll tax on the plate" and agree that the Food Standards Agency should be paid for out of general taxation?
    Mr. Galbraith: The current levy scheme proposals are part of genuine consultation, and I have been touring the country having open meetings with interested parties. We shall certainly be happy to consider alternatives, provided they are administratively simple, cost-effective and fair, and we are actively encouraging such alternative proposals.
    Mr. David Stewart: My hon. Friend will be aware that we inherited
    142
    a crisis of confidence in food, following the E. coli outbreak in central Scotland in 1996 and 1997, when 21 people tragically died. What reassurance can my hon. Friend give the Scottish people that such tragedies will not occur in future?
    Mr. Galbraith: As my hon. Friend will know, we have made considerable progress on food safety over the past two years. We have implemented almost all Professor Pennington's recommendations, with significant objective improvements so far. I have no doubt that, although the agency will not absolutely guarantee that there will be no more problems, it will significantly reduce them and reassure people throughout the United Kingdom of the safety and wholesomeness of our food.
    Mr. Alex Salmond: Will the Minister accept that there is a strong, indeed unanswerable, case for locating the Scottish arm of the Food Standards Agency in the north-east of Scotland, given the unique combination of its research base and agricultural production areas? Should that not be part of a widespread plan for civil service dispersal across Scotland?
    Did I detect from the Minister's earlier answer that the Government are moving away from the ridiculous argument that a branch of Sainsbury's should pay the same as a corner shop, and that they would consider a banded system that would be fair to all retailers?
    Mr. Galbraith: As I toured the country, discussing this matter with interested parties, I noticed that, everywhere I went, everyone asked for the Scottish arm of the agency to be based in their area. I shall take the hon. Gentleman's presentation as a plea for his area, and duly note it.
    Dr. Liam Fox: Further to the Minister's answer, will the Scottish Parliament have the power, under the Scotland Act 1998, to overrule, compensate for or alter any levy that is set by the Treasury, or will the Treasury dictate policy in Scotland?
    Mr. Galbraith: Detailed effects of devolution on that policy area are still being considered, although we intend the levy to apply consistently in all parts of the United Kingdom.
    Dr. Fox: If the levy is to apply consistently in all parts of the United Kingdom, that makes nonsense of the Minister's earlier answer to the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie). Is it not clear that the Treasury will still dictate policy on that matter and that the measure will be another part of the Government's stealth tax programme which will be imposed on Scottish retailers? Are the Government not therefore hypocritical to criticise other parties for wanting to use the tax-raising powers that the Government campaigned for and included in the Scotland Act, when they are raising taxes by stealth from Scottish retailers at every turn?
    Mr. Galbraith: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman clearly does not understand the matter, as he made obvious by trying to draw false conclusions from my response to the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute. As I said, we aim to ensure that the levy is uniform across

    143
    the United Kingdom because it is correct and proper for a UK agency to be concerned with food throughout the country.

    Literacy and Numeracy
    Miss Anne Begg: If he will make a statement on the Government's strategy to improve literacy and numeracy in Scottish schools. [76307]
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Donald Dewar): The Government have a comprehensive strategy for improving literacy and numeracy. That includes the early intervention programme for which £60 million is being provided, family literacy schemes supported by £15 million over three years, and £7.8 million of additional resources made available this year alone to allow every school in Scotland to buy books for its library. Those initiatives are being underpinned by action to improve teaching standards and by setting targets for raising attainment in literacy and numeracy.
    From 1 July, that will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.
    Miss Begg: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. As a former English teacher, I know all too well the importance of early intervention schemes. As a secondary schoolteacher, I certainly found that it was often too late to help youngsters who could not read or write at age 11. Will my right hon. Friend break down those figures and tell the House how much is likely to be spent in Aberdeen—which obviously is my concern—in pursuing that valuable policy over the next few years?
    Mr. Dewar: I can tell my hon. Friend that, of the £7.8 million for school books during this financial year, about £272,000 will go to schools in the Aberdeen city council area. To take her point a little more broadly, in the first two years of the early intervention programme, Aberdeen city council received more than £226,000 of Government funding, and in the three years to 2001–02 it will receive more than £455,000 annually; so, over that five-year period of the early intervention scheme, the programme for Aberdeen will amount to £1,820,000. That is part of a pattern, which will mean that, by the end of the comprehensive spending review period, for every family in Scotland about £14,000 will have been spent on health and education.
    Sir Robert Smith: We welcome the focus on the problems of literacy and numeracy. Given that almost £10 million have disappeared from school education in the north-east of Scotland—in Aberdeen city, Aberdeenshire and Moray—the figures cited by the Secretary of State will go some way towards repairing the damage. However, when people think about their children's education, they consider the overall education. Does the Secretary of State accept that considerable damage has been done by the past two years of cuts?
    Mr. Dewar: No doubt that is something that the hon. Gentleman will want to discuss with his local authority. I may soon have an opportunity of doing so myself. I expect that the hon. Gentleman will want to welcome—although, strangely, he forgot to do so—the 4.7 per cent.
    144
    increase in the settlement for local government in the coming year. It is the best for seven years, and it is part of an increasing programme which, step by step, will build up to the better standards to which I referred in my earlier answer.
    Mr. Michael Connarty: Does the Secretary of State not find it fantastic that Opposition Members do not seem to look seriously at the Government's spending, and do not seem to have spoken to their local authorities? I have a table supplied by my local authority, which shows that Falkirk is getting £187,000 in early intervention funding, and a total of £2,600,000 extra for nine projects that will develop literacy, numeracy and education. Next year, the figure will be £2 million, followed by a further £1.8 million. Does my right hon. Friend find, as I do, that, whenever he speaks to local authority members, they tell him that local authorities are awash with money and the schemes are making a real difference to the literacy, numeracy and educational opportunities of the people of Scotland?
    Mr. Dewar: I certainly believe that anyone who listens to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and looks at the settlement for the coming year will recognise that the rather mean and penny-pinching approach of Opposition Members, who will always find something about which to carp and criticise, is totally unjustified. If hon. Members examine the education budget—the figures are well known to the House—and the increase in cash terms from 1997–98 to the end of the comprehensive spending review, they will see that, in the last year of that period, we will be spending £1 billion more on education than we were spending in the first year of this Labour Government. That is exactly the upward curve that people expect and want, and for which they voted in the past and, I expect, will vote again.
    Mr. Oliver Letwin: In the light of that answer, will the Secretary of State tell us whether the total decrease of £219 million so far in real terms in the education budget is part of his comprehensive strategy to improve literacy, or merely an oversight?
    Mr. Dewar: That is a bitter attack on the spending plans of the Conservative Government. We said before the election and during the election campaign that, for the first two years of our period in office, we would hold to the overall spending plans that we inherited from the hon. Gentleman's friends. That is what we did, and we never made any secret of it. Within that total, we reallocated in favour of schools and health—for schools, more than £100 million. We said that, after that two years, we would start building. We are now building, with substantial increases in real terms in health and education, and moving towards totals such as those that I mentioned earlier.
    It does not matter to what extent the hon. Gentleman dances on the head of a pin—he will find it a very uncomfortable experience electorally. No matter how determinedly he does it, he is simply trying to misrepresent the situation.

    New College, Kilwinning
    Mr. Brian H. Donohoe: When he plans to conclude the contract for the new college in Kilwinning. [76308]
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Donald Dewar): I am not a party to the contract for the new college in Kilwinning. The board of management of James Watt college of further and higher education will sign the contract, and I understand that it expects to do so soon.
    From 1 July 1999, this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.
    Mr. Donohoe: That is excellent news. Does my right hon. Friend agree that access is one of the biggest problems in higher education, particularly for the handicapped and the disabled? Is my right hon. Friend aware that, by virtue of the Scottish National party's policies, people are likely to be deprived of access to higher education in north Ayrshire, and the building of the new college in Kilwinning would, at the very least, be delayed, if not cancelled, were its policies to come to fruition?
    Mr. Dewar: Kilwinning college is an important addition to the educational facilities in north Ayrshire, and I hope that it flourishes and does well. I thank my hon. Friend for what he said about the importance of widening access. We have an agenda in that area, and I can announce today that disabled student allowances will be extended from this autumn to part-time students studying at least 50 per cent. of a full-time course. Furthermore, the fee waiver scheme introduced last May for low-income or unemployed part-time first degree students will be extended to include students at higher education institutions on higher national certificate or higher national diploma courses. Steps will also be taken to introduce consistency for comparable students in further education colleges.
    That means that £6 million will be channelled to benefit at least 6,000 part-time higher education students a year who are on low incomes or unemployed, and £1.5 million to benefit 250 disabled students each year during the next three years. That is an important and welcome extension of access for a group of students who have potential and capacity, but are often held back by personal circumstances.
    Mr. Desmond Swayne: Is the new college in Kilwinning also likely to be awash with money, or will it be constrained at least by the fact that in Ayrshire there has been a reduction in the education budget of as much as 15 per cent?
    Mr. Dewar: The hon. Gentleman, with whom I have a slight rapport—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because he is always extremely entertaining. As the hon. Gentleman has no doubt done his homework, he will know that an additional £41 million has been allocated to the further education sector next year, which has been very widely welcomed—I use these terms properly—right across the further education sector. There will be something like £241 million, in addition to the expected plans, by the end of the comprehensive spending review. The hon. Gentleman has struck a happy note in reminding me just how much is being done in further education at the moment.

    Education (Parental Involvement)
    Mr. Russell Brown: What plans he has to increase parental involvement within the Scottish education system. [76309]
    The Minister for Education, Scottish Office (Mrs. Helen Liddell): Parental involvement in children's education is crucial if young people are to realise their potential. Our plans for increasing parental involvement in the Scottish education system are set out in our recent White Paper "Targeting Excellence: Modernising Scotland's Schools", which was published on 27 January.
    From 1 July, this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.
    Mr. Brown: I thank my hon. Friend for her answer and for her recent visit to Dumfries, when she met educationists and discussed the White Paper, which I believe was well received.
    My hon. Friend is fully aware of the excellent parental involvement in Maxwelltown high school in Dumfries, which is taking forward the whole concept of community schools and, despite not having achieved any additional funding as a pilot community school, the parents are continuing to work hard within the school and the community. Will my hon. Friend offer support for that project and pay the school a visit when the opportunity arises?
    Mrs. Liddell: I very much enjoyed my visit to Dumfries some 10 days ago. If I have an opportunity, I should like to visit Maxwelltown because I know of the project undertaken there under the parents' guidance. My hon. Friend is aware that there are to be 60 pilots of new community schools, an exciting new development in Scottish education which puts the child at the heart of the education system. We are the only party that refers to education in relation to its impact on children. Before the end of this month, I plan to announce our decisions on the new community school plans, and I know that Maxwelltown high school has made a bid to be a new community school.
    Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: On Monday, the Secretary of State for Education and Employment announced plans to assist highly able children in England and Wales, and we all know how the parents of those children want more to be done for them. What are the Government's plans for highly able children in Scotland, and how will Scottish Office Ministers respond to the criticisms of the half-baked scheme that has come from their colleagues in the Department for Education and Employment?
    Mrs. Liddell: The hon. Gentleman is obviously not aware that the Scottish education system is significantly different from that in England and Wales. He asks about able children. The new advanced higher—which is part of the reforms, known as higher still, that are being introduced from August—is specifically aimed at encouraging able young people in our schools. It will also assist those of all levels of ability to maximise their ability fully. That, together with the £1.3 billion extra that is being put into our schools through the comprehensive spending review, will help not only the very able, but all young people who benefit from a good Scottish education.

    Scottish Beef Exports
    Mr. John Home Robertson: If he will make a statement on progress towards the reopening of the export market for Scottish beef. [76310]
    Mr. Tim Boswell: If EU inspectors have been invited to Scottish farms since the lifting of the beef export ban was announced. [76313]
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Donald Dewar): Substantial progress has been made since the principles of the date-based export scheme were agreed in Brussels last November. The Government's chief veterinary officer has invited European Union inspectors to visit the United Kingdom in the week beginning Monday 12 April to assess our plans for implementing the date-based export scheme. I remain optimistic that Scottish beef can begin to regain its rightful place in the export trade in the course of this summer.
    Mr. Home Robertson: We have come a long way since the ridiculous beef war in which the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) tried to play the role of the neighbour from hell in the European Union. Now that the Labour Government have implemented all the requirements of the Florence agreement—step by step and without any need for extra taxation in Scotland to pay for it—will my right hon. Friend make leading Scottish beef back into the export market in June a priority for the Labour Administration in the Scottish Parliament? As First Minister in the Scottish Parliament, would he like to arrange a Scottish beef barbecue in Brussels to celebrate?
    Mr. Dewar: I am not a great barbecue man myself, but, on this occasion and following such a beguiling invitation, I might reconsider my position.
    I am encouraged by the fact that progress has been made, and that can be traced directly to the feeling across the European Union that, under this Government, the United Kingdom is involved and pulling its weight. We still have many disagreements, but at least we are involved and there is a feeling that we are prepared to talk and do business. That has resulted in the progress that we have achieved.
    It is difficult to move from the agreement in principle through to the practical reassertion of Scottish beef's proper place in the European market, but I am glad that my ministerial colleague, my noble Friend Lord Sewel, was encouraged by his reception when he visited northern Italy only a couple of weeks ago and talked to people involved in what had been an important export market. I hope that we can build on his visit and on the other steps that we are taking, in close co-operation with the National Farmers Union of Scotland.
    Mr. Boswell: Given the size and importance of the beef industry in Scotland and given that BSE has always run at a lower level in Scotland than in the rest of Great Britain, is the Secretary of State not rather surprised that, several months after the Prime Minister declared the end of the beef war with a flourish, the inspectors are not coming to Scotland for a further three weeks? There are direct flights, I believe. However, not a single tonne of Scottish beef is available for export to Europe.
    Mr. Dewar: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has taken that ungracious attitude, because he is often rather knowledgeable and reasonable in this area. We have never pretended that the agreement in principle on the date-based export scheme meant that we could immediately restart exporting. Clearly, there had to be tracing and slaughtering of offspring of all BSE cases born after 1 August 1996, and a completely new database had to be erected to establish eligibility checks. There was a great deal of work to be done, and it is being pushed on with considerable energy.
    I have kept closely in touch with the National Farmers Union of Scotland. I welcome the fact that the chief veterinary officer has been able to arrange for 12 April a visit by the inspectorate from the European Union, and I hope that that goes well. However, the idea that, if we had just raised an air fare, the whole thing could have been settled four months ago not only defies imagination, but is unworthy of the hon. Gentleman.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome the progress that has been made and wish the Secretary of State success, but he will recognise that it will take a long time to build that export market again. Might one of the disagreements between the Scottish farmer and Europe be its possible introduction of a permanent ban on beef on the bone?
    Mr. Dewar: No, that was not one of the areas to which I referred. The beef-on-the-bone ban is in place because of the very clear medical and scientific advice that has been offered to the Government of the United Kingdom. I need hardly say that, if that advice changed, or if the very clear indications of an element of risk were removed, we would be happy to see the end of the ban.
    Dr. Liam Fox: I welcome any progress in the beef industry, but, given the fact that the Secretary of State has basically told us that not a single carcase has yet been exported from Scotland, despite all the rhetoric, how many slaughterhouses does he expect to be approved by the end of April? If the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) is right in saying that the Scottish Office is awash with money, could the Secretary of State perhaps use some more of it to alleviate the suffering of those in the agriculture sector in Scotland?
    Mr. Dewar: I never cease to marvel at the hon. Gentleman's courage. Against the background of the record of the last Conservative Government and his record in the business, he criticises us. It is a little too much. I cannot predict what will happen, because it depends on the visit on 12 April. I hope that that goes well and that we can satisfy the European Union inspectorate that such a move is part of the necessary process. As the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) has said, it is a slow business. We have always known that, but we are ensuring that every possible step is taken as quickly as possible. We are spending a lot of time and taking a lot of trouble to re-establish the contacts that will be necessary if we are to get our beef back into the European market. The results of those contacts are, on the whole, encouraging. A little support and backing from the Opposition, who constantly declare their interest in helping, would be appreciated.

    Trunk Roads Review
    Mr. Alasdair Morgan: What progress has been made on the trunk roads review; and if he will make a statement. [76311]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Calum Macdonald): Some useful suggestions were made during the recent public consultation. We are amending the framework for the appraisal of trunk road investment in Scotland to reflect those. The outcome of the review will be announced as soon as practicable.
    From 1 July 1999, it will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.
    Mr. Morgan: Is the Minister aware that P and O has recently announced an order for a new conventional ferry for the Cairnryan-Larne route, which will have almost double the capacity of existing conventional ferries? Is he aware that there is the potential for 100-plus lorries to come ashore at Cairnryan and that that will add severely to the problems of the lorry convoy on the A75 and the accident rate? Will he undertake to take that new fact into account in the trunk roads review?
    Mr. Macdonald: That is an important announcement by P and O. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will welcome it. The A75 as such is not part of the trunk roads review, but it is welcome news for the hon. Gentleman, because it means that we are able to go ahead with improvements that are planned, for example, in Glen. I hope to announce shortly that the money will be available to complete those improvements by the summer. The route action plan that we are working on for the whole of the A75 is still being developed, but, when that is completed, it will provide the basis for future investment on the A75.
    Mr. Archy Kirkwood: What consultations has the Minister had with his English colleagues in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions about the proposals that they are considering to detrunk the English sections of the A7 and A68? Can he give the communities on the Scottish side of the border that are served by both those roads an assurance that any detrunking on the English side will not lead to a diminution in repair and maintenance and, indeed, in road improvement schemes for those two roads? Does he accept that, if he is not careful and gets past 12 July, difficult decisions may be left to someone else?
    Mr. Macdonald: I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance about the detrunking proposals. Having been in direct contact with DETR, he will know that the proposals are part of a wider proposal relating to England as a whole, allowing responsibility for trunk road maintenance to be shared by DETR and groups of local authorities in the regions. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that this will not have the impact that he and his constituents fear.

    Local Government Finance
    Mrs. Rosemary McKenna: When he last met representatives of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to discuss the local government settlement for 1999–2000. [76312]
    The Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution, Scottish Office (Mr. Henry McLeish): My right hon. Friend and I last met the convention on 22 January to discuss the terms of the 1999–2000 local government finance settlement.
    From 1 July 1999, this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.
    Mrs. McKenna: Will my hon. Friend wish COSLA well before it begins its annual conference later this week in Crieff?
    As my hon. Friend will know, local government spending on vital services in Scotland has increased dramatically under the new Labour Government. Do the figures not give the lie to the fantasy statistics produced by the Liberal Democrats and the Scottish National party, which suggest that spending is lower under this Government than under the Tory Government? Are we not, step by step, delivering for Scotland?
    Mr. McLeish: I am pleased to say that both my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I will visit Crieff this week to address the COSLA conference.
    My hon. Friend is right to suggest that the local government settlement for 1999–2000, and up to 2001, is substantial. We are securing vastly improved services, and an injection of an extra £840 million, including additional resources for pre-school education. In 1997, the Conservatives increased the band D council tax by 10.7 per cent.; we halved that last year, and this year it will be only 2.6 per cent. We are securing better services, lower council tax increases and improved quality of life in every part of Scotland.
    Mr. James Wallace: I acknowledge and, indeed, welcome the fact that the local government settlement is going up this year and in the forthcoming year, after seven years in which it has been reduced in terms of 1998–99 prices, and is scheduled to go up again in each of the succeeding two years.
    By the same token, will the Minister acknowledge and, indeed, regret the fact that, over the last five years of the Conservative Government and the first five years of the current Labour Government, the average spend for local government is £460 million per annum less in real terms? Like me, the Minister has often criticised the Conservative party for the impact that its spending plans had on local government. What impact does he expect this settlement to have, given that in real terms—in terms of buying power—it is 5 per cent. lower than what the Conservative party was spending each year?
    Mr. McLeish: My constituents, and all the other constituents in Scotland, are less interested in arbitrary bartering of statistics than in hard investment in education and every other aspect of local government. It is possible to make any comparison by selecting a figure out of thin air, but the hard reality is that we said, "Education,

    151
    education, education," and that in every council there is real investment, especially in services for the under-fives. That is what ordinary constituents want, and that is what a Labour Government are delivering.
    Mr. John McAllion: Given that the local government settlement is part of a four-year budget for the Scottish Parliament, has my hon. Friend discussed with COSLA the SNP's strange proposal to cut £1,000 million from that budget, add £690 million back in, and then claim still to be spending more, rather than less, on services? Has my hon. Friend considered asking COSLA whether it would be possible to send the SNP spokespeople back to school to learn how to do their sums? Does he agree that not since 1707 have we seen such a parcel of dopes in the nation?
    Mr. McLeish: My hon. Friend has made a remarkably good contribution—but, if we sent members of the SNP back to school, there would be very few computers in the classroom to deal with their problems.
    What the SNP is offering is a national disgrace. The Labour Government are investing in every part of education, but all that the SNP can do is continue to hoodwink the electors. How can those with a policy of breaking up Britain be interested in any other aspect of public services?
    Mr. John Swinney: Has the Minister discussed with COSLA the contents of a parliamentary answer that he gave last week to my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing), which stated that, since Labour came to power, £750 million has been cut from local authorities' budgets? Is the Minister aware of the real damage that the cut does to public services, or does he—like the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty)—believe that local authorities are awash with resources? If the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) believes that anyone requires to go back to school, does he believe that the Chancellor of the Exchequer—who has had to do a superb U-turn on the ridiculous figures that he published seven days ago—should go back to school, to learn how £230 million really does not mean £500 million?
    Mr. McLeish: The hon. Gentleman is simply struggling. We are talking about real investment of £840 million over the next three years, and he cannot argue against the facts. In every school in Scotland, and in every service in Scotland, there will be more cash. It is absurd for the SNP to pretend that there is anything that it can do to improve the quality of life in Scotland. However, if the SNP gets anyone to vote for it, it will be about breaking up Britain—and divorce is very expensive.
    Mr. George Galloway: Did the local authorities laugh when faced with the economic illiteracy of the SNP and the Liberal Democrats—who are now in alliance, and who voted last week to take £1 billion out of public spending, thereby lining themselves up with every opportunist tax-cutting argument? At the same time, they pretend that with 1p—the longest "p" in history—they will be able to rebuild Scotland's public services, which were run down over 18 years of Thatcherite Government. Will not anyone
    152
    with eyes to see be able to understand that a country that has been systematically run down can be rebuilt only step by step, as the Labour Government are doing?
    Mr. McLeish: My hon. Friend adds to the other excellent contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion). It is a tragedy to see the SNP seeking to cut investment in Scotland, at a time when we are spending. As for education, there will be a 6.4 per cent. increase next year; a 4.4 per cent. increase in 2000–01; and a further 4 per cent. in 2001–02. That is about investing in Scotland's future. The Labour Government will continue to do that, despite the fact that the SNP is walking away from reality and the needs of Scotland.

    Inward Investment
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: If he will make a statement on the current levels of inward investment to Scotland. [76315]
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Donald Dewar): In the year to March 1998, Locate in Scotland and the Scottish Office helped to attract to Scotland a total of 87 inward investment projects, involving planned investment of just over £1 billion and the expected creation or safeguarding of nearly 18,000 jobs. The jobs figure is at a higher level than at any time in Locate in Scotland's 18-year history.
    Mr. Winterton: Does the Secretary of State agree that, under the previous Conservative Government, inward investment in Scotland was absolutely massive? Does he agree also that, under a Labour Government, unemployment is going up in Scotland; that, this month, it is likely to be up for the third month running; and that, this year alone, more than 4,000 jobs have been lost in Scotland? Does he believe that the Chancellor's Budget—which penalises lower-income and less well-off families in Scotland—will help? Does he believe that the SNP's raising taxes by 1p more than in the rest of United Kingdom would not have an adverse affect on smaller business?
    Mr. Dewar: I have just explained that Locate in Scotland has had a record year. I hope that that success will continue. I pay tribute to the contribution that inward investment has made to management skills and to broadening the base of the economy. It accounts for 29 per cent. of employment in manufacturing industry. I hope that there will be further good news on inward investment shortly.
    The hon. Gentleman is being selective about unemployment. At 5.5 per cent., the claimant count is at its lowest for about 20 years. Youth unemployment has almost halved. Unemployment in many constituencies in Scotland is very much lower than it was in February 1996, when I think the Conservatives were in office. To take a random example, in Banff and Buchan, unemployment fell by 42 per cent. between February 1996 and February 1999. That trend is true for all the constituencies represented by the Scottish National party. I am very happy to recognise that and say how satisfactory it is. We want to continue that record, not go back to the days of the Conservative Government.
    Mr. David Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that Locate in Scotland and

    153
    Scottish Enterprise have an excellent record in attracting many thousands of jobs to Scotland and are the envy of the rest of the United Kingdom and most of Europe? Does he further agree that it would be disastrous for jobs in Scotland if there were any chance of the changes to Locate in Scotland suggested by the SNP—which would undermine its effectiveness—being implemented?
    Mr. Dewar: I understand that the SNP is advocating that Locate in Scotland should be taken into the civil service and should be answerable directly to Ministers. That is what has been reported to me. If it is not true, no doubt I shall be told. That is a remarkably centralising policy that would result in the input of business and commerce in the form of the Scottish Enterprise board being lost. I understand that the Scottish nationalists are also proposing that a majority of those in the local enterprise companies should be Members of the Scottish Parliament or local authority elected members. There should be a proper partnership, using the experience and entrepreneurial skills of Scottish industry, not the centralised arrangements that the SNP proposes. My hon. Friend is right to point to the success of Locate in Scotland. We are anxious for that success to continue.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: I am sure that the whole House will congratulate Locate in Scotland on its excellent figures last year. Has the Secretary of State noticed that unemployment continued to go down rapidly when the Government came to power, before they had changed any of the Conservative Government's policies? Has he also noticed that unemployment has gone up in Scotland in the past three months? If he has not noticed that, he ought to. What does he propose to do about the fact that jobs and investment are moving away from Scotland? He cannot just rely on a good Conservative record.
    Mr. Dewar: Another badge for courage, I think. I repeat that there has been a substantial drop in unemployment since the Conservatives were in power three years ago. The record of creating and attracting jobs in Scotland since we came to power greatly outweighs the job losses. Of course there is some uncertainty about whether all the jobs that have been promised will appear, but even taking into account the National Audit Office's recommendation of discounting by a third, the balance is still on the right side. Jeremiahs are always to be found on the Opposition Benches, but I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is making a profession of it.

    Educational Opportunities
    Mr. Dennis Canavan: What initiatives he is proposing to improve educational opportunities. [76316]
    The Minister for Education, Scottish Office (Mrs. Helen Liddell): The Government's plans for improving pre-school and school education were set out in our White Paper, "Targeting Excellence: Modernising Scotland's Schools", which was published on 27 January. Our plans for post-16 education and training were set out in our Green Paper, "Opportunity Scotland", published in September 1998.
    154
    After 1 July, this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.
    Mr. Canavan: Is my hon. Friend aware that many parents, teachers and students are looking forward to the new Scottish Parliament with a new Scottish Education Minister, whose priorities will, they hope, be determined by the people of Scotland rather than by the political establishment in this place, which imposed tuition fees and scrapped grants even for students from low-income families? If my right hon. Friend survives the plot to stop her becoming Secretary of State for Scotland, will she remember that it is not the job of politicians to tell teachers how to teach? Will she please not give in to the temptation to go strutting round Scotland hectoring and handbagging Scottish teachers like some new Labour version of Margaret Thatcher?
    Mrs. Liddell: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is referring to the fact that I visited the town of Falkirk, which he represents, to break the ground in the first of five new schools that have opened in Falkirk as a result of Government investment. I look forward to the future Education Minister in the Scottish Parliament continuing the work that the Government have begun—work that has resulted in £40 million going to the Falkirk further education college. I am totally confident that a new Labour Education Minister in the Scottish Parliament will continue the Government's work in raising standards and quality in Scottish schools to make Scottish education once again among the best in the world and provide an education system based on the needs of our pupils.

    LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT
    The Minister of State was asked—

    Community Legal Service
    Mr. David Kidney: How the community legal service will be accountable to (a) Parliament and (b) the public. [76335]
    The Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): The community legal service will be administered by the Legal Services Commission. As a non-departmental public body, the commission will be accountable to Parliament through Ministers. The commission's annual plan, setting out how it intends to carry out its functions, and its annual report, setting out how it has delivered against the plan, will be laid before Parliament and published. The commission's accounts will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny and its accounting officer will be answerable to the Public Accounts Committee. The commission will, therefore, be accountable to Parliament and, through Parliament, to the public.
    Mr. Kidney: Does my hon. Friend agree that the community legal service offers the exciting prospect of a modern legal service that is available to all for the next century? That ambition is as fitting for the new world of the 21st century as the ambition doubtless felt by the Labour Members who established the legal aid service for the post-war world. Does my hon. Friend further agree

    155
    that if the community legal service is to be a success, it is essential that Parliament and the public are guaranteed reliable standards of quality, funding and accessibility?
    Mr. Hoon: My hon. Friend is quite right. The Government set out in their election manifesto, on which we were both elected, their determination to create a community legal service. A great deal of work has already been done, establishing partnerships with local authorities and other funders to ensure that we have a comprehensive system of legal advice, helping those most in need and spending taxpayers' money as effectively as we possibly can.
    Mr. John Burnett: I did not know that the community legal service was to be available for all and I welcome any comments that the Minister of State may have on that point. The Government have stated that they intend to withdraw legal aid from all personal injury actions. Does that mean that in future legal aid will not be available for important personal injury cases with a public interest element, such as the successful claims for asbestosis and white finger? Furthermore, will the Minister of State confirm whether his Department will be issuing a paper on the cost and availability of insurance for defendants' costs in conditional fee agreements and, if so, when that paper will be issued?
    Mr. Hoon: As regards the hon. Gentleman's point about public interest, the Department recently published a document on the funding code, which is the technical measure that solicitors will use to determine whether legal aid should be granted in particular cases. It sets out clearly our intention that public interest cases should continue to be supported, and cases such as those mentioned by the hon. Gentleman should continue to receive funding provided that they satisfy the criteria of public interest merit. As for the insurance industry, I am confident that it will continue to provide a dynamic and successful system for funding conditional fee cases. I am not aware of any particular necessity that such cases should be subject to any form of Government oversight or regulation.
    Mrs. Linda Gilroy: Will my hon. Friend comment further on the role of local authorities in achieving partnership? I was pleased that the Lord Chancellor announced last week that Plymouth city council was to be among the 40 local authorities with associate pioneer status. I believe that local authorities have a role to play in achieving accountability, and I would welcome my hon. Friend's comments on that.
    Mr. Hoon: It is important that the community legal service is comprehensive, involving all those who are at present financing the unco-ordinated advice services that are available. That is why we announced six full pioneer areas and, as my hon. Friend says, a further 40 associate pioneer areas, where we will be able specifically to develop the comprehensive service that we believe is essential to a community legal service.
    Mr. Edward Garnier: How can the community legal service be accountable to anybody when the Government's plans may not leave it with any money?
    156
    Why will not the Minister give the service a separate ring-fenced budget, instead of forcing it to beg for what is left after the public funding of criminal cases?
    Mr. Hoon: The whole point of the Government's reforms to legal aid is to replace the present unplanned system of spending—which is entirely demand led and cannot be controlled year in, year out—with a system of planning, so we allocate resources to need. That system of planning will mean that there should not be an overspend year on year, and that there always should be sufficient funds available to the community legal service.

    Pro Bono Work
    Mr. Andrew Dismore: If he will set minimum requirements for pro bono work as a qualification for appointment to Queen' s Counsel status. [76336]
    The Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): My right honourable and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor has no plans to set minimum requirements for pro bono work as a qualification for appointment to the rank of Queen's Counsel. A commitment to pro bono work is, however, taken into account when considering Queen's Counsel applications.
    Mr. Dismore: Does my hon. Friend agree that, at the very least, it would be appropriate for QCs to spend some time on pro bono work, bearing in mind the fact that they earn up to £500,000 even before they are appointed as QCs? Does not the fact that the QC system has, so far, signally failed to provide pro bono work indicate a wider, symptomatic problem? Is not the QC system an anachronistic restrictive practice which does not work in the public interest and should be scrapped?
    Mr. Hoon: As I said, a commitment to do pro bono work is taken into account when considering applications for QC status. The Government recognise the contribution that the process of appointing QCs has played in selecting senior lawyers. There are no present plans to review that.
    Mr. John Bercow: Will the Minister concede that if pro bono work is to be taken into account as a consideration in deciding whether a barrister should become a QC, such a stipulation should apply also to Members of Parliament who are barristers, and who hitherto have become QCs, as I understand it, as of right?
    Mr. Hoon: I am not aware that that is the case.
    Dr. Lynda Clark: Has the Minister any idea, by way of a survey or otherwise, of the amount of pro bono work done by QCs—both as QCs and prior to becoming QCs? I can speak only for Scotland, where my contemporaries and I have done vast amounts of pro bono work in our time.
    Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for that information. The matter is taken into account in considering applications for QC status.

    County Courts
    Mr. Graham Brady: If he will make a statement on the role of county courts in serving their local communities. [76337]
    The Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): The location of county courts has historically reflected the business needs of the people in the immediate areas that they serve. As technology and communications advance, however, we will consider how services can be more economically and efficiently provided without affecting the level of service offered.
    Mr. Brady: I am grateful for that response, but the Minister could have gone further and recognised the enormous quantity of family and other work done by the county courts, which is of great importance in the local community. He is aware of concern in the courts surrounding Greater Manchester about proposed closure and relocation, and of my concern that the local function of courts should be taken into account. In that connection, will he give a commitment that where there are other court facilities that are under-utilised—I am thinking here of the Sale magistrates courts—those facilities will be looked at prior to any new-build options in the centre of Manchester?
    Mr. Hoon: It is important to draw a distinction between the times when people need to go to court for a case, when we must clearly take into account the distance that they have to travel—although that is quite rare because, fortunately, most people do not need to go to court repeatedly—and the function of the court service in providing information, which can be much more effectively delivered locally by telephone, fax or modern technology. To make that appropriate distinction will be to the benefit of the hon. Gentleman's constituents, allowing us to use the court estate as efficiently and effectively as possible.
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: My hon. Friend is a sensible fellow, and I know that he will bear it in mind that there is absolutely no point in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions asking people not to move important state facilities away from where people live and work if, at the same time, individual Whitehall Departments take decisions on a narrow economic basis. If he will undertake to bear that in mind before any more county courts are closed, we will all be a little happier.
    Mr. Hoon: I assure my hon. Friend that we will take that into account. Let me repeat that it is important to distinguish between the relatively rare occasions when people go to court for cases, and the provision of information. We need to ensure that much more information is provided locally and that we use modern technology to deliver it much more efficiently than at present.

    Magistrates Courts
    Mr. Norman Baker: What assessment he makes of the (a) environmental implications and (b) inconvenience to individuals, in reaching decisions on appeals against closure of magistrates courts. [76338]
    The Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): Environmental issues and accessibility are certainly taken into account, but they cannot be overriding considerations. Other themes that are common to the majority of appeals against courthouse closures include accessibility to all court users; the facilities available; the cost of necessary renovations to bring the court up to standard; and courtroom use. Each appeal is considered on the merits of the arguments presented by the parties. There are no statutory criteria.
    Mr. Baker: Is the Minister aware that the court service proposes to close the magistrates court at Haywards Heath, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames), which serves my constituents? That will require my constituents from Wivelsfield to go to the court in Lewes, where there is no proper public transport connection, and those from Ditchling to go to Brighton. Should not justice be accessible to all? The closure, if it goes ahead, will lead to considerable inconvenience to my constituents.
    Mr. Hoon: The court service is not responsible for the provision of magistrates courts, which are the responsibility of the magistrates courts committee. An appeal against that proposed closure might, eventually, be dealt with by the Lord Chancellor. I have had substantial—even weighty—representations from the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames), and I assure both hon. Gentlemen that their views will be taken into account.
    Mr. John Gummer: Will the Minister admit that absolutely no notice is taken of the issues when appeals are made to the Lord Chancellor? Courts in my constituency that did not infringe any of the criteria were closed after appeal. Are not the Government supposed to have the environment at the heart of all their policies? How, then, can the environment not be a consideration that overrules all others? Frankly, the Lord Chancellor allows any court to be closed that any magistrates courts committee thinks it would like to close.
    Mr. Hoon: The right hon. Gentleman is simply wrong. He came to see me, with a delegation of hon. Members, and his representations were carefully considered, as are those of all right hon. and hon. Members. It is not the case that every single appeal is dismissed. Indeed, I would be perfectly happy to give him statistics demonstrating that some appeals are allowed.

    Legal Aid
    Sir Sydney Chapman: What estimate he has made of legal aid expenditure in 1998–99; and what the figures were for (a) 10 and (b) 20 years earlier. [76339]
    The Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): Legal aid expenditure in 1998–99 is expected to be about £1.6 billion; in 1988–89, it was £474 million; and in 1978–79, £83 million. Those figures show that the cost of legal aid over the past 20 years has increased by more than 490 per cent. above the rate of inflation.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: Does the Minister agree that this is a classic case of introducing a benefit or grant for which demand will escalate? During his review of legal aid, will he appreciate that everything that he has said today and previously points to the single, simple objective
    160
    of controlling the amount of legal aid? Will he address the fact that he is cutting whole sections of qualification for legal aid that arise from genuine need?. Finally, in case there is any misunderstanding, let me declare that I am not a lawyer.
    Mr. Hoon: I am sorry to hear the hon. Gentleman talk in that way when it was the Government whom he supported for many years who slashed eligibility. The present Government are delivering reform of the legal aid system by ensuring that those who need assistance will get it—and will get the best quality assistance at an appropriate time and in an appropriate manner.

    Kosovo
    3.30 pm
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): Madam Speaker, with your permission I will make a statement on Kosovo.
    As I speak, it is still unclear what the outcome of Mr. Holbrooke's talks in Belgrade will be, but there is little cause to be optimistic. On the assumptions that they produce no change in President Milosevic's position and that the repression in Kosovo by Serb forces continues, Britain stands ready with its NATO allies to take military action.
    We do so for very clear reasons. We do so primarily to avert what would otherwise be a humanitarian disaster in Kosovo. Let me give the House an indication of the scale of what is happening. A quarter of a million Kosovars—more than 10 per cent of the population—are now homeless as a result of repression by Serb forces; 65,000 people have been forced from their homes in the past month, and no fewer than 25,000 in the four days since the peace talks broke down; and only yesterday, 5,000 people in the Srbica area were forcibly evicted from their villages.
    Much of the Drenica region of northern Kosovo is being cleared of ethnic Albanians. Every single village that the observers of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees could see yesterday in the Glogovac and Srbica region was on fire. Families are being uprooted and driven from their homes. There are reports of masked irregulars separating out the men: we do not know what their fate will be, but the House will recall that at Srebrenica, men were killed. Since last summer, 2000 people have died. Without the international verification force, there is no doubt that the numbers would have been vastly higher.
    We act also because we know from bitter experience throughout this century, most recently in Bosnia, that instability and civil war in one part of the Balkans inevitably spills over into the whole of it, and affects the rest of Europe, too. I remind the House that there are now more than 1 million refugees from the former Yugoslavia in the European Union.
    If Kosovo was left to the mercy of Serbian repression, there is not merely a risk, but the probability of re-igniting unrest in Albania, of a destabilised Macedonia, of almost certain knock-on effects in Bosnia, and of further tension between Greece and Turkey. Strategic interests for the whole of Europe are at stake. We cannot contemplate, on the doorstep of the EU, a disintegration into chaos and disorder.
    We have made a very plain promise to the Kosovar people. Thousands of them returned to their homes as a result of the ceasefire negotiated last October. We said to them and to Milosevic that we would not tolerate the brutal suppression of the civilian population. After the massacre at Racak, those threats and warnings to Milosevic were repeated. To walk away now would not merely destroy NATO's credibility; more importantly, it would be a breach of faith with thousands of innocent civilians whose only desire is to live in peace, and who took us at our word.
    I say this to the British people: there is a heavy responsibility on a Government, when putting their armed forces into battle, to justify such action. I warn that the
    162
    potential consequences of military action are serious, both for NATO forces and for the people in the region. Their suffering cannot be ended overnight. But in my judgment, the consequences of not acting are more serious still for human life and for peace in the long term. We must act to save thousands of innocent men, women and children from humanitarian catastrophe—from death, barbarism and ethnic cleansing by a brutal dictatorship—and to save the stability of the Balkan region, where we know chaos can engulf the whole of the European Union. We have no alternative, therefore, but to act, and act we will, unless Milosevic even now chooses the path of peace.
    Let me recap briefly on the last few months. Last October, NATO threatened to use force to secure Milosevic's agreement to a ceasefire and an end to the repression that was at that time in hand. That was successful—at least, for a while. Diplomatic efforts, backed by NATO's threat, led to the creation of the 1,500-strong Kosovo verification mission. A NATO extraction force was established in neighbouring Macedonia in case the monitors got into difficulty.
    At the same time, Milosevic gave an undertaking to the US envoy, Mr. Holbrooke, that he would withdraw Serb forces so that their numbers returned to the level before February 1998—that is, roughly 10,000 internal security troops and 12,000 Yugoslav army troops. Milosevic never fulfilled that commitment; indeed, the numbers have gone up. We believe that there are now some 16,000 internal security and 20,000 Yugoslav army troops in Kosovo, with a further 8,000 army reinforcements poised just over the border.
    In January, NATO warned Milosevic that it would respond if he failed to come into compliance with the agreements he had entered into in October, if the repression continued, and if he frustrated the peace process. Milosevic has failed to meet any of those requirements. Even then, intense diplomatic efforts have been under way. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, and his French colleague Mr. Védrine, have co-chaired the peace talks in France. There is an agreement on the table. Autonomy for Kosovo would be guaranteed, with a democratically elected assembly, accountable institutions and locally controlled police forces. After three years, Kosovo's status would be reviewed. The rights of all its inhabitants—including Serbs—would be protected, regardless of their ethnic background. And the awful conflict that has been a blight on the lives of its people could come to an end. The Kosovo Albanians have signed the peace agreement. The Serbs have not. They have reneged on the commitments they made on the political texts at the talks at Rambouillet, and they refuse to allow a peacekeeping force in Kosovo under NATO command to underpin implementation of the agreement.
    It takes two sides to make peace. So far, only one side has shown itself willing to make that commitment. It was Milosevic who stripped Kosovo of its autonomy in 1989. It is Milosevic who is now refusing to tackle a political problem by political means.
    NATO action would be in the form of air strikes. It will involve many NATO countries. It has the full support of NATO. It will have as its minimum objective to curb continued Serbian repression in Kosovo in order to avert a humanitarian disaster. It would therefore target the military capability of the Serb dictatorship. To avoid such action, Milosevic must do what he promised to do last

    163
    October—end the repression, withdraw his troops to barracks, get them down to the levels he agreed, and withdraw from Kosovo the tanks, heavy artillery and other weapons he brought into Kosovo early last year. He must agree to the proposals set out in the Rambouillet accords, including a NATO-led ground force.
    Any attack by Serbian forces against NATO personnel engaged in peacekeeping missions elsewhere in the region would be completely unjustified and would be met with a swift and severe response in self-defence. President Milosevic should be in no doubt about our determination to protect our forces and to deal appropriately with any threats to them.
    Mr. Holbrooke has made the position of the international community crystal clear to Milosevic. There can be no doubt about what is at stake. The choice is now his. Milosevic can choose peace for the peoples of Kosovo and an end to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia's isolation in Europe, or he can choose continued conflict and the serious consequences that would follow.
    I hope that the House will join me in urging President Milosevic to choose the path of peace, and that it will support NATO and the international community in action should he fail to do so.
    Mr. William Hague: I thank the Prime Minister for that statement. First and foremost, I express the Opposition's wholehearted support for the British forces who might have to take part in the NATO action, for the service men and women who will be backing up those front-line forces, and for the families of those who might have to risk their lives as they do their jobs.
    Given the repeated threats and ultimatums issued over many months, the Opposition's position is that we support the Government taking the action described. Indeed, my right hon. and learned Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary has often asked for similar action to be taken. Although we support the use of ground troops to implement a diplomatic settlement, we shall not support their use to fight for a settlement. During the past year, events in Kosovo have already led to a humanitarian catastrophe in our continent: more than 2,000 people have been killed, and hundreds of thousands have fled from their homes since the fighting began. As we speak, villages are being burned and people are being killed, as the Prime Minister has made clear.
    It is clear that we now need to demonstrate to Milosevic the credibility of NATO threats and ultimatums. Does the Prime Minister agree that although, from the start of the crisis last year, there may have been a case—although we would not have agreed with it—for the west saying and doing nothing about events in Kosovo, and there was certainly a case for the west issuing threats and following them through, there was no case at all for a string of last warnings and ultimatums that were not followed through? The international monitors carried out their tasks with the utmost professionalism, in what had become an impossible situation. Does the Prime Minister understand the Opposition's regret that peace monitors were not deployed in May last year when we made our original request that they should be deployed? By the time that deployment took place in October, the situation had worsened and extremists on both sides had had time to win over more people from their communities.
    164
    Last year, the Government were right when they said that the response to the tragedy had been dithering and disunited on the part of the international community. Unfortunately, that continued for a long time and the credibility of NATO has been called into question. Does the Prime Minister understand that although we would welcome an explicit demonstration of NATO credibility of the kind that he has described, given the repeated threats of action we regret that some decisive action did not take place earlier?
    We must all realise that military action against Serbia will put further strain on our armed forces. Does the Prime Minister recall the Chief of the Defence Staff telling the Select Committee on Defence that we could maintain two operations such as Bosnia and Kosovo for only six months? He said:
    "I do not think we could sustain two for longer than that."
    Will the Prime Minister tell the House what steps he will take to ensure that the deployments that he has announced can be sustained? Will he give the House an assurance that precautions have been taken to prevent retaliation against British interests and British forces elsewhere in the world?
    Any military action needs clear objectives. Although we support the Government's decision to use air strikes, will the Prime Minister confirm that those strikes are not a prelude to a ground war and that ground troops would be used only to implement a diplomatic settlement?
    Can the Prime Minister also tell the House what measures are being taken to prevent the spread of the conflict to Albania, Bosnia and Macedonia? He has referred to his discussions with colleagues and he will recognise the need to do all in our power to encourage the international community to speak as one on this issue. Can he assure the House that Europe as a whole is now united on the need for action and can he inform us of what efforts have been made to meet the concerns of Russia?
    Finally, does the Prime Minister agree that there is one person above all who must take the blame for the enormous suffering in Kosovo, one person who must take the blame for the enormous suffering in other parts of the Balkans during this decade, and one person who is solely to blame for the need to take the military action that the Prime Minister has been right to announce—and that that person is Milosevic, who must now be regarded as an evil man with much blood on his hands?
    The Prime Minister: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for what I take to be his support for our position. It is important that we in this House take a united view and I am grateful for that.
    I shall deal with the right hon. Gentleman's points. It is certain that all our thoughts will be with armed forces and their families. Our armed forces are among the finest anywhere in the world and we can rightly be proud that, in a situation such as this, they are not only willing to take action, but capable of acting in such an effective manner. We have often had cause to be grateful to them.
    Secondly, it is fair to say that we have always been in favour of taking action sooner rather than later, but we could not take action on a unilateral basis. We have to take action with other countries—in this instance, within NATO—and we have done that. The degree of unity not only within Europe, but within the whole of NATO, is extremely important to the success of the mission.

    165
    Thirdly, I have no doubt that the deployment can be sustained; nor do I doubt our ability to make good any threat of counter-attack should there be any question of retaliation against the peacekeeping forces elsewhere in the region. Milosevic should clearly understand that. The best insurance against the spread of the conflict is to take precisely the action that we are taking. We know from bitter experience that we cannot afford such instability on the borders of Europe.
    I agree entirely with what the right hon. Gentleman said about Milosevic, but let me make one final point. It is important to realise that we have been able to build extremely strong support for this action within NATO. Thirteen nations, including the United Kingdom, have some 200 combat aircraft deployed to the region: the United States, the UK, France, Netherlands, Italy, Spain, Turkey, Germany, Canada, Belgium, Portugal, Denmark and Norway have all committed aircraft, so this is a very united NATO action. If that unity is reflected across the Dispatch Box and within the House, that augurs well.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: This a bad business which could turn out to be a bloody one as well. None of us should underestimate the risk of casualties on either side. If air strikes prove to be necessary, those who advocate them and those who support them—as I do—might have to live with some extremely painful consequences.
    Is it not true that it has become necessary to contemplate air strikes only because of the deliberate and brutal targeting of civilians by Serbian forces as they shell, loot and burn villages and make refugees of their inhabitants? Does the Prime Minister agree that if the immediate military aim is to inhibit and degrade the ability of Serbian forces to sustain and persist in their campaign of sickening and uninhibited violence, there must also be a political aim in addition to the strategic aims he outlined? May I suggest that that political aim should be to require the Milosevic Government to pay such a high price in military assets that they are persuaded—even compelled—to return to the conference table? Given that we should look ahead to the consequences of actions of this sort, does the Prime Minister accept that, if we have to embark on air strikes, that would be a step towards the creation of at least a de facto protectorate for Kosovo?
    The Prime Minister: I agree entirely with what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said about the painful consequences of this action. As the leader of his party, the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), said yesterday, there are painful consequences involved in taking this action, but the consequences of not taking it are even more painful. That is the right and honest way to put it to people.
    As I have said, the objective is to inhibit repression by Serbian forces. It remains our political aim to return to the negotiating table because there is no doubt that the Rambouillet accords offer the only proper and realistic possibility of a lasting political settlement. I pay tribute to the work of the British and French Foreign Secretaries in putting that agreement together.
    Finally, as to air strikes, there is no plan to have a United Nations protectorate in the strict sense. However, we wanted to get ground forces into Kosovo in pursuit of
    166
    an agreement precisely to ensure that we could police that agreement properly and allow the constitutional settlement to take root. It is a tragedy that Milosevic has chosen not to take that chance. It is a double tragedy for him because the offer on the table was not a bad one from Serbia's point of view: it conceded many of the points that Serbia had made. By turning his back on that one opportunity to conclude an agreement, Milosevic has only himself to thank for the consequences.
    Mr. Donald Anderson: My right hon. Friend is right to make this grave eleventh-hour statement as a final warning to President Milosevic and to point out the high risks involved. Most hon. Members accept the need for air strikes, but with extreme reluctance because we surely cannot be confident that bombs will bring peace. This is a high-risk action.
    Are there any circumstances in which Britain would be prepared to commit ground troops in answer to the "What then?" question? In what way can we seek, even now, to assist the refugees—either by reaching into Kosovo or by helping the neighbours of Kosovo, such as Macedonia, which has been, and will continue to be, harmed by the conflict on its borders?
    The Prime Minister: I think that everyone shares a sense of reluctance to commit our forces. However, as my hon. Friend acknowledged, that reluctance is overcome if circumstances dictate that it must be.
    We proposed committing ground troops to pursue a peace agreement. However, there is a difficulty with committing ground troops in order to fight our way in: no one should underestimate the sheer scale of what is involved in that action. We would be talking about 100,000 ground troops, and possibly even more.
    As to refugees, we are working carefully with humanitarian organisations and we will continue to support UNHCR and other bodies. There is no point is concealing the fact that, if we are forced to take this action, it will be difficult for people on the ground over the next few days. However, the alternative is to allow the Serbian forces to continue their brutal repression of the Kosovo people.
    Sir Archie Hamilton: Will the Prime Minister tell the House what his contingency plan is if the air strikes take place, yet Milosevic continues to defy NATO, does not withdraw his troops and the repression continues? What will the Prime Minister do then?
    The Prime Minister: It is for precisely that reason that we set our clear objective to curb Milosevic's ability, through his military capability, to engage in that repression. That is our objective, and we shall carry on until it is fulfilled.
    Mr. Bruce George: First, I believe that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister can count on the overwhelming support not only of the House but of the British public, particularly as he has put forward a convincing argument that the concept of a just war is not redundant. Secondly, I hope that he appreciates that now is not the time to rake over the coals and consider the mistakes of failed Government policies on Bosnia and Kosovo in the immediate past—or, indeed, the past decade.

    167
    Finally, will my right hon. Friend give reassurance to members of a Macedonian delegation who are here—as I was unable to do in a meeting between them and the Select Committee on Defence—that any attack on Macedonia in the present circumstances would be deemed to be an attack on NATO because Macedonia is housing NATO forces? They will clearly be concerned about the possible development of events in the next few days.
    The Prime Minister: On the latter point, I assure my hon. Friend that any attack on NATO forces in Macedonia would be regarded as an attack on NATO itself and would bring about swift and severe retaliation.
    My hon. Friend's first point is absolutely right: we are acting to avert a humanitarian disaster. If we do not act and the repression continues, its consequences will also continue. It is a sobering thought that we now have in the European Union more than 1 million refugees from the former Yugoslavia, and if anything demonstrates how much our fate, even here, is tied in with the fate of the Balkans, it is that statistic.
    Sir Peter Tapsell: Is it not almost certain that air strikes alone will not achieve NATO's objectives, as General Sir Michael Rose repeated yet again on the "Today" programme this morning? May I remind the Prime Minister that when air strikes failed in Bosnia and the previous Conservative Government announced that they were sending one British infantry battalion there, I warned them that it was useless to send one battalion when four divisions would be needed on the ground to do the job, and that proved to be right?
    Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that saying weasel words to the British people at this point is wrong because the Government are proposing to make war on Serbia, and it is a profound political mistake to suppose that Milosevic is not supported by the mass of the patriotic Serbian people, who form one of the great fighting nations of Europe? If we are to pursue that policy, the British people should be told now that we are embarking inevitably on ground operations that will involve heavy casualties.
    The Prime Minister: That is the isolationist wing of the Conservative party—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, it is. The hon. Gentleman must face up to the consequences that would arise from his views. I assume that he is attacking the whole policy on Bosnia, and that he would therefore have allowed the civil war and the repression in Kosovo to continue while he did nothing. The consequences would have been the brutal murder of tens of thousands—possibly hundreds of thousands—of people and chaos and instability on Europe's doorstep.
    No one disputes the fact that taking our course is difficult, and I said that in my statement, but the consequences of not acting would be to plunge the whole region into chaos and consign thousands of innocent people to death and brutality. Britain should not regard that as an acceptable outcome.
    Mr. Clive Soley: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the British people have learned more than anyone else that appeasement
    168
    does not work and that ours is not only a just cause but, more importantly, one that affects the stability of Europe? Does he further accept that the British people recognise what is involved in such situations? Finally, will he remind the political and military leaders in the former Yugoslavia that some of their people have already been put on trial for war crimes, that British people and the emerging law around the world no longer allow people to forgive and forget those barbaric crimes, and that there is time yet for those people to be put on trial too?
    The Prime Minister: That is an entirely appropriate warning that the war crimes legislation exists, and that people who engage in the crimes of ethnic cleansing and brutal suppression and murder, whether in the Balkans or elsewhere in the world, stand at risk. We should be prepared to use the war crimes legislation to bring them to account.
    Mr. Tom King: Does the Prime Minister accept that he has done a service to the House through the clarity of his statement, which leaves no doubt in anyone's mind about the gravity of the choice that faced him and the Government, and which faces our country, or about the size of the challenge that will face our armed forces? There is, in my judgment, no alternative but to demonstrate firmly the credibility of NATO and to deal with a very serious situation.
    If air strikes are successful, it will be essential for the land eventually to be retained by ground forces, as is part of the Prime Minister's plan. That will involve substantial deployments. Under the present provisions, I understand, they cannot be sustained for a long period. Will the Prime Minister give urgent consideration to that? We ask a lot of our armed forces. They unfailingly respond, as they have done on many occasions, but they are entitled to our fullest support and the knowledge that they will be properly supported on this occasion.
    The Prime Minister: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for those comments and his support, which is all the more welcome from someone with his experience in such matters. I can assure him that we have carefully looked to see that the deployment can be sustained. We believe that it can be sustained.
    I agree that if the air strikes are successful, we need to get the political process back on track. That is our aim, politically. I also agree with the right hon. Gentleman that we have no alternative if NATO is to remain credible. That is not our principal reason for acting, however. We are not acting in pursuit of a theory of credibility, but we have given certain undertakings, and if we do not abide by them, we will not have credibility in the future.
    Mr. Tony Benn: Is the Prime Minister aware that there is absolute unanimity in the House and the country about the scale of the humanitarian crisis in Kosovo? May I tell him that the statement that he made is one of the gravest that I have heard in the House, certainly since Suez? An ultimatum has been announced, amounting to an all-out air war and possibly a ground war against a member state of the United Nations which, under article 51, has the right of self-defence. By doing so, the British Government and other NATO Governments are defying the charter, to which we are committed, and breaking international law. If the bombing begins—apart

    169
    from the fact that it is no more likely to be successful than it is in Iraq—it is bound to cause casualties and worsen the humanitarian crisis, and it could well broaden the Balkan conflict.
    May I point out to the Prime Minister that there are two bodies that he never mentioned in his statement? One is the United Nations, which exists to deal with crises of this kind, and the other is the House of Commons. We represent the forces who may well be sent into conflict—they are our constituents, our families. Not a moment of thought was given to a debate in the House, which would allow more than question and answer, and through which we could explore the Government's policy, consider whether it will lead to a ground war, as many believe it might, and come to a conclusion about it. To treat the House as though it were just an audience for "Newsnight" on so grave a matter is simply below the standard that we are entitled to expect.
    The Prime Minister: There have been no fewer than three statements on the matter in the House of Commons during the past few weeks. There is a defence debate on Thursday. I am making the statement today in the House, where I can be questioned, not least by my right hon. Friend. That is hardly a "Newsnight" interview—I will not go into whether it is more pleasant or not.
    I shall answer my right hon. Friend's two specific points. First, as a result of our action in Iraq, I remember how many people told me that Saddam Hussein would be stronger as a result, that he would be more powerful, and that he would be better able to suppress his people and wage war on the outside world. None of those things has happened. He is weaker, his military capability is weaker, and his ability to suppress his own people is hugely diminished.
    Secondly, the UN has been important in relation to Kosovo. It has passed important Security Council resolutions. Let me read them to my right hon. Friend. The last one, Security Council resolution 1199, demanded that Serbs cease all actions by their security forces against the civilian population, and demanded that the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia Government order the withdrawal of security units used for civilian repression. A further resolution in October last year, UNSCR 1203, reiterated the previous one and endorsed the agreements between Holbrooke and Milosevic, including the verification missions. Milosevic has been in breach of every single part of those UN resolutions.
    The plain fact of the matter is that we have to act now to avert the humanitarian disaster that I have set out. Of course, we will have an opportunity to debate this, and of course we should debate it, but the reasons that we have given have been very clear and I hope that they will be supported by the House and the country.
    Mr. Alex Salmond: The vast majority of the House is in no doubt as to who the aggressor is in these circumstances. But I have been listening carefully to the Prime Minister during the past 15 minutes, and it is not yet clear to me whether he has ruled out the use of ground forces if air power fails. I can understand his being cautious, but is that something that he can do, or does he feel that he cannot do it under the circumstances?
    The Prime Minister: No, I have made it clear that we support the use of ground troops in supporting
    170
    the agreement. We do not plan to use ground troops in order to fight our way into Kosovo, for the very reason that I gave earlier. I do not know whether that is what the hon. Gentleman is suggesting, but it would take a huge commitment—possibly more than 100,000 ground troops—and that is why we have said that that is not our plan.
    Mr. Frank Cook: Will the Prime Minister accept that commentators observing the state of play in Serbia record the fact that the majority of the Serbian population are blissfully unaware of the atrocities that are being committed against their Albanian Kosovar neighbours? As a child, I witnessed how the bombing of Britain strengthened the resolve in the population here against the axis. What measures are being taken to inform the Serbian people of what their leaders are doing on their behalf, but not at their behest?
    The Prime Minister: That is an extremely good point, but we have one great inhibition in getting through to the Serbian people directly, and that is that there is state control of their broadcasting and media. My hon. Friend is absolutely right: they are blissfully unaware of many of the things that their regime is doing. We take every measure available to us to get through to them, but it is difficult, precisely for that reason. It is worth pointing out that some of Milosevic's victims are his own people.
    Mr. Nicholas Soames: I welcome the clarity with which the Prime Minister set out his solemn statement today. Does he agree that the House should be fortified and sustained by NATO's unity at this difficult time, and will he confirm that the United Nations resolutions do give the necessary legal authority for air strikes to proceed? For my part, I think it unlikely that they will be successful, and likely that ground troops will have to be deployed. To that end, does he agree that, throughout the period of hostility, the political track must be kept going?
    The Prime Minister: I agree entirely that the political track must be kept going the whole time. One reason why people say that we have over-delayed in this is that, from last October onwards, we had a political track that we were trying to make work, precisely because we understood the consequences of taking military action. I agree with what the hon. Gentleman says about the UN and legal authority, and I also agree that we should be fortified by NATO's unity. The fact that 13 countries now have combat aircraft in the region, able to be used in the operation, is an example of NATO's strength and purpose.
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: Thursday's debate is scheduled to be answered by the Minister of State and the Under-Secretary. In the circumstances, would the Prime Minister consider that either the Foreign Secretary or the Secretary of State for Defence, and perhaps he himself, should take part in what is a crucial debate?
    In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), the Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence, the Prime Minister said that there would be "swift retaliation" if Yugoslav troops attacked troops in Macedonia. What, exactly, is meant by

    171
    "swift retaliation" in those circumstances? Finally, a factual question: what have Mr. Primakov and the Russians had to say about the proposed military strike?
    The Prime Minister: The position of the Russian Government and Prime Minister Primakov is well known and I doubt that it has changed, although they, too, feel a huge degree of frustration about the way their attempts to try to get a peace process on track have been thwarted by Milosevic. As for swift retaliation, we will judge that according to the needs that may arise at the time. It would not be wise speculate on that further, but people should know that, if our forces are attacked, there will be retaliation and it will be severe. Finally, my understanding is that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence is indeed opening the debate on Thursday.
    Mr. Michael Colvin: The Prime Minister has said that action is now required to avert a humanitarian disaster, but the situation that he has graphically described shows that a humanitarian disaster already exists in Kosovo. I accept the exchanges that have taken place about the use of ground forces, but the Prime Minister said in reply to one question that as many as 100,000 troops might be required if ground forces had to be committed to follow up air strikes. The Serb army numbers more than 200,000, so many more than 100,000 troops would be required.
    Following on from the Prime Minister's answer that troops would be deployed to Macedonia if there was a direct threat to the extraction force of 10,000 troops there, I remind him that the Macedonian army numbers only 20,000; it is a tenth the size of the Serbian army. What contingency plans have the Government, with our NATO allies, to deploy troops to Macedonia quickly—we lack heavy lift—so that they are ready to take action against Serbia, if that is required?
    The Prime Minister: There are already many troops and heavy weapons in Macedonia—and, indeed, elsewhere—so NATO certainly has the means to visit severe retaliation on Milosevic should he attack any NATO forces. In respect of the ground troops, I agree that more than 100,000 would be needed; that is the very reason why I am suggesting the difficulties of taking such a course.
    The hon. Gentleman says that a humanitarian disaster already exists in Kosovo. That is why we need to act, but if we were to fail to act—if we were simply to allow Serb forces to carry on their repression, without even the inhibition that the threat of action might have—there is absolutely no doubt at all what would happen. They would repeat what happened at Racak many times over.
    Mr. David Winnick: Is not the choice for the international community simple? Either we allow the atrocities—crimes against humanity—to continue or we decide to act, and act decisively. We listen to the voices of non-intervention in this House, but almost without exception, those who argue for non-intervention and issue constant warnings of what disasters will follow if we intervene were wrong about the Falklands in 1982, wrong about Kuwait in 1991, and certainly wrong in
    172
    respect of how the international community helped to achieve a settlement in Bosnia in 1995. Why on earth should we believe that they are right now?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is quite right to point out that there are those who can always find a reason never to act. I emphasise that the consequences of this action will be serious—we know that—but as we have said before, the consequences of not acting are more serious still.
    Mr. Paul Keetch: While I agree with the Prime Minister about the professionalism of our armed forces in the region—I have constituents out there, as have other hon. Members—what British civilians are there on the ground? Is he aware that British subjects have been targeted for kidnapping and killing by terrorist organisations in recent months? How will he ensure that British civilians are kept out of events as much as possible?
    The Prime Minister: We have given clear advice to any civilian organisations operating in the area and we give what protection we possibly can. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are well aware of the danger and threat to our civilians.
    Mrs. Alice Mahon: Does the Prime Minister accept that many of us genuinely believe that bombing a sovereign state could cause more, not fewer, civilian casualties, and could destabilise the whole of south-eastern Europe because the Serbs will almost certainly fight to defend their homeland? Is he aware that I visited Macedonia a few weeks ago? Not a single Macedonian Member of Parliament or citizen to whom I spoke believed that Macedonia should be used by NATO to take aggressive action against the Serbs—although the Macedonians rightly expect protection, given that they have allowed NATO extraction forces to be based there. They believed that dialogue was the best way forward. Perhaps a different way—perhaps putting sanctions against the Serbs on the table—might have helped, although sanctions harm the economies of emerging democracies in the area.
    What will the strategy be if the bombing fails? What will we do if what is rightly described as the disgraceful action against the Kosovars continues?
    The Prime Minister: We have set our objective; we intend to succeed in it. I agree with my hon. Friend that dialogue is the best way forward. That is why we went the extra mile to put together the talks process at Rambouillet. We put together the agreements last October between Milosevic and Richard Holbrooke. We have done everything that we possibly could to make dialogue work, but we are left with the realisation that dialogue has not worked. Then what do we do? Do we simply allow the repression to continue, or do we act?
    In the past couple of years, there have been several occasions when the Government have faced that dilemma. No one wants to commit our forces unless we really have to do so, and everyone understands that the consequences of doing so will always include an element of uncertainty, but if we do not do that and we allow this to continue, then what? That is also a fair question to ask.

    173
    My hon. Friend talks about the Serbs and their homeland. The concept of Kosovo as an autonomous area within the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia strikes the right balance, recognising that the vast majority of people in Kosovo are ethnic Albanians and that it is their homeland too. All they desire to do is to be allowed to live in peace there, free from repression. We surely have to be the people who give them that chance.
    Mr. David Curry: What happens if bombing does not bring President Milosevic to the negotiating table?
    The Prime Minister: I set our objective clearly. It is to curb Milosevic's ability to repress the Kosovo population. We want him to come back to the negotiating table, but the precise minimum objective of any military action has to be to curb his ability—to reduce his ability—to suppress the Kosovar Albanian people. That has to be the task that we set ourselves. We can fulfil that objective. It is the right objective and it ties in, rightly, with our justification, which is primarily—as I set out in my statement—humanitarian.
    Mr. Kevin McNamara: Although I support my right hon. Friend's statement, we have still not had the answer to the question, "What if?" If it is our aim to curb the Yugoslav ability to persecute the Albanian people, the logic of that must be that we put in land troops. If we do not put in troops on the ground and merely use air strikes, we are left in a worse position than when we began.
    Is not the logic of the position that, eventually, we will end up with at least a United Nations protectorate or a NATO protectorate, if not an independent Kosovo, with the problems that that will have? How will we be certain that the Dayton accords will be upheld by all the signatories to them?
    The Prime Minister: I do not accept that land troops are necessary to curb repression in Kosovo. Air strikes properly targeted—directed against the military capability of the oppressor—can achieve the objective that we set ourselves.
    Secondly, my hon. Friend mentioned the concept of a United Nations protectorate. There is no notion of establishing a UN protectorate in the strict legal sense, but obviously the purpose of putting in ground troops was to back up an agreement—a constitutional settlement—in Kosovo, and that, of course, is what we still want to do if it is possible. A precondition, however, is that an agreement is in place to which not merely the Kosovar Albanians but the Serbs themselves will agree.
    I believe that the action that we have proposed will be successful.
    Mr. Julian Brazier: No one envies the Prime Minister the decision he must make. Does he accept, however, that evidence from Hanoi to Grozny suggests that bombing alone strengthens the resolve of a people, rather than weakening it—especially when those people, like the Serbs, have hundreds of years of memories of what they perceive as resisting the bullying of larger powers?
    174
    Does the Prime Minister really believe that bombing alone will reduce the atrocities being perpetrated against the Kosovar Albanians? If he is not willing to follow up bombing with the use of ground forces—and he has explained very clearly why we should not do that—I put it to him that it would be better not to bomb at all.
    The Prime Minister: That, of course, is the conclusion of the hon. Gentleman and some of his hon. Friends—that we should not do this at all. I disagree entirely. If the hon. Gentleman wants an example of bombing achieving our objective, he should consider Iraq, where it certainly achieved the objective that we set ourselves. Let me give him another example. I do not believe that under the last Government, before the Dayton accords, we would ever have got the process under way had not military action been taken by allied forces. It is possible to give examples even from the region itself that show this to be a realistic objective.
    I have explained the difficulty with ground forces. The hon. Gentleman had the courtesy to say at the outset that this is a difficult decision to make. I can only say that if we do not make that decision, and take no military action—let us be clear: we are not going to send in 100,000 or 200,000 ground forces with the consent of other countries, for no such consent exists—the repression in Kosovo will continue, and Serbia will know that there is absolutely no restraint or inhibition on its action. The consequences of that would be devastating.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) said that the Macedonian people were not in favour of the action, but the Macedonian Government have supported our position. People in that area know the consequences of letting the whole region slip back into total chaos.
    Mr. John Austin (Erith and Thamesmead): The Prime Minister has set out very clearly the consequences of non-action, and the possibility of a wider Balkan conflict. He also referred to dialogue. Is he aware that, while Holbrooke was in dialogue with Milosevic yesterday and today, the bombing and burning of villages continued? Does he agree that the time for appeasement has plainly ended?
    Will the Prime Minister consider again whether Serbia has forfeited any right that it may have claimed to govern the people of Kosovo? Will he also give further consideration to the declaration of a United Nations protectorate of Kosovo, to shield it from further Serbian aggression?
    The Prime Minister: I entirely share my hon. Friend's sentiments about the bombing and burning that continue. As for the declaration of a UN protectorate, I have said what I have said.
    The Kosovar Albanians have indicated that they can accept the accords negotiated at Rambouillet. If the Serbs would only accept them too, we could put the process of agreement back on track. As my hon. Friend rightly said, however, our immediate aim must be to stop the unacceptable repression of the people.

    Age (Prevention of Discrimination)
    4.24 pm
    Mr. Robert Maclennan: I beg to move,
    That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prevent discrimination in employment and in other matters on grounds of age.
    We serve as Members of the House of Commons without limit of age; our capacity to do so is measured by other yardsticks. That is an unusual position in Britain today. Increasingly, older workers are being forced out of their jobs well before they reach the official retirement ages of 60 and 65, and they are unlikely to find new employment once they are into their 50s. All parties in the House recognise the need to prevent discrimination in employment against older people.
    Today, people in the United Kingdom understand that to refuse someone a job because they are black or a woman is wrong. Tomorrow, they must see that it is wrong to refuse an applicant a job merely because of his or her age. Such discrimination can be devastating and humiliating to those who suffer from it. After half a lifetime of work and achievement, they are told that they are good for nothing.
    What are the facts? The Employers Forum on Age estimates that, today, of 9.3 million people aged between 50 and 65 in the United Kingdom, some 3.7 million are not in work. Most of them—3.4 million people—are classified as economically inactive, which is to say that they are neither available for nor seeking work.
    Men aged between 50 and 65 are disappearing from businesses in Britain. In 1976, only 11 per cent. of men of that age were inactive; today, the figure is 27 per cent. That is causing huge damage to our country's economy in lost output of goods and services. Costly training, acquired skills and valuable experience are all being wasted. Taxpayers are becoming tax takers. It is a shocking waste of energy and talent, and it is getting worse. In the past 20 years, the figures for unemployed older people have doubled. In a society in which the proportion of older people is steadily rising, that must cause great concern.
    Some economic simpletons fantasise that if we give work to the old, we take it away from the young. The idea is false. It is nonsense to say that there is a finite apple pie of work, and that if we give a larger slice of it to older people, there will be a smaller slice for the young. As economies grow, so do the number of jobs. From 1975 to 1995, employment in the United States, Canada and Australia has risen by more than 40 per cent., and the jobs in those places have not all gone to younger people.
    The House must take up both the carrot and the cudgel of persuasion. We have, so far, preferred the carrot. The Conservative Administration relied on road shows and pamphlets to chivvy employers into taking on older workers. The current Government are publishing a non-statutory code of practice. Equal Rights on Age—the umbrella campaigning group, which includes Members of Parliament and charities—points out that the code will be without teeth. John Monks, the general secretary of the Trades Union Congress, has also predicted that a voluntary code will be largely ineffective.
    Exhortation has certainly not proved itself. The Government's pilot scheme is called new deal for older workers, and it may be shown to be helpful. The approach, however, will not eliminate the problem of discrimination.
    176
    I listened with mixed feelings to the passage in the Chancellor's Budget speech on helping older citizens back to work. I am pleased that the Government are aware of the problem, and "£9,000 guaranteed" has a nice ring to it. However, what if one cannot get a job? What if, even after the £750 towards retraining, no employer is willing to let one prove one's worth? The £9,000 will remain beyond reach.
    The Government's incorporation of the European convention on human rights will help to cut out the cancer of discrimination from public bodies, but age is not specifically mentioned in the relevant article—article 14. It is true that article 6a of the treaty of Amsterdam condemns discrimination on grounds of age. Nevertheless, the convention and the treaty make no demands on the private sector—which is why we need legislation.
    Although we have legislation outlawing discrimination, it may be pointed out that women and ethnic minorities are still fighting to secure the same chances of employment as white men. However, such laws do provide remedies for the victims. They edge forward compliance with society's accepted standards and contribute to changing perceptions of what is appropriate practice by employers. The United States has had an Act preventing discrimination against older workers since 1967, and amendments have widened it to cover both private and public sector workers over the age of 40.
    The House will understand that we cannot directly and easily use the experience of other countries to illuminate conditions here, but research shows that job losses in the United States from the delayering of businesses—as it was called in the 1980s—were more evenly spread across age groups than in this country. Research cited in the Employment Gazette shows that legislation can get
    "employers to reconsider job evaluations and descriptions and to use objective rather than arbitrary age criteria."
    The Bill would introduce a framework law to prevent discrimination in employment, redundancy and promotion on the ground of age. The civil law would enable instances of discrimination to be brought to court and made subject to civil penalties, or taken to an industrial tribunal if preferred. A commission would be appointed to help older citizens to know and secure their rights. When the time was right, it would merge into a single equality commission, similar to the body being created in Northern Ireland.
    If we are to create a society in which the potential and energy of all our citizens can bear fruit, we must outlaw discrimination against older citizens now.
    4.31 pm
    Mr. Eric Forth: We have just heard a seductive argument—such arguments usually are—but before accepting it, we should pause for a moment to explore the possible implications. I thought that we were going to hear that because something happened in the United States, it must be rather good and we should copy it. I often find that argument seductive and persuasive, but the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) held back from that, although the fact that he cited the United States as a precedent gives me pause for thought.
    While the right hon. Gentleman was speaking, I was wondering how such a measure would work in practice. Open and honest as ever, he gave the answer, which gave

    177
    me pause for thought. Leaving aside whether legislation against discrimination succeeds in changing attitudes, it inevitably involves all the factors that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned: a commission, a framework law, civil law, the courts and civil penalties. Now we know what we are talking about—the familiar phenomenon of a bureaucracy. The discrimination industry was set up with the best of intentions, but it has burgeoned into large bureaucratic bodies that are a burden on the taxpayer and eventually a burden on business.
    Let us make no mistake about the fact that we are talking about a burden on business. As business knows to its cost—though not necessarily to the cost of us in this House—whenever such proposals are brought forward by well-intentioned politicians, they immediately involve others in the bureaucracy, paid for by taxpayers' money, then the framework law, the civil law, the courts and civil penalties. Then there is mention of resort to tribunals. That is a controversial subject. How far are we prepared to introduce the possibility of resort to tribunals in addition to the courts and legal action, with the taxpayer-funded bureaucracy behind it?
    The Bill would add yet another layer to the bureaucracy that exists in an attempt to overcome racial or gender prejudice. Another prejudice has been identified that must be tackled by the bureaucracy, paid for by the taxpayer, and pursued through tribunals or courts of law. That ends up as a penalty on business.
    Mr. David Winnick: Why not?
    Mr. Forth: I am about to say why not. We must face the fact that the proposals are not a cost-free option. First, there is a cost to the taxpayer at large. I do not suppose that the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) will be too worried about that as he supports a taxing Government. I suspect that he and many of his hon. Friends feel comfortable with the concept of additional tax burdens. They may not be ready to admit it yet, but it is increasingly understood.
    Secondly, it is a burden on business—usually on small businesses, as they tend to be taken to tribunals where they have to spend time defending themselves and then
    178
    pay for redress. Therefore, such a measure will certainly not be cost free. Whatever its positive benefits—and I very much doubt them—I doubt whether many mature people would get jobs as a result of the bureaucracy, the framework of law, the civil actions, and the additional taxes and imposts on business that would result.
    The risk of such an approach is that, by adding costs and burdens to business, we might jeopardize other people's jobs—indeed, they might be older people. The right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross said that very often these days, the older age group is first at risk if there is a squeeze on employment. Therefore, there is the possibility—I put it no higher than that—of a paradox arising of the very people whom the measure is intended to help being the first to suffer from its effects.
    I hope that we will think long and hard before we go down this route too quickly because we really must examine all the implications, downsides, penalties and risks for what are not certain, but arguable benefits. I have tried briefly to identify the costs, penalties and difficulties. Even the right hon. Gentleman, in his more optimistic moments, might admit that the benefits of such a measure are at the very least doubtful. They are definitely not certain. I have the very gravest doubts about the measure and I hope that it will be considered in great detail before it proceeds further. I also hope that the House will be alerted to the likely possibility of its negative effects as well as its possible benefits.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Robert Maclennan, Mr. David Atkinson, Dr. Roger Berry, Dr. Vincent Cable, Mr. Don Foster, Mrs. Linda Gilroy, Dr. Evan Harris, Ms Linda Perham, Mr. Andrew Rowe and Angela Smith.

    AGE (PREVENTION OF DISCRIMINATION)
    Mr. Robert Maclennan accordingly presented a Bill to prevent discrimination in employment and in other matters on grounds of age: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 23 April, and to be printed [Bill 69].

    Point of Order
    4.38 pm
    Mr. Harry Barnes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Today in the Daily Mirror there is a report about Anita Froggatt, who is a constituent of mine. She had a breast removed at the Chesterfield and North Derbyshire royal hospital. The operation turned out to have been an error. It has emerged that the consultant pathologist, who has now been suspended, was also involved in a previous case. As this has implications generally for breast screening and treatment throughout the national health service, have you had any indication from the Secretary of State for Health that he will be making a statement on the matter?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): As the hon. Gentleman has a great deal of experience of the House, he will know that that is not strictly a point of order for the Chair, although these issues raise wider concerns. The answer to his question is no. There has been no such request.

    Local Government Bill [Money] (No. 2)
    Queen's recommendation having been signified—
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Local Government Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State in making grants to the Audit Commission for Local Authorities and the National Health Service in England and Wales.—[Jane Kennedy.]
    4.40 pm
    Mr. Andrew Lansley: As ever with a money resolution, I am sorry that the Minister did not rise to move it. Therefore, it falls to me to explain why we have the money resolution at all. We have it because the Government have tabled amendment No. 12, the purpose of which is to give the Secretary of State powers to make grants to the Audit Commission in respect of local authorities and the national health service in England and Wales.
    Mr. Eric Forth: Has my hon. Friend, uncharacteristically, made a mistake? He suggests that we are debating a money resolution before an amendment has been considered, or even passed, by the House. Has he got this the wrong way round? Is he saying that we are being asked to consider, debate and—presumably—approve a money resolution before the amendment that gives rise to it has even been considered?
    Mr. Lansley: My right hon. Friend's knowledge of these matters—from his years of service in the House—will doubtless be greater than mine. The Bill has had the benefit of a money resolution earlier, but a second money resolution is now required because the Government have tabled an amendment that, if it is agreed to on Report, will give an additional power to the Secretary of State to make grants to the Audit Commission—a power that was not in the Bill beforehand. Therefore, the preceding money resolution did not encompass such a power.
    My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) chides me for being wrong, but I think that I am right. The Government are proposing that the House should vote on a money resolution and then debate for the first time, by way of amendment No. 12, whether it is expedient for the Secretary of State to have such a power to make grants to the Audit Commission. While my right hon. Friend thinks about that, I will state what I see as some of the difficulties that might ensue from such a money resolution.
    First, it is not a small change in the character of the money resolution—and it may well not be small change in monetary terms, either. Sometimes a change of this kind might be a small matter, in that the Bill is an expenditure Bill and the money resolution is simply to make sure that grants can be paid to a particular authority, rather than another. However, the change in the character of this money resolution is substantial.
    As I understand it, the previous expectation of the effect of the Bill was that it would reduce public expenditure, rather than increase it. Essentially, the previous money resolution would have been based on explanatory notes published alongside the Bill, which foresaw three effects on the public finances. The first was that the Government

    181
    proposed that continuous improvement in the efficiency, effectiveness and economy of local authorities through best value would lead to a significant cost saving. That is a debatable point—and I am sure, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you would stop me if I were to debate that at length.
    It is clear from the way in which some local authorities have responded to best value that they are more concerned with finding ways, through consultation, to justify increases in expenditure on services, rather than finding ways through best value of reducing such expenditure.
    The second aspect relates to the compliance costs of local authorities. It is anticipated in the explanatory notes that such compliance costs will be encompassed within existing budgets, and will not therefore lead to an increase in total expenditure. The Minister may be aware, because of the Labour control of Brighton and Hove council, that the costs involved for that council are £180,000. If one extrapolates that to other local authorities, one is looking at potentially millions of pounds within local authorities.
    The third example relates to costs for central Government, but there is no mention in the explanatory notes of any costs arising for central Government. Only the capping powers, which will control the total expenditure of local government to some extent, are mentioned.
    The money resolution proposes for the first time an increase in central Government costs arising directly from the Bill. I was not a member of the Standing Committee, so I come to these matters relatively new—although I believe I spoke on Second Reading—but I get the impression that the Government are acknowledging at a very late stage that costs will arise and that they will need to make additional grants to compensate the Audit Commission for its extra activities as the inspection authority. As I understand it, Ministers resisted that notion in Committee.
    The Minister for Local Government and Housing (Ms Hilary Armstrong): We recognised it in new clause 5.
    Sir Paul Beresford: New clause 5, which is now clause 12, adds to the complications. A scale of fees will be set, but there is no upper limit and the Bill merely requires discussion. The answers that we got in Committee were inadequate, to put it mildly. I strongly support my hon. Friend in seeking an explanation before we even consider the resolution.
    Mr. Lansley: In his usual perceptive way, my hon. Friend has come precisely to my next point. It is perfectly clear that clause 12 provides a requirement on local authorities to pay the Audit Commission fees for inspections. What are the additional costs to the Audit Commission that will not be recovered by way of fees and need to be the subject of a central Government grant?
    Normally, we debate a money resolution in the light of explanatory notes that offer some guidance about the expenditure to be incurred, but there is no such guidance in this case. In particular, we do not know how much of the cost will arise from inspections not covered by fees and how much will relate to other activities undertaken by the Audit Commission on behalf of the Government.
    The money resolution may be inadequate, because inspection of best value will not be a function that is confined to the Audit Commission. New clause 4 refers
    182
    to a whole range of inspection authorities—including the inspectorates of fire services, schools, police and social services—that will need to co-ordinate their activities with the Audit Commission.
    My understanding—I hope that the Minister will not disabuse me of it, as that would negate many of the purposes of the best value process—is that many of those inspection authorities will also incur costs in implementing best value, which they will not necessarily be able to recover through fees under clause 12, because the power does not extend to them. Should not the costs that they are likely to incur be the subject of grant-making powers on the part of the Secretary of State?
    A large part of the Bill is devoted to the circumstances under which the Secretary of State can intervene in respect of a failing authority. The Secretary of State can exercise those functions, or can do so through a nominated person. The Bill does not make clear, however, the extent to which the Secretary of State is able wholly to meet his costs or those of any nominated person through charges levied on the local authority that is subject to an intervention. That is not explained in the Bill or in the explanatory notes.
    If costs will not be wholly met, they will arise for central Government, and may arise for persons nominated by the Secretary of State to intervene in a local authority that is failing in the exercise of a specific function. There may, therefore, be public expenditure that is not allowed for—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The hon. Gentleman is enlarging his argument beyond the narrow terms of the money resolution. He must relate his remarks to likely expenditure incurred by the Audit Commission.
    Mr. Lansley: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker; you are quite right. I was talking about what I see as a deficiency in the two money resolutions on the Bill. They may not correctly anticipate where expenditure will arise, or provide adequately for the Secretary of State to incur expenditure as a consequence of the Bill. I seek guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on whether it is in order to speak further on that matter.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not repeat the part of his speech that I have ruled out of order.
    Mr. Lansley: Thank you, Mr, Deputy Speaker. As you have correctly brought me to order, I shall not elaborate on the point.
    It seems remiss of the Government to introduce money resolutions without telling us how much money is involved and without offering guidance in the explanatory notes. In my limited experience of these matters, money resolutions are not necessarily debated, but that is often because expected costs are set out in detail in the explanatory notes.
    The Bill, however, gives grant-making powers in respect of the Audit Commission without any indication of what costs will arise or what they are intended to defray. Is the Audit Commission to receive the costs of undertaking best value inspection in local authorities, or will it be compensated by the Secretary of State for

    183
    intervening in local authorities—or for any other matter—on his behalf? Neither the money resolution nor the explanatory notes sets out the maximum level of costs likely to be incurred.
    Money resolutions are not normally contentious, but the Government have begun today's proceedings badly by tabling a late amendment that has given rise to a new money resolution. They have not provided the House with the information necessary to reach a decision on the resolution.
    4.53 pm
    Mr. Eric Forth: I echo and reinforce the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley). Ministers seem, individually and collectively, to be slow learners. They must know by now that it would help the House—and even, occasionally, foreshorten debate; I do not think that is desirable, but some people wish it—if they did the House the courtesy of speaking to their money resolutions.
    It matters not whether the resolution has to do with a private Member's Bill—I take an occasional interest in such matters—or a Bill of the Government's own. Money resolutions are an important part of our proceedings. Bizarrely, however, and time and time again, money resolutions appear on the Order Paper but there is silence from the Government. The House is presumably expected either to pass the resolutions on the nod without scrutinising them, or to wander around in something of a speculative fog, awaiting some explanation from a Minister.
    I do not for one moment suggest that my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire was in a speculative fog. I thought his analysis as sharp and clear as ever it is, given the lack of information offered to him and to the House. I must, perforce—though not at length, as more of my hon. Friends may have questions of their own—speculate a little myself.
    Like my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire, I did not have the privilege and pleasure of serving in Committee, so I come to the issues with a fresh mind—even, one might say, a delightfully innocent mind—and not one with well formed views. My mind is open to being moulded and persuaded by the Minister about the virtues of the money resolution.
    I have picked up enough information from my hon. Friends to realise that the basis for the money resolution is clauses 10 to 13 of the Bill, which set out the responsibilities laid on the Audit Commission in the policing of the best value concept. That much I understand, but then I get confused. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire pointed out, amendment No. 12—to which we shall come later—repeats the provisions in relation to the Audit Commission and the National Assembly for Wales. However, my hon. Friend did not mention amendment No. 19 which provides that
    "The Audit Commission may delegate … its functions … to … a committee or sub-committee established by the Commission (including a committee or sub-committee including persons who are not members of the Commission), or… an officer or servant of the Commission."
    184
    I assume that that means that it is possible that activities of the Audit Commission that go beyond those originally envisaged by the Bill could—and almost certainly will—involve additional expenditure. That may be one of the reasons why the Government have had to table another money resolution. Colleagues more expert than myself may elucidate the possibility that, for the first time, persons who are not members of the Audit Commission would be part of committees or sub-committees to fulfil the responsibilities laid on it by the Bill. That is new territory for the Audit Commission, its structure and activities and I can see why the Government have had to table another money resolution to support the amendments, although—paradoxically—they are not yet part of the Bill.
    What would happen if we were to approve the money resolution now but did not approve one or more of the amendments later? We would he in a peculiar position. Having said, perhaps reluctantly, to the Government, "All right, we accept that more money is needed, but we do not agree with the reason why more money is needed", would the Government return with what might be called a negative money resolution—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is a procedural difficulty that we will address if we have to. We can discuss at present, in anticipation of the new clause that the House is greatly looking forward to discussing, only the narrow scope of the extent to which expenditure may occur as a result of the Audit Commission having those powers.
    Mr. Forth: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but it puts us in an odd position, as you may agree. We would have been saved all this trouble if the Minister had elegantly and succinctly told us, at the beginning, what the money resolution was all about. I have no doubt that she would have been able to persuade us quickly, but as it is we must ask the questions and wait for the answers.
    5 pm
    Sir Paul Beresford: I was a member of the Standing Committee and I also spoke on Second Reading, when considerable concern was expressed, especially by those of us who realise the difficulties that local government may face in respect of the expenditure that will result from the Bill. The greatest concern was about the expenditure that would be landed on local authorities by the Audit Commission and the auditors. It is worth touching on the peculiar relationship between the Audit Commission and the auditors in that it involves pay and rations but limited control. There were distinct concerns about the load that the Bill would put on local government and about the fact that there seemed to be no form of restriction or hold.
    It must be a relief to local authorities that the money resolution has been introduced, because it seems that some of the expenditure will be drawn away from them. However, we have had no explanation of that, and there has been no anticipation of the size of that expenditure. If one wants to get a sense of the size of expenditure involved, one needs only to look at the recent activity of the auditor for Westminster council. After his investigation, local council tax payers were charged between £3 million and £4 million. If that amount were extrapolated—I realise that it would be an exaggeration—

    185
    or even if half the amount were extrapolated across all the sizeable local authorities in the country, the expenditure would be enormous.
    The debate on the money resolution came as a surprise to many of us, because we did not know about it until we saw today's Order Paper. We have no idea what the resolution applies to; we have been given no idea of what the total expenditure might be, nor of how great a load it will remove from local government. We do not know whether there will be any hold or restrictions on the amount of the expenditure and, if there are to be such restrictions, who will hold the reins. Is this to be one of those measures where the Secretary of State offers a broad-brush approach, saying, "Yes, I will pay", but that when we consider the secondary legislation that may or may not apply? We have yet to consider some of that legislation. Is the answer to be "yes, if and but", but, at the end of the day, local government will still pick up the tab? As my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) said, we have been landed with this resolution; there is to be a formal nod instead of an explanation. The least that we can expect is a full and clear explanation from the Minister.
    5.2 pm
    Mr. Bernard Jenkin: The money resolution arises from an intention expressed by the Minister in Standing Committee. When we discussed fees, she said—
    Ms Armstrong: It has all been explained before.
    Mr. Jenkin: The right hon. Lady is now saying from a sedentary position that it has all been explained before, but, as she well knows, a large number of hon. Members—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I apologise for interrupting the hon. Gentleman. If the Minister wants to contribute to the debate, she should do so from the Dispatch Box and not from a sedentary position.
    Mr. Jenkin: I should be delighted if the right hon. Lady would explain the matter, because many hon. Members were not members of the Standing Committee. In Standing Committee, she said:
    "We expect best value to lead to efficiency savings of 2 per cent. per year in each authority, which more than outweighs any additional costs arising from audit inspection arrangements."
    She was obviously talking about global figures and the assumption on which the Bill was drafted was obviously that no additional expenditure from central Government would be necessary in terms of grants to the Audit Commission to cover its expenses.
    The right hon. Lady continued:
    "Additional funding to meet the cost of inspections will come from the revenue support grant or from a direct grant to the commission, and we intend to table a Government amendment to make provision for it."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 9 February 1999; c. 238.]
    However, the very fact that the matter is being introduced as an amendment at this late stage in the Bill's proceedings is a confirmation that the Government had not considered that the construction of the Bill would have implications for how it is likely to operate vis-a-vis
    186
    local authorities. The right hon. Lady gave the Standing Committee various figures for the cost implications. It would at the least be a courtesy to the House if she explained the cost implications of the money resolution. Obviously, the Audit Commission has a budget of its own, but will the Minister explain the financial implications, in millions of pounds, of approving the money resolution, so that we have some idea of the cost consequences of the Bill? There is plenty of time remaining for the Minister's reply.
    5.5 pm
    Mr. Oliver Letwin: I had not intended to speak in this debate, but came to participate in the later debate on the various new clauses and amendments to the Bill, for which the House anxiously awaits. However, my hon. Friends, especially my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), have pointed out a major constitutional issue that arises from this money resolution. The reason why we have money resolutions is an interesting question. After all, it would have been perfectly possible, over time, for our predecessors to have so arranged matters—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It may indeed be fascinating to discuss why we have money resolutions, but if he is to keep in order the hon. Gentleman must address the particular money resolution before the House and the question of expenditure that may be incurred by the Audit Commission.
    Mr. Letwin: Indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I was coming to that precise point. The purpose of money resolutions is to draw to the attention of the House the purposes for which money is to be spent and the fact that money is to be spent; otherwise, it would be possible to avoid having money resolutions.
    As my hon. Friends have made clear, it is not possible for the House sensibly to discuss whether the money to be spent—in this case, on the Audit Commission—is the right amount of money, or whether money should be spent at all, without having some prior explanation. My hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire made it admirably clear that the Minister and her colleagues were intending that the money resolution should go through on the nod. That would be perfectly appropriate, had the House understood what was going through on the nod from the explanatory notes that would normally have been provided. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I hope you will not rule me out of order if I make a slight aside—
    Mr. Forth: Will my hon. Friend give way?
    Mr. Letwin: Of course.
    Mr. Forth: Is my hon. Friend endorsing the concept of something being considered and approved by the House, to use his words, on the nod, if a written explanation has previously been given? Is he seriously suggesting that Members of Parliament should play no part by reading and absorbing the written material and asking questions about it?
    Mr. Letwin: I was about to say, in an aside that I hoped you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would think was in order,

    187
    that I have some reservations about that general practice. However, it would have been within the normal conventions of the House if the money resolution went through on the nod, had it been understood what the money resolution was about; but for Ministers to move a money resolution and expect it to go through on the nod without that sort of explanation is to subvert the nature of money resolutions as a whole.
    I hope that this debate will have not only brought to the attention of the Minister for Local Government and Housing the immediate importance of explaining this particular money resolution, but reminded the Government as a whole of the future importance of ensuring that, when a money resolution is moved and the House has not had previous notice of its contents or of the sum involved—if I understood my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir P. Beresford) correctly, that sum could run into hundreds of millions of pounds—it is incumbent on the Minister to begin the debate by making a full statement and explaining to the House what is involved. Otherwise, there is no purpose in having money resolutions.
    Our predecessors did not invent money resolutions purely for the purpose of amusing themselves, their successors, or any members of the media who may be observing the proceedings. They are here for a serious purpose, which is to bring to the attention of the House the sums involved so that they can be discussed and their appropriateness properly weighed. That was not done in this case, so I hope that the Minister will now give a full explanation.
    I also hope that the right hon. Lady will take back to her Department and to the Treasury the message that we shall pursue the strategy of exposing to maximum debate any money resolution that has not been previously explained and for which the Minister does not come forward with a clear statement at the start of the debate. If Ministers do that, we shall all be spared the tedium of making speeches repeating that point, and the constitutional arrangements that our predecessors so splendidly gave us will be justified and followed in the spirit in which they were intended to be followed.
    5.10 pm
    The Minister for Local Government and Housing (Ms Hilary Armstrong): This has been an interesting debate. We might take the implications raised by the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) more seriously if he and his hon. Friends had not briefed the media this afternoon about their disruptive tactics—but there we go.
    Opposition Members have a view about how the House should address local government issues, and I am interested in that view. I am pleased to explain to the House precisely why this money resolution is required. I was taught that we should pay attention to all parliamentary proceedings—both on the Floor of the House and in Committee. If some of the hon. Members who have spoken had read the Committee's deliberations—not just that part referred to by the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin)—they would have found a full explanation of the way in which we approach such matters. The question asked by the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) was answered in
    188
    Committee, but I know that he intended to speak today, come what may. However, that takes a little of the gloss off his contribution—and we must ensure that everyone knows it.
    The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, who is responsible for this legislation, is not responsible for Ofsted, the social services inspectorate or for Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the money resolutions relating to those inspectorates are matters for the Departments concerned. A money resolution is required so that funds can be made available from Parliament in respect of the provisions set out in clause 31. Clause 31 provides that where the Bill, by virtue of any provisions within it that have financial implications, leads to the Secretary of State's paying increased sums under other enactments—
    Mr. Lansley: Perhaps the Minister will accuse me of misunderstanding again, but how can she say that this money resolution relates only to the Audit Commission because the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions has responsibility only for that body when it is a Government money resolution? If the Government intend, through this Bill, to allow expenditure to be incurred by Ofsted or by Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary, that can be included in the money resolution. If such expenditure is planned, why does it not say so in the money resolution?
    Ms Armstrong: The money that Ofsted, the SSI and Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools, Wales need is catered for in the legislation that established and govern those institutions. The clause relates to the ability of the Audit Commission to work effectively with those organisations. [Interruption.] I wish to goodness that the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire would stop winking; this is a serious business. [Interruption.] Opposition Members seek a serious response but they treat this issue as if it were a joke. It is public schoolboy humour yet again. I wish that they would grow up.
    Clause 31 provides that where the Bill, by virtue of any provisions within it that have financial implications, leads to the Secretary of State's paying increased sums under other enactments, moneys shall be made available from Parliament to meet such increases. It also provides that any costs that the Secretary of State incurs in discharging his functions under the Bill should be met by Parliament.
    I hope that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth)—I was about to call him the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire, but the right hon. Gentleman has changed his constituency—now understands the measure. He asked me to attempt to mould his mind, but that would defy anyone. I have heard of his exploits at Glasgow university, where Elvis Presley was his hero and he was the magnificent leader of a tribe of rockers or teddy boys. We look forward to him displaying his teddy boy behaviour today.
    Clause 31, however, happens to be important in a number of practical ways. It will allow, for instance, for the provision of funds to best value authorities to meet any new costs in fees for best value inspections which they incur under the Bill. It will also be used to ensure that where best value inspections are funded by central Government grant, moneys can be paid to the Audit Commission for that purpose. It will also allow for the

    189
    Secretary of State to be reimbursed for costs that he incurs, for example, by using his intervention powers. Those are three practical, important examples of why the money resolution is important.
    Sir Paul Beresford: I thank the right hon. Lady for giving way now that she is getting to the facts instead of throwing brickbats that have nothing to do with the resolution. I welcome the fact that she is moving more funds to local government to help councils with proposals that they anticipate will require heavy expenditure, but has she any idea of the costs involved? Will she give us ballpark figures? Is there any way in which the Secretary of State will be able to impose limitations on that expenditure, such as an annual ceiling imposed by order or a percentage-based ceiling?
    Ms Armstrong: I cannot, in all honesty, give the hon. Gentleman the figures that he seeks. If I attempted to do so, he would say that they were not believable because we are not in a position to give them. In the same way that we and the previous Government negotiated with local government and the Audit Commission, we shall make the figures clear, and we are discussing with the Audit Commission its expectations of those figures. As the hon. Gentleman has implied, we would need regularly to revise those figures. I assure him that we intend to make public those agreements and to apply the principles of best value to any money involved.
    Mr. Jenkin: I am now extremely confused because in Committee, on 9 February, in answer to my question, the Minister said:
    "We anticipate that the annual costs of a strengthened audit and inspection framework will be in the order of an additional £50 million a year, once the best value framework is fully operational."
    When asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) what that £50 million refers to, she replied:
    "We took account of that in the comprehensive spending review."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 9 February 1999; c. 243.]
    However, we still do not know what that £50 million refers to, and I am sure that if the Minister takes this opportunity to clarify that point, the House will be grateful.
    Ms Armstrong: We made clear in Committee precisely what we believe the increased costs will be, but we have not yet agreed the exact balance between the Audit Commission and local government, and we know that it may have to vary in particular circumstances. We want to introduce clear guidelines so that the House and people outside will know what is happening year by year. I honestly cannot give anyone those figures today, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that I have always tried to be absolutely straight with hon. Members.
    It is important that there is a balance between the amount of central Government grant and the amount to be contributed by local government. We discussed that fully in Committee. We discussed the importance of a balance that enabled both elements to be part of the settlement. That is how we intend to proceed.
    Clause 31 will enable the introduction of the duty of best value in such a way as to avoid penalising best value authorities in terms of the financial resources available
    190
    to them. It will also ensure that the Secretary of State has the resources that he needs properly to discharge his functions in accordance with best value. All parties will therefore be able to meet their legal obligations without fear of suffering financial disadvantage.
    Question put:—
    The House divided: Ayes 345, Noes 39.

    Division No. 125]

    [5.21 pm

    AYES

    Ainger, Nick

    Clwyd, Ann

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Coaker, Vernon

    Allan, Richard

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Allen, Graham

    Cohen, Harry

    Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

    Coleman, Iain

    Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

    Colman, Tony

    Armstrong, Ms Hilary

    Connarty, Michael

    Atkins, Charlotte

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Austin, John

    Corbett, Robin

    Ballard, Jackie

    Corston, Ms Jean

    Barnes, Harry

    Cotter, Brian

    Barron, Kevin

    Cousins, Jim

    Battle, John

    Cranston, Ross

    Bayley, Hugh

    Crausby, David

    Beard, Nigel

    Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

    Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

    Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

    Begg, Miss Anne

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Beith, Rt Hon A J

    Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

    Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

    Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

    Bennett, Andrew F

    Dalyell, Tam

    Benton, Joe

    Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Darvill, Keith

    Berry, Roger

    Davey, Edward (Kingston)

    Best, Harold

    Davidson, Ian

    Blackman, Liz

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    Blizzard, Bob

    Denham, John

    Blunkett, Rt Hon David

    Dismore, Andrew

    Borrow, David

    Dobbin, Jim

    Bradley, Keith (Withington)

    Donohoe, Brian H

    Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    Doran, Frank

    Bradshaw, Ben

    Dowd, Jim

    Brake, Tom

    Drew, David

    Brand, Dr Peter

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

    Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

    Browne, Desmond

    Edwards, Huw

    Buck, Ms Karen

    Efford, Clive

    Burden, Richard

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Burgon, Colin

    Ennis, Jeff

    Burnett, John

    Etherington, Bill

    Burstow, Paul

    Fearn, Ronnie

    Butler, Mrs Christine

    Field, Rt Hon Frank

    Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

    Fisher, Mark

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Fitzpatrick, Jim

    Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

    Fitzsimons, Lorna

    Flint, Caroline

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Flynn, Paul

    Campbell-Savours, Dale

    Follett, Barbara

    Cann, Jamie

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Caplin, Ivor

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Casale, Roger

    Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

    Caton, Martin

    Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

    Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

    Fyfe, Maria

    Chaytor, David

    Galloway, George

    Chidgey, David

    Gapes, Mike

    Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

    Gardiner, Barry

    Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

    George, Andrew (St Ives)

    Gerrard, Neil

    Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

    Gilroy, Mrs Linda

    Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

    Godman, Dr Norman A

    Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

    Godsiff, Roger

    Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

    Goggins, Paul

    Clelland, David

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    191

    Gordon, Mrs Eileen

    McCafferty, Ms Chris

    Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

    McDonagh, Siobhain

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    McDonnell, John

    Grogan, John

    McGuire, Mrs Anne

    Hain, Peter

    Mclsaac, Shona

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

    Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

    Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

    Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

    McNamara, Kevin

    Hancock, Mike

    McNulty, Tony

    Hanson, David

    MacShane, Denis

    Harvey, Nick

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Healey, John

    McWalter, Tony

    Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

    McWilliam, John

    Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Hepburn, Stephen

    Mallaber, Judy

    Hesford, Stephen

    Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

    Hewitt, Ms Patricia

    Marek, Dr John

    Hodge, Ms Margaret

    Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

    Hoey, Kate

    Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

    Hoon, Geoffrey

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    Martlew, Eric

    Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

    Maxton, John

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

    Howells, Dr Kim

    Meale, Alan

    Hoyle, Lindsay

    Merron, Gillian

    Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

    Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Miller, Andrew

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

    Mitchell, Austin

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Hurst, Alan

    Moore, Michael

    Iddon, Dr Brian

    Moran, Ms Margaret

    Illsley, Eric

    Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

    Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

    Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    Morley, Elliot

    Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

    Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

    Johnson, Miss Melanie

    Mountford, Kali

    (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Mudie, George

    Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

    Mullin, Chris

    Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

    Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

    Jones, Ms Jenny

    Naysmith, Dr Doug

    (Wolverh'ton SW)

    Norris, Dan

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Oaten, Mark

    Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

    O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

    O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    O'Hara, Eddie

    Keeble, Ms Sally

    Olner, Bill

    Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

    O'Neill, Martin

    Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

    Öpik, Lembit

    Keetch, Paul

    Osborne, Ms Sandra

    Kemp, Fraser

    Palmer, Dr Nick

    Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

    Pearson, Ian

    Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

    Pendry, Tom

    Khabra, Piara S

    Perham, Ms Linda

    Kidney, David

    Pickthall, Colin

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Pike, Peter L

    King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

    Plaskitt, James

    King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

    Pond, Chris

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Pope, Greg

    Kumar, Dr Ashok

    Pound, Stephen

    Ladyman, Dr Stephen

    Powell, Sir Raymond

    Lawrence, Ms Jackie

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

    Laxton, Bob

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Lepper, David

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Leslie, Christopher

    Prosser, Gwyn

    Levitt, Tom

    Purchase, Ken

    Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

    Quinn, Lawrie

    Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

    Radice, Giles

    Linton, Martin

    Rammell, Bill

    Livingstone, Ken

    Rapson, Syd

    Livsey, Richard

    Raynsford, Nick

    Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

    Rendel, David

    Lock, David

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    Love, Andrew

    Rooney, Terry

    McAllion, John

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Rowlands, Ted

    McCabe, Steve

    Roy, Frank

    192

    Ruane, Chris

    Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

    Ruddock, Joan

    (Dewsbury)

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

    Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Ryan, Ms Joan

    Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

    Salter, Martin

    Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

    Sanders, Adrian

    Timms, Stephen

    Savidge, Malcolm

    Tipping, Paddy

    Sawford, Phil

    Todd, Mark

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Tonge, Dr Jenny

    Shaw, Jonathan

    Touhig, Don

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Trickett, Jon

    Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

    Truswell, Paul

    Singh, Marsha

    Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

    Skinner, Dennis

    Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

    Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

    Twigg, Derek (Halton)

    Smith, Angela (Basildon)

    Vaz, Keith

    Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

    Ward, Ms Claire

    Smith, Miss Geraldine

    Wareing, Robert N

    (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

    Watts, David

    Smith, John (Glamorgan)

    Webb, Steve

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    White, Brian

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

    Whitehead, Dr Alan

    Soley, Clive

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Southworth, Ms Helen

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan

    Spellar, John

    (Swansea W)

    Squire, Ms Rachel

    Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

    Starkey, Dr Phyllis

    Willis, Phil

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Wills, Michael

    Stevenson, George

    Winnick, David

    Stewart, David (Inverness E)

    Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

    Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

    Woolas, Phil

    Stinchcombe, Paul

    Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

    Stott, Roger

    Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

    Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

    Wyatt, Derek

    Stringer, Graham

    Stuart, Ms Gisela

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Stunell, Andrew

    Mr. Keith Hill and

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Mr. David Jamieson.

    NOES

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

    Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Hunter, Andrew

    Baldry, Tony

    Johnson Smith,

    Bercow, John

    Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Blunt, Crispin

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Body, Sir Richard

    Lansley, Andrew

    Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

    Leigh, Edward

    Brady, Graham

    Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

    Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

    Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

    Chapman, Sir Sydney

    Mates, Michael

    (Chipping Barnet)

    Page, Richard

    Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth

    Randall, John

    (Rushcliffe)

    Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

    Colvin, Michael

    Soames, Nicholas

    Fabricant, Michael

    Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

    Flight, Howard

    Viggers, Peter

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    Gray, James

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

    Greenway, John

    Yeo, Tim

    Grieve, Dominic

    Hawkins, Nick

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Hayes, John

    Mr. Eric Forth

    Horam, John

    and Mr. David Wilshire.

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Local Government Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State in making grants to the Audit Commission for Local Authorities and the National Health Service in England and Wales.

Orders of the Day
  Local Government Bill
  As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.
New Clause 4

  COORDINATION OF INSPECTIONS, &C.
  '.—(1) In arranging for or carrying out—

  (a) inspections of best value authorities, or

  (b) inquiries or investigations in relation to best value authorities,

  a person or body to whom this section applies shall have regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State for the purposes of securing the coordination of different kinds of inspection, inquiry and investigation.
  (2) This section applies to—

  (a) the Audit Commission;

  (b) an inspector, assistant inspector or other officer appointed under section 24(1) of the Fire Services Act 1947 (inspectors of fire brigades);

  (c) Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools in England;

  (d) Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools in Wales;

  (e) a person carrying out an inquiry under section 7C of the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970 (inquiries);

  (f) a person carrying out an inspection under section 48 of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 (inspection of premises used for provision of community care services);

  (g) a person conducting an inspection under section 80 of the Children Act 1989 (inspection of children's homes, &c.) or an inquiry under section 81 of that Act (inquiries in relation to children);

  (h) a person authorised under section 139A(1) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 (reports on administration of housing benefit and council tax benefit);

  (i) an inspector appointed under section 54 of the Police Act 1996 (inspectors of constabulary).

  (3) The Secretary of State may by order provide for this section to apply to a person or body specified in the order.'.—[Mr. Jon Owen Jones.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  5.33 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Jon Owen Jones): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 95, in clause 12, page 9, line 11, after '(2)' insert
  'except that if larger, any excess shall be limited to 10 per cent. of the appropriate scale fee.'.
  Government amendments Nos. 7, 19 to 24, 10, 11, 25 and 12.
  Mr. Jones: This group contains Government amendments, with the exception of amendment No. 95. New clause 4 and amendments Nos. 95 and 7 relate to the inspection side of best value. Inspection will be an important tool in ensuring that authorities meet their duty of best value.
  194
  The Bill gives the Audit Commission new powers to cover areas for which there is no inspection function at present. The commission will work alongside the existing specialist inspectorates—the office of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools, Wales and the Office for Standards in Education, its English counterpart; Her Majesty's inspectorate of fire services; Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary, the social services inspectorate and the benefit fraud inspectorate. All those bodies will need to work with one another, and with the commission, to ensure that the overall inspection system operates smoothly and efficiently. The new clause will ensure that that happens.
  Our preferred approach is to build on the voluntary and professional co-operation that already exists between inspectorates. A new inspectorate forum in England and a separate one in Wales will be established, with all the relevant inspectorates as members. The forums will discuss matters of common interest such as methodologies for joint working and, where relevant, programming of inspections. They will facilitate the inspection of cross-cutting themes to respond to the way in which an authority carries out its fundamental performance reviews to meet local priorities. They will also provide a channel of communication between both inspectorates and other interested parties, including the inspected bodies and central Government. A central objective will be to seek to avoid unnecessary duplication of effort and additional burdens on authorities.
  In cases where the two forums are unable to provide a clear solution, new clause 4 will enable Ministers in England or the Assembly in Wales to issue guidance to ensure the smooth and efficient operation of the inspection function. Any guidance issued under the new clause will be restricted to ensuring co-ordination such as the programming of inspections of authorities, or how to approach cross-cutting performance reviews.
  Mr. David Curry: Under best value, it is up to local authorities to decide what services they inspect and in what order, so there is no prescription about that. The Minister is now saying that there will be a co-ordinating body to bring together the various inspectorates. What does he intend to do to ensure that there is effective co-ordination between what the authorities are doing and the work of the forums? Otherwise, all local authorities could decide to do education to begin with, for example, and there would be a tremendous irregularity, which would mean that many people with little to do for a large part of the time were inundated for the rest of the time. The initiative lies with the local authorities. How does that work?
  Mr. Jones: The purpose of the new clause is in part to ensure that we do not get some of the difficulties to which the right hon. Gentleman refers. It would not make sense to end up with a local authority having many inspections at the same time, and another local authority not having any inspections. It would be rather like all the buses turning up at once, rather than being spread over a sensible time. The new clause will help to ensure that we get reasonable co-ordination, so that that unco-ordinated approach does not occur.
  Mr. Curry: I shall persist. I agree with what the Minister is trying to do. It makes sense, but the initiative

  195
  on what to inspect lies with the local authorities. At county level, for example, they may decide to inspect the education services first. Ofsted inspects the schools, but it does not inspect the way in which the service is delivered at county level. If all the local authorities decide that they want to do education on day one, as it were—I am reminded of my famous question: what do they do at 9 o'clock on Monday morning? —will they not place demands on those services that cannot be met? Will there be some discussion with the local authorities to get some timetabling of the order in which they inspect, so that everyone is busy all the time?
  Mr. Jones: We will ask local authorities to deal first with the issues where they believe the greatest difficulty lies. We are trying to ensure that we have a reasonably co-ordinated policy that looks at local authorities sensibly. Because the right hon. Gentleman has taken a constructive part in the Committee, I cannot believe that his question is malevolent. Nevertheless, he is postulating a fairly ridiculous example, which is not likely to occur.
  Sir Paul Beresford: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Jones: No, because I want to make some progress. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have ample opportunities to interrupt later.
  New clause 4 also provides an order-making power to ensure that any new inspectorate bodies that may be created can be included in the co-ordination arrangements. The new clause will ensure that inspection of best-value authorities is carried out effectively, so that inspectors' comments can lead to good local services for stakeholders.
  Amendment No. 7 is concerned with an important objective of inspection: ensuring that stakeholders are fully informed of the progress of their authorities and that best value authorities can learn from each other's experiences. We think that it will be useful to give the Audit Commission the power to publish not only its own inspection reports, but relevant additional information. The amendment gives the commission flexibility in deciding what to publish, whether that is a full report, part of a report or some of the supporting documentation. That flexibility should ensure that relevant information can be published and aimed at specific audiences. We believe that there is a wider public interest in allowing the commission to publish such best value information, and the amendment would achieve that.
  I shall now deal with some of the practical implications of best value. Amendment No. 19 is designed to give the Audit Commission the operational flexibilities that it will need to discharge its best value functions as effectively as possible. The Bill gives the commission important new powers and responsibilities. It is in everyone's interest for the commission to be able to discharge those functions flexibly, making proper use of management structures and the skills of staff. Amendment No. 19, which creates freedom to delegate best value functions, is designed to promote such flexibility. It provides certainty and clarity, so that the commission can ensure that work is done by the right people at the appropriate level.
  Sir Paul Beresford: The Minister has partly dealt with the point that my right hon. Friend the Member for
  196
  Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) was trying to make about flexibility; but, having asked for a committee, we should perhaps also ask for a specific example. In fact, I can give an example. Let us assume that an incompetent authority such as Islington is being inspected for best value, and that—as has happened in the past, before the invention of best value—there is a sudden outcry about a paedophile ring in homes run by social services. Where will flexibility come in? Who will lead? How will the process be integrated? Who will respond? Will the Secretary of State make the ultimate decision about whether to reshuffle the order?
  Mr. Jones: The hon. Gentleman has given an excellent example of why the Bill is necessary.
  Sir Paul Beresford: I was trying to be helpful.
  Mr. Jones: I know. The hon. Gentleman was helpful in Committee from time to time—and I must take the word of the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), who said in Committee that he wished to be constructive, and to see best value working for the maximum benefit of local authority services. No doubt we shall see more of that constructive approach this evening.
  During the earlier stages of the Bill's progress, we consistently said that we would table amendments giving key players such as the Audit Commission the tools that they need to do their job. Amendment No. 20 is an example. It gives the Audit Commission power to inspect best value authorities, and housing is one of the areas that it will scrutinise. We expect the staff employed by the commission to include specialists, but the commission ought to be able to draw on expertise in other organisations so that it can take a rounded view of authorities' performance.
  5.45 pm
  Mr. Clive Efford: I tabled an amendment on the subject dealt with in Amendment No. 20, but it was not selected for today's debate. However, I should like to draw a comparison between my amendment and Government amendment No. 20—which recognises that local authorities do not operate in a vacuum, but that they have to work with other agencies. I have been attempting to improve the performance of best value authorities, in energy efficiency, by improving their relationships with the Housing Corporation and—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is not in order to refer to an amendment that has not been selected.
  Mr. Jones: Nevertheless, my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Efford) can be assured that the Government support his Energy Conservation (Housing) Bill and his Energy Efficiency Bill. However, we cannot debate that in our consideration of the Local Government Bill.
  The Government have provided the Audit Commission with the power to inspect best value authorities. It is important that, when appropriate, those authorities are able to utilise the best expert advice. Amendment No. 20 will facilitate such an approach. It will allow, for example, the Housing Corporation in England, at the request of the Audit Commission, to provide advice and assistance to

  197
  the commission in relation to the commission's best value functions. In Wales, the Secretary of State performs the functions of the Housing Corporation, and he will be able to provide similar advice and assistance to the commission. That will, when appropriate, enable the commission to supplement its own expertise and knowledge of the housing functions with advice and support from the corporation.
  Mr. Curry: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Jones: No.
  There is, however, no question of Housing Corporation staff being involved in the conduct of inspections, which will remain the function of the Audit Commission. The amendment also makes proper provision for the Housing Corporation to be remunerated for any advice and assistance that it provides.
  Mr. Curry: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Jones: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman wishes to take an active part in the debate, and, later in the debate, he will have an opportunity to speak to the amendments.
  Mr. Curry rose—
  Mr. Jones: No, I shall not give way now. In my brief speech on this group of amendments, I have already given way twice to the right hon. Gentleman.
  Amendment No. 20 will provide the Audit Commission with added flexibility in the manner in which it exercises its best value functions, with particular regard to the housing function.
  Amendments Nos. 21 to 23 are designed primarily to improve the Bill's drafting, and to ensure that the general provisions in clause 24 properly reflect the powers of guidance afforded to the Secretary of State elsewhere in part I of the Bill. That guidance will not always be aimed directly at best value authorities. In certain cases, although dealing with the application of best value to those authorities, the guidance will be aimed at others. An example of that is the Secretary of State's guidance power provided in clause 10, which is a power to issue guidance to the Audit Commission on the way in which it inspects best value authorities. It is an example of guidance that will be issued in respect of best value authorities, rather than to them. The guidance powers provided in new clause 4, on collaboration between inspectorates, is a further example of how the power may be used.
  Amendments Nos. 21 to 23 will improve the Bill's drafting and ensure that the scope for guidance, as stated in clause 24, properly reflects the powers of guidance provided elsewhere in the Bill.
  I therefore beg to move the amendments.
  Mr. Michael Fallon: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister said that he begged to move the amendments. I do not think that he can move them now.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Technically speaking, that is correct; the Minister had only to move new clause 4. However, he is still speaking to the amendments, so I am sure that it was only a slip of the tongue.
  Mr. Jones: My apologies, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  We believe that there is a wider public interest in allowing the commission to publish best value information. The amendment would achieve that.
  Government amendment No. 24 is designed to ensure that the approach to consultation on guidance is consistent throughout the Bill, regardless of the subject matter that it deals with or the status of the bodies to which it is addressed. Clause 24(2)(c) already provides that before issuing guidance to best value authorities, the Secretary of State or the Assembly must consult them or persons appearing to represent them. Subsection (3) makes similar provisions for consultation with the Audit Commission before guidance is issued in respect of its inspection functions.
  Amendment No. 24 is consistent with such an approach. It provides that when the Secretary of State or the Assembly uses the guidance powers under new clause 4 in respect of securing co-ordination of different kinds of inspection, they are to be under a duty to consult first with the persons or bodies that carry out those functions. The amendment gives inspectorate bodies an opportunity to make representations about statutory guidance and its contents before it is issued, similar to that enjoyed by best value authorities.
  In Committee, the Government explained in detail their approach to the commencement of the various provisions that introduce elements of the best value framework. Amendments Nos. 10, 11 and 25 are technical amendments to ensure that the clauses that were added in Committee are taken into account.
  The inspection of services provided by best value authorities is one of the key ways in which the authorities will receive feedback on their performance and in which central Government will be able to monitor the application of the policy. The Bill gives the Audit Commission the power to set a scale of fees for inspection, but to provide flexibility we shall need to pay the commission grants from central funds. The split between grants and fees, like the overall cost, is still under discussion with the commission. Amendment No. 12 makes such payments possible, ensuring that inspection can go ahead.
  Sir Paul Beresford: I want to focus briefly on amendment No. 95. As ever, we have tabled it in a helpful frame of mind. I did not realise how helpful we were going to have to be when we recognised the extrapolations governing expenditure under the Bill.
  The first half of the Bill is the sweetness and sugar for local authorities. However, the more I looked at the Bill, the more concerned I became—and so did many local authorities—about the expenditure that they were going to pick up. We referred to the problem at length in Committee and deep concerns were expressed. Some of those concerns were supposed to be alleviated by what was new clause 5 and is now clause 12, to which the amendment applies.
  When my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) questioned the Minister, the answers were muddled and disconcerting. This evening's debate has enlarged the possibilities. When we were

  199
  debating the money resolution, the Minister said that she had no idea of the expenditure or the balance between money given by central Government to the Audit Commission and fees charged to local authorities. Local authorities are not sure how much of the Bill they are going to have to pay for.
  Having listened to the Minister's comments on the new clauses and amendments, I am even more concerned, because it looks as though there will be an army of individuals so large that it will cause a bump on the unemployment statistics. I have visions of local authority inspectors, co-ordinators and specialists in the housing commission dotted throughout the country, all of whom will have to be paid. If I were a finance director or the chairman of a local authority finance committee, I would be very concerned about that.
  Clause 12 says that there will be a scale of fees for inspection. That seems well and good as far as it goes, but the commission may decide to set that scale of fees to one side, or to increase the fees or decrease them. All local authorities would be delighted if the fees were reduced, but they could go up. In Westminster and many other local authorities, the auditor, on behalf of the Audit Commission, has imposed substantial fees without any check—up to £3 million or £4 million.
  Clause 12(4) says:
  "Before prescribing a scale of fees under this section the Commission shall consult—

  (a) the Secretary of State, and

  (b) persons appearing to the Commission to represent best value authorities."

  That is a figleaf gesture towards local authorities. The commission will think about the issue, but there is no hold over it. When we were debating the money resolution I asked the Minister whether there was a ceiling. We heard some nice phrases, but she said that she could not give us any idea of the total costs. The same applies in this case. We have no idea whether there is a ceiling on the scale of fees for inspections under clause 10.
  I raised the issue in Committee, but we have heard nothing about how the expenditure will be held down. We were not told in Committee whether subsection (4) applied to subsection (3). My right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon went to great lengths to ascertain whether the Government had any idea about that and whether there would be an opportunity to restrict the open cheque book approach given to the commission. The answer was so inadequate that I was reminded of an Australian phrase—the Minister did not know whether he was Arthur or Martha on the issue.
  We have got no further forward. The Government new clauses and amendments have not helped. I hope that the Government are going to rely on amendment No. 95, which would restrict the ability of the commission to top-load the costs to local authorities. As a ballpark figure, I have suggested an upper ceiling of 10 per cent. Without such a hold on expenditure, it will be open to the commission to go way beyond that. The fees will be unpredictable and could be applied retrospectively. The size of the fees could be exceptionally damaging to small local authorities.
  The latter half of the Bill also includes two forms of capping: broad capping and specific capping, which can be subjective.
  200
  6 pm
  Yesterday, we debated a Liberal Democrat motion on council tax increases. The Minister of State spent a considerable time talking about percentage increases, but she presented her case in a fallacious way. If subjective capping can be applied to a small local authority on the basis of large percentage increases, the scale of fees could get out of hand. I know that it is hypothetical and perhaps greatly exaggerated, but the potential exists. Under the Bill—and particularly clause 12—there is no ceiling.
  I hope that the Government accept that amendment No. 95 was tabled in a helpful manner. If the Minister is not prepared to accept it, will he explain in his reply to the debate how he intends to alter the Bill—perhaps in another place—so that there will be a ceiling?
  I suspect that one approach to the matter may be through secondary legislation. That would be a mistake, as secondary legislation can easily be altered. The Government have made a habit of using secondary legislation behind closed doors to deal with difficult pieces of legislation. If such secondary legislation is brought to the notice of the House, it is prayed against, if that is appropriate.
  We need something in the Bill to reassure local authorities that they are not facing an open cheque book arrangement with the Audit Commission which, for the best possible reasons and possibly in the best possible taste, would be able write a cheque on the banks of local authorities.
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Part of the temptation on Report is to agree to every Government new clause and amendment as an admission of guilt that they have strayed and have grievously omitted vital provisions. We do not intend to treat today's debate in that way. We recognise that it is a complex Bill and that some of the issues on which we did not receive satisfactory answers in Committee are addressed in the Government amendments. By the same token, it is also legitimate for the Opposition to raise new issues.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir P. Beresford) spoke to amendment No. 95, which is a case in point. In Committee, we discussed at some length how fees to the Audit Commission should be determined and controlled. As with much of the Bill, the fate of local councils is in the hands of the Secretary of State as guidance issued by the Secretary of State will determine the fee scales.
  My hon. Friend expressed a simple concern—that the Audit Commission does not provide a service that local authorities can choose to buy, but one similar to that of the liquidator of a business. On the dissolution of a business, the liquidator charges his fees, come what may. It is a monopolistic situation, as most local councils will not have the option of looking for a cheaper quote elsewhere. In most circumstances, my hon. Friend is quite right to insist that the Bill should not write blank cheques to bureaucrats—and that is what they are—allowing them to go about their business at somebody else's expense without any heed to the consequences. That is a great danger.
  My hon. Friend's amendment is entirely justified: as soon as the fees hit a certain level, the Audit Commission would effectively be making a loss on the services

  201
  provided to a local council and would not recoup their full cost. That dovetails with the Minister's proposal that the Audit Commission should receive a grant from central Government to cover some of the costs. Central Government would then have a role in limiting the activities of the Audit Commission so that it could not do what it wanted willy-nilly, but would be under an obligation to carry out its function efficiently and effectively and to do no more than was required by the Bill.
  Sir Paul Beresford: I accept what my hon. Friend is saying, which is interesting. The difficulty is that the taxpayer would fund a central Government grant. During our debate on the money resolution, the Minister of State gave us no indication as to whether there was a ceiling. She said that there would be discussions, but at the end of the day there may need to be a ceiling. We are considering only the local government aspect of the issue, but there is more to come.
  Mr. Jenkin: I am sure that the Minister who will be replying to the debate heard my hon. Friend's point; I hope that he will address it.
  New clause 4 gives the Secretary of State another new power. The Bill already provides a huge number of new powers—on Second Reading we counted 27. The 28th is to issue guidance to co-ordinate
  "different kinds of inspection, inquiry and investigation".
  We welcome the new clause. The Minister said that it would cover matters that are not currently inspected. I would be grateful for examples. In my opinion, the new clause has more to do with the collision between various inspecting bodies that would occur under best value. Until now, the different inspection bodies have had fairly segmented tasks. However the all-embracing scope of best value gives the Audit Commission itself all-embracing scope.
  In Committee, we explored the danger that the Audit Commission would be inspecting the same matters as the benefit fraud inspectorate, Ofsted or other bodies involved in inspecting various aspects of local government. Although there are already memorandums of understanding between, for example, the Audit Commission and the benefit fraud inspectorate on how local authorities deal with council tax benefit and housing benefit, we always thought it a little optimistic to expect that system to suffice across the board for eight or nine bodies dealing with complex issues. We drew attention to the risk that authorities could indulge in what might be described as inspectorate arbitrage—similar to regulatory arbitrage—whereby different authorities would play off various inspectorates against each other rather than ensure that there was a seamless web.
  Mr. John Hayes: My hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley
  (Sir P. Beresford) drew attention to the costs involved. Will my hon. Friend comment on the effect on the confidence and morale of those in local government who will find a new inspector in every corridor? That is hardly in the spirit of local democracy.
  Mr. Jenkin: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about the all-embracing nature of the intervention powers in
  202
  the Bill. New clause 4 underlines how penetrating the inspection regime in local authorities will now be. The new clause is designed to ensure that every single nook and cranny of local government is covered by one inspectorate or another. No stone will be left unturned by the men from Whitehall. The Bill is taking us in that direction.
  Mr. Andrew Hunter: My hon. Friend has been a little over-generous, even in his qualified welcome for the new clause. Surely it undermines, and is incompatible with, the Government's objective of breathing new life into local government.
  Mr. Jenkin: That remains one of our fundamental objections to the Bill. However, the Bill is likely to become law, and we are in favour of the objectives of best value; it is the methods about which we have expressed distaste. If the Bill becomes law and the all-embracing methodology of inspection, audit and control is to be imposed on local authorities, there must be a framework.
  In Committee, we were assured that there would not be a risk of different inspectorates playing off each other. The inspectorate forum, which the Minister mentioned, is meant to ensure reasonable co-operation. The Government have admitted despair about the capabilities of such a forum on its own, and they recognise that some guidance will be necessary.
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for trying to address the Bill constructively. However, when he and some of his colleagues criticise the amount of inspection under the Bill, their criticism must be of other parts of the Bill. New clause 4 does not increase inspection; it simply attempts to co-ordinate that inspection so that it proceeds sensibly. I cannot see why Opposition Members would wish to have an unco-ordinated series of inspections, rather than a co-ordinated one.
  Mr. Jenkin: The Minister's sensitivity speaks volumes about what he might feel in his heart about the intrusive nature of the Bill. However, I accept what he says. If we are not to have different inspectorates overlapping or missing things out—which is not the intention of the Bill—some co-ordination will be necessary. What was envisaged in Committee was clearly inadequate, so we give the new clause a qualified welcome.
  What does the Minister expect the guidance to say? Will it be voluminous, or general? Will it be particular to particular authorities? Another Government amendment widens the scope of the guidance that the Secretary of State can issue in other circumstances. Is that guidance intended to be for different authorities in different circumstances, or is it purely general guidance to deal with all kinds of local authority in all circumstances?
  Does the new clause treat the Secretary of State as meaning also the National Assembly for Wales?
  Mr. Jones indicated assent.
  Mr. Jenkin: That point has been dealt with, then, but I hope that the Minister will address the previous point.

  203
  Government amendment No. 7 does not require the Audit Commission to publish a report—and that is the burden of my complaint. Clause 13(3) says that the Commission
  "shall send a copy of the report to the authority concerned."
  The amendment proposes to add that it
  "may publish a report and any information in respect of a reports."
  The Minister was expansive about the flexibility that the measure would give to the Audit Commission. However, I have a rather different point from that raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley. Obviously, there must be some way of protecting confidential information, particularly that which relates to personal or distressing circumstances.
  6.15 pm
  One can imagine circumstances in which there might be pressure on the Audit Commission—possibly from the Secretary of State in a political capacity, or possibly from an affected council. We know plenty of councils that might want to hide things that the Audit Commission might want to put in a report. I am worried that the Audit Commission might come under pressure and that, in cases of real corruption, individuals within it might be caught up in underworld pressure involving threats to life and limb.
  Would it not be safer to specify an obligation to publish, but to provide for the specific circumstances and material that should not be published? A general enabling provision, so that the Audit Commission may publish what it considers to be appropriate, could leave the Audit Commission holding a rather hot coal. It would also put it in a political situation—something we should not ask of public servants. The amendment, as tabled, is not satisfactory.
  Government amendment No. 19 caused me surprise. It concerns the ability of the Audit Commission to do its job. If it is to carry out its functions, I am staggered that the draftsman took until this point to discover that the Audit Commission itself would not be able to carry out all the functions and might need to delegate to a committee or sub-committee, or to an officer or servant.
  If such an amendment has been tabled on Report, it underlines our concern that there are likely to be many other issues in the Bill that are not dealt with. The Government would not claim perfection for the Bill, just as we would not claim perfection for the Opposition. However, for the Minister to take until now to decide that the Audit Commission might require a little outside help is distressing.
  Sir Paul Beresford: My hon. Friend talks about "a little help". However, I am concerned that the more we look at the Bill, the bigger the "little help" becomes. There is the prospect of an army of helpers, as more than 600 local authorities will all have inspections. An army is waiting to be born.
  Mr. Jenkin: My hon. Friend leads me to my next point; who might the helpers be? If the Audit Commission were to delegate to a committee or sub-committee, would it be comprised of employees and/or officers of the Audit
  204
  Commission, or would it be an outside body? What about a "servant" of the Audit Commission? Could a servant be a sub-contractor?
  It seems to me that the Audit Commission has come to the Secretary of State with a plea for help. He has been given considerable obligations, powers and responsibilities, and he will have to expand his already considerable empire to enable himself to be more efficient. It adds to the impression that the Government are feeling their way down the path of inspection, rather than having a clear view of the way ahead.
  Mr. Andrew Lansley: Amendment No. 19 would allow the Audit Commission to delegate any of its functions under this part of the Bill, including making recommendations to the Secretary of State that he make a direction, under clause 14, removing a specific function from a local authority. Does my hon. Friend consider it appropriate for the Audit Commission to delegate that specific function?
  Mr. Jenkin: It may be worth exploring that excellent point. I do not doubt the bona fide of the Audit Commission, in that it will supervise its functions effectively, but circumstances have arisen in which independent people who have been appointed have taken their own line on individual issues and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley suggested, have run up huge costs. Perhaps in another place it could be considered whether it is appropriate to have that power in the Bill.
  Amendment No. 20 probably arose out of the drafting of new clause 4. It is about filling in the gaps and providing for the cost of additional advice for the Audit Commission. The odd thing about it is that, if I have understood it correctly, it also provides for additional fee generation for the Audit Commission. It is a complex amendment, and one on which my more experienced colleagues may want to question the Minister.
  We accept that amendments Nos. 21 to 23 are broadly technical, but they widen the Secretary of State's power to issue guidance under clause 24. It is one thing for the Secretary of State to have the power to issue guidance
  "to best value authorities…or to one or more particular authorities",
  but quite another to issue it to other bodies "in respect of those authorities.
  I am not sure that the Minister gave us a full explanation why that additional power is strictly necessary. Any guidance issued to the Audit Commission or any other inspectorate is provided for under another part of the Bill. We thought that this part was purely about local authorities.
  What are the "bodies concerned" in amendment No. 24? Are they the bodies to which guidance is being issued? If so, why does not the amendment say so? The Minister referred to the bodies that carry out the functions, but "bodies concerned" is a vague and unsatisfactory formulation. Are we talking about bodies to which the guidance might refer or bodies to which the guidance is directed?
  The Minister for Local Government and Housing accused us of disruptive tactics when we discussed the

  205
  money resolution, but I regarded her answers as unhelpful. We are still all at sea about the Bill's exact money implications. In Committee, she said:
  "We anticipate that the annual costs…will be in the order of an additional £50 million a year".
  We do not understand whether that is to come from fee generation or from Government grant. The Minister also took it upon herself to say:
  "We negotiated this through the comprehensive spending review."
  She cannot have it both ways. Either the Government are all at sea as to the money consequences, or they are not. Amendment No. 12 does not clarify any of the issues, but it provides the power for the Secretary of State to provide the grant in aid to the Audit Commission to cover unspecified costs. That is entirely unsatisfactory.
  Mr. Lansley: The Minister chided me for not looking for answers that were supposedly in the Official Report of the Standing Committee, but the answers to my points were not there. The most charitable account of what happened is that, in Committee, the Minister was saying that the increased cost of the best value audit and inspection framework would be about £50 million a year, which would be money well spent if it generated savings through greater efficiency; but she was talking about costs that would be met through the revenue support grant or local authority expenditure, within the comprehensive spending review, whereas now Ministers are seeking to take powers, under amendment No. 12, to make grants to the Audit Commission, which was not contemplated in Committee.
  The Minister for Local Government and Housing (Ms Hilary Armstrong): Yes, it was.
  Mr. Jenkin: With the greatest respect, I must correct my hon. Friend. I do not know why the Minister finds it so amusing, but she drew attention to the deficiency when she said:
  "Additional funding to meet the cost of inspections will come from the revenue support grant or from a direct grant to the commission, and we intend to table a Government amendment to make provision for it."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 9 February 1999; c. 238–43.]
  I do not regard it as satisfactory that we were left in that position in Committee and that we are only now discussing that amendment.
  We were told that the overall cost of inspection would be about £50 million a year—a suspiciously round figure—but the Government are absolutely no nearer to working out the public expenditure consequences for the Exchequer. Will 10 per cent. or 90 per cent. have to be provided centrally? They will not or cannot say. I do not think that they have the foggiest idea, which suggests that the whole process of best value is still very much an unknown quantity.
  Sir Paul Beresford: When we discussed the money resolution, we had a vague response from the Minister about the fact that money would be paid to the Audit Commission and some would go through local authorities. There was no clear explanation of how the grant would be worked out, whether the standard spending assessment applied or whether the process would be as subjective as
  206
  many of the Government's other actions in relation to local authorities. Favoured local authorities do well, but others get artificially lambasted, as some were last night.
  Mr. Jenkin: I entirely agree. That underlines how the Bill is very much an enabling Bill. The Government want to take powers without being specific about how they intend they should be exercised, or what the cost will be. We find that entirely unsatisfactory.
  The Minister confirmed that, for the purposes of new clause 4, the Secretary of State is equivalent to the National Assembly for Wales. Why, therefore, does amendment No. 12 make specific and separate provision for the Secretary of State and for the National Assembly for Wales?
  6.30 pm
  Jackie Ballard: I shall be somewhat briefer than the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin). We Liberal Democrats are surprised at the level of Conservative concern for local democracy this evening. I am sure that we shall have plenty of time tonight in which to write a dissertation on whether that concern would remain if ever the Conservatives returned to central Government.
  We welcome new clause 4 and its recognition of the need to avoid unnecessary duplication of effort. It is, if I may use the term, a more joined-up approach to inspection. I hope that the Minister may elaborate a little more on progress towards establishing the inspectorate forum.
  Government amendment No. 24 is especially welcome as it extends consultation on guidance.
  We accept much of the Conservative argument about the extra cost of audit inspections for local authorities and about how the authorities feel powerless to control or influence charges. That is also a problem for small parish councils for which the audit process charges can be quite out of proportion to budgets. If there is a Division, we shall support amendment No. 95.
  Government amendment No. 20 requires the Housing Corporation to assist the Audit Commission, establishing the precedent of placing duties on the Housing Corporation in the Bill's long title. I welcome that, but I feel that the amendment would have been more useful if it had also required the Housing Corporation to issue energy efficiency guidance to its members. To place such a duty would clearly be in order, and I hope that the Minister will confirm that such an amendment would be looked on sympathetically in another place.
  Mr. Curry: The trouble with the Liberal Democrats is that they have never taken part in central Government. Coming exclusively from local government, they do not appreciate the need for a sensible balance between the two. They tend to say that whatever local government wants is right, and whatever central Government want is wrong. The world does not work that way. We must seek a sensible relationship between the two that recognises the overriding obligations of central Government while still allowing meaningful freedom for local government. The Bill does not take us towards that objective.
  Mr. Jenkin: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the hon. Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) wanted the

  207
  Bill to deal with energy efficiency, she was capable of tabling an amendment? To plead with the Government for such an amendment when she has not tabled one seems an extraordinary way in which to scrutinise the Bill.
  Mr. Curry: I hope that if she had tabled such an amendment, it would not have been selected.
  Jackie Ballard: For information, let me tell the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for North Essex that if they examine the amendments tabled, they will find that such an amendment was tabled, although it was not, for technical reasons, in my name. It was tabled, but it was not accepted for debate.
  Mr. Curry: The amendment was not selected. No doubt it was outside the Bill's scope, or had been thoroughly debated in Committee.
  New clause 4 is welcome because we sought effective co-ordination between inspections. The trouble is that it illustrates two things: first how extensive the inspections are, and, secondly, the practical difficulty of co-ordination and the burden that it will place on the co-ordinator. New clause 4 lists the inspections to take place, including the classics such as Ofsted, the police service, the fire service and the social services. It also includes the inspectorates dealing with community care, the Children Act 1989 and benefit fraud. It further includes the Audit Commission itself.
  May I suggest a future candidate for the list? Under the Government's food standards legislation, the Food Standards Agency will have powers to inspect local authority health monitoring, and will be able to take over its running, put it out to tender or ask another local authority to do it. That is highly analogous to what happens in the Bill.
  Ms Sally Keeble: Does the right hon. Gentleman concede that many inspection functions were created by the Government in whom he was a Minister? Presumably, he could have sought greater co-ordination. Why did he not do so then, instead of complaining about the Government now?
  Mr. Curry: Some inspections are being set up by the Government. It is not my purpose to say that inspection functions are not necessary. However, there comes a time to take stock of how functions can be discharged and the costs of providing a local authority interface with the functions.
  My concern is the practical working of inspections. The Secretary of State will issue guidance, and the Minister has hinted that it will put responsibility on the Audit Commission as the co-ordinating body. I understood the Minister to say that it would be light in its operation. It is not intended to be institutional, to set up committees, or to need a headquarters or a chief executive. It will all be done by some gentlemen's agreement, on the basis of common sense.
  However, the sheer number of inspectorates involved raises the fear that the Audit Commission, which has a specific role involving the health service and local authorities, will find the task of controlling, monitoring
  208
  and co-ordinating inspectors to be increasingly time consuming. Its own important functions have contributed enormously to local government's measurement of services. The Government rely on the commission as the linchpin of those services.
  Sir Paul Beresford: The other aspect raised by the Minister was flexibility. My right hon. Friend is questioning how the organisation will operate. Flexibility must be taken into account. Inspections may be co-ordinated and organised before it is revealed—as in the example of Islington—that there is a paedophile ring in children's homes. Will all the inspections be dropped in such a case? Where does flexibility come in? Who pays?
  Mr. Curry: That is precisely the problem I want to explore. Local authorities are responsible for initiating the best value sequence of inspectorates. The Government do not intend to prescribe the order in which it will happen.
  Ms Armstrong: For the record, let me say that the local authority will be responsible for promulgating the review programme, not the inspection programme, which is external. The internal responsibility of the authority will be to review both through and across service functions within a five-year period.
  Mr. Curry: The Minister is right, but she demonstrates the problem rather than resolving it. If the local authority's job is to identify which areas it wishes to be inspected, the danger is that many local authorities will seek to make inspections of the same services at the same time. A county council's main functions are education, social services and roads. If all county councils decide—as I suspect many will—that they want to start with the education services, especially after the settlement this year which has left them severely underfunded—[Interruption.] That is no longer in dispute, despite the fact that Ministers giggle whenever the council tax is mentioned in the House.
  Mr. Lansley: Given that authorities themselves will undertake performance review activities and inspectorates of various kinds will make inspections, does my right hon. Friend agree that the interrelationship between them is important for those who are trying to manage the services? It is, therefore, curious that the local authorities will not be included in the co-ordination function in new clause 4, in the same way that the inspectorates have to agree between themselves.
  Mr. Curry: I agree with my hon. Friend that there is a real danger that the two ships will pass in the night—the inspectors on their way to the local authorities and the local authorities on their way to the inspectors. I do not minimise the problems of the co-ordination that the Audit Commission will be asked to perform. I am a great fan of the commission. The Conservative Government set it up, and the Labour Opposition of the time voted against it, but it has now become one of the central figures in the Labour Government's firmament. However, I do not wish the commission's central functions to be disfigured, clouded or overwhelmed by a co-ordinating function. It is dangerous for any organisation to ask people to co-ordinate things rather than to do things. Many people find that the job of co-ordinator turns out to be the biggest

  209
  non-job in any organisation, because the people one wishes to co-ordinate are busy doing what they have to do and often resent co-ordination that is thrust upon them.
  Mr. Hunter: Would it not be better if the energy of Government was directed at improving the effectiveness and efficiency of the autonomous inspection bodies rather than the creation of an overseeing, co-ordinating apparatus, which may not improve the performance of those autonomous bodies?
  Mr. Curry: I have to tell my hon. Friend that, in Committee, it was the Opposition who spotted the dangers of the absence of co-ordination and the difficulties that local authorities would have in coping with it. We need to be assured that local authorities will be involved in the process of co-ordination, so that they are not being co-ordinated at, but co-ordinated with; otherwise, the system will not work.
  Ms Keeble: The right hon. Gentleman is ridiculing a process that is very important to local government. For example, proper co-ordination between those inspecting children's services—the social services inspectorate, the police and the Audit Commission—might have detected the problem of paedophile rings in children's homes, which the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir P. Beresford) mentioned.
  6.45 pm
  Mr. Curry: I was not aware that I was ridiculing the process at any stage, especially as it was the Opposition who raised the problem in Committee. My concern is that if the Audit Commission is given those powers, its functions will be at risk because it will have to devote so much time to the co-ordinating function. I wish to ensure that the local authorities are involved in the co-ordination so that they are able to timetable what they want to do, and the Secretary of State is aware of that. In that way, the system could work effectively. I shall be interested to see the guidance that the Secretary of State issues on that point and, in a few years' time, what resources the Audit Commission has received to devote to the task.
  The Minister referred to Government amendment No. 20. He said that the Government intended to permit the Audit Commission to draw on the expertise of the Housing Corporation, but not to have people seconded to help with inspections. I agree that local authority housing services should be inspected as they have been some of the most chronically inefficient services, partly because many councillors have always liked the patronage that running a large housing estate has brought with it. When we were in government, we experienced resistance to the transfer proposals, and I am delighted that this Government are pressing ahead with those proposals. Indeed, the present transfer proposals are the most extensive we have seen. The age of social housing is passing, not least because fewer and fewer people want to live in social housing—a fact that the Government have registered.
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones: Simply because housing stock is transferred and is no longer under the direct control of local authorities, it does not cease to be social housing.
  Mr. Curry: That is true; it depends to whom the transfer is made. An increasing number of transfers are
  210
  made to local housing companies, in which the local authority retains a stake. However, the classic transfer is to housing associations. Why cannot the Audit Commission draw on the expertise of the housing association movement? It may be able to, but that is not clear. The Housing Corporation, however good it is—and it is very good—does not actually run any stock, although its equivalent in Scotland does. The Government should draw on the expertise of the housing associations, especially as the largest of them have volumes of stock exceeded only by some four local authorities in England. Some of the big northern housing associations have far more stock than the majority of local authorities and, given that the inspections are about the management on the ground, including their expertise would be a useful innovation. I hope that the Minister, when he winds up, will say that the Audit Commission, as well as drawing on Housing Corporation expertise, will be able to reach out to the housing association sector—which is part of the private sector in its legal and financial status, but in practice is part of the social housing movement—to draw on its expertise.
  I welcome new clause 4. Co-ordination is important, but it should be understood that saying, "We are going to co-ordinate", does not necessarily achieve what we want. The actual burden may be considerable and it is important that it does not blur the key functions and blunt the point of the Audit Commission's activities. I hope that the Minister will review the situation from time to time to see how co-ordination works in practice, so that co-ordination does not get in the way of the inspection process.
  Mr. Fallon: This group of amendments typifies the tack-handed approach of the Government to local government. First, they overlay the councils with the best value framework in the most bureaucratic way possible, and then they have to come back to the House after realising all the implications for staffing, resources and co-ordination. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) that co-ordination is important, but it is the Government who created the mess and who now want to claim the credit for amendments that will help to co-ordinate the process.
  I wish to speak specifically to Government amendment No.19, which caught my eye when it was first tabled, and I wondered whether there was a precedent for it. Can the Minister tell us whether the Audit Commission is empowered in exercising any of its other functions to recruit people who are not members of it? With respect to my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), that is the key point. The amendment will allow people to participate in the work of the Audit Commission who are not commissioners, officers or servants of the commission. Before we agree to the amendment, we must be clear about who those people would be, how they would be selected, what role they would perform and how they would be trained.
  I am grateful to the Minister for lifting the veil a little. He spoke about management and flexibility of staff, and referred to the staff of the commission. However, we are discussing people who will not be on the staff of the commission: amendment No. 19 provides for people to work for the commission who will not be on its staff. What role will they have? Will it be an executive role? Will they be part of the administrative audit arrangements? Will they have a supervisory role?

  211
  Will they be delegates of the commission, or will they be merely advisers, as the Minister seemed to imply when he referred to the need for specialist advice, using the Housing Corporation as an example? Obviously, specialist audit advice can be brought in by the commission for any of its functions, but, in respect of the amendment, we need to clarify the function of those who are not members of the Audit Commission. Will they have full administrative functions and work alongside the usual staff, or will they simply be advisers?
  Will the Minister tell us how those people will be employed? Will they be paid? Will they be temporarily recruited from other audit bodies, or will they be people with local government experience, such as former local government officers? Will they be trained? As I understand it, when they begin their work, they will have all the authority of the Audit Commission, so we need to know a little more about the terms, conditions and status of their employment.
  The Bill seems to be an inspectors' charter. I am worried about its effect not only on local councils—explained so eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir P. Beresford)—but on the inspectors themselves. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon reminded us, the Audit Commission was set up by the Conservative Government. He pointed out that the commission's work should not be sidetracked into work of co-ordination, but under the amendment, its work would be dissipated and subcontracted to other people. It is important for the morale and direction of the commission that its functions should not be scattered among a host of advisory committees or supervisory boards that include some people from the commission and others recruited only for specific tasks. When the Minister winds up, I hope that he will go a little further on amendment No. 19 than he did in his opening remarks.
  Mr. Hunter: I regret that I was not a member of the Standing Committee, but I have carefully studied the reports of its 15 sittings and believe that I understand the main arguments that were deployed.
  I want to restrict my comments to new clause 4. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) will not consider me to be too off-message if my view is slightly less generous than his. The Minister urged us to welcome the new clause, but we should do no such thing. Its inclusion in the Bill at this late stage may be regarded as an acknowledgement that the Government were wrong in the first place, although I acknowledge that my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex would not want us to emphasise that point too strongly.
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones: Will the hon. Member explain to the House what he believes to be the purpose of the Committee stage of a Bill? Does he think it deplorable for a Government to introduce amendments as a result of discussions in Committee?
  Mr. Hunter: That intervention does not amount to much. All hon. Members are aware of the integral importance of the Committee and Report stages of a Bill. My argument is that a provision so essential to the co-ordination of the Government's strategy was omitted and that we have had to wait until this late stage for it to
  212
  be introduced. That is the only point I wanted to make. As for the wider argument, I shall not detain the House for long and shall summarise my position on the matter.
  In so far as new clause 4 gives the Secretary of State the power to give guidance on the manner in which the Audit Commission and others carry out their inspection of local authority services, including the schools inspectorate, the social services inspectorate, inspectors of constabulary appointed under section 54 of the Police Act 1996 and others, it confirms some of my worst fears about the Bill. I believe that those fears are shared by some of my hon. Friends. The Bill's origin forms the criterion by which I judge it. The Labour party's pre-election commitment was that it would breathe new life into local government and that is the sole criterion by which the new clause and the Bill as a whole should be judged. That is a laudable objective and one to which Conservative Members would subscribe, but the tragedy is that the Bill in general and new clause 4 in particular will have precisely the opposite effect.
  I acknowledge that new clause 4 defines that which previously lacked definition and clarifies that which was previously unclear in the Bill, but that does not make it any more acceptable. The need for greater definition and clarification was convincingly illustrated in Committee by my right hon. and hon. Friends, and although I admit that the new clause removes some of the Bill's original ambiguity, in reality it focuses attention on the fact that a tranche of new powers will be handed to the Secretary of State, and that an onerous and bureaucratic inspection regime will be created by the Bill. To quote from the new clause, that is what
  "securing the coordination of different kinds of inspection, inquiry and investigation"
  will mean in practice.
  New clause 4 extends the Secretary of State's powers to intervene and underlines the powers already given to the Secretary of State by the Bill. The Government have moved a long way from the 1997 general election manifesto commitment that
  "Local decision-making should be less constrained by central government, and also more accountable to local people."
  The reverse will be true under the Bill in general and the new clause in particular. Local decision making will become more, not less, constrained by central Government and local government will become more, not less, accountable to central Government and less accountable to local people. Not one iota of the Bill—and certainly nothing in new clause 4—honours the Labour party's pre-election commitment to the decentralisation of power.
  7 pm
  The horrific reality—I believe that it is horrific—is that new clause 4 extends the power and influence of the Secretary of State into the inspection of areas of local administration that are best left clear of his ad hoc guidance. The Audit Commission, the fire services inspectorate, Ofsted, the social services inspectorate, persons carrying out inspections under the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990, housing benefit and council tax benefit administrators, and inspectors of constabulary will all be required to respond to the interventionist diktat of the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State's scope for intervention will not be

  213
  limited to only those bodies listed in new clause 4; he will have the power to extend his influence to other named bodies. My hon. Friend the Member for North Essex opened his speech on Second Reading with the words:
  "If the Bill promotes light, truth and harmony in local government, consensus, partnership and a better community spirit, we will be right behind it."—[Official Report, 12 January 1999; Vol. 323, c. 133.]
  I would argue that new clause 4 will help to achieve none of those desirable objectives.
  The Bill was bad enough prior to the appearance of new clause 4. The draconian powers the Bill already gives the Secretary of State will mean that the best run councils will live in fear of a Secretary of State exercising those new, wide-ranging, discretionary powers sanctioned elsewhere in the Bill. However, the addition of new clause 4, which obliges the various inspecting bodies and persons to have regard to the Secretary of State's guidance, means that the Secretary of State will, of his own volition, make up the rules by which the authorities shall be judged; and he will have the power selectively and subjectively to judge those authorities, to intervene and, in the last resort, to take over. So much for the principled manifesto declaration that is the starting point of the Bill:
  "Local decision-making should be less constrained by central government, and also more accountable to local people."
  Mr. Eric Forth:I confess that, at this stage in the debate, my sympathies lie more with my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) than with my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin). Even at this early stage in what promises to be lengthy deliberation, I have heard more than once and understand full well that it was my right hon. and hon. Friends who raised these issues in Standing Committee and persuaded the Government to table their own new clause on Report—so far, so good, one might think. However, I share the reservations expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke, although for different and what some might call more mechanistic reasons.
  Sir Paul Beresford: As one of the few hon. Members present who was a member of the Standing Committee, I should emphasise that our having made a request for co-ordination on which the Government have acted was a last-gasp stand. We pointed out to the Government that, if they were going to implement their proposals, there was a plethora—an army—of organisations that needed either to be dealt with or co-ordinated with. It was not a case of having a choice, because the original choice was a bad one.
  Mr. Forth: I accept that argument; however, my concern is that my hon. Friend is adding to the army by laying an entire new officer corps on top of the army in an effort better to co-ordinate its actions. As my remarks unfold, he will learn that I doubt whether that will be effective.
  Sir Paul Beresford: I note my right hon. Friend's point. If I had a choice, I would choose to hope that the Government would take the hint, reduce the numbers and try to pull everything together. That is the point that we tried to get across to the Minister when we asked him how
  214
  he, the Secretary of State and the plethora would be likely to react. If my right hon. Friend were to suggest that we reduce the number of inspectorates and co-ordinate their armies by pulling them together, I would certainly support him.
  Mr. Forth: That may be an argument worth pursuing, although it is difficult to see how we could do so at this stage in our proceedings without going out of order. Perhaps it is a matter for another place to consider.
  My first concern arises from that part of new clause 4 which states:
  "a person or body to whom this section applies shall have regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State for the purposes of securing the coordination of different kinds of inspection, inquiry and investigation."
  Here is our old friend, guidance; immediately in my mind arises uncertainty about whether that will genuinely be guidance, or whether it will in some way be mandatory or binding on the bodies concerned. Real guidance may be given and even received in good faith, but then not followed to any great extent. The core dilemma at the heart of this group of amendments is that if the legislation is to be effective, the "guidance" will have to be mandatory, but if it is merely guidance in its true sense, the legislation might not be effective at all. That is an unresolved difficulty that lies at the heart of the proposals.
  Mr. Fallon: If the guidance is mandatory, that cuts clean across the independence of some of the bodies listed in new clause 4 which were set up to be independent not only of local government, but of the Secretary of State.
  Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend has anticipated my next point, so I am grateful to him for leading me naturally to it. Looking at the list of the bodies covered by new clause 4, which were helpfully listed by the Minister in his opening speech and are even more helpfully listed in the new clause, I wonder how far bodies so different in their nature and mission—a ghastly word—will be subject to being brought together in a co-ordinated fashion, given their independence and their integrity, which we should respect at all times, and, more importantly, given the differences in the work that they do.
  One need only consider the work carried out by the range of bodies covered, from inspectors of fire services, through Ofsted—a body with which I am more familiar—to inspectors of social services, children's homes and social security fraud. Each of those bodies is so different from the others in its objectives, the way in which it works and the responsibilities it discharges that I wonder to what extent any mechanism could draw all of them together and co-ordinate them in the way that both the Government and my right hon. and hon. Friends want.
  Mr. Dominic Grieve: Was it not the Prime Minister himself who said that he wanted to replace what he regarded as a feudal system of government in this country with a Napoleonic system, which implies administrative tutelage? Is not what appears in the new clause a serious matter, in that it suggests that there will be administrative tutelage through bodies that were previously thought to be independent?
  Mr. Forth: I wonder whether that is the case and I hope that my hon. Friend, who has a better grasp of

  215
  history than I, will explore that argument later—I certainly could not do it justice. My own points to some extent reflect the reverse side of his argument.
  Having made it clear that all of the bodies listed in new clause 4 are extremely different in nature, I now turn to the aspirations the Minister expressed in his opening remarks. He spoke about voluntary and professional co-operation, which is all good stuff. I am amazed that he did not say "partnership", as it is about the only buzzword that he did not use—oh no, he did not mention "boom and bust", which might have been too difficult for him to get into that speech; nevertheless, I am sure that we shall hear the phrase later.
  The Minister talked about voluntary and professional co-operation and, crucially, about an inspectorate forum, which he said would examine the methodologies, programmes and cross-cutting themes—another ghastly modern phrase that I do not fully understand. We are beginning to see a picture emerging of how the Government imagine the process will work. A forum will bring together very different bodies—the fire people, education people, children's home people and the benefit fraud people—that will sit around and discuss their methodologies, programmes and cross-cutting themes.
  An optimist might imagine that that process could result in a co-ordinated approach or unified thrust. However, a pessimist—which I tend to be; after nearly nine years in Government, how could I be anything else—might worry about what would happen if the bodies could not agree about methodologies, programmes and cross-cutting themes. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) said, given their independence and integrity and the very different nature of their work and experiences, what will happen if those bodies cannot agree about methodologies, programmes and cross-cutting themes? Are we still talking about a framework of guidance or about the Napoleonic approach that my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) mentioned?
  Mr. Fallon: New clause 4(1) makes clear what must happen: the bodies must have regard to the guidance. My right hon. Friend said that there might be confusion. However, the Secretary of State might simply say that there should be no inspection of school services in London boroughs in the year leading up to the borough council elections.
  Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend obviously believes that the guidance would include that level of detail—
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones indicated dissent.
  Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend has an answer to his question, and I gather from the Minister's body language that the answer is no.
  Mr. Jones: I hesitate to intervene because the right hon. Gentleman is enjoying himself in his usual manner. I ask him to try to be serious for a moment and to consider
  216
  the important issues that Governments of all colours must consider. If we are trying to ensure that less children are abused—
  Mr. Jenkin: Fewer children.
  Mr. Jones: The hon. Gentleman corrects my grammar. The important point is that fewer children should be abused. It is extremely important to co-ordinate the work of various inspection bodies so that they can co-operate and attain a common theme rather than work alone.
  Mr. Forth: I do not see how fewer children will be abused if the fire service is included in the discussions of the inspectorate forum. That is my point. Unless we can identify a common approach—[Interruption.] The Minister thinks that, because he comes to the Dispatch Box and mentions the protection of children, that is the end of the argument. That is not good enough. I am trying to make a different point: will the inspectors of children's homes and the fire service have a sufficient commonality of purpose to be useful in forum discussions? I have my doubts about that.
  I can go further than that. Even if there were a degree of commonality, what would happen if the bodies disagreed? We know what will not happen because the Minister has told us. So an element of doubt remains as to whether the forum will be of any positive use or value.
  Mr. Fallon: My right hon. Friend has been extremely generous in giving way. It is not simply a question of confusion. The Minister revealed in his intervention that he is seeking a common theme for the forum. He wants to impose on behalf of the Secretary of State, a common theme on bodies that are independent of the Secretary of State and that have been set up as independent bodies by the House.
  Mr. Forth: That is the more sinister interpretation that could be made of Ministers' motives. Although the Minister tried in his opening remarks, he has not provided a sufficient level of detail of his thinking or of the motivation behind the new clause to enable us to understand how the process will work. I made notes, as best I could, of the Minister's speech. I paid close attention to him—even though he is not paying close attention to me—in an attempt to understand what was in his mind. It would appear that I have failed, as has my hon. Friend. There is an unresolved problem with the inspectorate forum as to how effective it will be and whether it can realistically achieve the objectives that the Minister has set for it.
  7.15 pm
  We then come to the vexed question of the involvement of local authorities. My right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) and other hon. Friends raised that issue, which remains unresolved. Perhaps the Minister will tell us in his reply that local authorities will be subsumed in new clause 4(3), which states:
  "The Secretary of State may by order provide for this section to apply to a person or body specified in the order."
  That sounds very much like our old friend the all-embracing, sweeping-up provision that says, "If we haven't already thought of it in new clause 4(2),

  217
  paragraphs (a) to (i), we will put it in subsection 3, into which we can insert almost anything". That might be where local authorities will be addressed because the Bill does not mention them anywhere else that I can see. That matter has already concerned my hon. Friends and I hope that the Minister will provide comprehensive reassurances in that regard.
  Will the Minister also explain how he views the relationship between inspecting bodies, which are listed helpfully in new clause 4, and local authorities, which are in a completely different category? If they are to sit around the table at the inspectorate forum—we do not yet know whether they will—it will add another complication to the methodology of that forum that may undermine its possible unity of purpose even more than I have suggested.
  The Minister also introduced our old friends, who I thought had long since departed the political scene but who have been resuscitated for the purposes of this debate—the stakeholders. They have made a dramatic reappearance and will apparently form a key part of the process that new clause 4 will introduce. The Minister said that the stakeholders would learn from each other's experiences, which develops an earlier theme involving methodologies, programmes and cross-cutting themes. One must assume that the fire service will learn from the experience of the inspectors of children's homes and that the benefit fraud inspectors will learn from the experience of Ofsted; otherwise the exercise has no point. I am at a loss to understand quite how that will happen and what the value will be for the different bodies.
  A new bureaucracy will be created—albeit in response to my right hon. and hon. Friends' requests in Committee. I hope that they are beginning to regret those requests because there will be an additional army to supervise the existing army to which my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir P. Beresford) referred. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends are thoroughly ashamed of themselves because they have let a bureaucratic genie out of the bureaucratic bottle. I shudder to think what the cost will be.
  To allow matters to proceed apace—I sense that several of my hon. Friends are itching to contribute—I shall refer briefly to amendment No. 19, which my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks also mentioned. I referred to that amendment briefly in my comments on the money resolution, but it is appropriate to return to the matter now. The amendment demonstrates what might—again, we seek the Minister's guidance—be a radical new departure for the Audit Commission. The amendment says:
  "The Audit Commission may delegate any of its functions under this Part to … a committee or sub-committee established by the Commission (including a committee or sub-committee including persons who are not members of the Commission)".
  My hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks raised that point, and he was right to do so.
  The amendment goes on to refer to
  "an officer or servant of the Commission",
  but I am not too worried about that. However, when we start referring to
  "persons who are not members of the Commission".
  I wonder if we are breaking new ground. How confident is the Minister that moving in that direction will enable us to ensure the continuing high quality and integrity of the Audit Commission's work, with which we have all become familiar over the years?
  218
  The amendment would "delegate" functions to committees or sub-committees—we are already talking about one or two removes from the commission—and, further, to persons who are not members of the commission. That provides the potential for a dilution of the quality of the Audit Commission's work which may begin to endanger the whole process. I tentatively suggest that we are entitled to have that worry.
  I hope that I have said enough to demonstrate that there are sufficient questions and anxieties about the group of amendments to explain why I have not yet been able to join my right hon. and hon. Friends in welcoming it. I remain to be convinced by the Minister about the additional or best value, or whatever phrase one wants to use, that the amendments would bring to the Bill. I shall, as ever, listen carefully to the Minister's reply. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke and I share the same unhappiness and reservations about the amendments, and unless the Minister does a lot better than he did when he spoke to the amendments, I shall remain unconvinced of their merits.
  Mr. Lansley: I am grateful for the opportunity to add a few words on subjects that have not so far been fully addressed in the debate on this group of amendments.
  I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) for correcting me on amendment No. 12, which relates to the making of grants to the Audit Commission. My hon. Friend will correct me again if I am wrong, but I think that I am correct in saying that two questions were raised in the debate on the money resolution which also arise on amendment No. 12 and to which satisfactory answers have not been given. The first, which has been mentioned by several of my hon. Friends, is what proportion of the increased cost of the inspection and audit framework—which has been estimated at £50 million—will be defrayed through grants to the Audit Commission and what proportion will be met through the normal mechanisms for funding local government activity, and then, presumably, recovered by the Audit Commission through fees that are charged.
  The second question is my own and I may have missed an answer being given on this point. It is still not clear whether the Secretary of State will accept costs by making a direction under clause 14 to take over an authority's specific functions or whether those costs or those of any nominated person under that clause will wholly be defrayed by the local authority to which such a direction refers. I would be grateful if the Minister could answer that point.
  I want first to deal with new clause 4 and then with amendment No. 19. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex that it is helpful that in Committee Ministers took note of a lacuna that was identified in the Bill, in that it does not contain an mechanism for adequate co-ordination between inspection authorities, and they have dealt with that in new clause 4. However, it will be useful if we examine for a moment the position not only from the standpoint of the inspection authorities, but on the basis of the exchange, to which I contributed, that took place between the Minister and my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon
  (Mr. Curry). That exchange concerned the standpoint of the local authority, the services that it provides and the manner in which it tries to keep to the spirit of the best

  219
  value framework. It is generally accepted on both sides of the House that we are trying to make a success of that concept.
  The starting point for an authority trying to manage its services effectively is that, increasingly, it is having to manage its cycle of activity under the best value framework in relation to other cycles. For example, the local performance plan is to be produced on an annual basis in co-ordination with a consultation cycle—part of the best value concept is that services should be provided on the basis of adequate consultation—a budget cycle and an audit cycle. It must also be co-ordinated with data collection and publication of performance indicators. The local performance plan must therefore orientate itself around a series of annual cycles. Such co-ordination is difficult to achieve and will pose management and other challenges for the services concerned.
  In addition, the authority will have to consider how it undertakes adequately its best value programme of reviews. It is intended that over five years, each part of the authority's services should be reviewed, starting with the weakest. That is not simple. It is clear to me, not least from reading the document, "Better By Far: Preparing for Best Value", which was helpfully produced by the Audit Commission last December, that an authority that conducts that programme conscientiously will have to tackle rather difficult issues. In the best value pilots that have been conducted so far, the mechanism of a service-based review has conventionally been used. That is to say that the education service, social services department or housing service was reviewed.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) referred to cross-cutting themes, which are another way of conducting such a review. For example, a local authority might ask itself, "By what mechanism are we setting out to comply with the duties placed on us to maximise community safety?" That cuts across a number of services, hence the concept of cross-cutting themes in trying to review services to find out whether they provide best value.
  Equally, one could approach the review on an area basis. One could examine all the services provided by an authority in a particular area and find out how they interact. That might be useful. I remember that in the debate on unitary authorities, when county councils were defending their right to exist rather than be broken up, they were conscious of their increased need in future to review the management of their services and to provide a better service for a given area. An area-based review might be peculiarly appropriate for authorities that have had that debate in the past.
  I have fixed on customer focus as a particularly useful method of review. It has been one of the lesser-used methods in best value pilots and in the past when local authorities have tried to meet best value objectives. Such a review would, for example, deal with children in local authority homes. I remember participating in the report of the Select Committee on Health about children looked after by local authorities. In such cases, the customer focus review is terribly important; otherwise, as we know, the failings of local authorities—I shall not elaborate on them—in accurately co-ordinating the relationship
  220
  between their education service and their social services may lie at the heart of their failure to provide best value to those customers.
  Local authorities are wrestling with the problem of what method to use to conduct best value reviews. Those may include area-based reviews, service-based reviews, cross-cutting themes where those apply, but particularly, reviews based on customer focus.
  7.30 pm
  If best value has a purpose additional to the competitiveness and efficiencies that were gained in the past and could be gained in the future through the application of compulsory competitive tendering, it is peculiarly apt that local authorities should pursue their activities not on the service basis of review, but on some other basis, alongside the normal regime of service reviews.
  That will lead local authorities away from the service basis of review, and will mean that they are often conducting reviews that are not congruent with the service basis of inspection that occurs under the various inspection authorities detailed in new clause 4. If we increasingly bring together inspection by those authorities, and the best value activity of local authorities, we may find that we begin to force local authorities back into the straitjacket of service-based review, rather than the other models of review that are helpfully referred to by the Audit Commission and which I have just described.
  On balance, I think it would be inappropriate to oppose new clause 4, but perhaps Ministers might consider for another place a further improvement to it. The responsibility of the Audit Commission and the other authorities to receive guidance from the Secretary of State in relation to their inspection activities must be related to the Audit Commission's responsibility to audit the performance review plans of local authorities.
  That will allow the performance reviews in the various forms that I outlined to begin to mesh better with the inspection programme of the various authorities; otherwise, there will be a great heaping up of different review timetables—the annual cycles to which I referred, the review programmes set up in the local authority, some on a service basis and some on another basis, and the programme of inspections on a service basis.
  Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend has been much more generous to the proposal than I was. He is implying some sort of leading role for the Audit Commission, which is not the way that I read new clause 4. I understand the Audit Commission to be one of many bodies, including all the other inspection bodies and possibly the local authorities—we do not know that yet. Is my hon. Friend saying that he would be happy with the proposal only if the Audit Commission were given that leading co-ordinating role, or is he content with the new clause as drafted?
  Mr. Lansley: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. The manner in which he asks the question crystallises the point that I am trying to make. I shall try to answer him.
  At present, the Audit Commission has a leading role only in relation to the question of when inspections should occur. It should be explicit in new clause 4 that the Audit

  221
  Commission has a responsibility to liaise in the performance review activity of local authorities, in which the local authorities should play an integral part in showing the Audit Commission on what basis they are conducting their review, why they are doing so and according to what timetable.
  The Audit Commission will also have a connection with the various inspection authorities and will be able to link the two, so that the inspections conducted by the various inspection authorities, including the Audit Commission itself, do not begin their assessment at an inappropriate moment—for example, if a given service in a local authority is about to be the subject of fundamental review.
  None of that means that the local authority can determine when the inspections should take place by the social services or any other body. Sometimes it will be in the nature of an inspection authority that the local authority cannot defer or influence the timing of inspection, because the inspections should be entirely independent of the local authority. The Audit Commission has the status and ability to liaise between the two types of activities and try to make sure that they work together effectively, rather than cutting across one another.
  It is clear that in the past, some inspection activities have occurred with a focus on compliance with the statutory responsibility of local authority services, but with no recognition of the intimate relationship between that and the management of a service, so that the service can be delivered more effectively. The example that I have in mind, which may be familiar to some hon. Members, is the management of child protection services in Cambridgeshire.
  It was clear at an early stage that the social services inspectorate was engaged in examining what was happening in Cambridgeshire because it had fallen down on its statutory responsibilities to children, but that the main reason for that was the poor management of the activity in the service. The professional activity was not wholly deficient—many of the professionals worked well—but the management was poor.
  To achieve best value in services, we must bring together review of management, which is essentially an Audit Commission responsibility, and the review of professional practice, which was the social services responsibility. It follows that that must be managed together with the best value and performance review activity of local authorities. For all its merits in respect of the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex, new clause 4 could go further in linking the aspects that I have highlighted.
  I shall comment briefly on Government amendment No. 19. I raised the matter with my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex and have been thinking about it further. Again, it is not sufficient to oppose the amendment. It should be further studied by Ministers and in another place. The question is whether it is appropriate for the Audit Commission to be given the power under amendment No. 19 to delegate all its functions under this part of the Bill to
  "a committee or sub-committee including persons who are not members of the Commission, or…an officer or servant of the Commission".
  The particular point that I have in mind is the ability of the Audit Commission, if it finds that a service is failing, to make a recommendation to the Secretary of State that
  222
  he should make a direction under clause 14, which could go as far as to transfer a function from the authority to the Secretary of State. That is a pretty potent power and a pretty important recommendation for the Audit Commission to make.
  Under those circumstances, it would be reasonable to reconstruct that part of the Bill, if it is so amended, so that although the Audit Commission can delegate its functions, if it is minded to make a recommendation of the kind that would lead to a direction under clause 14, that should be decided by the commission, rather than by any committee, sub-committee or person acting on a delegated function.
  On balance, I agree with my hon. Friend that new clause 4 should receive our support, but with the substantial reservations expressed by my right hon. and hon. Friends and me.
  Mr. Grieve: I shall be brief and focus on new clause 4 and amendment No. 95.
  New clause 4 should not be allowed to pass without further comment. I said earlier, not entirely tongue in cheek, when I intervened on my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) that in the Bill, the Government were going down the road of administrative tutelage. That expression is well known on the continent and refers to a total system of government which is under central elite control through a bureaucracy which is run and politically directed. It is a system of government that does not commend itself to me.
  Best value does commend itself to me. I perfectly understand the concept. If the Government say that they want local authorities to provide best value, I shall not stand in their way and would welcome it. Various Governments have tried to secure best value. Indeed, the pedigree of a best value project is a Conservative one. We should applaud the Government for wanting to go down that road. But central to Britain's administrative system is the independence of those organisations which exist to determine whether best value is being provided. That is what the Audit Commission and the various inspectorates listed in new clause 4 are all about. That is what they are designed and supposed to do. Yet new clause 4 suggests that the Government intend that, in future, the power of such bodies to control the way in which local authorities function will go way beyond the sort of remit that I would have expected them to have.
  I am mindful that the Secretary of State can already give guidance under existing regulations, but when it comes to reform, I view the Government's project as a package. Therefore, I am even more deeply suspicious because I cannot divorce what new clause 4 is trying to do from a host of other Government legislation which is about administrative centralisation. Most extraordinary is that that is from a Government who pride themselves on having sold devolution. However, as we know, having given with the one hand, they try to claw back with the other.
  New clause 4 is a highly suspect project. It appears to give unfettered power to a Government, who are highly acquisitive of power, to direct local authorities by administrative means and to fetter the very independence which the Government said at the election they wished to enhance. That is contrary to what the Government promised, but in conformity with what the Government have delivered in their first two years in office.

  223
  The Bill has received its Second Reading and had a long Committee stage—in which, mercifully, given the long hours that were spent on it, I did not have to participate—but, as the pass has been sold, it is incumbent on us to try to save something from the wreckage. That is why amendment No. 95 so commended itself to me when my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir P. Beresford) asked me for my views on its drafting.
  The impositions that will be placed on local authorities in respect of possible interventions by those various bodies are potentially extremely onerous. One of my hon. Friends referred to the extraordinary effect that such audits have on parish councils, accounting for the disappearance of between 50 and 75 per cent. of their budget.
  But that is as things exist at present. Most extraordinary is that a series of measures are being introduced whereby the intervention of various bodies delegated by the Government under their guidance to carry out investigation will be non-stop. Under this project, the cost will fall entirely on the local authorities, with the Government setting the guidelines on how much it will all cost.
  That is a manifest unfairness. Given the local Government settlement for last year and the previous year, when I had occasion to go to see Minister for Local Government and Housing at least once, the Minister knows well that, in the tension over Government expenditure, the tendency to pass over to local government expenditure for which the Government are not prepared to fork out, and to do it by sleight of hand, giving the impression that the fault for not providing the service lies entirely with local government, is a temptation for Governments of all political hue, but the Government are clearly going even further down that road.
  Some limit must be placed on this. For once, I have some faith in local authorities, because most local authorities are not so inefficient and ineffective that they require the close tutelage which the Government intend to place upon them. If that is what the Government intend to do, they should limit the burden of cost on those local authorities.
  If it were a question of local authorities committing some impropriety I would be the first to accept that the burden should fall on them. But this is a case of local authorities simply being told that they will have various inspections imposed on them for which they will pay. Therefore, amendment No. 95 seeks to ensure that, over a particular level, that cost is limited. I commend that to the House and I am grateful to note that the Liberal Democrats also think that there is merit in the amendment. I hope that, at the appropriate time, the amendment will be put to the vote.
  7.45 pm
  The way in which Government amendments have been introduced on Report clearly signals the close control that the Government intend to exercise over local authorities. This is not the partnership that was proclaimed at the election. I frankly admit that one of the criticisms that I had of the 18 years of Conservative Government was that, in our drive for fiscal and economic efficiency, on
  224
  occasions we overrode the need for effective local government. What I find so extraordinary is that, far from wanting to reverse that, which is something which I would have at least tacitly supported and applauded on a selective basis, the Government are going much further and, instead of the tried and well tested system of allowing local government autonomy and interfering only where there is need, the autonomy will completely disappear, and the powers being taken by the Government in new clause 4 are all part of that. For those reasons, I oppose the new clause.
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones: When I moved the new clause I welcomed the constructive approach adopted by the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) in Committee and his determination to ensure that best value worked to good effect. However, in the past few hours, Opposition Members have made few constructive comments. Unfortunately, the Opposition's Janus-like view seems set to continue.
  The hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir P. Beresford) spoke of an army of inspectors. However, by enabling co-ordination and the co-opting of expert advice, the Government's new clause and amendments help to ensure effective and economic inspection.
  The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), who is no longer present, raised concerns about the number of inspections, a general theme among Opposition Members. Whether deliberately or otherwise, they seem to have misunderstood the nature of the inspection envisaged in the Bill.
  In Committee, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Housing referred on numerous occasions to the lightness of touch of inspections, saying that they would be triggered only by such things as the auditors' report or other serious causes for concern. It is not as though inspections will occur for no good reason, and will be the order of the day, occurring continuously. That is the impression that any member of the public listening would have got from Opposition Members, perhaps deliberately so.
  Sir Paul Beresford: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Jones: No, I shall not give way. For three hours I have been listening to the repetitious comments of Opposition Members. Very few of them were meant for serious consideration, but I want to address the serious points that were made.
  The hon. Member for North Essex asked a number of questions and I shall try to answer some of them. He gave some welcome to new clause 4 and its attempt to ensure co-ordination, but he asked for an example of what the guidance would be. The inspection forums should, first and foremost, undertake the co-ordination functions for the various inspectorate regimes. Guidance issued by the Secretary of State or the Welsh Assembly would be a last-resort power used only when the forums had failed to agree. The failures in the forums would serve as indicators of what should be included in the guidance and, therefore, I cannot be specific about what the guidance will say until we see what causes disagreement.
  The hon. Gentleman also asked some questions about amendment No. 19, as did other hon. Members.
  Mr. Jenkin: That pretty inadequate answer is an admission that the Government are applying for yet

  225
  another power for they know not what, because they are making it up as they go along. That absolutely characterises the nature of the Bill. The Minister criticises Conservative Members, who are raising legitimate concerns. [Interruption.] I can understand why he is not enjoying the experience, because his answers are so inadequate.
  Mr. Jones: The hon. Gentleman knows that it is in his best interest to appeal to the Conservative Members sitting behind him, but he has my answer.
  Amendment No. 19 deals with the Audit Commission's powers to delegate. The Audit Commission Act 1998 provides for such powers in the undertaking of the commission's present functions. The Bill extends the commission's functions and the amendment simply allows it the same power to delegate in respect of best value as it has in other areas.
  The hon. Gentleman asked why amendment No. 12 specifically refers to the Welsh Assembly. It does so because that amendment relates to clause 31 which is in part III, where the substitution provided for in clause 27—the Bill's Welsh clause—does not operate. Clause 27 is in part I.
  The one non-Government amendment is amendment No. 95, which would restrict the flexibility of the inspector to vary his fee in respect of an inspection where significantly more work was involved than he had originally envisaged. That variation has been deliberately built in to cater for exceptional circumstances. If an inspector were to uncover acute failure, the fee could easily be greatly exceeded. The drafting of the clause reflects that of the Audit Commission Act 1998. When carrying out an audit, it is usual for the auditor and the authority to agree the approximate cost in advance, with the authority being informed during the audit whether any significant variation is likely to be necessary.
  Sir Paul Beresford: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Jones: No, I will not.
  We expect that inspections will work in a similar way. In order to retain the flexibility to deal with situations in the most appropriate and cost-effective way, I ask Conservative Members to withdraw their amendment, although I have little confidence that their answer will be affirmative.
  The hon. Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard), who is not in the Chamber at the moment—
  Mr. Forth: Typical.
  Mr. Jones: I shall try to be gallant; having sat through the past three hours, I can well understand why the hon. Lady is not present. She asked whether the amendment relating to energy conservation could be included in the Bill. That amendment has not been accepted because it was not in order; if another can be drafted which is in order, we will consider it.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 5

  REQUIREMENT FOR OVERRIDING ORDER
  '(1)In the event of the Secretary of State's powers under sections 5 (2), 5 (4), 6 (2), 7 (4b), 7 (4c), 7 (4e), 7 (41), 7 (5c), 9 (5), 10 (2), 10 (3) and 14 of this Act not being exercised in respect of a particular best value authority within any period of three years after the coming into effect of this Act, the powers in this Act shall only be exercised in respect of that authority subject to an overriding order under this section.
  '(2) No such order shall be made under this section unless a draft has been laid before, and approved by resolution, of each House of Parliament.
  (3) Such an overriding order shall itself expire if at any time a period of 3 years has elapsed during which none of the Secretary of State's powers specified in subsection (1) have been exercised.'.—[Mr. Jenkin.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Jenkin: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 83, in clause 13, page 9, line 24, after 'State', insert
  'subject to section (Requirement for overriding order) above'.
  Mr. Jenkin: The new clause is all-embracing. The Under-Secretary of State for Wales, who wound up the previous debate and is leaving the Chamber, accused us of being Janus-like in our opposition to the Bill, but more Janus-like is the Labour party's attitude, which produced the Bill in the first place. The expectation, from all the body language and attitude of Labour Members when they were in opposition, was that they would give powers back to local authorities and reverse the trend of centralisation which, we have to admit, occurred under the Conservatives.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Nick Raynsford): They confess.
  Mr. Jenkin: Yes, we confess. There were many constraints upon us that required us to take powers to central Government, but that was never a process that we enjoyed, and I suspect that the Labour party is enjoying that process even less. If ever an expectation were dashed, this is it; the Bill takes 27 new powers for the Secretary of State over the activities, functions and finances of local government.
  The whole purpose of the Bill is make improvements in respect of activities undertaken by local authorities. The Labour party promised to abolish compulsory competitive tendering, but the best value powers over the activities of local authorities are more penetrative, more all-embracing and more comprehensive than the relatively limited competitive tendering powers.
  The Labour party also promised to abolish what it called crude and universal capping, a phrase that was flourished at Labour party conferences in times gone by to give the impression that Labour was against capping. Attaching the term "crude and universal" to capping, suggested that capping was crude and universal by nature, but we now know that Labour meant that it would abolish one kind of capping and replace it with another.

  227
  We could say that the Bill modernises capping, but I do not think that many people are impressed. As for the introduction of council tax benefit subsidy limitation—[Interruption.] The Minister for Local Government and Housing asserts that I am out of order, but Mr. Deputy Speaker is quite capable of making that judgment on his own.
  Council tax benefit subsidy limitation is a totally new concept and there was no promise, pledge or even hint of it in the Labour manifesto. In Committee, the Minister said, "Yes, we have extended our manifesto commitment", as though that was likely to be welcomed by local authorities. They bitterly oppose the measure, rather in the same way that the governing party bitterly opposed the housing benefit clawback introduced by the previous Conservative Government.
  8 pm
  Sir Paul Beresford: My hon. Friend has been too generous to the Government. Universal capping has been brought back, in effect, as council tax benefit clawback. What they have done with the second part is bring in subjective capping in a vicious way; it could be applied extensively, viciously and selectively, even on a purely political basis. We have seen the beginning of a trend. The standard spending assessment has been utilised to redistribute funds—
  Mr. Fallon: Manipulated.
  Sir Paul Beresford: Or manipulated, as my hon. Friend says. It has been manipulated to shift funds to friends, colleagues or crony councils throughout the country.
  Mr. Jenkin: I agree with the points that my hon. Friend makes.
  As I said on Second Reading, we approach the Bill from the perspective of an Opposition party that is re-evaluating its policies on local government. My right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) has been making it clear for more than a year that we are reassessing our view of local government. He said to the Local Government Association conference last year—[Laughter.]
  I note that the Minister for Local Government and Housing is laughing, but my right hon. Friend got a better reception at the conference than she did last year, and I bet that she is not looking forward to it this year. He said on that occasion:
  "I am committed to local decision-making and to effective local government."
  He went on:
  "all of us in this room must think about how we can once more make local democracy vital and effective"—
  something which the Minister for Local Government and Housing seems to have forgotten about very quickly as she has settled into her comfortable ministerial office. He added
  "As we carry out our thinking our guiding principle will be this: we believe that decisions in our society should be taken as closely as possible to the people affected.
  228
  If we can achieve more independence and more accountability for local authorities, with all the tough choices and difficult responsibilities that entails, then we should be able to strip away the controls that fetter councils—including capping.
  I want to be able to trust local government to take serious decisions affecting local people without the risk of heavy-handed intervention from central government."
  That is the objective of our policy. That is what the amendment seeks to achieve.
  I was struck by some of the reasons that were advanced in favour of capping in Committee. The Minister for Local Government and Housing used two in particular which caused me amusement. She said:
  "We have said consistently that we do not run away from the fact that there is a national interest which—in terms of this country ever being ready to adopt the euro and make those changes—is the amount of its debt. The amount of a country's public borrowing is one of the Maastricht criteria: it is an aspect of the national interest, which is very important."
  I never thought that I would hear monetary union advanced as an argument for capping local authority expenditure.
  The Minister was a little more honest later when she said:
  "The Government have a responsibility to local council tax payers to retain reserve powers to protect them, if necessary—as we promised in our manifesto."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 23 February 1999; c. 466–69]
  There is a legitimate reason, perhaps, to maintain controls over local authority taxation, but not perhaps over the overall local authority budgets.
  The argument is a constantly developing one. A most interesting paper that was produced by Peter Watt, senior lecturer in economics at the university of Birmingham, advances an argument that perhaps puts local authority spending and, in particular, local authority taxation into perspective. Our amendment seeks—I will come to the detail of it in due course—to set a sunset on the general regulation of local authorities, particularly with regard to capping.
  I have no doubt that the argument will be advanced against the amendment—whatever its detail may be—that capping is necessary in the national interest, but Mr. Watt points out that the macroeconomic gain in controlling local authority expenditure is very limited. He points out that council tax is about—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should return to the details of the new clause, as he suggested that he might do soon.
  Mr. Jenkin: I am advancing the argument, which is implicit in our amendment, that capping will reach the end of its useful life and should be phased out. The amendment provides a mechanism by which capping powers in the Bill will expire. I have no doubt that the Government will advance the case that those capping powers are necessary in perpetuity. I advance the argument that it is possible to run a good economy without necessarily having such close control over a relatively small part of our national expenditure.

  229
  Various arguments are advanced: we need a balanced budget; the shift between private and public spending causes inflation. However, the theory is based on the assumption that households do not benefit from local authority services.
  Ms Armstrong: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman could perhaps tell us which amendment he is speaking to because I think that he is speaking to the next group of amendments.
  Mr. Jenkin: I beg the House's pardon. When I said amendment, I meant new clause 5. I am grateful to the hon. Lady for putting me right.
  It is also argued that increased council tax feeds into the retail prices index; the argument was advanced extensively during our period of office. However, rates and now council tax should perhaps not be in the RPI; there is a question as to whether they do have an inflationary effect. Money taken out of council tax feeds directly into the economy in another way. Even if council tax is in the RPI, it is not clear that an increase in—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The new clause relates to best value reviews. The hon. Gentleman should come to the nub of the argument.
  Mr. Jenkin: The nub of the argument is that the emphasis that has hitherto been placed on the importance of capping for its macroeconomic effects has been overstated, but I will curtail my comments on that score.
  It is important to understand that bitter opposition to the Government's capping powers, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir P. Beresford) explained in his intervention, are much wider than the capping powers that the Government inherited, has come from august organisations that otherwise provide much support for the Government. They include the Local Government Association. It also opposes, or has expressed reservations, about the considerable powers in the Bill relating to best value. It also opposes the council tax subsidy limitation, which the new clause seeks to curtail.
  The new clause creates circumstances in which the best value review powers, the capping powers and council tax benefit limitation powers will be gradually curtailed. The association says that council tax limitation will hit the poorest areas hardest, and that the guideline increases for council tax benefit limitation could be viewed as a direct substitute for the crude and universal capping that the Labour party says it opposes.
  Mr. James Gray: Am I right in thinking that new clause 5—the sunset new clause—will mean that the provisions with regard to capping will expire after three years? Is that my hon. Friend's suggestion?
  Mr. Jenkin: I am making the case for the new clause and then I will explain its detail.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) has tried to steer the hon.
  230
  Gentleman back towards the new clause. I should be grateful if he would deal specifically with the details in the new clause.
  Mr. Jenkin: The new clause refers to the requirement for an overriding order. Let me turn to the details. It refers to a number of powers that may be exercised—[Interruption.] I am finding it difficult to concentrate, because the Minister for Local Government and Housing keeps giving advice in a stage whisper.
  New clause 5 specifies a number of powers to be exercised by the Secretary of State in the best value process. Its purpose is to specify the powers which, if not exercised within three years of the implementation of the Act, would cause all the powers in the Act—including council tax limitation and capping powers—to expire. [Interruption.] The Minister seems slightly hysterical. Perhaps she should drink a glass of water and lie down for a bit. I am perfectly willing to accept that the drafting of the new clause may be imperfect, but its purpose is clearly to provide for circumstances in which all the powers in the Act would expire.
  There is, however, a fallback for the Government. If the Secretary of State needed to use the powers later because a local authority had not performed as it had been expected to and was causing difficulties, they would still be available—subject to an order that would have to be proved by resolution of both Houses of Parliament.
  Mr. Forth: I hoped that my hon. Friend would specify circumstances in which the Secretary of State's powers might not be exercised in the way described by the new clause. I readily follow the logic behind "in the event of this, that and the other", but I want to know in what circumstances my hon. Friend imagines the wording of the new clause would be invoked.
  For what it is worth, I have always assumed that the Secretary of State would be anxious to use the new powers in the Bill. I think that my hon. Friend said earlier that there were 28, but no doubt more will come. The new clause, however, suggests that the Secretary of State may not use those powers. I find that intriguing: in what circumstances might the Secretary of State not use them?
  Mr. Jenkin: My right hon. Friend has asked a key question. We were constantly assured that the reserve powers in clause 14 would be fallback powers, to be used only in extremis, and that the very existence of the best value process would cause sweetness and light to break out in local authorities, so that the Secretary of State would not be required to intervene. It is possible that the drafting is too broad in respect of some of the powers specified in the new clause, but the key point is this: when an authority is essentially well behaved and is applying the principles of best value through self-discipline in conjunction with the monitoring of the Audit Commission, surely it is entirely reasonable for the other powers that the Secretary of State has over the local authority to expire, returning to the authority the powers that we want authorities to have.

  231
  I remind the House that the objective of the time-limiting of capping powers was discussed in Committee. Indeed, I believe that a member of the Minister's party tabled an amendment proposing that the capping powers should expire in 2005.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The debate is not about capping powers. The hon. Gentleman must refer specifically to new clause 5.
  Mr. Jenkin: I may be under a misapprehension in regard to the drafting of my own new clause, but it states that, in the event of the powers in the first part of the Bill's not being exercised,
  "the powers in this Act shall only be exercised"
  subject to an overriding order. That is intended to include capping powers and council tax limitation powers in the whole Act. To that extent, this is about providing sunsetting for capping powers, council tax limitation powers and all the other powers in the Bill.
  8.15 pm
  Mr. Oliver Letwin: I have been puzzling over how my hon. Friend has come up with this construction, but I think that I am at last beginning to understand. Is he arguing that, under new clause 5, if the Secretary of State has not exercised his powers in relation to best value over three years, all the powers in the Act, including the power to cap, will fall away?
  Mr. Jenkin: That is exactly it. I am sorry that I have not made myself as clear as I could have.
  Mr. Letwin: In that case, the new clause is vastly better and more powerful than many of us thought. [Interruption.] Judging by the chuntering of Labour Front Benchers, it is much more powerful than the Government themselves understood.
  Mr. Jenkin: The purpose of the new clause is to provide for circumstances in which the panoply of powers will begin to fall away from Government, allowing local authorities more autonomy and more control over their affairs. We thought that the Government believed in that when they were in opposition. I have here a number of early-day motions signed by hon. Members who are now in government, expressing such sentiments.
  Mr. Letwin: Does my hon. Friend agree that, although the new clause obviously vastly improves the situation for which the Bill provides, it might improve the situation further if the falling away of powers under clause 29—the capping powers—occurred if they had not been exercised for three years, regardless of what had happened to the best value powers?
  Mr. Jenkin: I certainly accept that there are alternative ways of sunsetting the provisions, but the purpose of linking the sunsetting of the capping and tax limitation powers and the best value powers in relation to the exercise of the best value powers is this. If an authority is achieving best value to the extent that the Secretary of State need not exercise his best value powers, the result
  232
  must be that the authority is exercising its function effectively, efficiently and economically, and providing its council tax payers with a good service at a reasonable price. That is why I chose those powers rather than the capping powers. An authority may well avoid capping, but if it is not running its service effectively, why should it be exempt from the other powers in the Bill?
  Mr. Letwin: I think that I am beginning to understand my hon. Friend's deep logic—[Interruption.] I mean that entirely seriously. He seems to be saying that, under clause 29, it would be impossible for the Secretary of State to devise appropriate principles for the invocation of capping if he had not already determined that a local authority had failed to achieve best value.
  Mr. Jenkin: If the local authority had failed to achieve best value, the powers in the Bill would remain intact. I suspect that the Secretary of State would continue to exercise his powers with regard to best value, and would therefore keep alive the other powers in the Bill.
  If best value is truly intended to work, it will presumably become less and less necessary for Ministers to intervene. If we are to believe that best value will work, as the Government say, the intervention powers in the best value part of the Bill should be used less and less often, and it should be possible to relieve authorities of their burdens. We must believe that the Government do not want to cap authorities, and do not want to have their powers in perpetuity, because of what they used to say when in opposition.
  I am holding a copy of early-day motion 73, dated 5 June 1997, which states:
  "That this House believes that local decision-making should be less constrained by central Government and also more accountable to local people; therefore considers it unacceptable to continue the practice of capping local authority expenditure so as to deny local discretion."
  If I go back a little further in history, I find early-day motion 327, dated 9 December 1996, stating that its signatories condemn
  "the imposition through capping of expenditure cuts"
  in local authorities. The motion was signed by the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale)— who is in the Chamber—and by the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane), who is now a Parliamentary Private Secretary in the Department of Trade and Industry.
  History is rich with such examples. Another early-day motion demanded
  "that the Government ends its policy of capping local authorities".
  It was signed by the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting, the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Janet Anderson); by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Jane Kennedy), who is now a Government Whip; by the Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry, the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney); by the Under-Secretary of

  233
  State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Mansfield—again—and even by the Secretary of State for Wales.
  Jackie Ballard: The hon. Gentleman is giving the House a fascinating history lesson. I should be grateful if he would add to it by reminding us of who introduced capping powers.
  Mr. Jenkin: I do not think that that is in dispute. Some people do not seem to understand that the Conservative party lost the general election, and that Conservative Members are now doing what we were overwhelmingly elected to do—to oppose. When one loses an election, it is a time to reassess one's policies. The Government seem to have been elected and, immediately, changed their mind about some of the fundamental issues on local authorities.
  Sir Paul Beresford: The hon. Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) neglected to set the scene in which capping was introduced, or to describe the effects that had to be achieved in trying to inhibit the behaviour of many local authorities. The previous Labour Government were themselves starting to take the same action. The hon. Lady has been praising some Liberal Democrat-controlled local authorities, in which I can appreciate why there may be some feeling against capping.
  Mr. Jenkin: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The history of local government is the history of circumstances dictating ever more control over local authorities. However, now that the atmosphere in local government is changing, and the hard left has been defeated, there is an opportunity to consider alternatives.
  Perhaps the most enlightening early-day motion I have is one that calls for
  "abolition of capping as undemocratic".
  It was signed by the Secretary of State for Education and Employment; again by the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Mansfield—his name appears regularly in such motions; and by the Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning. The list goes on. Another motion calls for the Government
  "to abandon the use of standard spending assessments in determining their arbitrary capping limits."
  The same argument applies to the Government's proposals in the Bill on council tax benefit limitation powers. Early-day motion 544, dated 2 December 1997, was signed by no fewer than 100 Labour Members, criticising the Government for their provisions on housing benefit in the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. However, the Government are now applying, in their council tax limitation, exactly the same principles used in the earlier legislation. A few brave souls signed early-day motion 182, which criticises the Government for going down that road.
  We know that the Secretary of State for Education and Employment fought a bitter battle in Cabinet to try and stop implementation of council tax benefit limitation. One should therefore have thought that the Government would look favourably on an amendment such as new clause 5—which would provide an opportunity to sunset unattractive powers that no hon. Member truly wants to exercise over
  234
  local authorities, and that are in the Bill of necessity, not desire—to provide a sensible and structured way in which such powers might gradually be reduced.
  In a letter of 14 January 1999 to the Minister for Local Government and Housing, the chairman of the Local Government Association, Councillor Sir Jeremy Beecham said:
  "The Association also considers that the reserve capping powers should be time-limited, ending after, say five years, by which time the other aspects of the reform agenda should be in place."
  The right hon. Lady has repeatedly said that the entire purpose of best value and of the Government's—as they call it—reform and modernisation of local government is to provide an opportunity to give more responsibility back to local authorities. Our new clause 5 would give real life to the Government's supposed commitments to local democracy, autonomy and control.
  If the Government do not wish to commit themselves to accepting new clause 5, we shall divide the House on it, to demonstrate the seriousness of our intent and purpose in reforming local government, so that local government shall have more autonomy and more control. The Conservative party is a party that means what it says, rather unlike the Labour party.
  I emphasise to the Minister that our new clause 5 is a structured proposal that will be paced according to how the Secretary of State himself exercises the powers provided to him in the Bill. It should be possible for the Minister to give it a warm welcome.
  Mr. Curry: There is a serious purpose behind new clause 5—to discover whether the Government believe that the panoply of powers that they are now taking unto themselves, adding to current powers, will be needed in perpetuity. The principle of best value, as I understand it, is that it will produce regular improvement in how local government delivers services. As we discussed in Committee, there is bound to be a time when the excellent become a little more excellent, the ordinary move up a bit in the league tables, and the rather unambitious ones in the bottom half of the tables become passable. However, with each improvement, incremental gain becomes ever more difficult to achieve. Do the Government believe that there will be perpetual improvement, or is there a local government nirvana in which authorities will be deemed to be performing satisfactorily? The purpose of the new clause is to find the answer to that question.
  There are two possible scenarios. In the first, we look at the current circumstances of local government. The Minister may need to be prompted when he replies, but he should not need my questions interpreted as we go along. I try to speak in relatively modest English.
  Ms Armstrong: The right hon. Gentleman is not saying anything new.
  8.30 pm
  Mr. Curry: I am sure that the right hon. Lady knows from her long experience in the House that politics is often a matter of trying to repeat arguments that were clearly not understood the first time.
  In the first scenario, we accept that there is clearly room for significant improvements in local government at the moment. The Secretary of State should not have to use his powers, because delivering improvements will not need a

  235
  gargantuan effort or the skills of rocket scientists, although there may be problems in one or two areas. For example, we have a "will he, won't he?" situation in Hackney on the future of the education service.
  Improvements should be evident early on, but what happens 10 years down the road if the legislation is still in place and local authorities have made significant improvements? Having made a great deal of effort they may find it difficult to continue making incremental gains. The Secretary of State will not give up and will continue to expect more gains. Every year, all Governments build cost-efficiencies into their financing formulae and expect productivity gains. Every year people protest that the gains are not easy to achieve. At some stage, they are bound to be right.
  Do the Government envisage the extraordinarily extensive powers of intervention being needed in perpetuity? They have released local government into a gilded cage. It is an open prison in which local authorities cannot see the walls, but they know that if they go beyond a certain frontier they will get an electric shock and the guards will come after them. That is the best value principle.
  I quite like the best value principle, because it is a logical successor to the compulsory competitive tendering process. It would not have been introduced without the experience of competitive tendering. The previous Government were looking for a more sophisticated mechanism that was less demanding of resources to supersede competitive tendering. One cannot say that the Government's proposals will not require vast resources for policing. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury is having a conversation on the Front Bench at the moment. The Treasury may become rather twitchy at some stage about the resources demanded by all the monitoring. It usually reacts like that.
  Mr. Gray: Did I understand correctly that my right hon. Friend believed that CCT involved more monitoring costs than best value? Surely it is the other way round.
  Mr. Curry: No, that is the opposite of what I said. The previous Government were concerned about the manpower costs of CCT. We recognised that it was necessary to find a mechanism to allow the most responsive and competitive authorities to recover certain freedoms and discretions, relieving some of the manpower costs. That is a logical incentive. Best value has provided a different mechanism for control, but it has not relieved the public purse—defined in the broadest sense—of the immense cost of the supervision. The money resolution had to give enormous new resources to the Audit Commission.
  Mr. Forth: I hope that my right hon. Friend is not forgetting the unquantified additional costs added to the Bill by the previous group of amendments, in which we identified a new army of co-ordinators, forums and all sorts of other things that would—probably mistakenly—attempt to co-ordinate all the others.
  Mr. Curry: I have not forgotten about that. We pointed to the need for some co-ordination, but we are anxious that co-ordination should not take over the inspection functions. The costs will be very substantial.
  236
  I should like to tease out what the Government think that local government will look like in 10 years. That is a legitimate question. Governments tend to look at the ground immediately in front of them, because that is where the landmines explode, but they have another major local government Bill on the way—apparently it is to be published in the next few days—that is also very prescriptive of how local authorities must behave and what choices they have to take, removing discretion from councils to choose their own form of management. We are getting prescription across the board. I am anxious to know whether there is some stage at which the rhetoric of liberty—the freedom rhetoric—will be complemented by measures that suggest that local government is to be trusted.
  As I said in Committee, the Government and their predecessors—I am not in the business of repentance politics, so I do not apologise for it—were more concerned about good local administration than about local government. The Bill is another prescription for efficient local administration, but it removes local government from the people because it does not give them the discretion to choose—even to choose bad councillors and inefficient local government if they want to live with that.
  What does the Minister envisage as the net result of the legislation? It has a purpose. At some stage, we hope to reach a form of local government about which we can say reform has been achieved, when we can return local government to the people. The community should take responsibility for local government; we do not need a canopy of measures constantly riding shotgun.
  If the Minister can give us some idea of the Government's intentions, the new clause will not be necessary. It was tabled to try to tease out some idea of where the Government imagine they will end up after the long voyage that they have undertaken with the local government barque being towed behind at some distance. If the Minister can tell us that, she will do us all a service. My hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) has done us a great service by tabling the new clause which requires that question to be asked and answered.
  The sunset clause provides for the natural extinction of powers if they have not been exercised. If they have not been exercised, that is because the local authority concerned behaved in a way that the Secretary of State deemed satisfactory. In a sense, that is an incentive; it is a means by which the local authority can be rewarded with more freedom through the absence of restraint and direction. I do not understand why the Minister does not admit that that is rather a good idea. It enables a local authority to demonstrate its efficiency, good will and capability. If it can do that, why on earth should it continue to be bound by the constraints. Why can it not be said that a local authority has demonstrated that it can live within the responsibilities defined by its own electorate instead of by the Government? If the Minister accepts that, she will have done local government a service instead of constantly talking about its freedom.
  Mr. Paul Burstow: I welcome the new clause as it provides a useful opportunity to debate a number of issues in the Bill. It also reflects the Conservative Front-Bench approach to revisionism and repentance in respect of the 18 years of Conservative Government. We welcome that, although I listened to the

  237
  right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) saying that he did not wish to be part of the repentance side of the exercise.
  New clause 5 is a clever amendment, as was reflected in the exchanges around the Chamber. It provides for the cessation of the capping power being exercised by the Secretary of State if a local authority is a good local authority under the terms of the Bill. If the Secretary of State has no need to use the best value powers to regulate a local authority, after the three-year period to which the new clause refers the other powers within the Bill cease to have effect. That is to be welcomed.
  It is a pity that the Conservatives did not take that approach in government and that it took the sunset of a general election for them to realise that such a measure would focus the energy and attention of local government. I urge the Government to give the new clause serious thought, as it represents another way of achieving their intentions in respect of beacon councils. Beacon councils are about providing a means by which local authorities can secure greater independence, autonomy and freedom of action for and on behalf of their local communities. If the new clause can achieve that, it must be welcomed.
  We have one or two reservations, however, because the new clause does not extinguish those powers; it merely adds a second stage to the exercise of those powers.
  If a Secretary of State wished to cap a council that for the first three years after the Bill's enactment had been good in his eyes and had complied with the provisions on best value, he would first have to come to the House to override the measure that the amendment would place in the Bill, and would then have to come back again with another motion to cap the council. That would not be a bad thing, because the Secretary of State would have to think twice before exercising the powers that the Bill will give him in respect of a secretive, selective and—in some respects—dubious process of capping.
  This is a debate about capping, as well as a debate about best value. Some may have thought that we were straying on to a debate on the following group of amendments, but it is entirely right that we dwell on the consequences of the capping powers that the Government are taking to themselves which, in some ways, are much more invidious than those that the previous Government developed over a number of years. Those powers were crude and universal but the powers that this Government are proposing are far worse, because they allow a far more selective approach. It is for that reason—perhaps more than any other—that the new clause should be supported.
  Mr. Letwin: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the peculiar features of clause 29 is that it appears to constrain the arbitrariness of the reserved power while doing nothing of the kind? The Department has been more expert, perhaps, than any other in our nation's history in inventing principles that have the remarkable result of identifying only a single case for capping, or for anything else.
  Mr. Burstow: I am sure that the advice to Ministers will be produced in a masterly way to assist them in achieving their aims. The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, and that is in no way disrespectful of the professional way in which the work is done. However, the work is enabling Ministers to achieve their ends, and the
  238
  Bill is very much about Ministers achieving their ends at the expense of local democracy and local choice by local people.
  Mr. Adrian Sanders: And council tax formulae.
  Mr. Burstow: As my hon. Friend says, the proposals undoubtedly have an important impact on decisions that local authorities take on council tax—decisions that are largely out of their hands as a consequence of the system that this Government are operating, but which the previous Government largely constructed.
  If best value is about anything, it is about making sure that local authorities deliver good and effective services that are appropriate and relevant to the needs of the local community. The problem is that the Government think that they know better than every local authority in the land about what that means. That is the problem with the proposals on best value. Therefore any measure that enables us to debate the powers and to recognise them for what they are—a set of powers designed to prescribe and direct local government, and to transfer it into an agency of central Government—is entirely to be supported. We will support the new clause because it is undoubtedly right that, at the very least, we in this place should be able to debate whether the Secretary of State should use the powers in future.
  Many local authorities who, through their own good efforts, will deliver what the Government call best value should and ought to be able to escape the capping regime; both the crude and universal capping through council tax benefit subsidy limitation, and the more sophisticated, behind-the-door and sneaky form of capping proposed by schedule 1.
  Mr. Letwin: The new clause is something like a lion seen from afar: it looks small but it is in fact big.
  Mr. Curry: Or an elephant.
  Mr. Letwin: Indeed, except that a lion has a roar, which distinguishes it from an elephant.
  8.45 pm
  The new clause has a particular logic in the context of local government finance and the architecture of the Bill, and it raises a major constitutional issue. I must admit that I share the concern that many Conservative Members had when we first heard my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) speaking to the new clause. We thought that he had somehow missed its effect. I should have known better, because my hon. Friend is one of our more distinguished intellects and would not have made that mistake. He did the House the service of descending to the level of the rest of us and explaining the logic of the new clause, which is even more profound, important and just than he gave himself credit for.
  Dorset county council has for many years followed all the rules imposed on it by central Government. That is because it has been in recent times under Liberal governance and not run by some lunatic Labour administration.
  Mr. Gray: What?
  Mr. Letwin: I will relieve my hon. Friend's concerns in a moment.

  239
  Alas, the county council has not derived anything like best value from its operations. I recently lobbied it about a footpath in Salway Ash, stretching from the church at one end of the village to the houses at the other. It remains a matter of mystery why the church was built so far from the houses, but it was, and so was the school. We went along to the council and asked whether it could build a footpath from one end to the other, and we were told that the total cost would be about £100,000.
  Mr. John M. Taylor: My hon. Friend has raised rather an important point about villages where the houses are a long way from the church, which also happens in Norfolk. In the time of great plagues, communities moved, and the only permanent building was the church, which was therefore at some distance from the new settlement.
  Mr. Letwin: I am profoundly grateful to my hon. Friend for illuminating what may indeed be the history of the case; but I will not dwell on that.
  The county council said that the footpath would cost £100,000 because it had exerted itself to obtain best value and discovered that it would come, at that price, from its own work force. We were surprised, then, to discover, on obtaining a quotation from a local private contractor, that the very same path could be constructed for £10,000: a point that the council is now wrestling with, wholly unsuccessfully, under its Liberal administration. There is every appearance of the game being lost and the council being unable to find any reason why it should continue to build amenities such as footpaths when it cannot demonstrate that it can build them for less than 10 times the price asked by the private sector.
  Ms Keeble: The hon. Gentleman seems to be saying that the council operated competitive tendering and went for what appeared to be the lowest quotation. If it had followed the best value rules, it would have consulted the local community, and might have found that people did not want the footpath at all.
  Mr. Letwin: I do not want to dwell much longer on the footpath, but I cannot resist observing that the hon. Lady's intervention encapsulates more or less every mistake that she could have made. I was lobbying the council because I had consulted the local community—all 300 of them—and 298 had said that they would like the footpath. Dorset county council has been highly progressive in seeking best value rather than competitive tendering. It consulted extensively. Alas, under a Liberal Democrat administration, the result has been lamentable—but I do not wish to make merely partisan points.
  There is a serious problem with best value. Like many, I support the concept, but remain sceptical about the ability of local authorities—even serious, sensible councils that are not lunatic—to achieve anything that would be recognised in business circles as best value.
  New clause 5 is extremely subtle. It allows for the possibility that a Secretary of State who judges that a council has, over a three-year period, achieved best value—and who thus has not used the powers in the
  240
  Bill—may still intervene in almost every part of the local authority's affairs to impose best value. Only in such a case would the new clause end the capping powers.
  This apparently slight new clause contains a new doctrine of the relationship between local government and central Government. We used to think it proper not to intervene when a local authority was not spending too much money. That was a Treasury-driven metaphysic.
  We are discussing a much subtler proposition. New clause 5 says that if the Secretary of State determines that spending is good—that best value has been achieved—his powers to cap should be removed. It would be left to the local population to decide the level of spending that it wanted. The Secretary of State could not intervene, so long as he had assured himself that the money was being put to good purpose through best value.
  That is a profound—and right—shift in our perception of the proper relationship between local and central Government. It shows a depth of thought in the re-evaluation process to which the Minister will give credit if he is feeling generous. We know that if the Government spot a good idea generated on the Conservative Benches, they will begin a sequence of action. First, they will decry it; secondly, they will consider it; thirdly, they will adopt it. Finally, they will announce that they were its progenitors.
  We should welcome that. We should be happy if the Government—even if they reject new clause 5—adopt in future a much better doctrine of the relationship between local government and central Government of the type encapsulated in the brilliant new clause moved by my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex. We should not be so churlish as to deny them the great public relations victory that they would doubtless seek to gain by announcing that they had had the idea themselves.
  I do not wish to dwell on the relationship between new clause 5 and local government finance. The new clause raises a major constitutional issue, and I hope that the Minister will say how he could defend the rejection of new clause 5, given its constitutional significance.
  New clause 5 time-limits an awesome—and rather intrusive—series of powers. They relate, it is true, not to individuals but to intermediate institutions—local authorities and any other best value authority. The Minister will ask why the powers should be time-limited, when so many other powers are not. If that is his approach, it will illustrate the very constitutional point that I seek to make and it will show how far we have fallen from grace. The Minister should be asking why we should not limit the powers in time, because Parliament used to do so regularly. For example, the Aliens Restriction (Amendment) Act 1919 was time-limited. The Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962 was time-limited. The Licensing Act 1964 was time-limited. The Accommodation Agencies Act 1953 was time-limited. The Children and Young Persons (Harmful Publications) Act 1955 was time-limited. As all hon. Members know, Prevention of Terrorism Acts have also been time-limited.
  So common was time limiting in our history—although many hon. Members present may have forgotten it—that it used to be the practice regularly to produce an Expiring Laws Continuance Act, as was done in 1969 and 1970, to continue time-limited Acts for a further year. That was a splendid practice, because almost all the Acts that were time-limited contained powers of a highly intrusive

  241
  nature. A parliamentary doctrine, repeated in debate over a century and a half, made it clear that if Acts gave exceptional and intrusive powers—or arbitrary and wide-ranging powers—to a Secretary of State, it was appropriate, unless there was an extraordinary argument to the contrary, that they should be time-limited.
  I am sure that the Minister will be especially interested in the case of the Children and Young Persons (Harmful Publications) Act 1955. Section 5(5) of that Act is a specific time-expiry provision, although it is not as subtle as new clause 5. It is a blunter instrument and simply provides that the powers in the Act should expire at a certain date. In the Committee stage of proceedings on the Act, a certain distinguished Member of Parliament said:
  "I am extremely glad that the Government have accepted… these Amendments. It deals with one of the main concerns which many of us on this side have discussed during the debates on the Bill: that is to say, we feared that an Act introduced for an entirely different purpose might, after a number of years, be distorted for a quite opposite purpose… Personally, I should prefer the Government to limit the period to a shorter term… Nevertheless we have done our best."—[Official Report, 29 March 1955; Vol. 539, c. 305–6.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The hon. Gentleman has made his point about other Acts and he should not go into detail about when they were debated. He should get back to new clause 5.
  Mr. Letwin: As ever, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am grateful for that admonition. Luckily, too, I had finished the quotation. I mentioned it because the Minister will be interested to learn that it was from one Mr. Michael Foot, who cannot be said to have been a reactionary Conservative making utterances for the sake of causing trouble. That doctrine used to be espoused on both sides of the House, even by those most devoted to socialism in its full-blooded form. However, we still find that new clause 5 has not met with the ready acceptance of Ministers. Why not? I regret that the reason undoubtedly is that they have been corrupted by the same thing as afflicted the previous Administration. That is not a partisan point, but a serious one about what happens to Governments in their relationship to local government and in their whole use of powers.
  9 pm
  Later this evening, we shall debate Henry VIII clauses and the same point will be made then: the Labour Government have introduced more wide-ranging powers for Secretaries of State to amend Acts by order than ever before in British history. That is regrettable, but the Government have not done it on their own; those powers are the culmination of a trend. Similarly, we see the culmination of a trend in this measure. I remember the vigorous arguments of the early 1980s when the great expansion of local government finance first occurred—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must talk about the new clause. Other matters have nothing to do with what is before the House at the moment.
  Mr. Letwin: I am talking about the new clause, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I am trying to explain why the Government have fallen into the trap of opposing the
  242
  new clause. The reason is that, as we did before them, they have fallen into the trap of imagining that Government control over local government is a necessary evil. They have failed to observe—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would put his own case. I have not heard the Minister speak on the new clause, so we do not know what the Government's view is. We must hear the voices for the new clause and then, if necessary, we shall hear the voices against it. Let us not get into detailed explanations of why the Government should oppose the new clause until we have heard what they have to say.
  Mr. Letwin: I would not dream of suggesting that I know what the Government will say, although you might agree, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that if the Government did not intend to take the view that I was describing, Ministers would by now—in what I regret is rather a long speech—have intervened. We know that the Government will not accept the new clause.
  To reverse the point and make it positive, the reason for the new clause is that the Government need to adapt; they need to realise that local government is capable of running its own affairs. It is vital that if this country is to have a grown-up local democracy, local people should be given the chance to decide whether local government is running its affairs properly. I understand why my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex has said that the clause should be time-limited only if best value is being exhibited, rather than time-limiting the whole clause. He is saying that the local population may not be able to judge whether there is best value, but they are able to judge whether they like the level of local government spending.
  Personally, I should have gone further. If those powers must be introduced at all—in respect of clause 29, I regret their introduction entirely—they should all be strictly time-limited. My hon. Friend has not gone that far and I understand why. However, it is also necessary for Ministers to understand it, until they come to the realization—one to which we came very painfully as a result of the prolonged arguments between the Treasury-driven side and the democratically driven side that we went through from the 1980s—that repeated efforts by Government permanently to control local government are no more than a route to perdition. Ultimately, those efforts corrode local democratic accountability and generate their own necessity: because Governments undermine local democracy, they feel more and more inclined to control it and we enter a vicious circle. The new clause nobly attempts—although not as fully as it might have done—to begin to extricate us from that vicious circle.
  Ms Keeble: I believe that the hon. Gentleman was an adviser to Baroness Thatcher when she was Prime Minister and to Secretaries of State for Education while the Conservatives were developing the thinking that resulted in the imposition of more regulations and strangleholds on local government than have ever before been experienced. Is he saying that he was wrong to do that, or is he now into the repentance politics of the Conservative party?
  Mr. Letwin: I am saying that we collectively made a dreadful error in believing that it was necessary to

  243
  intervene more and more to achieve the effects we sought. At the time, I was in favour of introducing forms of fiscal regime that would make the local populace take seriously the question of what councils were spending, and then freeing the councils to act on their own. I am sure that you do not want me to go into the details, Mr. Deputy Speaker; suffice it to say that my side lost the argument and the result was both a tax that, as it turned out, was too tough, and controls and interventions. The hon. Lady is right if she accuses the Conservative Government of that, but that does not negate the fact that the Labour Government are now repeating the mistake. In fact, they are repeating it twice over, not only through capping, but through the best value intrusion. With the new clause, my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex is offering the Government a lifeline.
  With that, I shall bring my remarks to a close. I hope that the Minister will recognise that it is a matter of great constitutional importance that he should recognise the force of the argument that there should be a natural presumption in favour of the falling away of any hugely arbitrary power from legislation, and that there is an extraordinarily strong case for time-limiting the powers relating to best value if he wants to give back to local government a degree of democratic accountability that will ultimately be his only source of rescue from the vicious circle into which he is getting himself.
  For both reasons, I hope that the Minister will not take the adverse line that I, perhaps improperly, speculated he would take, and that he will come to the Dispatch Box and surprise us all by welcoming this brilliant new clause.
  Sir Paul Beresford: In supporting the new clause, my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) correctly pointed out that many Conservative Members, rather than being repenters, regard the best value aspects of the Bill as the continuation of a trend that started under a Labour Government in the late 1970s. Someone described local authorities as falling into three groups: parasitic, commensal and catalytic. In the late 1970s, the parasitic variety was dominant. Since then, the middle group of commensal authorities appears to have expanded and the catalytic group, which all Governments have tried to encourage, has slowly increased.
  To set the scene, let me go back to the days of the Conservative Government's dealings with local government, in the 1980s and early 1990s. There was a trend of considering not only the financial aspects of local government, but, I remind the repenters, the way in which local authorities organised and ran their services. We introduced the Audit Commission and the citizens charter as the means to encourage local government to move forward. Many local authorities failed to improve: they continued to ignore the fact that they were not providing any value, let alone best value, and to plague local residents both financially and through the quality of services.
  When I first arrived in this country, I lived and worked in areas such as the east end of London which had appalling local authorities—I shall ignore their political complexion, but most hon. Members will be able to guess. Those authorities imposed on local people huge council taxes—or rates as they were then—plundered local businesses and provided appalling services. The next
  244
  stage of attempting to force local authorities to examine their services, which best value also attempts to do, was the introduction of compulsory competitive tendering, which was remarkably successful.
  Having set that scene, the next scene we come to is the best value scene. Best value appears to many of us, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon, to be the next stage in the process I have described. My hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) is going one step further. He is saying that we should look further ahead and accept that there are an increasing number of catalytic local authorities—to use the original description—for whom new clause 5 is the right approach.
  The Minister has said time and again that we must have faith in local authorities. She also said that we should have faith in her. I can take a limited step forward with regard to local authorities, but I have no faith in her or her Government's approach. A number of local authorities are best value authorities that meet many of the Bill's requirements without the huge imposition of inspections, procedures and expenditure on consultation that it demands. My hon. Friend the Member for North Essex is giving the Minister the chance to accept that the top 10 per cent. of authorities—perhaps even more than that—should be left alone to get on with their successful operations.
  The spirit behind best value is the same as the spirit behind compulsory competitive tendering. Using the reserve powers in the Bill—which involve best value and capping—we will get hold of those authorities at the bottom and lift them to the top. Middle-range authorities can and will benefit if best value is introduced properly. I am concerned that that will not happen and that we are placing a liability on local authorities in implementing best value.
  That is certainly the case with the top 10 local authorities. Several local authorities in London have proved time and again that they provide a satisfactory service—both in terms of service and value for money—to local residents. Therefore, I was disturbed by the Minister's attack yesterday on three authorities that have satisfied the voting public about the quality of their service provision. Several surveys conducted by the local authorities—which were not required to do so under best value and thus did not face the heavy cost of Audit Commission reactions—pointed to that high degree of voter satisfaction.
  My hon. Friend the Member for North Essex says that we must take a deep breath and recognise that several local authorities meet the targets, aims and aspirations set out by the Minister in the Bill. We should relieve them of the burden of council tax capping.
  Mr. Letwin: I bow to my hon. Friend's greater expertise in this area, but does he not agree that the cunning of new clause 5 is that the second part of it need not apply? Local authorities might impose council taxes but, as long as they lived up to best value, they would escape the capping provisions.
  Sir Paul Beresford: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am concerned that the Minister may come to the Dispatch Box at the end of the debate and refer to the generosity to the beacon councils as a substitute for the new clause. [Interruption.]

  245
  I have read all the paraphernalia about beacon authorities, and I fear that many authorities are being forced down a road that they may not wish to take. The actions of local authorities may be impeded. New clause 5 is simplicity itself—even if it is difficult technically—because it says that the best authorities, according to a best value measurement, with low council tax should be freed from the burden and be allowed to provide their services locally with the support of the voting public.
  I think of two authorities in particular that have been lambasted by the Government, but time and again, the public have given them enormous support. They will be burdened by the Bill, unless we can persuade the Minister to accept new clause 5. [Interruption.] That will give us the opportunity to change the emphasis, rather than the technicalities, and remove the burden from local authorities.
  9.15 pm
  Mr. Gray: It is always slightly terrifying to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir P. Beresford), who, from his time in Wandsworth, epitomises in so many respects all that is best about local government and the way that we ran it, providing the best possible services to people at the cheapest price without any of the unnecessary paraphernalia proposed in the Bill.
  I am puzzled because the Minister's sedentary comments during my hon. Friend's speech seemed to imply that new clause 5 will not end that interventionism. I am puzzled also that she should find it necessary to make such sedentary remarks at all. That seems rather strange behaviour for a Minister, and if there is a way to demonstrate that the new clause would not do as my hon. Friend said, it might have been sensible for her to intervene on him in the time-honoured traditions of the House, rather than muttering from the Front Bench.
  I am also cowed by the fact that I am following the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), whose learning and elegance of exposition terrifies anybody who follows him. I was, however, worried when he heaped praise on Liberal Democrat-controlled Dorset county council, which is a bizarre thing to do. I must say that, hate it as I would, I should prefer to have a Labour-controlled council in my county than a Liberal Democrat-controlled council. The only thing worse would be a Lib-Lab council, which is what Wiltshire had until a recent by-election allowed the Conservatives to take control of the council, and we look forward to significant changes being made.
  I was disappointed that I did not have the privilege of serving on the Standing Committee that considered the Bill, which I would have greatly enjoyed. However, I tried to follow its proceedings from Hansard and discussions with my right hon. and hon. Friends. I have experience of local government because I serve, with other hon. Members who are present, on the Select Committee on Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs, which last year produced a report on the implementation of best value, which we greatly enjoyed doing. The Select Committee is currently involved in discussing how we can improve local government finance. Without giving away any secrets, I can say that the results of those discussions will be known in a week or two. It will be interesting to find out how the Select Committee views capping and
  246
  other aspects of local government finance in that report, and how it will influence the outcome of the debate on the Bill.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The House will have an opportunity to hear how the Select Committee conducts its affairs, but we must return to new clause 5.
  Mr. Gray: I was conscious that I had begun to ramble, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I am grateful to you for correcting me.
  My point is that the Select Committee report on capping will be interesting because it may have a direct bearing on the sunset clause—new clause 5.
  Conservative Members are not opposed to the principle of best value. Indeed, we think that local government exists precisely to strive continuously to provide a best-quality service to the public at an affordable cost. Delivering high-calibre services has long been a priority of Conservative-controlled councils, and we are proud of that record. Unlike hon. Members who constantly talk about us being sorry for what we did while we were in government, I am not the slightest bit sorry for that, particularly in relation to local government. I am proud of the fact that we introduced compulsory competitive tendering and reformed local government, which when we came to power in 1979 was, by and large, a complete shambles. So much of what we did in DOE terms—I worked in the Department of the Environment for two or three years—took great strides in putting right some of the worst aspects of local government.
  Ms Keeble: Is the hon. Gentleman proud of the fact that the Conservative Government brought riots to the streets of all our inner cities in the early 1980s, and brought riots again with the poll tax?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. These matters are a little wide of new clause 5.
  Mr. Gray: Indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall not be tempted into answering the hon. Lady's point, although from her privileged position in Cheltenham Ladies' college and elsewhere, I cannot imagine what she knows about protest in the streets of London.
  Of course CCT had its downside and its disadvantages. All of us would be concerned about one or two aspects of the way in which it worked. None the less, it had two overwhelming advantages, which best value demonstrably does not have. First, it was relatively clear, straightforward and intellectually pure. We knew what it was. It was the application of the market—the use of the tendering process and the market to provide the best possible local government services. That is exactly the opposite of the interventionist and bureaucratic approach of best value.
  Secondly, leaving aside the interventions that the Government had to make when CCT was not properly applied—from my time in the Department of the Environment, I remember how often that was, especially when left-wing Labour councils went out of their way to find ways to avoid applying CCT—it largely allowed local government to go about its business. By and large, local authorities put their business out to tender and accepted the best tender.
  Mrs. Louise Ellman: The hon. Gentleman supports compulsory competitive tendering

  247
  and opposes best value, yet the new clause to which he is speaking deals with best value. Does he not think that his comments contradict those of the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), of whom he expressed such great fear and terror?
  Mr. Gray: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her intervention. The fact that we both serve on the Select Committee deters me from being too harsh in my reaction to her remarks. The new clause implies that CCT was better. The interventionism implicit in the best value regime would end after three years if it were not used. It is a sunset clause. If a local authority does what it ought to do and provides best value at the best possible price, which is its duty, the interventionist powers of the Secretary of State will lapse.
  I am arguing that that is what happened under the CCT regime. The local authority was left to get ahead with its own business. It put the business out to tender, examined the tenders as they came in, chose the best one at the best price, and delivered the best services at the best price.
  One has only to look at Wandsworth, where I had the privilege to live for a number of years when it was run by my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley, to see what CCT could do in turning round the worst-run local authority into the best-run local authority at the best price to the taxpayer. At one stage, as hon. Members will remember, the council tax in Wandsworth went to zero. Throughout its history, the poll tax was lowest in Wandsworth.
  How different from that is the best value regime. The precise way in which it will work is, to say the least, a little clouded in mystery. The Select Committee's examination of best value last year came to the conclusion that it was weak and vague at its extremities—probably a well enough intentioned sort of idea, but definitely weak round the margins. Who would set the standards by which the local authority would judge itself? If those standards were not achieved, what a large amount of intervention by the Secretary of State would follow.
  The setting of standards by which the local authority's delivery will be judged—and the way in which the Government ensure that they are sufficiently robust and demanding—is entirely bureaucratic, to a degree that is beloved of Labour politicians in so many ways. They love committees, bureaucracy, regulations and restrictions. They love telling people what to do. They love to tell local government that they know best, that they will lay down what is best and that if local government does not live up to that, they will intervene. All that is so beloved of Labour in every aspect, and so hated by Conservative Members. We believe in giving people the right to make their own decisions and to lead their own lives. That is why the new clause is so important.
  The thrust of the debate about the place of local government in society today, and of the debate in the Select Committee on the subject of local government finance, has been to find a way of telling local government that it has a real constitutional role to play, that it is the elected representative of the people and that it has been chosen locally to make important decisions about the way in which life is run locally, and to find a way to allow it the freedom to govern as it should.
  248
  The new clause takes the principles of best value which, as I say, are weak, interventionist and bureaucratic, but limits them. It sets out how the best possible services can be provided at the best possible price to the electorate. We welcome that. It goes on to say that, if local authorities can do that for three years and the Secretary of State has no reason to intervene, at the end of that period, the Secretary of State will have those rights of intervention removed. That is an extraordinarily important democratic step which is directly in line with the flow of current thinking on local government.
  The new clause is saying, as both parties go to great lengths to say in the Select Committee, that more authority should be given to local government—and we must find ways of handing authority back to it. There is much talk about whether it should have more power to raise its own finance. All that is important. Local government must either be a delivering mechanism—a management mechanism—or it must be true government, in which case powers must be handed back to it. That is why the Opposition feel so uneasy about many of the central proposals in the Bill.
  The Bill says to local government, "You are not local government at all. I, the Secretary of State, know more about the provision of good services than you guys do. You may be elected, but that's tough. I am elected and I am the Secretary of State, and I know more than you fellows do. I shall pretend that you have a lot of powers. I shall remove CCT. That was bad because of the market and because it was compulsory"—
  Mr. Nigel Waterson: My hon. Friend is beginning to develop his arguments on this crucial point, but does he agree that, as long as the Government still have the power to come back to the House for an overriding order in due course, the onus is very much on them to say why they are not prepared to allow the powers broadly to lapse after three years where an authority has behaved well?
  Mr. Gray: My hon. Friend is right. The fact that the Government would have to come back to the House to seek a positive resolution to reintroduce the powers would put the onus back on to the Government. We should be saying, "You need to demonstrate why you, the overmighty Secretary of State, should have the right to override the duly elected representatives of the people at local level." That is an important principle.
  Ms Keeble: Did the hon. Gentleman give similar advice to John Gummer when it came to rate capping local councils and to calling in contracts?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is the convention in the House to refer to hon. Members by constituency.
  Mr. Gray: I was so overwhelmed by the appalling lack of good manners on the part of the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) that I missed her point. I suspect that she was making some cheap reference to the advice that I gave to my right hon. Friends the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) and for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) on the subject of local government. I did my best to provide what advice I could, although my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal used to say that I was something of the grit in his

  249
  oyster, thereby producing a pearl, but not necessarily by easy means. My right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon who, sadly, has skipped out for supper, used to tell me that I was a good political adviser because whatever I advised, he did exactly the opposite and by that means, he was nearly always correct. I did not quite catch the hon. Lady's intervention, but it would almost certainly have missed its mark.
  9.30 pm
  The thrust of the new clause is to say that you in local government have been elected by the people. You in local government have been given the right—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Why do not I give the hon. Gentleman some advice? He should be careful of the term "you", which refers to the Chair.
  Mr. Fallon: My hon. Friend has been a Member for two years.
  Mr. Gray: As my hon. Friend reminds me, I have been a Member for two years. I was of course using the word "you" not to refer to the Chair or to Labour Members, but in a rhetorical way to describe what I would say to people in local government, to whom the word referred. None the less, I apologise for the inadvertent lack of courtesy to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  All that may seem to be relatively lightweight—flippant would be too strong a word—but a very important constitutional principle lies behind it. Both parties go to great lengths to pay lip service to the need to return authority to local government. We all say how frightfully important it is to do that; it is one of biggest mantras in all discussions about local government.
  Conservative Members have tussled with the issue for some years; we have found some ways of returning power to local government and we are constantly seeking new ways of doing so. Labour Members pay great lip service to returning power to local government, and the Bill is part of that process. They say, "Fine, we will give some of these powers back to local government, which is marvellous. Here's best value; it's tremendous, isn't it? It takes away compulsion and tendering and gets rid of the market, which, goodness me, is a bad thing almost by definition—after all, the Tories introduced it. Best value is a new idea and it does away with compulsory competitive tendering. Isn't that fantastic?"
  However, only when we look at the Bill's fine print do we discover that Labour Members are not giving anything at all back to local government; on the contrary, they are gathering more and more to themselves. It has been pointed out several times that the words "Secretary of State" appear 178 times in the Bill. He is gathering more and more control over local government to himself, which is why the new clause is so important.
  Best value and the changes to the capping regime may have something to be said for them, but we will talk more about them when we discuss other amendments. The important point is that, under the new clause, the powers in the Bill would lapse if the Secretary of State did not have to use them. What could be more democratic or more important than giving back to local authorities the right to make their own decisions? If the Labour Government are genuine about their desire to give power back to local
  250
  government, and if they do not want people to think that they are paying only lip service to that, what could be better than accepting the new clause?
  Mr. David Wilshire: Powerful arguments are clearly being made in this debate. When it began, four Members were on the Treasury Bench. We reduced that number to three and then to two. Now there is only one Member on the Treasury Bench. I can only conclude that, one by one, those Members have had to be sent out to consult the spin doctors to find some arguments against what is becoming a powerful case for the new clause.
  Mr. Waterson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way so early in his speech. Does he agree that it is nothing short of remarkable that in a debate that has not only been interesting, but has raised some important constitutional issues, not a single Back-Bench Member of the Government has expressed any interest in making a speech?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that we do not get into that particular discussion, because I want only debate on new clause 5.
  Mr. Wilshire: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understand the point that you make.
  Although I did not serve on the Standing Committee, I have taken a close interest in local government for the 12 years that I have been a Member of the House. To save the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions the trouble of looking up my credentials—he is the only Member left on the Treasury Bench—I remind hon. Members that I served on a town council and a county council, and was the leader of a district council, before I was elected to the House.
  I was the leader of one of the district councils which, in the early days, invited the Audit Commission in to do a council over as thoroughly as possible. That is how the Audit Commission developed the three Es, which are at the heart of the argument being used about best value. I have been around the course many times. In listening to the arguments, I have the sinking feeling that it will not be the last time that we go around it.
  New clause 5 raises an important question, which I hope Ministers will answer when it is their turn to say something: if a local authority meets all the best value criteria that the Government have set out, why do they need draconian central powers to back up that wonderful thing called best value? If best value is the best thing since sliced bread, or at least the best thing since the last general election, why do the Government still need to trample all over local government?
  What has happened to the soundbite that we kept hearing in 1996, 1997 and even 1998 that went, "We are handing power back to the people"? The Bill is the exact opposite of that soundbite. When the Minister comes to speak, he owes the House and the nation an apology for that particular U-turn.
  I cannot help wondering—again, perhaps the Minister would like to enlighten us—whether the Government are not confident about best value. It is one of the smoke and mirror things that they are so good at—making policy look presentable. Is it perhaps that secretly, deep down, although they dare not mention it, they do not believe that

  251
  best value will work? If they believe that it will work, there are some more sinister reasons why we have the Bill and why they will vote against the new clause. It may be that best value is nothing more than a smokescreen for what the Government are really trying to do: take sweeping new powers over the whole of local government.
  I have taken some stick in my time in local government. I was one of those whom many people loved to hate in those days; perhaps they still do. I took a lot of stick for defending previous Conservative Governments when they did things that the Labour party said were interfering in local government, but I have never tried to defend anything as draconian or as sweeping as this Bill. It goes a lot further than anything that Labour Members might accuse us of.
  It is important that, before we get into the details of the new clause, we ensure that we understand in some detail what best value means. I am happy to listen to the Government on that. The Government define best value as continuous improvement in the way in which a local authority's functions are exercised.
  I can live with that, but it leads me to ask yet another question: if a local authority continuously improves, in accordance with the definition, does not require capping when it starts down the process, and continues to conduct its affairs in a way that does not require capping for three years, why will the Minister need those powers? Why should he need to deal with a council that is behaving in exactly the way that he requires?
  As well as the definition of best value, the Government set out tests that should be applied when considering whether best value is applicable. They say, surprise, surprise, that they want best value to be judged by the three Es: economy, efficiency and effectiveness. I have little doubt that the Government will issue a press release or two saying how they invented that wonderful test and how the wicked Government from whom they took over had no concept, but I explained my credentials to make it clear that it was Conservative councils, under a Conservative Government, who tested, tried and introduced the very things that the Labour party claims as its own.
  Because of my background, I can live with what the Government are describing as the tests for best value, but that leads me to another question that I hope the Minister will answer. If a local authority uses its resources economically, delivers services effectively and efficiently and continues to be economic, effective and efficient for three years, why should the Secretary of State need powers? What interference is intended that goes beyond the tests specified in the Bill?
  Having expressed some of my own doubts, I should perhaps give the Government the benefit of the doubt, and invite the House to consider the implications of assuming that best value will work. If the House accepts the Government's argument that it will work, it must also accept our argument that the draconian powers in the Bill are not needed to deal with the councils that are making it work. Perhaps, however, the Government are saying that it is not enough to deliver best value. Perhaps they are saying that it is not enough for councils to live within the three Es. Is there something else that they want?
  252
  If not, why do they need powers to use against councils that are manifestly abiding by not just the letter but the spirit of the law?
  Sir Paul Beresford: My hon. Friend may receive the answer that the Government will reward local authorities, in which case there will be a reference to "beacon authorities". I hope that he has examined the requirements for "beacon authorities", which are very politically correct. Such authorities must follow a Government trend: if they want the financial benefits, they will be forced down that road by bribery. As a result they will be labelled, and will be landed with more bureaucracy, more difficulties and possibly, in some instances, with opportunities to engage in greater corruption.
  Mr. Wilshire: I thought at first that my hon. Friend was being generous to the Government, but, following his final comment, I realised that he was not. My argument, however, was not that the Labour party had an answer along the lines suggested by my hon. Friend, but that it did not have a single answer to any of the questions that I or anyone else had asked. Labour Members have been sitting there all the evening not saying a word. Perhaps my hon. Friend was being generous after all in suggesting that they have a counter-argument.
  If I am wrong and there is no secret agenda over and above best value and the three Es, there is no reason for Labour Members not to vote for new clause 5, which does nothing that they say they are against.
  Before we vote, it is essential for us to ensure that we understand exactly what the new clause seeks to do. It seeks to time-limit certain of the draconian powers that the Government are trying to take in respect of local democracy. In fact, there are 12 such powers, and I think that we should spend a moment considering each of them.
  First, clause 5(2) seeks to empower the Secretary of State to order a review of best value practice. However, a council that is following best practice will not have to be ordered to conduct a review; it already will have conducted one or will be planning to do so. If the council is already doing a good job, why will the Government require a power to force it to do a good job? New clause 5 will remove the power, which manifestly is not needed.
  9.45 pm
  The second power that would be dealt with by the new clause is in clause 5(4), which states that the Secretary of State may order specific matters to be included in a review. However—again—if a council is behaving itself and is efficiently following best value, it will already be dealing with those matters. By definition, that is what best practice—the three Es—entails. Why, oh why will Labour Members today be voting against removing after three years a power to deal with councils that are manifestly behaving themselves? I simply cannot understand it.
  In clause 5(4), my eye fell on paragraph e, which states that one of the ways in which some type of review or test should be conducted is
  "to assess the competitiveness of its performance in exercising the function by reference to the exercise of the same function, or similar functions, by other best value authorities"—
  so far, so good; but then it goes on to say—
  "and by commercial and other businesses".

  253
  As I understand it, that means competitive tendering—the dreaded thing from which the Government said that they will spare us. It is lurking inside the Bill. Therefore, rather than abolishing competitive tendering, the Government are seeking powers in the Bill to force councils to operate it if they think that councils are not behaving themselves. It is another U-turn for which the Government should apologise to the nation.
  The third power that the new clause seeks to remove is in clause 6(2), which would provide the Secretary of State with powers to order a council to include certain matters in a plan. Again, why do the Government need powers to order a council that is behaving itself to include something in a plan that it will already have included? I should have thought that part of the definition of best value—economy, efficiency and effectiveness—is to have a sensible plan. That is what it used to mean in my time in local government. Perhaps the Labour party has changed the definition, so that economy efficiency and effectiveness have been omitted. However, if best value means was it used to mean, why, oh why do the Government need powers to force a council that is behaving itself to behave itself?
  The fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh powers are all in clause 7(4). Just in case Labour Members feel that I am simply rehearsing an argument because I have been asked to do so by Opposition Front Benchers, I should say that I have some reservations on the provisions in clause 7. If we were to remove all the powers provided in the clause, we should be removing the powers of the auditor.
  I should have thought that the Labour party would like to remove the auditor's powers, as the trouble with town halls is Labour sleaze. It should not be up to Conservative Members to weaken the auditor's power to expose the truth of Labour in local government. Happily, however, our new clause will not remove all of the auditor's powers. I simply ask my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson), in giving the Opposition reply to the debate, to think carefully about whether he wants to help sleaze in Labour town halls. I am sure that he does not.
  The eighth power that would be affected by passing new clause 5 deals with auditors issuing reports. Again, I have some anxiety about limiting the power of the auditor to issue reports. Clause 7(5)(c) says that the Secretary of State must take action on an auditor's report. On reflection, my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne might agree that requiring the Secretary of State to act on something rather than trying to shuffle it away is what the Foreign Affairs Committee was doing with the Foreign Secretary—trying to persuade him not to sit on a report or to hide, but to act. Some reflection on that might not come amiss.
  The ninth change that the new clause would bring about relates to clause 9(5), which says that if there is a critical report from the auditor, the Secretary of State must act. If we agree not to make the changes that I have just referred to, there is no need to take that provision out. I ask the House to think carefully about the fact that it is consequential on the previous provisions.
  The tenth change is to clause 10(2), which gives the Secretary of State the power to direct that an inspection should take place. That brings me back to my complaints about many of the previous powers. Why do the Government want powers to enforce an inspection against
  254
  a council that is demonstrating best value? They must have some reason for wanting to demand an inspection of a council that is keeping to the rules, but I am blowed if I know what it is. I hope that we shall be enlightened on the secret agenda of wanting to demand an inquiry and send in inspectors when a council is following the rules. If there is no secret agenda, surely to goodness the Government will vote with us. The eleventh change, affecting clause 10(3), is consequential on that.
  The final change is to clause 14. The first few lines of the clause show that all the draconian powers that the Labour Government want to take over local authorities are about the failure of best value. The Government appear to have no confidence in the idea, because in clause 14 they admit that it will not work. If it does not work, they want a range of powers for the Secretary of State. The Minister is looking puzzled, and well he should. The clause is an admission that the Government interference will be because of failure. The new clause is about success. Clause 14 should not apply to a council that succeeds and avoids all the traps that are listed. Why should those traps apply to a council that is behaving itself? So why is the Minister about to urge his colleagues to oppose a sensible new clause?
  All 12 changes would only introduce a time limit. If a council co-operates with how the Government want it to behave, the provisions in the Bill need not apply. If councils behave, the draconian powers that the Government are taking need not apply to them. We are not saying that they should cease to apply immediately; we are giving everyone the benefit of the doubt. We are saying, "Let us be reasonable. It is a powerful argument, but let us allow three years to go by to make absolutely certain that the councils concerned really are genuine, are delivering what the Government want and are being effective in respect of the tests that are being applied. Only after three years should the powers elapse."
  The case is overwhelming. New clause 5 would do only one thing. In the case of good local government, new clause 5 would hand power back to the people and if my memory serves me correctly, that was in the Labour party manifesto.
  Mr. Fallon: I support new clause 5. On first inspection, it is a worthwhile improvement to the Bill. However, it was not until, with rather deceptive ingenuity, my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) unveiled the arguments behind it that the House began to appreciate exactly how important it is.
  My hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) first elucidated the fact that the definition of powers in line 4 of the new clause is not the same as those listed in lines 1 and 2. The careful and gradual way in which my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex advanced the merits of the new clause first alerted us to its wider implications.
  Above all, the new clause rejects intervention. It rejects capping—and prevents it from being exercised after three years although it is not referred to specifically in the first two lines. Nor does it allow any of the other interventionist powers to be exercised after three years. I did not like capping when the previous Government introduced it. Nor do I like the range of interventionist powers that have been taken under the Bill. One might well ask why we would like an override power. In the

  255
  final analysis an override power is subject to parliamentary approval and to an affirmative resolution. The Minister knows that to take that power he has to come to the House, make his case, approach the business managers and seek time.
  New clause 5 has two overriding merits. First, it gives councils an incentive. The three-year period gives councils the incentive to get clear of the Secretary of State and the Department and to stay clear of them. That is a good thing; it strengthens local democracy and gives better performing councils something to aim for. They know that if they can get through three years without those particular powers having to be exercised, they cannot be exercised unless the override power is invoked. That is a very good incentive for local authorities to drive up their efficiency and improve the performance of the services that they deliver.
  Secondly, the new clause introduces into local government legislation, perhaps for the first time, the concept of sunsetting. If, in the review of local government policy that he is clearly undertaking and the rethink to which he has referred, my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex is further minded to look again at the technique of sunsetting—a regulatory power that will simply disappear if it is not used after three years—that will be most welcome. This technique is used extensively in other countries, such as the United States, Australia and New Zealand.
  It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business),
  That, at this day's sitting, the Local Government Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Hall.]
  Question agreed to.
  As amended in the Standing Committee, again considered.
  Question again proposed, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Fallon: In our review of local government legislation and regulation, that system ought to be widely copied elsewhere.
  The Government have set three Es as a test of best value, but these are superseded by a fourth. The Government talk of economy, efficiency and effectiveness. To that, those of us who defend local government add a fourth E—election. It is the key to the three-year period that each council knows that it must face the electorate, who in the end are the best judge of best value. That is why the borough council in Wandsworth, under Conservative control, was continually re-elected. That is why the loopy Liberal Democrat council in Tunbridge Wells was thrown out last May. In the end, the electorate—and not the Secretary of State or parliamentary orders—will determine what best value is.
  Adding the new clause to the Bill will strengthen it. It will give councils a genuine incentive—way beyond the auditors who will troop through the town halls—to get free of central Government, to escape the interventionist powers, to improve their performance and to subject that performance to the ultimate test—the test of their electorate.
  Mr. Forth: Perhaps I am out of sorts today, but I am yet to be persuaded of the virtues of the new clause—despite the eloquence of my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin). In spite of what many of my right hon. and hon. Friends have said, I am not sure that the drafting of the new clause stands very much scrutiny. I have a number of questions on the new clause for my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson), who is to reply to the debate from the Opposition Front Bench.
  I will refer later to the question of why should the Secretary of State not exercise the powers, which a number of my hon. Friends have touched on. My first point arises from the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray), and concerns the basis of the selection of clauses referred to in the new clause.
  The new clause mentions clauses 5(2), 5(4) and 6(2) which are self-explanatory, but I am puzzled by the selection of the elements of clause 7. More than that, I want to query why clause 7 is included at all. Clauses 5 and 6 refer explicitly to the Secretary of State, and deal with eventualities where the Secretary of State does not invoke his powers, which therefore lapse after three years. Logically, clauses 5(2), 5(4) and 6(2) refer to the Secretary of State.
  Clause 7 refers to:
  "A performance plan published by a best value authority … shall be audited by the authority's auditor."
  The Secretary of State is not mentioned at all. I am perplexed, because clause 7 does not refer to anything that the Secretary of State does.
  Mr. Jenkin: The powers in clause 7(4)(c) refer to clause 6, which says that the Secretary of State will
  "specify matters which an authority must include in a plan for a financial year".
  If the Secretary of State does not do that, clause 7(4)(c) and (e) are redundant. As for clause 7(4)(f), we do not want the Secretary of State to be recommended to take action under clause 14 when he no longer has any powers, assuming that they fall away.
  Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for trying to help, but I am not quite there yet, because clause 7(4) says:
  "In relation to an authority's performance plan the auditor shall issue a report".
  It mentions the auditor, not the Secretary of State, so I cannot see how the initial part of the new clause will apply and why clause 7 is mentioned at all.
  Mr. Jenkin: I will give my right hon. Friend an example. Suppose that, in the three-year period, the auditor issued a report recommending intervention by the Secretary of State under clause 14, that recommendation would be enough under the new clause to suspend the passage of the three years towards the eclipse of the powers, and the period would have to start again.
  Mr. Forth: I will take my hon. Friend's word for it. Perhaps when I reflect later on what he has said, I will see that he has explained the matter satisfactorily.

  257
  My next problem with the wording of the new clause concerns our old friends "and" and "or". As I read it, the provision would come into effect only if absolutely all the powers mentioned are not exercised by the Secretary of State. That is an excessive limitation. I would like £1 for every time that I have heard the word "sunset" in this debate, but the sun will never set if my interpretation of the new clause is correct. The likelihood of the Secretary of State failing to exercise even one of the powers is extremely small, even though, as some of my hon. Friends have said, the circumstances in which he failed to act would be when a very successful local authority was doing everything that it should.
  My hon. Friend the Member for North Essex may have answered my next question in his excellent introduction to this debate. The new clause says that
  "the powers in this Act shall only be exercised"
  in certain circumstances. I gather that to mean all the powers in the Act. My hon. Friend made an excellent analysis of the capping, pseudo-capping, perhaps-capping, modern-capping or focus-capping—whatever the new phrase is that we are supposed to use—which was helpful because it gave us an idea of the scope of the new clause, which some of us at first thought was rather limited. We now find to our pleasant surprise that it is very wide ranging indeed and would have a cataclysmic effect were it ever implemented.
  Subsection (2) would require that a draft should be
  "laid before, and approved by resolution, of each House of Parliament."
  That provision is familiar, but I wonder whether any difficulties are envisaged in relation to reform of the other place. We are in new territory, and none of us knows what effect reform will have.
  Until now, we could be confident of provisions such as these. We have seen them all before, and they are perfectly standard. It is even reassuring, constitutionally, that a measure of such importance requires approval by resolution of each House of Parliament. The present size of the Government' s majority makes the outcome of a vote in the House of Commons fairly predictable, though only for the present. We may think that we know how the other place would react at present, but we cannot predict anything given the uncertainty around the reform proposals for that other place.
  My hon. Friend the Member for North Essex may wish to comment on that element of unpredictability as it could have a fundamental effect on whether the measure could be approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.
  I apologise for giving such a detailed analysis. My hon. Friend has partly reassured me, but my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne may reassure me further when he sums up. If the Minister inexplicably suggests that he will not accept the excellent new clause 5, we will then be fully motivated to support it in a Division.
  Mr. Waterson: I am delighted to speak at the end of an important and useful debate on a sunset provision. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) explained, new clause 5 proposes that the powers listed in the clause—all of them, which may reassure my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth)—should cease to have effect if the Secretary of State does not have recourse to them for a period of three consecutive years.
  258
  A council that consistently performed well and kept its council tax within limits deemed by the Government to be reasonable would be allowed the freedom to set its own budget and to determine its own strategy for improving services. It would remain liable to reimposition of the Bill's powers if Parliament deemed it necessary, and the sword of Damocles that the Bill hangs over the councils would provide a strong incentive to ensure that they did their utmost to act responsibly and in the interests of their communities. That would be a welcome first step towards ending bureaucratic central controls on local government.
  Every Government regrets capping powers. No Government embraces those powers with enthusiasm. However, the Labour Government went out of their way when they were in opposition to oppose crude and universal capping, which is one of the powers mentioned in new clause 5. The Local Government Association, among others, has backed a time limit on the Bill's capping scheme, and we have heard valuable speeches on that theme this evening. Alas, it is remarkable that not a single speech came from those on the Government Benches. In opening the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex rightly quoted extensively from the speech of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition when describing how we as a party were re-assessing and recalibrating our policies towards local government and how we wanted to see local government in the future much freer to make its own decisions and to strive in its own way for excellence. We wish to move away from capping in any shape or form.
  10.15 pm
  The dreadful truth has dawned on much of local government that they were taken in by this Government when they were in opposition. The Government are taking extreme and draconian powers according to any view of them, and they should have a sunset or sell-by date. A similar point was made by an amendment tabled in Committee by the hon. Member for Castle Point (Mrs. Butler).
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), in a powerful contribution based on his extensive experience, talked about whether these powers were powers in perpetuity. He asked whether we could test the Government's real determination not to reach for these extensive powers in the future and he mentioned a choice between a nirvana for local government and what he called the open prison of the provisions in the Bill.
  The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) welcomed new clause 5 on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, which made me question how good an idea it was. I have overcome that natural reluctance and their support—like support from anywhere—is welcome. I trust that they will join us in the Lobby tonight. The hon. Gentleman described the powers proposed by the Government as invidious. I know that he chooses his words carefully and that is not too extreme a word to use in this context.
  We heard a characteristically intellectually powerful contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin). He has the intellect to plumb the deep subtleties of new clause 5, as explained by my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex. With his usual eloquence, my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset

  259
  demonstrated why it matters to have a time limit and a life put on these powers. He revealed some excellent research into other examples through parliamentary history and traced the history of a crucially relevant parliamentary doctrine, all too sadly lost sight of in these careless times.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir P. Beresford), from his vast experience, made the historical link between compulsory competitive tendering and best value, making the crucial point that those are not two antipathetic concepts. In many ways, one has grown out of the other. Best value would not be a starter without the hard work put into CCT. He described new clause 5 as simplicity itself, but I would not go quite that far.
  My hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) also talked of the benefits of CCT and the possibility of the Government coming back after three years to obtain the powers, if any councils did start to misbehave. Therefore—and this is the key point of the debate—the onus must be on the Minister to justify why the Government cannot accept new clause 5. My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) spoke from his impressive background in local government and he was right to point out the yawning gap in this debate between rhetoric and reality. He questioned whether the power was really necessary in perpetuity when a council is behaving itself.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) spoke persuasively about the regulatory technique in the new clause and its use in other jurisdictions. We heard a characteristic contribution from my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, who queried the exact extent of the powers and talked of problems in the wording. He is right to regard the phrase
  "the powers in this Act"
  as encompassing not only the clauses specifically referred to in new clause 5 but to all the powers contained in the Bill. If the Minister is bursting to tell the House that his advice was otherwise and that the new clause will not have the effect that is claimed for it, does he at least accept the principle behind it?
  To sum up, we want to know the Government's real intentions in respect of the substantial powers that the Secretary of State is gathering to himself. As I have said, the onus must be on the Minister to justify the need for those powers not to be time limited. As we have seen, it is still possible for the Government to come back to the House in the future to renew those powers, if they feel that to be necessary, but for them to maintain that they need those powers in perpetuity, despite pious promises that they will not use them unless absolutely necessary, is another example of the nanny state gone mad.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Alan Meale): Like the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), I find it difficult to respond to new clause 4,
  260
  not least because, as the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) correctly pointed out—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Wilshire: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Are we debating new clause 5, on which I was speaking, or new clause 4 as the Minister has just said?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are definitely debating new clause 5 and have been doing so for the past two hours.
  Mr. Meale: To return to what I was saying, the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst correctly identified that new clause 5 was incorrectly drafted. There is no doubt about that. If hon. Members have any doubts on the matter, I point out to them that the reference in the new clause to the Secretary of State's powers under clause 7(4b), (4c) and (4f) in fact relates to duties on the best value auditor. Similarly, although the new clause states that clause 7(5c) and clause 9(5) refer to the powers of the Secretary of State, those clauses actually set out the duties of best value auditors and best value auditing respectively, but never mind.
  Undoubtedly, the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst was able to identify that the new clause was poorly drafted because of his great experience during nine years as a member of the previous Administration. However, we understood the gist of what Conservative Members were trying to achieve in new clause 5 because of its reference to the Secretary of State's powers in clauses 5, 6, 10 and 14; that gave us sufficient clues as to their intentions.
  New clause 5 seems to raise two issues. The first is that of parliamentary scrutiny of the use of the powers in the Bill. We have dealt with that on several occasions, but shall do so again. The second issue is that of the regularity of use of powers, where the Opposition's objectives are more difficult to fathom.
  In respect of parliamentary scrutiny, once again the Opposition are trying to make one approach fit all, in the time-honoured tradition of compulsory competitive tendering, which was honoured in no other way. They seem to want to impose affirmative scrutiny on the use of almost all powers, whether they are powers of intervention, the conferring of new powers or technical amendments to performance indicators. A number of hon. Members hold particular views on CCT, and we accept that under CCT there were some advantages in terms of efficiency. However, lowest cost, inflexibility, evasion and conflict have hampered good management and good quality services, and best value will sort that out. We reject the approach that the Opposition have set out in the new clauses and amendments that they have tabled.
  Throughout, we have taken an approach to scrutiny that is based on proportionality, whereby the powers in the Bill that affect other legislation or widen the scope of best value attract the most rigorous scrutiny. By the same token, the approach to amendments to the internal framework for performance indicators, reviews and plans is based on consultation with the practitioners, such as best value authorities and the Audit Commission. That flexible and thoughtful approach contrasts with the knee-jerk reaction displayed by Conservative Members.
  The notion that any attempt to use order-making powers in respect of a specific authority should be governed by the length of the period that has elapsed since

  261
  the powers were previously used, or by whether the powers have been used at all, is bizarre. I can understand why Conservative Members might be concerned about the possibility of vindictive or malicious targeting of particular authorities when there is a change of political control over those authorities or when there is a change of Government, but are they seriously advocating that the use of the Secretary of State's powers to direct inspectors or to intervene in cases of serious failure should be restricted in the way they suggest?
  Mr. Jenkin: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Meale: No. I have sat for more than five hours listening to a variety of speeches that have gone far wider than the scope of the amendments.
  Failure is failure, no matter where or when it occurs—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister must be heard, but there is far too much background noise in the Chamber. The House must come to order.
  Mr. Meale: To repeat, failure is failure, no matter where or when it occurs. Ministers must have the opportunity to tackle it swiftly and decisively, so we must reject arbitrary restrictions such as those set out in the new clause on the Secretary of State's freedom to act. Similarly, where aspects of the framework, such as the requirements for reviews of plans, need to be adjusted to take account of how best practice is evolving, the sort of mechanistic rules set out in the amendment would rule out any form of sensible or helpful action.
  Amendment No. 83 would have the effect of making any direction given as a result of the recommendation of a best value inspector to an authority that had not received a direction in the previous three years conditional on an order being laid before and approved by resolution of both Houses of Parliament. That would impose unacceptable time restraints on the ability of the Secretary of State to react to the problems that had led to the recommendation being made.
  It is normal for the Secretary of State to have a certain degree of discretion in exercising his role of enforcement, and to subject that discretion to parliamentary scrutiny would be an overreaction. Where a direction has been recommended and an independent inspector has considered the situation, the Secretary of State will have the opportunity to judge the facts and any representation made by the authority before preparing a direction. He will also have the power, if he believes it necessary, to direct that a local inquiry be held to ascertain the views of local people on the matter in question.
  Where intervention is recommended to address a serious or persistent failure in the delivery of services, delay might lead to vulnerable groups being left unprotected and to problems worsening if—
  Sir Paul Beresford: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am curious as to whether the Minister is answering the debate on the right clause, because the subject that he is now describing—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister is in perfect order. If he had been otherwise, I would have told him so.
  Mr. Meale: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman himself referred to the difficulties that delay
  262
  due to a requirement for parliamentary consent would cause to organisations, especially voluntary ones, whose response to a failure was hampered.
  The new clause and the amendment may be honestly meant, but I think a few honest mistakes were made in their drafting. We believe they are wrongly tuned and inadvisable. I ask the Opposition to withdraw the new clause. If they will not, I must urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against it.
  Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 156, Noes 330.

  Division N0.126[

  [10.30.pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Allan, Richard

  Gibb, Nick

  Amess, David

  Gill, Christopher

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Gray, James

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Green, Damian

  Baker, Norman

  Greenway, John

  Baldry, Tony

  Grieve, Dominic

  Ballard, Jackie

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Beggs, Roy

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Hammond, Philip

  Bercow, John

  Hawkins, Nick

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Hayes, John

  Blunt, Crispin

  Heald, Oliver

  Body, Sir Richard

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Boswell, Tim

  Hogg, RI Hon Douglas

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Horam, John

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Brady, Graham

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Brake, Tom

  Hunter, Andrew

  Brazier, Julian

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Keetch, Paul

  Burnett, John

  Key, Robert

  Bums, Simon

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Burstow, Paul

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Butterfill, John

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Lansley, Andrew

  Leigh, Edward

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Letwin, Oliver

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Chidgey, David

  Lidington, David

  Chope, Christopher

  Livsey, Richard

  Clappison, James

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Loughton, Tim

  Collins, Tim

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Colvin, Michael

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Cran, James

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Madel, Sir David

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice & Howden)

  Mates, Michael

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Duncan, Alan

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Duncan Smith, lain

  Moore, Michael

  Faber, David

  Moss, Malcolm

  Fabricant, Michael

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Fallon, Michael

  Oaten, Mark

  Flight, Howard

  Öpik, Lembit

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Ottaway, Richard

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Page, Richard

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Paice, James

  Fraser, Christopher

  Prior, David

  Gamier, Edward

  Randall, John

  263

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Tredinnick, David

  Robathan, Andrew

  Trend, Michael

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Tyler, Paul

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Ross, William (E Lond'y)

  Viggers, Peter

  Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

  Walter, Robert

  Ruffley, David

  Wardle, Charles

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Waterson, Nigel

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Webb, Steve

  Sanders, Adrian

  Wells, Bowen

  Shepherd, Richard

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Whittingdale, John

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Willetts, David

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Willis, Phil

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Wilshire, David

  Spring, Richard

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Steen, Anthony

  Woodward, Shaun

  Streeter, Gary

  Yeo, Tim

  Stunell, Andrew

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Mrs. Eleanor Laing and

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Mr. Stephen Day.

  NOES

  Ainger, Nick

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Clark, Dr Lynda

  Allen, Graham

  (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Austin, John

  Clelland, David

  Banks, Tony

  Clwyd, Ann

  Barnes, Harry

  Coaker, Vernon

  Barron, Kevin

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Battle, John

  Cohen, Harry

  Bayley, Hugh

  Coleman, Iain

  Beard, Nigel

  Colman, Tony

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Connarty, Michael

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Corbett, Robin

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Benton, Joe

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Cranston, Ross

  Berry, Roger

  Crausby, David

  Best, Harold

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Betts, Clive

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Blackman, Liz

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack

  Blizzard, Bob

  (Copeland)

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Borrow, David

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Darvill, Keith

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Davidson, Ian

  Browne, Desmond

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Dawson, Hilton

  Burden, Richard

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Burgon, Colin

  Denham, John

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Dismore, Andrew

  Cabom, Richard

  Dobbin, Jim

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Doran, Frank

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Dowd, Jim

  Cann, Jamie

  Drew, David

  Caplin, Ivor

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Casale, Roger

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Caton, Martin

  Edwards, Huw

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Efford, Clive

  Chaytor, David

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Clapham, Michael

  Ennis, Jeff

  264

  Etherington, Bill

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Fisher, Mark

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  Kemp, Fraser

  Flint, Caroline

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Flynn, Paul

  Khabra, Piara S

  Follett, Barbara

  Kidney, David

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Foulkes, George

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Fyfe, Maria

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Galbraith, Sam

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Galloway, George

  Lawrence, Ms Jackie

  Gapes, Mike

  Laxton, Bob

  Gardiner, Barry

  Lepper, David

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Gerrard, Neil

  Levitt, Tom

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Livingstone, Ken

  Godsiff, Roger

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Goggins, Paul

  Lock, David

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Love, Andrew

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  McAllion, John

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  McCabe, Steve

  Grocott, Bruce

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Grogan, John

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Hain, Peter

  Macdonald, Calum

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  McDonnell, John

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  McFall, John

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Mclsaac, Shona

  Hanson, David

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Healey, John

  MacShane, Denis

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  McWalter, Tony

  Hepburn, Stephen

  McWilliam, John

  Heppell, John

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Hesford, Stephen

  Mallaber, Judy

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Hill, Keith

  Marek, Dr John

  Hinchliffe, David

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Hoey, Kate

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Home Robertson, John

  Martlew, Eric

  Hood, Jimmy

  Maxton, John

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Hope, Phil

  Meale, Alan

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Merron, Gillian

  Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

  Michie, Bill (Shef?ld Heeley)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Miller, Andrew

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Mitchell, Austin

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Hurst. Alan

  Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

  Hutton, John

  Morley, Elliot

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Illsley, Eric

  Mountford, Kali

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Mudie, George

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Mullin, Chris

  Jamieson, David

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Johnson, Miss Melanie

  Norris, Dan

  (Welwyn Hatfield)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Olner, Bill

  Jones, Ms Jenny

  O'Neill, Martin

  (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Pearson, Ian

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Pendry, Tom

  Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Pickthall. Colin

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Pike, Peter L

  265

  Plaskitt, James

  Stevenson, George

  Pollard, Kerry

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Pond, Chris

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Pound, Stephen

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Stringer, Graham

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Purchase, Ken

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Taylor, Ms Dan (Stockton S)

  Radice, Giles

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Rammell, Bill

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Rapson, Syd

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Timms, Stephen

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Tipping, Paddy

  Rooney, Terry

  Todd, Manic

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Touhig, Don

  Rowlands, Ted

  Trickett, Jon

  Roy Frank

  Truswell, Paul

  Ruane Chris

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Ruddock Joan

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Vaz, Keith

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Sawford Phil,

  Wareing, Robert N

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Watts, David

  White,Brian

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Singh, Marsha

  Skinner, Dennis

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Wills, Michael

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Winnick, David

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Woolas, Phil

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Snape, Peter

  Wyatt, Derek

  Soley, Clive

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Mr. Greg Pope and

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Mrs. Anne McGuire

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Mr. Keith Bradley (Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household): I beg to move, That further consideration of the Bill be now adjourned.
  10.45 pm
  The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): In view not only of the lack of progress on the Bill, but of the Opposition's unwillingness even to discuss the time required for it, tomorrow's business will now be an allocation of time motion, followed by the remaining stages of the Local Government Bill. The business previously announced for tomorrow will now be taken at a later date.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. The question before the House is debatable and I assume that the Leader of the House has made that statement as part of the debate.
  Mr. Jenkin: A large number of amendments have yet to be discussed which raise serious matters about the Bill.
  266
  We have yet to discuss the principle of capping and council tax benefit subsidy limitation; the application of best value duty to police authorities; the definition of the general duty of best value; the limiting of the Secretary of State's powers, requiring him to take independent advice; the widening of the duty to consult to include non-commercial organisation; and such vital matters as whether the Henry VIII clause should be limited in duration, as such clauses should be.
  Serious constitutional issues are embodied in the Bill, it being the most draconian local government Bill that the House has ever seen. We are prepared to put in the time tonight to discuss these matters. [Interruption.] The question is why the Government would prefer to go home rather than do the work that they were elected to do.
  We know what the Government want. They want a soft life. They want to go early to bed with their teddy bears and hot milk instead of doing the job for which they were elected. The Government will get the Bill through by guillotining further consideration of these matters. Many important issues that we wish to discuss may not be discussed. No doubt the Government's sittings motion will put the remaining Government business first in the order of consideration and there will be no further discussion of the matters that we regard as important. The Government will then regard that as sufficient consideration of the Bill.
  There is time tonight to discuss these matters, but the Government would prefer to go to bed. That is a dereliction of their duty and an arrogant stifling of democratic debate in the House. I therefore oppose the motion.
  Mr. Frank Field: Some of us, as the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) said, may be going home to our teddy bears tonight, but British troops may be in the air to carry out Government policy and may die in the process. Surely it is inappropriate that the House of Commons should continue with this sort of saga during the night when important issues are at stake.
  The plain fact is, as I say to my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), that if the Government want the Bill they will get it. They have the majority to do so. No amount of sitting here tonight will make any difference to that.
  Surely, as the country approaches war, it would wrong of the House to be giving such a display of party politics.
  Mr. John Gummer: Our next discussion would have been about democracy in local government and how local people might have decided what they wanted to do with their own local authority. It is very serious that so many Labour Members shouted when it was suggested that we should discuss these serious matters one after another. It is all very well for the Leader of the House, who never answered a question seriously when she was the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, either because she could not or—
  Mrs. Beckett: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Gummer: No, I am not giving way. The right hon. Lady never answered a question.
  Mrs. Beckett: I thought that I should correct the right hon. Gentleman. My hon. Friends were saying, "You have not been here all evening, so why are you concerned?"
  Mr. Gummer: The right hon. Lady showed so much courtesy to the House that she did not even allow any

  267
  discussion before getting to her feet to say that she was not having any more debate. She is not in a position to teach anyone anything, because she was never willing to answer any questions when she was in charge of a Department.
  We are discussing a serious matter and we wish to go on to discuss democracy in local authorities. Year after year after year, the right hon. Lady complained in the House if anyone suggested that any decision should be made that was contrary to the wishes of Labour-controlled local authorities. I suggest that Labour Members want to introduce the various draconian measures that are before the House because they know that they will not control many local authorities in the future. They will therefore not come into conflict with Labour local authorities in the coming months and years.
  I say to the right hon. Lady, if she is listening, that there is no need for draconian rules when local authorities are run by Conservatives because we are, by nature, careful with ratepayers' money. She and her hon. Friends are making a great mistake: they believe that they have to make such decisions, because otherwise they will be faced with recalcitrant authorities over which they do not have control.
  We have given Labour Members a way out, but it is worrying that they will not take it. That way out is giving local people the right to decide for themselves whether they want an increase above that which the Government are willing to give them. That is what we would have discussed. The proposed Adjournment—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The question before us is narrowly drawn. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Order. I do not want the right hon. Gentleman to widen it too far. Would he please return to discussing the question before us?
  Mr. Gummer: The motion before the House stops us discussing democracy in local government. This House is supposed to be the guardian of democracy.
  Mr. Michael Fabricant: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) has affronted the House by saying that we should not be discussing democracy because of what might be happening over Kosovo? Are not we entering into a dispute in Kosovo for the sake of democracy? During the second world war, did not such discussions continue? The House did not go into abeyance for five years. The House of Commons—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This intervention is far too long.
  Mr. Gummer: I will not follow that line because of what you have said, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but it is all very well for Labour Members to believe that this is a convenient time at which to point out that, because of their majority, they can make such decisions. I say to my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field)—who is my pair and who kindly described me in such terms—that it is true that the Government could carry through any measure they liked. However,
  268
  one of the things that the Government, particularly the Leader of the House, should learn is that power also demands responsibility, and that continually using the power of the majority to avoid discussing issues that matter to minorities is the plea of those who do not believe in democracy.
  The Leader of the House would do her side much more good if, instead of smiling away on the Front Bench, she seriously asked herself whether local authorities were not important enough for the debate to continue, if necessary, in government time tomorrow and the day after. If she would give us that open-ended commitment, we would be happy to go home now and to continue tomorrow and the day after. In the meantime, she must accept that the House is the place where those issues should and need to be debated, because that is what democracy is about.
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: Will my right hon. Friend emphasise that the position of Leader of the House is more than that of a Minister? The Leader of the House has an obligation to the House as a whole.
  Mr. Gummer: I could emphasise that, but the present Leader of the House has rarely displayed that part of her role. I would like her to do so, but I have not so far seen it. Therefore, rather than appeal to that part of her role, I appeal to something that should be deep in her heart: a commitment to democracy. This is about local government. As. I think, the longest-serving local government Minister in the House, I do not remember not being willing to listen to her on democracy in local government. I sat through her speeches time and again.
  I was not terribly well informed as a result of what the Leader of the House said, but as Leader of the House she should not have got up as she did, not even allowing time to discuss whether we should have the motion. She insisted on pushing her guillotine motion because she is after no debate, no discussion, no democracy. The fact that she has done that just before the debate on a new clause to open up local government to local democracy, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), is a great sadness.
  I hope that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will allow me to say that, in her position as Leader of the House, the right hon. Lady should think again, perhaps show the courtesy that would come well from a party that claims to believe in democracy, and allow time for the matter to be debated properly.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: About 32 hon. Members have spoken in the debate so far: five have been called by you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the other 27 or 28 have been talking non-stop on the Labour Back Benches. It is clear that they want to contribute to what is going on.
  It would be useful to know whether the Leader of the House believes that her statement at the beginning of the debate was supposed to be a substitute for the business statement that she may want to make tomorrow, changing the business for tomorrow. Was it in accordance with precedence? Was her contribution to the debate a substitute for the business statement, on which she would normally expect to be questioned? If she is trying to avoid questioning, it compounds the offence of the way the Government have tried to curtail today's debate.

  269
  The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) has made a valuable point. It does not deal with the threatened guillotine. In practice, the issue being debated is not just whether the House adjourns tonight, which is a debatable motion, but whether the Government are right to say, at the first whiff of discussion in the House of Commons, "We want to drop the guillotine on the debate."
  Local government had to face the Government consultation, where the Government said that it could not argue for the present system—it could have any type of democracy except what this country had been used to. I believe that the House would be right to debate the issue for an hour and a half, or two and a half hours. I believe that, if the Leader of the House, who seems to be absent from the Chamber—[Hon. MEMBERS: "Where is she?"]—is forced to make another business statement tomorrow, there will be the possibility of another hour of questions and answers. I will not anticipate points of order, but it strikes me that the Leader of the House would have been better advised to listen to the advice of her Whips. She would have done better to allow tonight's debate to continue in an even-tempered way, and, if necessary, to allocate more time to the Report stage.
  11 pm
  Mr. John Greenway: Is it not extraordinary that, half an hour after the moving of the business motion at 10 pm, a motion was moved to curtail the debate?
  Mr. Bottomley: It may try your patience, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I explain how that is consistent with a number of other actions taken by the present Government; but the key point for the House of Commons is that the debate could have continued until midnight, or slightly later. The only reason for the threat issued by the Leader of the House is the fact that the Government do not want the House to discuss, in detail, alternatives to their plans for local government. That will be noted in Worthing, in Arun district council and in West Sussex county council. [Interruption.] The laughter of Labour Members will be seen in parallel with the failure of their party to put up candidates in local government by-elections on the south coast.
  The party that claims to govern for the nation is not playing its part in competition for elections to local government throughout the country. I believe that the party will be seen through, that as and when the consequences of its iron rule here are noted it will pay the penalty in local government, and that, whatever it does with the Bill, it will regret its action tonight. It is undemocratic and wrong.
  Mr. Sanders: Liberal Democrats understand the frustration that the Government must feel. Certainly we could have made far more progress than we have made but for the filibustering tendencies of certain Conservative Members. Members of the official Opposition raised many important points—although some took a long time over it—but many more still need to be raised.
  Mr. Fabricant: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If an hon. Member was filibustering, would that not be ruled out of order?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that the hon. Gentleman can safely leave such matters to the Chair.
  Mr. Sanders: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his filibustering intervention.
  270
  Many important facets of the Bill still need to be debated. The Bill alters the relationship between local government and central Government in what we consider to be an adverse way. It confers powers on the Secretary of State that previously resided with the House, or with local government. We have yet to debate the important amendments on the principle of capping. Labour Members have spent the last 18 years criticising the Conservatives in that connection, but they may not now be able to hear the debate in full tomorrow.
  The application of best value duty to police and other authorities,the definition of the general duty of best value, the limitation to the Secretary of State's powers of requiring him to take independent advice and the proposal to limit the duration of the Henry VIII clause are all important issues, but what the Leader of the House has done has a further disadvantage: it has prevented Liberal Democrats from debating their amendments, and we may not now have the time that we would otherwise have had to debate them.
  The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) made an important point. We have forces on their way overseas on our behalf. If we cannot debate the best value provisions, perhaps the House should sit through the night to debate that matter.
  Mr. Hogg: The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) made a perfectly sound point about the desirability of debating events in Kosovo. Is not the proper action for the House to convene tomorrow to debate policy towards the former Yugoslavia and Kosovo, and to debate this matter tonight?
  Mr. Sanders: I agree entirely with the right hon. and learned Gentleman, as do other Liberal Democrat Members, who will vote against the motion. I have made my point. This is a very sad day for democracy, and particularly for local democracy. The Bill is an attack on the ballot box in local councils and on people's right to determine who controls their council—local councillors or central Government.
  Mr. Forth: The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), perhaps inadvertently, let the cat out of the bag. He said words to the effect—I cannot quote him exactly—of, "The Government will get their Bill anyway—so what's the point in debating it?"
  Mr. Field rose—
  Mr. Forth rose—
  Mr. Forth: He will correct me.
  Mr. Field: I said that merely on the basis of my experience as an hon. Member for 20 years, watching the Conservative party in government.
  Mr. Forth: Whatever the basis of the right hon. Gentleman's comment, it revealed what is in the minds of Labour Members—in the mind even of a distinguished and respected Government Back Bencher such as him. The gist of his remark was, "There's no point in continuing a rather futile debate on the Bill. Let's just get

  271
  on with the Bill, because the Government have a huge majority." That seems to be the attitude of Government Back Benchers.
  Mr. Hogg: Is there not another aspect to my right hon. Friend's comments—that, plainly, the Government Whips had caused their own Back Benchers to abstain from the debate, thus preventing a proper debate on the Bill?
  Mr. Forth: Yes; regrettably, it is true. My right hon. and learned Friend is correct. Hon. Members who have been in the Chamber throughout the debate are very conscious of the fact that no Government Back Bencher spoke in it. Although that may be a matter for Government Back Benchers. I suspect—as my right hon. and learned Friend said—that it is much more likely to have been a matter for the Government Whips, ruthlessly suppressing any contribution by their own Back Benchers to the debate, and accusing Opposition Members of prolonging it.
  Mr. Hogg: Is not the true position either that Government Back Benchers are not concerned about the issues involved in the Bill, or that a gagging order has been imposed on them to shut them up? It is one or the other. Which does my right hon. Friend think it is?
  Mr. Forth: I regret to say that there were so few Government Back Benchers present for the debate that it was almost impossible to tell which it was—but I assume that it was their indifference to the Bill's substance, as they did not trouble even to come into the Chamber and listen to the debate, never mind participate in it.
  Let us consider the point that we had reached in the debate. As many hon. Members will know, there are 12 groups of amendments for our consideration today. We have dealt with two of the groups, and the next group was intimately related to the one that we have just finished considering. The Government have, quite arbitrarily, interrupted the debate at a completely inappropriate time. It is bad enough that they are seeking to truncate the debate, but to do it in the manner that they chose shows that they are completely uninterested in the substance and nature of the amendments that were being debated.
  Quite arbitrarily, the Government decided prematurely to finish off the debate. Moreover, as the Leader of the House said, the Government will tomorrow move a guillotine motion, further to restrict debate on this important Bill. That shows the Government's overall attitude to the House and to legislation, which is: no debate at all; no participation by Government Back Benchers; a minimum amount of time; arbitrary truncation of the debate, at a time when the House is perfectly capable of continuing with it; and—to add insult to injury—a provocative announcement by the Leader of the House that she will tomorrow move a guillotine motion further to reduce debate.
  Mr. Fabricant: Does my right hon. Friend think that it is a delicious—if that is the right word—irony that the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) can talk about the events in Kosovo, where British troops are going to fight the forces of fascism, which are engaged
  272
  against democracy, when in this House, which is the seat of democracy, we hear that the Leader of the House is trying to curtail democratic debate? Is he not—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has made that point already this evening.
  Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I would not dream of arguing with his point. I accept it completely.
  Are the Government going to allow proper consideration of legislation in this House and in another place? The Government's arbitrary and artificial restriction of debate here is bad enough, but what they are proposing to do in another place compounds that, because the Bill will not receive proper consideration there either.
  Mr. Gummer: Will my right hon. Friend return to the point that he made about the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field)? There is a difference between saying that one side can always win a vote and being prepared to give time for a debate in case something should come out of it that would enable the Government to improve the Bill. That is an important element of democracy. Even if we lose the vote, such debates enable the Government to change their mind.
  Mr. Forth: Ironically, as my right hon. Friend knows well, this evening we debated a group of amendments that arose from consideration in Committee. The Government came forward with amendments, they were duly debated and the House had an opportunity to decide whether to vote on them. In the middle of that process, we are going to be denied further proper consideration. I hope that the Leader of the House will reconsider what she has peremptorily and arbitrarily done this evening. Even now it is not too late. She has an opportunity during this brief debate to reconsider what she has done and to reflect on the damage that her decision will do to the image of a Government already tainted with the perception of arrogance, which is developing in the House and outside.
  Mr. Hayes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the damage to the Government's reputation will come not just from their treatment of the House, but from their contempt for local democracy? We are debating local democracy and good conduct in local government. Their reputation as the enemies of local government will be exacerbated by their behaviour tonight.
  Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend is right. We are talking about a triple whammy. The Government have mounted an assault on local government and democracy, on democratic processes in the House of Commons, and on the role that the other place has played for so long in terms of proper checks and balances against the Executive in our legislature. There is a triple threat to the traditions of democracy.
  Mr. Hogg: May I put it to my right hon. Friend that there is yet another dimension? The reluctance of Labour Back Benchers to protest about the truncation of debate is worrying. As Back Benchers, they should be concerned that they are not able to participate for longer tonight on such an important matter. Is that not a cause for concern to my right hon. Friend?
  Mr. Forth: This is where beds, teddy bears and cocoa come into the matter. I suspect that the Government
  121212121212121

  273
  Whips felt unable to ask or require their Back Benchers to remain in the House of Commons—never mind participate in the debate—and in their desperate anxiety to get them off home as quickly as possible, the Government are prepared to sacrifice the proper, traditional processes of the House. It is completely unacceptable.
  11.15 pm
  Mr. John Butterfill: Does my hon. Friend agree that what will not be understood in local government and outside the House in general is the inconsistency of the Government's approach? If they had intended to curtail debate this early, why did they move the 10 o'clock motion? What was the point of moving the 10 o'clock motion if they intended to close down the debate early?
  Mr. Forth: I hope that when the Government reply to the debate—I hope they will do us that courtesy in order further to explain their motivation—they will answer my hon. Friend's valid point. It seems odd that, when only a few minutes earlier the Government had invoked a process that would prolong the debate, they then sought to close it down. We must have an explanation of what on earth is going on, what is in the Government's mind and, more particularly, an assurance that the Leader of the House will reconsider what she has done and seek to find simple, straightforward ways—in which I am sure we would co-operate—to allow the debate to continue properly, so that this important Bill receives proper consideration.
  Mr. Wilshire: The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) made a fair point. He had my sympathy and I was beginning to be persuaded by what he said until his final comment. Unlike my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), I wrote down what the right hon. Gentleman said at the end of his speech. He said that no amount of sitting here will make any difference. I assumed that he was aiming that comment at us, but on reflection, perhaps he was saying how he feels when he bothers to come to the House and make a speech as it makes no difference, given the way in which the Government have treated him.
  Mr. Field: It is important that the hon. Gentleman distinguishes between my main speech and secondary interventions that I made in response to points arising from the debate. In public discourse such as this, it is useful to make a distinction between primary and secondary causes.
  I was saying that tonight British troops may die carrying out Government policy and it is inappropriate for us to be squabbling in this way. A secondary point was that general elections decide who govern and roughly on what terms. The Opposition have a duty to conduct a five-year election campaign. Some Opposition Members have not realised that they have made their point and they continue to embroider it. I think that we should begin to draw conclusions from the debate and that we should adjourn in a sober mood, considering what is happening elsewhere.
  Mr. Wilshire: I made exactly that point. At the beginning of his speech, the right hon. Gentleman was
  274
  making an effective point. He is the only Labour Member to say that he wants a discourse. That is approximately what we are saying; we would like a debate across the Chamber, but only the right hon. Member for Birkenhead is willing to do that.
  Mr. Gummer: Does my hon. Friend agree that it would have been very much better had the Leader of the House got up and said that, owing to the serious nature of the announcement earlier, she would seek the adjournment of the House, that tomorrow we would discuss the issues of Kosovo and that she would provide proper time for the Local Government Bill. That would have come surprisingly—but extremely well—had she done it. The right hon. Member for Birkenhead did what she should have done, but it is a great pity that she did not do it. Perhaps she would like to do it now—or can a leopard not change its spots?
  Mr. Wilshire: My right hon. Friend is correct. Like the right hon. Member for Birkenhead, I am concerned that we may go home tonight in a fractious state. However, he is wrong to try to put the blame for that on the Opposition. Had he been here for the debate, he would have found that the House was in a good mood. There was nothing fractious about it until the Government Front Benchers caused all the trouble. If the right hon. Gentleman goes home unhappy tonight, he knows who to blame. It is not us—it is the Government Front Benchers.
  Mr. Hayes: Is not it the case that when the 10 o'clock motion was moved, most Members would have anticipated that the House would have continued to debate the amendments for perhaps an hour or two—perhaps until 12.30 am? One might have expected the Government to close down the debate at that time. By then, several further speeches would have been made and more matters aired. Frankly, the Government would have had a considerably easier time persuading Members on both sides of the House that their case was justified.
  Mr. Wilshire: My hon. Friend asks what I expected when I came here. I have a confession to make—I had begun to believe some of the rhetoric of Labour Front Benchers. I was becoming brainwashed into believing that they were a confident, self-assured team who knew how to run the country. I have discovered that, far from that, they are a bunch of wimps who, even with a huge majority, cannot cope with opposition. They do not have the slightest intention of allowing anyone to have a say on anything with which they disagree. After only five hours of debate—during which time most Labour Back Benchers could not even be bothered to come here—they have run out of arguments and patience, and they have no intention of listening further.
  Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Is not it the case that the Government do not wish to discuss capping in detail on the Floor of the House? Is my hon. Friend aware that the present Government imposed the smallest-ever cap on a local authority, despite saying at the general election that they would not cap at all? Last year, they put a cap on Derbyshire—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is a little wide of the matter before the House.
  Mr. Wilshire: I congratulate my hon. Friend on making a point that the Labour party is trying to stop us

  275
  making by guillotining the debate. Not only has the debate been stopped after only five hours, it has been stopped after only two groups of amendments. That is all the Government can cope with. During the debates on the two groups, no Labour Back Bencher could be bothered to utter a word against our arguments. Opposition is something with which the Government cannot cope.
  Mr. Fabricant: My hon. Friend has said that no Labour Back Benchers have contributed because they had no ideas to suggest to the debate. Was that the case, or was it that the Whips prevented them from doing so—thus demonstrating the inability of those on the Government Front Bench and the Whips to allow democracy in this House? [Interruption.]
  Mr. Wilshire: Sadly, I do not have psychic powers, so I have no notion of what the Whips have been doing. However, having learned a bit about them in my first 11 years here, I would not be in the least surprised if my hon. Friend were correct. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Gummer: Has my hon. Friend noticed that the Minister for Local Government and Housing is very anxious to enter the debate? Has he noticed that she has hardly been able to contain herself during any speech from the Opposition? Will he point out to her that if we did not have the guillotine, she would have plenty of time to share with the House her obvious indignation?
  Mr. Wilshire: Again, my right hon. Friend makes a fair point. Had he been here during our earlier debate, he would have noticed that, far from wanting to join in, the moment that things got difficult, the right hon. Lady got up and fled, probably to seek advice from spin doctors.
  Mr. Hogg: If we face a guillotine motion tomorrow, is not the overwhelming probability that we will not have proper discussion of major parts of the Bill? Does my hon. Friend agree that, in those circumstances, it is important that the other place should debate the Bill very extensively, so that it is properly discussed in one House at least?
  Mr. Wilshire: That is absolutely right. I am sure that we can send a few copies of Hansard to the other place to make exactly that point.
  Mr. Jenkin: One reason why Ministers fled may be that their names appeared on early-day motions condemning capping in the previous Parliament. Those involved include the Secretaries of State for Education and Employment and for Wales. They said one thing in opposition and now they do another.
  Mr. Wilshire: Exactly so.
  The Government cannot cope with more than five hours of debate. [Interruption.] Does the Minister for Local Government and Housing want me to give way?
  Ms Armstrong indicated dissent.
  Mr. Denis MacShane: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the fact that, for the first time
  276
  this year, there are more than a dozen Conservative Members present in the Chamber. Yesterday, there were 12 here for the education statement. The average for Treasury, Trade and Industry and Education and Employment questions is fewer than 20. Here we have the fatuous fighting—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Wilshire: If the hon. Gentleman cares to look around him, he will discover that there are more Conservative than Labour Members present. All his wimps have gone away again.
  Mr. Oliver Heald: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government are trying to curtail the debate because the Minister for Local Government and Housing has been completely unable to answer Conservative Members' criticisms of her party?
  Mr. Wilshire: Perhaps, having rushed out to seek help, the right hon. Lady could not find Alastair Campbell, so she came back with a guillotine.
  After only five hours of debate and two groups of amendments and new clauses—a mere half an hour after moving the business motion to extend the debate—the Government decided that they had had enough, despite the fact that the business statement made it clear that we were to consider the Bill today. The Government gave ample notice of the debate and invited both Government and Opposition Members to consider the Bill and table amendments. It is a pity that only Opposition Members took up the invitation.
  We could have had a constructive debate. The Government decided to move a business motion, for some tactical reason that is beyond me, but not because they genuinely wanted debate on what they said we would discuss today.
  Mr. Hayes: The Adjournment motion was moved arbitrarily. The matters to be discussed later were at least as important as those that have been discussed, and arguably more so. The decision was based on no logic, common sense or sense of decency.
  Mr. Wilshire: I agree that decency and logic are not hallmarks of the Government. They have made it clear that they do not want debate or amendments. They want to trample on democracy and deny us the chance to question what they have chosen to do.
  11.30 pm
  Mrs. Ann Winterton: My hon. Friend reinforces all that I feel about tonight's debate. Do not the people in the country feel that we have an elective dictatorship that does not wish to hear debate on the important issues before us?
  Mr. Wilshire: I agree wholeheartedly.
  May I put a point directly to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, which has been mentioned by others? I am not clear about what has happened tonight. The Government moved that we should cease further consideration of the Local Government Bill. That motion can be debated, it is being debated, and it will be voted on. However, the Leader of

  277
  the House made what amounted to a statement. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, explained to us that she had spoken in our debate.
  No doubt you will put me right if I am wrong, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I understand that there is a motion before us and that we are debating it. The Leader of the House has spoken in that debate. I am not an expert on Standing Orders—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear.] Let us see whether I have a fair point or not. As I have learned during my 12 years in the House, business can be changed after it has been announced if a formal business statement is given to the House after the Government have given notice of that statement to the Speaker.
  I do not understand whether we are debating a motion or a business statement. I do not believe that we can have both at the same time. When we come to vote on the motion, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would you guide us as to whether there must follow a formal business statement on which we may ask questions before tomorrow's business can be changed?
  Mr. Hogg: Perhaps I can help my hon. Friend. The Leader of the House must make a formal business statement tomorrow, and we may look forward to asking her questions. At present, we are debating the motion, and very much enjoying it.
  Mr. Wilshire: I should far rather have a ruling from the Chair, no matter how much I respect and like my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg). Is it permissible for the Leader of the House to leap to her feet tomorrow afternoon to say that we will change the business two minutes later? Would not it be sensible to make a business statement now?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Let me make it clear that we are debating the question that further consideration of the Bill be now adjourned. All speeches so far have been on that question.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May we take it from that clear ruling that the business of the House, printed overnight, cannot include what the Leader of the House purported to say at the beginning of her speech?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Government have total control of the Order Paper.
  Mr. Gummer: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If it is the custom of the House that changes to the business of the House should be presented formally, do you agree that it would be a change in that custom if we did not have an opportunity to know what that change was and to ask at least limited questions of the Leader of the House of Commons?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Perhaps it would be helpful if the Leader of the House responded.
  Mrs. Beckett: I am happy to help, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am slightly surprised that Opposition Members did not choose to ask questions when I made my earlier remarks.
  278
  The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) asked whether my action went outside the custom of the House. It did not.
  Mr. Jenkin: It did.
  Mrs. Beckett: That is not true. I well recall sitting in my office when I was shadow Leader of the House and seeing the then Leader of the House making a business statement on television without prior announcement.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I shall deal with that point. The Leader of the House could not have expected hon. Members to treat her remarks as a statement as she was simply contributing to the debate on the motion.
  Mr. Hogg: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Leader of the House has now risen. I think that hon. Members will wish to treat what she has said as a statement that gives us the opportunity, before we resume our debate, to ask her some questions. Will you confirm that what she has said by way of an intervention is indeed a statement that gives rise to the process of questioning that statement?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not correct. The Leader of the House was simply contributing to the debate.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You clearly gave a ruling that the Leader of the House's first remarks were part of the debate on whether the House should now adjourn. The Leader of the House, since then, has purported to say that she has made a business statement. Would it be possible, in the kindest way, to advise her that her remarks cannot have been a business statement as you had already ruled that her remarks were a contribution to the debate on the motion for adjournment. No one would want to accuse the Leader of the House of intentionally trying to challenge a ruling by you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but until she clarifies the issue, that is the way it will read.
  Sir George Young: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would it be in order for the Leader of the House to confirm that once this debate is out of the way she plans to make a business statement in the normal way?
  Mrs. Beckett: Not only is that my intention, but I have been willing to make it plain at any time this past hour. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We can clear this point up. Is the Leader of the House planning to make a statement at the conclusion of this debate?
  Mrs. Beckett: At your convenience, and at the House's convenience, I shall make a statement when this debate is concluded. I accept, of course, your ruling, as I have accepted it from the beginning. I object strongly to the imputation by the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley), whatever his seat is. You properly ruled that I made a contribution to the debate and I have no

  279
  quarrel with that. I also have no objection to being questioned on the business statement: indeed, I look forward to it.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The matter is entirely clear and we must now resume the debate.
  Mr. Wilshire: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Things get better and better or worse and worse, depending on one's point of view. A few moments ago, we witnessed a demonstration from a bunch of wimps who are not prepared to debate anything and are not prepared to listen. We have now had a demonstration from a bunch of wimps who do not understand how to run the House of Commons, although they claim to be in charge of it.
  Mr. Gummer: Would my hon. Friend comment on the fact that for several moments while he was asking the Leader of the House whether she was going to make a statement, she shook her head, giving a clear indication that she would not. She now says to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that she never had any intention of not making that statement.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That matter has been clarified and we must move on to the question before us.
  Mr. Wilshire: I imagine that it may occur to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that as we have not had a business statement, and the business has not yet changed, you might be tempted to ask how we can debate a change of business that has not taken place. Everything that has been said on the issue will need to be repeated after we have heard the business statement.
  Mr. Hogg: One of the matters of concern to many hon. Members is that the Leader of the House proposes to make a business statement that clearly has not been discussed through the usual channels. Is not she abusing the courtesy and practice of the House and is not that a matter of grave concern to my hon. Friend?
  Mr. Wilshire: It has been demonstrated that Government Front Benchers do not understand the conventions and courtesies of the House, so how can we expect anything different? The only other thing that we can now say is that perhaps the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges needs to investigate another leak. Before the business statement has been made, we know what will be in it. That is yet another leak from the Labour party.
  I shall return to the subject of the Government's so far botched attempt to stop debate on the Bill. Before we got into this situation, we were discussing new clause 5. Our argument was that we wanted to return power to the people because the Bill would do the opposite. [Interruption.] We made no claim to that phrase; we borrowed it from the Labour party. Having had a debate about returning power to the people in local government, we are now having a debate about a Government who are prepared to deny power to Parliament. When the Government make their business statement shortly, they will guillotine a Bill—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. We are not deciding what the Government or the Leader
  280
  of the House are going to do; there is a motion before the House. We can worry about what the statement contains later on.
  Mr. Wilshire: I accept that point, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I was responding to the contribution to the debate made by the Leader of the House. However, I accept your point, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  The refusal to listen that we saw earlier and are seeing now reflects the use of the draconian powers that refuse to allow Parliament to sit late into the night. Those draconian powers against this Parliament, like the draconian powers against local government, show the Government in their true light; that is not a pretty sight.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: We are debating the progress of the Bill on Report; the Question is whether the House should adjourn and terminate debate tonight on this important Bill, having debated only two groups out of 12 groups of amendments and new clauses. According to the Leader of the House, many of the amendments that remain to be debated are likely to be subject to a guillotine, namely a timetabled debate.
  I speak tonight because I served in local government and am proud of the role that local government plays in our democracy. Will the right hon. Lady guarantee to the House that she will allocate adequate time under the timetable motion for debate on the remaining 10 groups of amendments and new clauses, including the third group on the selection list? That group relates to capping—a most important matter, especially to those, like me, who served in local government. I am proud that one of the small number of achievements that I have notched up in my political career was when I won a Labour seat—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Until now, the hon. Gentleman has been perfectly in order, but he must not tell us about his political career. That is not the subject of the debate, interesting though it may be.
  Mr. Winterton: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have the feeling that the House wants to hear about it.
  Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Deputy Speaker does not want to hear about it and that is what is important.
  Mr. Winterton: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I thought that you were seeking to represent the best interests of the whole House. At no stage would I ever seek to overrule a decision of the Speaker or the Deputy Speaker, but I am trying to make the point that debate on the remaining 10 groups of amendments and new clauses could well be limited and that that might have an impact on the effectiveness of local government and on the democracy which is so important to local government.
  Mr. Gummer rose—
  Mr. Winterton: I shall give way to my right hon. Friend in a moment.
  The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) is someone for whom I have the highest regard; for several years, I served under his chairmanship of the Select

  281
  Committee on Social Security. He raised an issue about Kosovo and the fact that British service men and women—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. [Interruption.] I am making the rulings and Kosovo is not a matter—[Interruption.] I make the rulings when I am in the Chair, and I cannot decide on what went on before I took the Chair. I am ruling that the matter of Kosovo is out of order.
  11.45 pm
  Mr. Winterton rose—
  Mr. Gummer: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Winterton: I shall in a moment, but I hope that when the Deputy Speaker has received the advice of the Clerk of the House, he might—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows better. I am acting on my own advice and I say to the hon. Gentleman that he should make no mention of Kosovo—it has nothing to do with the motion before us. The hon. Gentleman knows the procedures of this House as well as I do. Carry on.
  Mr. Winterton: Let me say to the Deputy Speaker that I have been in for the whole of the debate, and the fact is that a Labour Member stood up and made a major part of his speech in respect of that matter—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman takes his seat.
  Mr. Winterton: I will accept what the Deputy Speaker—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Mr. Winterton, you must accept my ruling and speak to the motion before us.
  Mr. Winterton: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have already said that I am prepared to accept the ruling that you have made, however it will be interpreted. I give way to my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer).
  Mr. Gummer: I wonder whether my hon. Friend would like to comment on an ugly rumour that has spun around the House that when debate on this motion has ended and the next motion is moved, the Government intend to limit speakers on the Government Benches to those—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Bradley rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
  Question put, That the Question be now put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 314, Noes 140.

  Division No.127

  [11.47 pm

  AYES

  Ainger, Nick

  Darvill, Keith

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Allen, Graham

  Davidson, Ian

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Denham, John

  Austin, John

  Dismore, Andrew

  Banks, Tony

  Dobbin, Jim

  Barnes, Harry

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Battle, John

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Bayley, Hugh

  Doran, Frank

  Beard, Nigel

  Dowd, Jim

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Drew, David

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Edwards, Huw

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Efford, Clive

  Benton, Joe

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Best, Harold

  Ennis, Jeff

  Blackman, Liz

  Etherington, Bill

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Blizzard, Bob

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  Borrow, David

  Flint, Caroline

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Flynn, Paul

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Follett, Barbara

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Browne. Desmond

  Foulkes, George

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Fyfe, Maria

  Burden, Richard

  Galloway, George

  Burgon, Colin

  Gardiner, Barry

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  Caborn, Richard

  Gerrard, Neil

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyfh V)

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Godsiff, Roger

  Cann, Jamie

  Goggins, Paul

  Caplin, Ivor

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Casale, Roger

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Caton, Martin

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Chaytor, David

  Grogan, John

  Clapham, Michael

  Hain, Peter

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Hanson, David

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Healey, John

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Clelland, David

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Clwyd, Ann

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Coaker, Vernon

  Heppell, John

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hesford, Stephen

  Cohen, Harry

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Coleman, lain

  Hill, Keith

  Colman, Tony

  Hinchiiffe, David

  Connarty, Michael

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hoey, Kate

  Corbett, Robin

  Home Robertson, John

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Hope, Phil

  Cousins, Jim

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Cranston, Ross

  Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

  Crausby, David

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Cryer, John (Homchurch)

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Hurst, Alan

  Dalyell, Tam

  Hutton, John

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  283

  Illsley, Eric

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Mountford, Kali

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Mudie, George

  Jamieson, David

  Mullin, Chris

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Johnson, Miss Melanie

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Norris, Dan

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Jones, Ms Jenny

  Olner, Bill

  (Wolverh'ton SW)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Pearson, Ian

  Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

  Pendry, Tom

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Pickthall, Colin

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Pike, Peter L

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Plaskitt, James

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Pond, Chris

  Kemp, Fraser

  Pope, Greg

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Pound, Stephen

  Khabra, Piara S

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Kidney, David

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Primarolo, Dawn

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Purchase, Ken

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Radice, Giles

  Lawrence, Ms Jackie

  Rammell, Bill

  Laxton, Bob

  Rapson, Syd

  Lepper, David

  Raynsford, Nick

  Leslie, Christopher

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Levitt, Tom

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Rooney, Terry

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Livingstone, Ken

  Rowlands, Ted

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Roy, Frank

  Lock, David

  Ruane, Chris

  Love, Andrew

  Ruddock, Joan

  McAllion, John

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  McCabe, Steve

  Savidge, Malcolm

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Sawford, Phil

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Macdonald, Calum

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  McDonnell, John

  Singh, Marsha

  McFall, John

  Skinner, Dennis

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Smith, Miss Geraldine

  McNamara, Kevin

  (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  MacShane, Denis

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  McWalter, Tony

  Soley, Clive

  McWilliam, John

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Mallaber, Judy

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Stevenson, George

  Marek, Dr John

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Stott, Roger

  Martlew, Eric

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Maxton, John

  Stringer, Graham

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Meale, Alan

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Merron, Gillian

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  (Dewsbury)

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Taylor, Ms Dan (Stockton S)

  Miller, Andrew

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Mitchell, Austin

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Timms, Stephen

  Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Morley, Elliot

  Todd, Mark

  284

  Touhig, Don

  Williams. Rt Hon Alan

  Trickett, Jon

  (Swansea W)

  Truswell, Paul

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverth'ton SE)

  Wills, Michael

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Winnick, David

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Vaz, Keith

  Woolas, Phil

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Watts, David

  White, Brian

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Mr. Kevin Hughes and

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Mr. Clive Betts

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Allan, Richard

  Hammond, Philip

  Amess, David

  Harvey, Nick

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Hayes, John

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Heald, Oliver

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Baker, Norman

  Horam, John

  Ballard, Jackie

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Bercow, John

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Blunt, Crispin

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Body, Sir Richard

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Boswell, Tim

  Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Key, Robert

  Brazier, Julian

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Lansley, Andrew

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Leigh, Edward

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Letwin, Oliver

  Burnett, John

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Burns, Simon

  Lidington, David

  Burstow, Paul

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Butterfill, John

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies

  Loughton, Tim

  (NE Fife)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Chidgey, David

  Malins, Humfrey

  Chope, Christopher

  Mates, Michael

  Clappison, James

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Collins, Tim

  Moore, Michael

  Cran, James

  Moss, Malcolm

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Oaten, Mark

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Öpik, Lembit

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice& Howden)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Page, Richard

  Day, Stephen

  Paice, James

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Prior, David

  Duncan, Alan

  Randall, John

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Faber, David

  Rendel, David

  Fabricant, Michael

  Robathan, Andrew

  Fallon, Michael

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Flight, Howard

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Ruffley, David

  Fraser, Christopher

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Garnier, Edward

  St Aubyn, Nick

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Sanders, Adrian

  Gibb, Nick

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Gill. Christopher

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Spring, Richard

  Gray, James

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Green, Damian

  Steen, Anthony

  Greenway, John

  Streeter, Gary

  Grieve, Dominic

  Stunell, Andrew

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  285

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Wilkinson, John

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Willetts, David

  Tredinnick, David

  Willis, Phil

  Trend, Michael

  Wilshire, David

  Tyne, Andrew

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Viggers, Peter

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Walter, Robert

  Woodward, Shaun

  Wardle, Charles

  Yeo, Tim

  Waterson, Nigel

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Webb, Steve

  Wells, Bowen

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Mrs. Eleanor Laing and

  Whittingdale, John

  Sir David Madel

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Question put accordingly:—
  The House divided: Ayes 314,Noes 132.

  Division No.128]

  [12.3 am

  AYES

  Ainger, Nick

  Coaker, Vernon

  Ainsworth, Robert (CoV'try NE)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Allen, Graham

  Cohen, Harry

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Coleman, lain

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Colman, Tony

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Connarty, Michael

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Austin, John

  Corbett, Robin

  Banks, Tony

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Barnes, Harry

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Battle, John

  Cousins, Jim

  Bayley, Hugh

  Cranston, Ross

  Beard, Nigel

  Crausby, David

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Cryer, John (Homchurch)

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Cunningham, Jim (CoV'try S)

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Benton, Joe

  Dalyell, Tam

  Best, Harold

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Blackman, Liz

  Darvill, Keith

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Blizzard, Bob

  Davidson, Ian

  Borrow, David

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Denham, John

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Dismore, Andrew

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Dobbin, Jim

  Browne, Desmond

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Burden, Richard

  Doran, Frank

  Burgon, Colin

  Dowd, Jim

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Drew, David

  Cabom, Richard

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Edwards, Huw

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Efford, Clive

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Ellman. Mrs Louise

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Ennis, Jeff

  Cann, Jamie

  Etherington, Bill

  Caplin, Ivor

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Casale, Roger

  Fisher, Mark

  Caton, Martin

  Fitzsimons, Loma

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Flint, Caroline

  Chaytor, David

  Flynn, Paul

  Clapham, Michael

  Follett, Barbara

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Foulkes, George

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Fyfe, Maria

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Galloway, George

  Clelland, David

  Gardiner, Barry

  Clwyd, Ann

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  286

  Gerrard, Neil

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Lock, David

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Love, Andrew

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  McAllion, John

  Godsiff, Roger

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Goggins, Paul

  McCabe, Steve

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Macdonald, Calum

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  McDonnell, John

  Grogan, John

  McFall, John

  Hain, Peter

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Hanson, David

  MacShane, Denis

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Healey, John

  McWalter, Tony

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  McWilliam, John

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Mallaber, Judy

  Heppell, John

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Hesford, Stephen

  Marek, Dr John

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Hill, Keith

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Martlew, Eric

  Hoey, Kate

  Maxton, John

  Home Robertson, John

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Meale, Alan

  Hope, Phil

  Merron, Gillian

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Miller, Andrew

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Mitchell, Austin

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Hurst, Alan

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Hutton, John

  Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Morley, Elliot

  Illsley, Eric

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Mountford, Kali

  Jackson. Helen (Hillsborough)

  Mudie, George

  Jamieson, David

  Mullin, Chris

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Norris, Dan

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Jones, Helen (Warnington N)

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Olner, Bill

  O'Neill, Martin

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Jones, Marlyn (Clwyd S)

  Pearson, Ian

  Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

  Pendry, Tom

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Pickthall, Colin

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Pike, Peter L

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Plaskitt, James

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & lsleworth)

  Pond, Chris

  Kemp, Fraser

  Pope, Greg

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Pound, Stephen

  Khabra, Piara S

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Kidney, David

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Kiffoyle, Peter

  Primarolo, Dawn

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Purchase, Ken

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Radice, Giles

  Lawrence, Ms Jackie

  Rammell, Bill

  Laxton, Bob

  Rapson, Syd

  Lepper, David

  Raynsford, Nick

  Leslie, Christopher

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Levitt, Tom

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Rooney, Terry

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee KO

  Livingstone, Ken

  Rowlands, Ted

  287

  Roy, Frank

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Ruane, Chris

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Ruddock, Joan

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Timms, Stephen

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Tipping, Paddy

  Sawford, Phil

  Todd, Mark

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Touhig, Don

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Trickett, Jon

  Singh, Marsha

  Truswell, Paul

  Skinner, Dennis

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Vaz, Keith

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Watts, David

  Soley, Clive

  White, Brian

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Stevenson, George

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Wills, Michael

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Winnick, David

  Stott, Roger

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Woolas, Phil

  Stringer, Graham

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Mr. Kevin Hughes and Mr. Clive Betts

  Taylor, Ms Dart (Stockton S)

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Butterfill, John

  Allan, Richard

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Amess, David

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Atkinson, David (Bour'Mth E)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Chope, Christopher

  Baker, Norman

  Clappison, James

  Ballard, Jackie

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Bercow, John

  Collins, Tim

  Blunt, Crispin

  Gran, James

  Boswell, Tim

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice & Howden)

  Brazier, Julian

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Day, Stephen

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Duncan, Alan

  Burnett, John

  Duncan Smith, lain

  Burns, Simon

  Faber, David

  Burstow, Paul

  Fabricant, Michael

  288

  Fallon, Michael

  Ottaway, Richard

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Page, Richard

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Paice, James

  Fraser, Christopher

  Prior, David

  Garnier, Edward

  Randall, John

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Gibb, Nick

  Rendel, David

  Gill, Christopher

  Robathan, Andrew

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Gray, James

  Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

  Green, Damian

  Ruffley, David

  Greenway, John

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Grieve, Dominic

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Sanders, Adrian

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Hammond, Philip

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Hayes, John

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Heald, Oliver

  Spring, Richard

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Steen, Anthony

  Horam, John

  Streeter, Gary

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Stunell, Andrew

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Jenkin, Bernard Robert

  Tredinnick, David

  Key,Robert,

  Trend, Michael

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Viggers, Peter

  Lansley, Andrew

  Wallace, James

  Leigh, Edward

  Walter, Robert

  Letwin, Oliver

  Waterson, Nigel

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Webb, Steve

  Lidington, David

  Wells, Bowen

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Whittingdale, John

  Loughton, Tim

  Wilkinson, John

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Willetts, David

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Willis, Phil

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Wilshire, David

  Malins, Humfrey

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Mates, Michael

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Woodward, Shaun

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Yeo, Tim

  Moore, Michael

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Moss, Malcolm

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Oaten, Mark

  Mrs.Eleanot Laing and

  Öpik, Lembit

  Sir David Madel

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill, as amended in the Standing Committee, to be further considered this day.

  Business of the House
  12.17 am
  The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): With permission, I should like to make a short business statement.
  The business for tomorrow will be a timetable motion on the Local Government Bill, followed by consideration of proceedings on the Bill. The business previously announced will be taken at a later date.
  Sir George Young: The House is grateful to the right hon. Lady for making a proper business statement, on which the House can ask questions.
  If the House is no longer to address the Access to Justice Bill tomorrow, what more important issue could the House address than the crisis in Kosovo? As for local government, we believe that we should have continued to discuss the Local Government Bill on Report tonight. We believe that the Prime Minister was right to table a motion saying that
  "at this day's sitting, the Local Government Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour."
  We cannot understand why Labour Members have abandoned the motion that was tabled by their Prime Minister, which they supported at 10 o'clock.
  It is not unusual for consideration to continue after 10 o'clock, particularly if that is the best way in which to make progress on important issues concerning local government. Is the right hon. Lady aware that, under the curtailed arrangements that she has just announced, the House will have an inadequate opportunity to discuss rate capping, policing, compulsory competitive tendering and other issues concerning the future of local government?
  We were prepared to discuss those issues—which are vital to our constituents—through the night. The Government had no response to the cogent arguments of my right hon. and hon. Friends. The Government have panicked by changing the business. They have displayed arrogance—an arrogance that is becoming the hallmark of the Administration.
  Mrs. Beckett: The right hon. Gentleman does himself and his colleagues a great injustice when he says that they cannot understand why the Government have taken the step of adjourning consideration of the Local Government Bill. He is entirely right. That is not unusual. The House does debate matters on occasion beyond 10 o'clock when it is for the convenience of the House to dispose of important business, but I am sure that he will have noticed that we were not disposing of the business at all.
  The Bill went through Committee in good order and it came out of Committee in good order. It then came before the House. At no point did the Opposition suggest to the Government that the time proposed for the debate was insufficient. We had reached 10 pm, and we had debated two of the 12 groups of amendments that had been tabled. I think that it was very clear what was happening. Moreover, at no point did the Opposition indicate what further time they thought would be required, or when they thought that it might be possible to finish the debate.
  290
  Great concern has been expressed about local government matters. It may be known at least to Opposition local government spokesmen that early tomorrow morning—and I mean early—an important meeting is scheduled to take place between senior local government figures and my colleagues who deal with such matters. That meeting would have been prevented had the House continued to debate the Bill. When the right hon. Gentleman says that some people do not understand the purpose of the statement, he does himself an injustice.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. Before I call another Member, let me say that the Leader of the House must be asked questions on her statement.
  Mr. Paul Burstow: I hope that Ministers will have a good night's sleep, so that they can have a good meeting with representatives of local government. I trust that the Leader of the House will appreciate that the gentlemen and ladies whom they will meet tomorrow will want to know what happened to the Local Government Bill tonight.
  Why were we not given an opportunity to debate the council tax benefit subsidy clawback that the Government are imposing? Why were we not given an opportunity to debate capping, and the Government's decision to impose it again? Will the right hon. Lady acknowledge that we have spent an hour and a half debating not debating anything, and that we have consequently lost an opportunity to make further progress on the Bill? Will she also acknowledge that the lion's share of time has been taken by Conservative Members who have filled air time, but have not provided any substance? Does she accept that, as a result, we have lost the opportunity to debate properly local government issues that the Conservative party never cared about, and did a very bad job of dealing with in government?
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Burstow: My final question is this. I would be grateful if the Leader of the House would guarantee adequate time tomorrow for us to debate the final groups of amendments properly, so that we can test the Government on the issues as the official Opposition signally failed to do today.
  Mrs. Beckett: I can only tell the hon. Gentleman that the Government will find time for those debates, however that time is used. He has made some very fair points about the way in which the time has been used today. That was not our doing, however; it was the doing of the official Opposition. We cannot predict or control the way in which the time that will be provided is used tomorrow, although the Government wish and intend the Bill to be properly debated, and we have done nothing to prevent that.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: Given that a day of Government business will be lost tomorrow, and given that the Tories are very concerned about losing that day, may I suggest a solution to the problem that my right hon. Friend could consider before the Easter break? There are

  291
  two extra days for that holiday, the Thursday before Easter and the Monday after the holiday is over. My right hon. Friend should inform—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The statement was about tomorrow's business, and questions should relate to that.
  Mrs. Beckett: I shall bear my hon. Friend's suggestion in mind. I am sure that Conservative Members will be anxious to attend.
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: As proceedings on the Access to Justice Bill are now to be delayed, will the Leader of the House ask her noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor to take the opportunity of that delay to explain more clearly why access to justice for poor people who have suffered personal injuries is being reduced?
  Mrs. Beckett: Again, I shall bear in mind the right hon. and learned Gentleman's remarks. He will have the opportunity to make those points when the Access to Justice Bill is considered by the House.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: As there have been new developments since the Prime Minister's statement on Yugoslavia, may I ask the Leader of the House—not least in light of the fact that Mr. Primakov has cancelled his visit to Washington—what the Government's thinking is on a statement or a debate on Yugoslavia tomorrow?
  Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend will be aware that a debate on defence in the world is scheduled for Thursday. I have little doubt that those matters will be aired then.
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: May I reinforce the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) on tomorrow's business? As the business of the House is now being arranged, does the Leader of the House not agree that, tomorrow, we really should be debating Kosovo? Many of us have very grave reservations about the policy that the Government currently are pursuing, and we should like to have an opportunity to probe the thinking and the strategy of the Government and the NATO alliance. Tomorrow is an opportunity, as the business is being arranged. Why does she not take it?
  Mrs. Beckett: The right hon. and learned Gentleman had an opportunity this afternoon to take part in the questioning on those matters. I understand that he was not here, just as he was not here for any of today's debates—although he has been very vocal since 10 o'clock.
  Mr. Derek Foster: May I support the claims of both my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and of the Opposition that we should have a debate on Kosovo? I think that there is a useful compromise. The Leader of the House has quite sensibly said that, on Thursday, there will be a related debate on defence. Can we not have that debate rescheduled as a debate on Kosovo, rather than as a tour d'horizon of all the issues of defence in the world? Let us
  292
  have a debate on Kosovo alone, in view of the developments to which my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow has drawn attention.
  Mrs. Beckett: I hear what my right hon. Friend says and shall bear his remarks in mind. However, it seems that the debate that it is intended we shall have on Thursday will provide an opportunity for those issues to be raised—perhaps with rather more knowledge and understanding, as the House will have had time to assimilate events that may be taking place tonight or tomorrow. I feel assured that it will be a better debate for that.
  Mr. David Davis: I was here for this afternoon's statement by the Prime Minister, and heard the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), with whom I do not always agree, describe the statement as the most serious statement that he had heard in all his time in the House—for several decades. [HON. MEMBERS: "Since Suez."] The right hon. Gentleman said since Suez; I beg his pardon. May I add my support to other hon. Members who have spoken, and ask the Leader of the House to reconsider the business for tomorrow and to treat the most important business before the United Kingdom—namely, Kosovo—in a debate tomorrow?
  Mrs. Beckett: During the hour and a half of debate that we have just had on whether the House should adjourn this evening, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) very fairly questioned whether this was a time when the House should be engaging in such partisan trivia, but his comment was ignored. I have to weigh the observations made by right hon. and hon. Members in this exchange against that observation.
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: The debate on Thursday, entitled "Defence in the World", is scheduled to take place on a motion for the Adjournment of the House. In the light of what has been said, both today and in the exchanges in the past few moments, would it not be right for the Government to table a substantive motion on Thursday, and to allow the House to debate specifically the issue of Kosovo on a motion that expresses the Government's position?
  Mrs. Beckett: I do take heed of, and shall certainly draw to the attention of my right. hon. and hon. Friends in Government, some of the issues that have been raised on the matter. However, the right hon. and learned Gentleman will appreciate that that is not the issue that we are discussing now.
  Mr. Tom King: May I tell the right hon. Lady that, in view of the gravity of the situation that we face—none of us knows what the events may be tonight or early tomorrow—it is very important that the armed forces, whom we ask to represent us, should know, and are entitled to know, that they have the support of the House of Commons? Drawing on my previous experience, I know—as she will know—that, on a number of occasions, the House voted to show its support for our armed forces who were engaged in risking their lives. If we get involved in the new development, it will not be sufficient simply to have a debate on the Adjournment. It

  293
  will be necessary, and I believe proper, for the House to show that it is prepared to support our armed forces—who are risking their lives in a very dangerous venture, for reasons that I think that the House fully supports.
  Mrs. Beckett: I simply repeat what I have already said to the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell)—those points will be taken on board and will be given full and careful consideration. There can be no question but that the whole House fully supports our armed forces. However, the right hon. Gentleman could have made his points an hour and a half ago if his hon. Friends had not chosen to waste the time of the House.
  Mr. John Gummer: Does the right hon. Lady accept that, whatever she may say—and no doubt she will—about what has gone on earlier this evening, people outside the House expect that if we are going to change our order of business we should debate the issue that they regard as the most urgent. If we cannot do that tomorrow, it is important that we debate the issue on Thursday in a form that will show people outside the House that we feel it to be relevant. The right hon. Lady and I do not agree. She does not feel that the Government are bypassing the House of Commons, but many people do. She has an opportunity to show people that the Government believe that the House of Commons should discuss the issues that really matter, not late at night or at some other time, but in the full glare of publicity. I hope that she agrees that tomorrow would be the right day.
  Mrs. Beckett: Without having attended any of the debate today, the right hon. Gentleman has spent a considerable amount of the past hour and a half to two hours wasting the time of the House and ignoring the important points that were made about Kosovo. His point was serious and well made, but he is not the man to make it.
  Mr. Gummer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not the tradition of the House that the Leader of the House speaks not as a party politician, but on behalf of the whole House? Has she not just given us an example of her inability to live up to the standards of her office?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman knows that that is not a matter for the Chair.
  Mr. Robert N. Wareing: I should like to press my right hon. Friend on tomorrow's business and reinforce what has been said by hon. Members on both sides about a debate on Kosovo. I remind my right hon. Friend that before the Gulf war broke out, the House was recalled during the summer recess for a two-day debate and a vote on the issue. We are embarking on a leap in the dark. The people of this country should hear what their representatives have to say, for and against NATO's proposed action.
  Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is addressing the form in which the House might register a view. As I have said to other hon. Members who have properly raised the matter, the Government will give consideration to that issue. However, I am sure that my hon. Friend will understand and accept that the House may have a better
  294
  informed debate, which will better reflect what is bound to be an evolving situation, on Thursday rather than tomorrow.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The Leader of the House has announced a change of business. May I support the views that have been expressed by hon. Members on both sides that, bearing in mind what is going to happen in the name of the people of the United Kingdom, we should have the earliest opportunity to debate the situation in Kosovo and the involvement of United Kingdom service men and women in what may happen in that part of the world? As Leader of the House, I hope that she is prepared to represent the best interests of the House and assure us that she will use her influence to give us such an opportunity. Will she also allow adequate time for full debate on all the groups of amendments on the Local Government Bill that have not yet been considered, if democracy and local government mean anything to the Government?
  Mrs. Beckett: Of course I understand. I have repeatedly made the point that it is not a matter of us seeking to deny time to debate issues that are important to right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House; it is a matter of when that debate might best be held. The Government will provide as much time as the Opposition understood was provided—and had not queried—for debate on the Local Government Bill. As the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, I cannot undertake to say how that time will be used.
  Mr. Eric Forth: How much time will the Leader of the House provide for the 10 remaining groups of amendments to the Local Government Bill?
  Mrs. Beckett: The intention is to provide the five hours which have been lost today.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: The Leader of the House will have heard tonight views expressed from both sides of the House about the importance of events in former Yugoslavia. As Leader of the House, she has a duty to the House. Will she undertake to convey to the Prime Minister the profound feelings expressed across the Floor of the House about the gravity of the situation and impress on him the need to change the business for Thursday, if not that for tomorrow, so that the House might have the opportunity that my right hon. and hon. Friends have requested? Will she also respond to my right hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House, who said, quite reasonably, that the 10 o'clock motion in the name of the Prime Minister was moved and supported by the Government and that only 40 minutes later—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is testing my patience. His question was far too long.
  Mrs. Beckett: I repeat to the hon. Gentleman what I have said already. Of course the Government take these matters seriously, treat them with great respect and will do so consistently.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Leader of the House made a very short speech. I shall take one more question from a Back Bencher and then I shall allow the Opposition Front Bench spokesman in.
  Sir Alastair Goodlad: May I add my voice to those who have said that in light of today's

  295
  development it would be of great advantage to follow the precedent, when we have entered into armed conflict, of having a debate, preferably tomorrow, but certainly on Thursday, on a substantive motion on the subject?
  Mrs. Beckett: Of course I have taken on board the points that have been made. It is important to make clear that even if the debate that is scheduled for Thursday remains unchanged, it will facilitate full discussion of the issues that right hon. and hon. Members wish to raise. It is not a matter of it being a different subject which would not permit those matters to be raised—[Interruption.] There is no point in hon. Members making those noises. I have said—and I mean—that I have taken on board the points that have been made and I will convey them to the proper quarters.
  Sir George Young: Further to the serious exchanges that we have just had, will the Leader of the House reconsider the business for the next two days? Will she have discussions through the usual channels and then consider making a further business statement tomorrow?
  Mrs. Beckett: I have already undertaken to consider what is scheduled to happen on Thursday, but none of us would be in the position that we are in now, let alone at this time, had there been the possibility of discussions to resolve these matters through the usual channels. [Interruption.] It is not a matter of being clever; it is simply a statement of fact. Of course I am always prepared to take on board what the House is saying and
  296
  to discuss and consider these matters through the usual channels. That remains the position and I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that we will do that.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We must move on.
  Mr. Michael Fabricant: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you advise the House? We have just heard that apparently there will be just five hours to debate 10 groups of amendments that the Speaker has grouped together. Is there any indication of how much time will he allocated to each amendment?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That will be the subject of tomorrow's debate, when the hon. Gentleman might be able to catch the eye of the Chair.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We have heard that we are to debate the timetable motion. In advance of that, is it possible to hear from the Leader of the House whether the five hours that she proposes to allocate to the consideration of the 10 groups of amendments will include Divisions or not? If Divisions are not included, it allows fifteen minutes—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is trying to extend questions on the statement.
  Mr. Hogg: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Several motions have been summarily removed from the Order Paper. Have you received any notification from the Government as to when they intend to put them to the House again?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: As a former Minister, the right hon. and learned Gentleman should know that that is at the Government's discretion and has nothing to do with the Chair.

  Millennium Compliance (Defence)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]
  12.41 am
  Mr. David Atkinson: There are now 284 days to go until the new millennium. Unfortunately, even as the champagne corks are popping at midnight on the eve of the new century, events will begin to unfold over which we will have little control, to which we can only respond as best we can and which no one can guarantee will be avoided.
  I am, of course, referring to the effect of the so-called millennium bug on those computer systems upon which all of us today rely to sustain our standard of life but which, some experts predict, will cause chaos, confusion and even catastrophe that will be world wide: commencing in New Zealand—the first to enter the new century—and, like a tidal wave, moving at the speed of time westwards across the planet, wrecking whole societies in its wake.
  I should emphasise that that is a domesday scenario suggested by some. Others predict that we will instead experience a slower breakdown of essential services and critical infrastructure as the computer services which deliver them come up against a date that they do not recognise—the year 2000.
  I was the first to raise the issue in the House, as long ago as 7 December 1995, in a question to the then Prime Minister. Today, because of the ever-wider coverage given to the issue—and thanks to the Government's quarterly reports to Parliament—there is no excuse for any politician not to be aware of the issue and not to be ensuring that everything possible is being done to respond to it, both nationally and locally.
  One of the most important aspects upon which we should be certain that our computer systems are millennium-safe concerns our national defence and security. In 1996, alarming reports began to appear in our national press. Sunday Business, on 17 November, warned that the UK
  "may be defenceless in the Year 2000."
  Rachel Oldroyd reported:
  "Technology experts are warning that the country's entire defence infrastructure will fail at the end of the century unless immediate action is taken to rectify a serious flaw inherent in many of the Ministry of Defence's computer systems, space satellite communication systems, logistic systems and weaponry.
  The systems will fail, according to experts employed by the Government, because many computer programmes and computer chips embedded within machinery including nuclear weapons are unable to recognise the Year 2000."
  Mr. Brian White: The hon. Gentleman will be well aware that the UK systems are now millennium compliant. Will he comment on European systems and, in particular, the ex-Soviet fleet in the Arctic, which is not millennium compliant and may pose a danger to this country?
  Mr. Atkinson: I was not going to comment on the issue, but no doubt the Minister will have heard the hon. Gentleman and may wish to reply if he has time.
  298
  The Daily Telegraph of 31 August 1996 reported that particular problems were predicted on 22 August 1999, when the global positioning satellite system used to direct cruise missiles to their targets, supertankers into harbours and aircraft to airports will reset its date to 6 January 1980 because of a year 2000-related fault.
  In his letter to me of 1 December 1995, the then Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), had assured me that
  "appropriate measures are already in hand".
  That was subsequently confirmed in a detailed reply by the then Defence Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot). That early work by the previous Government in response to the problems posed to our national defence by the millennium bug was acknowledged in the letter that Lord Gilbert, a current Defence Minister, sent to the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) on 1 June 1997, which concluded:
  I hope this gives you confidence that we are taking vigorous steps to ensure that UK defence systems are not at risk."
  I applaud the present Government's continuation of the previous Government's work to address the threat posed to our defence by the millennium bug. I note that I am not alone in looking forward to learning from the Minister the latest position regarding the millennium preparedness of the critical computer systems of all three armed services, especially in view of last week's quarterly report from the Leader of the House suggesting that key Ministry of Defence agencies are not likely to be millennium compliant until late December.
  I am sure that the Minister realises that it will not be enough to assure the House that the computer, information, satellite communication and logistics systems and weaponry concerned with the defence of this United Kingdom will be millennium ready, because we are in alliance with 19 other countries in NATO, and 10 in the Western European Union. Our computer systems are linked to and interdependent with theirs.
  Just as Action 2000 is currently emphasising in its newspaper advertising campaign that
  "If a business you rely on isn't ready, you aren't ready",
  the same logic applies to the computer links with our allies. It is essential for the maintenance of the entire defence of Europe that all the systems of all our allies continue to function without interruption. I seek an assurance on that from the Minister, but from the evidence that I will now share with the House, he will not be able to give it.
  Two years ago, I proposed to the technological and aerospace committee of the Western European Union that we should investigate the alarming reports that this country, and therefore all member states, might be rendered defenceless by the bug. I had hoped that the WEU assembly might debate the outcome of that investigation in December 1997, but that debate did not take place until the most recent session, last December.
  The committee agreed that its chairman, the hon. Member for Leicester, South should approach the Defence Ministers of the 10 WEU states to find out how they were responding to the millennium bug, so that we could take a considered view on whether the WEU as a whole was responding adequately to the threat. My report,

  299
  document 1622, records the responses that he received, together with those from the WEU council, the satellite centre and the assembly.
  From those responses we were able to conclude that Belgium, France, Germany, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom are fully aware of the problem and are taking the action necessary, as, it would seem, are the WEU council, the satellite centre and the assembly, although, as I pointed out in presenting my report to the assembly last December, it should be aware that we now know that any assurance Microsoft gave that its most recent systems will not be affected must now be disregarded. Even Windows 98 will not be compliant without action being taken and tested.
  We could not conclude that the computer systems involved in the defence and security of Europe, as provided for under the Brussels treaty, would be millennium compliant, because the hon. Member for Leicester, South has received no replies from four member states—Spain, Greece, Italy and Portugal—even after a second approach.
  Moreover, as and when members of the assembly press their Governments in their own Parliaments, such as ours, on whether they can guarantee that the computer systems of the public services and infrastructures on which their armed services rely—including electricity supplies, rail or air traffic control systems—will be safe from the bug, they will not be given such an assurance.
  In view of that, the assembly unanimously endorsed my recommendation—No. 6362—on the millennium bug and its consequences for European defence. In seeking an assurance that European defence would not be at risk, it urged the WEU council to report to the assembly on its response to the problem and on any contingency plans that had been drawn up.
  Earlier this month, the council replied to that recommendation, but the reply is totally inadequate. It ignored our principal conclusion that, because four member states had ignored our request for information, we could not be assured that European defence would not be at risk. The council has not told us whether WEU is or will be millennium ready as a defence alliance. Nor has it said whether contingency plans have been or are being drawn up. I look forward to hearing from the Minister whether the collective defence of WEU member states will be at risk at the end of the year.
  Let me turn to the NATO alliance. When the technological and aerospace committee visited the United States of America in 1997, it was briefed on the Department of Defense's Year 2000 management plan, dated April 1997. In his introduction, the then Under-Secretary of State, Emmett Paige, emphasised that that Department relies heavily on computers in the deployment of weapons. When the computer fails, the weapons systems fail.
  However, in the British-American security information council's report, "The Bug in the Bomb: the impact of the Year 2000 problem on nuclear weapons", which was published last November, it appears that the Pentagon's efforts to meet the fast approaching deadline are "a mess", with what the report calls
  "severe and recurring problems across the spectrum".
  300
  The report says that initial research findings by a number of agencies and teams of experts inside and outside the USA's Department of Defense have resulted in no confidence that the Department's programme will meet the challenge. The Deputy Secretary of Defence, John Homre, is quoted as admitting that
  "everything is so interconnected, it's very hard to know with any precision that we've got it fixed".
  This worrying situation appears to be confirmed in Connected, a supplement of The Daily Telegraph, which, on 31 December, contained an article headlined, "The bug bang". Simon Davies reported that at a meeting on 25 September a group of high level officials met at Mr. Homre's office to review the potential impact of the millennium bug. Admiral Richard Mies, the commander-in-chief of US Strategic Command—STRATCOM—bluntly told the meeting that the nuclear defence system was not millennium compliant. He warned that 11 crucial STRATCOM nuclear systems would not be fixed in time. He added that 12 new systems currently in development would also not be compliant.
  In other words, says The Daily Telegraph, at least 23 control systems at the heart of the USA nuclear arsenal might fall victim to the millennium bug. If the computers fail to recognise the rollover, they might react in 100 different ways, from creating a false attack alert to blacking radar systems.
  If what I have said is remotely accurate, it would appear that with only 284 days to go, we cannot conclude that the member states of the WEU and of NATO will not be rendered defenceless by the millennium bug. Nor can we guarantee that we will not be at risk from accidental nuclear attack, as the Federation of American Scientists has warned. As the report "The Bug in the Bomb" concludes:
  "the only prudent course may be to de-alert or even de-activate those nuclear missile systems where date-related malfunctioning in associated command, control and communications systems poses even a remote possibility of accidental launch."
  We know that a similar risk of accidental launch of missiles exists from other countries with a nuclear capability, such as Libya, Syria, Iran, China, Russia and North Korea, because so much of their computer software has been pirated that they lack the source code to correct it, unless the Americans are prepared to share information to guard against a launch based on faulty data.
  Nor can we rule out a calculated launch, as suggested in the Sunday Telegraph on 6 December, which quoted an American defence official as saying:
  "If Saddam Hussein wanted to launch an attack, 1 January 2000 would be the day to do it."
  I look forward to hearing from the Minister on the current state of preparedness of UK defence, about the collective defence of western Europe in our alliance with the WEU and NATO, and about the risk of accidental launch of ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons from unfriendly countries unable to cope with the millennium bug.
  In particular, will the Minister respond to the key question posed in The Daily Telegraph in an article on 31 December, on which his Department declined to comment?
  "If Britain and the US are partners in an integrated nuclear defence system, then how will the possible failure of 23 critical American systems affect our own systems?"

  301
  Will he support the endorsement given by the WEU assembly to resolution 1167, passed last September by the Council of Europe, calling for an internationally agreed standard of millennium conformity; and will he say how far that has progressed? An internationally agreed test day should be held as soon as possible to put right the problems that will, inevitably, be exposed. Finally, will the Minister tell the House of the proposed involvement of the British Army in providing back-up to the police from new year's eve to deal with any civil emergency arising from any breakdown of public services due to the millennium bug, as suggested in the memo by the Secretary of State for Scotland last November?
  12.56 am
  The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. Doug Henderson): I congratulate the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) on securing this debate on such a crucial issue. I am sure that he is as pleased as the rest of us that he was able to address the House at this time instead of somewhat later, as was threatened earlier in our proceedings. I recognise the hon. Gentleman's important work on raising awareness of the issue, which he has undertaken as Deputy Chairman of the Select Committee on Science and Technology, and as rapporteur on the year 2000 computer date change problem—or, as it is otherwise known, the millennium bug. I thank him for his remarks about the Government's work on the problem.
  The hon. Gentleman covered a lot of ground. I propose to try to cover the points he raised in connection with our response as a nation, and the responses of our allies, our friends and NATO. I shall also try to refer to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. White) in relation to Russia. If I have the time, I shall also refer to the point made about support for civil authorities. The question of the minutiae of various manoeuvres in the WEU would be better raised in that forum rather than here, but if the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East wishes to write to me on specific points, I would be happy to try to deal with them.
  The first question raised was about the preparedness of the Ministry of Defence and the armed forces. I wish to amplify the remarks made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House in her statement last Tuesday on progress by the Government and key parts of the national infrastructure in tacking the millennium bug. She said that the Ministry of Defence was making good progress in dealing with the bug, but that it was a large and complex programme and there was no room for slippage. I agree with that point.
  The Ministry of Defence year 2000 programme is, indeed, the largest and most complex in central Government, and accounts for about half of the total central Government expenditure of some £400 million. The programme receives the highest priority in the Ministry of Defence, with the exception only of meeting key operational commitments.
  So far, many more than 30,000 systems employing computer-based technology have been assessed within the Ministry of Defence and its associated agencies. Work on many of them is already complete. For example, the Ministry of Defence centre and the armed forces have so far completed work on around 65 per cent. of all systems. It is expected that work on 95 per cent. of those systems determined to be critical to defence will be completed by
  302
  the autumn, with the remainder finished before the end of the year. I can say that for the three services, we are confident that by August this year, all Royal Navy ships and submarines will be year 2000 compliant, that all Army front-line systems will be compliant by September and that all Royal Air Force aircraft will be mission capable through the millennium by the end of May.
  Year 2000 rectification work is time consuming and has to be carried out to the highest standards. Within the Ministry of Defence, our progress is reviewed monthly by Ministers, including myself, and senior staff, and is a standing item on the defence council agenda. We are certainly not complacent about progress and we have put in place an independent audit programme to provide additional assurance that the work is carried out correctly.
  Even so, there may be unforeseen failures, as the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East pointed out. For that reason, we are developing contingency plans to cope with the unexpected, which might arise. In any year 2000 programme, individual systems must be made compliant, but the interconnections between systems must also be checked. During this year, our overall readiness will be validated in a number of exercises. These will show that the checks and rectification work have been successfully carried out, and that our contingency plans and fallbacks really do work. For example, we are well aware of our dependency on the communications infrastructure of NATO and other nations. I will describe our co-operation with those nations later. In our own programme, we are demonstrating our ability to maintain the command and control of our forces deployed overseas using our wholly owned, year 2000 compliant communications systems. Almost all the work will be complete by late summer this year.
  I turn now to the work that is taking place with allied nations. The Ministry of Defence and the United States Department of Defense have been proactive in raising this issue in NATO and with our NATO allies. An international group on defence has been formed to address the impact that the millennium bug could have on allied and coalition operations. Currently, participants include the United States, the UK, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the Netherlands, France and Germany. NATO is also represented, providing liaison between the group, the work within NATO and other nations. The next meeting to review progress will be held in July.
  The role of the group is to exchange information on the progress each country is making in dealing with the problem. The group deals with common issues, such as ensuring that electronic data exchanges between defence forces will not be affected, and co-ordinating operational planning and priorities over the millennium period. It also seeks to raise awareness in the defence forces of other nations with which we co-operate.
  NATO has established a team, under the auspices of the NATO command and control and communications board, to deal with the millennium problem in NATO-owned systems and in those that cross NATO-national boundaries. The UK works closely with the NATO team to ensure that NATO-UK issues are promptly addressed. To address the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East and the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East, a working group met in January, under the auspices of the

  303
  NATO-Russia permanent joint council, to exchange year 2000 programme information; that meeting was well attended by NATO nations.
  We have made it clear that we are prepared to share our expertise—we think that we have a lot—and experience, and to contribute our resources to ensure safety and security in military and linked operations throughout the world, including the former Soviet Union—especially Russia. We want to give help where we can and in establishing links with those countries, we can be assured that systems in those countries are safe. The initiative is important and I hope that we shall make progress, although I realise that time is short.
  In addition to playing a leading role in NATO and the wider international year 2000 defence group, the UK has also been to the fore in raising awareness and exchanging information with other nations bilaterally—for example, we introduced initiatives to Russia on that basis. Last year, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State signed a letter of intent with France covering exchanges of information on a range of topics, including the year 2000.
  The question of nuclear safety has been raised. I want to reassure the hon. Gentleman and the House that the Trident system has been checked very carefully as part of our overall programme. There are no computer failures, whether induced by the year 2000 problem or by any other cause, that could result in the accidental launch of a Trident missile. There has been some speculation in the
  304
  press about the operation of the Trident system, especially about the compliance of some American nuclear systems. We enjoy a close relationship with the US Department of Defense on year 2000 issues; we were notified by that Department in December 1998 that the mission-critical subsystems of the Trident II, or D5, strategic weapons systems as operated by the Royal Navy had been certified as Y2K compliant.
  The hon. Gentleman raised the question of support for civilian authorities, and others have raised that matter with my noble Friend Lord Gilbert, the Minister for Defence Procurement—who has specific responsibility for such matters—and with me. I can assure the House that our armed forces will, as usual, be ready to provide assistance to civil authorities, within the constraints of resources and other operational commitments.
  As I have said, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence regards tackling the millennium bug as one of his highest priorities, second only to operations. The Ministry of Defence has the largest remedial programme in Government and I know that we are on track to complete it. We are at the forefront of work with our NATO allies and partners to ensure that the international dimension is properly dealt with. We are satisfied about the security of our nuclear deterrent, and we have put in place sensible plans to deal with international risk and any domestic civil emergency in respect of the millennium change.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes past One o'clock.

DEFENCE

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his Department's estimate was of the cost of answering the question from the hon. Member for Chichester of 17 March 1999,Official Report, column 689, concerning the waiving of the working time directive (Ref. 76811); and if he will provide a breakdown. [78048]

  Mr. Spellar
  The cost to my Department's budget of answering individual parliamentary questions is not held centrally, however, the advisory cost of limit answering a parliamentary question is £500.

  Compensation Claims
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) of 21 January 1999,Official Report, column 529, on outstanding compensation cases, if he will indicate the year of submission of each claim for compensation on the grounds of (a) post-traumatic stress disorder and (b) physical injury; and if he will categorise them according to the geographical region where it is alleged the injuries were sustained. [78174]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 22 March 1999]: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave him on 8 February 1999, Official Report, column 17.

  Iraq
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer on Iraq of 18 March 1999,Official Report, column 810, what evidence he has received of Saddam Hussein attempting to use his air force in 1999 for repressing his own people; and to which people he is referring. [78367]

  Mr. George Robertson
  The no-fly-zones were established in April 1991 (north) and August 1992 (south) in support of UN Security Council Resolution 688 which condemned Saddam Hussein's brutal repression of his own people. This repression involved extensive use of helicopter gun ships against the Kurdish minority in the north as well as both fixed wing aircraft and helicopter gun ships against Sh'ia muslims in the south. Since the end of December 1998, over 170 Iraqi aircraft have violated the no-fly zones. Coalition patrols have successfully prevented any of these aircraft from attacking the Kurdish minority in the northern no-fly zone or the Sh'ia muslims in the southern no-fly zone. However, given the extensive history of brutality by Saddam's regime, there is no reason to believe that he would not resume these tactics were we to cease patrols.
  124
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 18 March 1999,Official Report, column 811, on no-fly zones, what agreement he has sought from the UN that Rules of Engagement should be entirely a national matter. [78364]

  Mr. George Robertson
  None.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the approximate weight of ordnance fired against targets in Iraq on Tuesday 16 March. [78249]

  Mr. George Robertson
  UK forces did not launch or drop any ordnance against Iraqi targets on 16 March.

  Military Exports (Private Flights)
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what records are kept regarding the export of military, police or security goods from RAF airfields by private companies. [77245]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I have been asked to reply.

  Customs declarations are lodged for exports from military airfields of goods originating in the UK on the same basis as exports from civil airports. They are retained for a minimum period of three years.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Departmental Report
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Attorney-General when he expects his 1999 departmental report to be published. [78497]

  The Attorney-General
  I can confirm that copies of my departmental report have been placed in the Libraries of the House today.

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Attorney-General what proportions of cases put by the police to the Crown Prosecution Service for prosecution are rejected. [76343]

  The Attorney-General
  The Crown Prosecution Service discontinued 12 per cent. of cases completed in magistrates courts in 1998, almost unchanged from the figure recorded for each of the four preceding years.

  More than half of discontinued cases are unable to proceed because witnesses fail to appear in court, refuse to give evidence, or change their evidence; defendants produce documents proving their innocence in motoring cases on the day of the trial; evidence is excluded because of irregularities in its collection; or there are gaps in the prosecution case which cannot be filled by the police. In these circumstances, the Crown Prosecution Service has no choice but to discontinue proceedings.

  The number of cases discontinued against the opinion of the police is very small; a survey conducted in 1994 showed that the police objected to discontinuance on only 4 per cent. of occasions when they were consulted.

  Hamilton v Al Fayed Case
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Attorney-General what factors underlay the decision of the Solicitor General to intervene in the Hamilton v Al Fayed case. [77739]
  125
  The Solicitor-General
  The Attorney-General intervened before the Court of Appeal in this case, on behalf of the Speaker and the Authorities of the House of Commons, as it raised fundamental constitutional issues as to the respective jurisdictions of Parliament and the Courts. It was important that such issues should not be decided by default. The Speaker and Authorities of the House of Commons have a direct interest in protecting the privileges of the House, which were directly in issue in the appeal.

  Before deciding whether to intervene, the Attorney-General took into account the judgment of Mr. Justice Popplewell in the High Court, together with representations made to him following that judgment by the Clerk of the House.

PRIME MINISTER

  Al Shifa
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 10 March 1999,Official Report, columns 364–65, on the Al Shifa factory, if he will identify the international terrorists to whom he refers. [77103]

  The Prime Minister
  The US Government have stated that they took action against international terrorist groups which had played a key role in the US embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania. They had reason to believe that these groups were planning further terrorist attacks against US and other citizens.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 10 March 1999,Official Report, columns 364–65, on Al Shifa, what discussions he has held with the US Administration since the strike on Al Shifa concerning the compelling evidence that the plant was being used for the production of chemical weapons materials. [77104]

  The Prime Minister
  It is established practice under section 1(c) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information not to disclose or discuss information received in confidence from foreign governments.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 10 March 1999,Official Report, column 364–65, on Al Shifa, to which places he was referring, as the bases for terrorist organisations. [77105]

  The Prime Minister
  The US Government have stated that their airstrikes last August against targets in Afghanistan and Sudan were against camps and facilities linked with groups who had played a key role in the US embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania killing over 200 innocent people.

WALES

  Green Transport Plan
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what involvement fleet managers have had in drawing up his Department's Green Transport Plan. [77964]
  126
  Mr. Hain
  [holding answer 22 March 1999]: The Welsh Office does not run a large fleet of vehicles and therefore does not have a Fleet Manager. However, the Department's car purchasing and hiring arrangements reflect a concern for the environment. Current practice is to replace petrol driven vehicles with those fitted with catalytic converters and run on unleaded petrol. All vehicles are regularly serviced and fuel consumption, mileage and maintenance costs are closely monitored. These policies will be reflected in the Department's Green Transport Plan.

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

  SSA Formula
  Ms Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he has received the final report of the independent review of the standard spending assessment formula; and if he will make a statement. [78532]

  Mr. Michael
  Yes, I have placed copies of the report in the Library of the House.

  The Welsh Consultative Council on Local Government Finance will meet on 29 March to consider how the report's recommendation should be taken forward, although final decisions on changes to the formula for 2000–01 and later years will be for the National Assembly for Wales and local government, through the Partnership Council.

  Driving Wales Forward
  Ms Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has made of the cost of implementing the potential road programme identified in Driving Wales Forward; and if he will make a statement. [78573]

  Mr. Hain
  I am placing copies of tables in the Library of the House which give the requested information on a constant price base up to the year 2011–12.

  The tables cover maintenance expenditure, schemes for making better use of the network, safety schemes and small scale improvements, as well as the major schemes included in the "short term" programme set out in Driving Wales Forward. That document also announced the Government's intention of undertaking corridor studies in relation to several other major road schemes in the programme inherited from the previous administration. The cost of implementing those schemes has been included in order to show the full potential costs of the trunk road programme.

  Following the transfer of functions, decisions on whether these or any other schemes should proceed will be matters for the National Assembly.

  Road Noise
  Ms Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will adopt noise reduction criteria as they apply in England for road schemes in Wales. [78574]

  Mr. Hain
  A preliminary analysis of the criteria adopted to deal with the worst problems of noise on English trunk roads indicates that no trunk road sites in Wales currently suffer from noise levels sufficiently high to meet those criteria. We will be extending our analysis
  127
  of noise levels adjacent to the trunk road network in Wales and considering the scope for adapting the criteria to meet specific Welsh circumstances.

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

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  IT Services
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chairman of the Information Committee what estimate he has made of the savings to public funds which could be generated by the central provision of information technology services and equipment for hon. Members' offices. [77932]

  Mr. Allan
  Last year, the Information Committee conducted an inquiry into options for provision of IT services and equipment for Members. The Committee's report (HC, 1998–99, 76) was published on 18 December 1998. The Committee did not find convincing evidence for savings to public funds from central provision of IT. It did receive evidence that more value could be gained from the same investment if there were more co-ordination of purchases. It therefore recommended that a catalogue of standard equipment should be negotiated with suppliers and made available to Members. This catalogue is now in preparation and is expected to be published before the summer recess.

  SCOTLAND

    Farm Support
    Mrs. Ann Winterton
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met representatives of the farming industry to discuss support for Scottish farms. [76317]

    Mr. Dewar
    I last met representatives of the farming industry on 4 March at the SNFU annual dinner at which I spoke.

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

    Beef Ban
    Mr. Lansley
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if the Scottish Parliament will have the power to lift the beef-on-the-bone ban in Scotland. [76318]

    Mr. Galbraith
    Yes, from 1 July 1999 this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

    Salmon Anaemia
    Mr. Swayne
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he has taken to tackle the spread of infective salmon anaemia in the salmon farming industry. [76319]

    Mr. Macdonald
    We are obliged by European law to eradicate the disease and we have put in place monitoring and control measures designed to that end. It is encouraging that the last confirmed outbreak was in 128
    September of last year but there are no grounds for complacency and we shall continue to monitor and maintain the control measures.

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

    Social Exclusion
    Mr. Savidge
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to tackle the problems of those who suffer social exclusion, despite living within areas of general affluence. [76320]

    Mr. Macdonald
    We are committed to tackling poverty and exclusion wherever it occurs. Initiatives like the New Deal, the Working Families Tax Credit, the National Minimum Wage and the highest ever increase in Child Benefit and the minimum income guarantee for all pensioners, index-linked to average earnings will help individuals and families in every community in Scotland.

    From 1 July 1999 action taken forward under the social inclusion strategy will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

    Mr. Gorrie
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to ensure that financial support is provided to enable voluntary organisations which provide community services relevant to social exclusion to continue to function and to plan ahead. [76327]

    Mr. Galbraith
    The importance of voluntary organisations in helping to deliver the range of policies aimed at tackling social exclusion in Scotland is already recognised in the high level of funding which is provided by the Government. Scottish Office funding for the sector totals nearly £283 million a year, with £23 million in direct aid and a further £260 million provided through other funded agencies. These funds support organisations working in the fields of social welfare, health promotion, homelessness, the provision of social housing, rural poverty and urban deprivation.

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

    National Grid for Learning
    Ms Osborne
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about the national grid for learning. [76321]

    Mrs. Liddell
    Building the NGfL in Scotland began in 1998 and good progress is being made towards achieving the published targets by 2002.

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

    Sentences (Women)
    Mrs. Fyfe
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had with the Association of Sheriffs in Scotland concerning sentencing policy for women. [76322]

    Mr. McLeish
    I meet Sheriffs regularly and discuss various matters. Of course, sentencing is a matter for the courts. The Government's role is to ensure that the courts have a range of effective disposals for offenders. We have set up a project in Glasgow under the chairmanship of
    129
    Professor Sheila McLean to tackle the particular issues related to female offenders. We have introduced Supervised Attendance Orders to all sheriff and district courts throughout Scotland, to ensure that an alternative to custody for fine default is always available.

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

    Low Pay
    Ms Squire
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the incidence of low pay in Scotland. [76323]

    Mr. Macdonald
    The Government's commitment to helping the low paid is reflected in the introduction of the National Minimum Wage on 1 April. It is estimated that the National Minimum Wage will benefit 157,000 employees in Scotland.

    Lockerbie
    Mr. Dalyell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress he has made towards organising a trial in relation to the Lockerbie affair; and if he will make a statement. [76324]

    Mr. McLeish
    Construction work on the prison which will be used to house the accused temporarily after their arrival is now complete. Design work for the remainder of the site is well advanced.

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

    Empty Homes Initiative
    Mr. Hood
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met representatives of Scottish local government to discuss the empty homes initiative. [76325]

    Mr. Macdonald
    My officials have recently met on a number of occasions with other members of the Empty Homes Initiative Advisory Group to assess bids for funding under the Initiative. The Advisory Group includes two Scottish local government representatives nominated by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities.

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

    Bed Blocking
    Dr. Godman
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent representations he has received anent the problem of bed blocking. [76326]

    Mr. Galbraith
    Since the beginning of this year I have dealt with 5 letters and 6 Parliamentary Questions relating in whole or in part to the question of delayed discharge from NHS continuing care.

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

    Poverty
    Mr. David Marshall
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on his policies to reduce the number of people in Scotland who are living in poverty, as defined by his Department. [76328]
    130
    Mr. Macdonald
    The Government are taking forward a wide-ranging and well-resourced programme of action to tackle poverty and social exclusion in Scotland. Our programme is described in detail in the report "Social Inclusion: Opening the door to a better Scotland", published on 1 March. Further action will be taken forward under our social inclusion strategy, published on the same day.

    Manufacturing Industry
    Mr. McAllion
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent discussions he has had with the Scottish Trades Union Congress relating to the performance of the Scottish manufacturing industry. [76329]

    Mr. Macdonald
    My right hon. Friend's last formal meeting with the Scottish Trades Union Congress was on 18 January, during which a range of issues affecting the Scottish manufacturing industry were discussed. Ministers and officials are, of course, also in regular informal contact with the STUC.

    Genetically Modified Food
    Mr. St. Aubyn
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many local authorities have banned the use of genetically modified foods in schools. [76330]

    Mrs. Liddell
    The information requested is not collected centrally.

    Secretary of State for Scotland
    Sir Sydney Chapman
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what the role of the Secretary of State for Scotland will be at Westminster following the establishment of the Scottish Parliament and Executive. [76331]

    Mr. Dewar
    The Government set out their proposals for the role of the Secretary of State for Scotland after devolution in the White Paper, "Scotland's Parliament" (cm 3658). The Secretary of State will focus on promoting communication between the Scottish Parliament and Ministers on the one hand and the UK Parliament and Government on the other on matters of mutual interest; and on representing Scottish interests in reserved areas.

    New Deal
    Mr. Jim Murphy
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the numbers of young people entering(a) full-time jobs and (b) further education, as a result of the new deal. [76332]

    Mr. Macdonald
    Figures to the end of December 1998 show that 5,700 young people had secured jobs, the vast majority of which were full-time and a further 2,549 had entered the full-time education or training option.

    Mrs. Laing
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people(a) entered and (b) completed the New Deal scheme in (i) 1997 and (ii) 1998. [77832]
    131
    Mr. Dewar
    The New Deal programmes for young people and those aged 25 and over began in 1998. Figures to the end of December 1998 show that 22,700 young people and 6,900 people aged 25 and over entered the programmes.

    By the end of December 1998, 8,500 young people and 1,200 people aged 25 and over had left the New Deal programme, 44 per cent. of whom had moved into jobs.

    Mrs. Laing
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people have obtained full-time employment as a result of the New Deal scheme. [77833]

    Mr. Dewar
    Figures to the end of December 1998 show that 5,700 young people and 470 long-term unemployed people aged 25 and over had secured jobs, the vast majority of which were full-time.

    EU Structural Funds
    Mr. Moore
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues on the next programme for European Union structural funds. [76333]

    Mr. Macdonald
    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been closely involved with ministerial colleagues developing and agreeing the UK negotiating priorities on Structural Funds reform. In addition, the Secretary of State has met with the German Minister responsible for Structural Funds reform in January. I have met with the appropriate Swedish Minister twice and the Finnish Minister once in recent months. The Secretary of State discussed Structural Funds reform with Commissioner Wulf-Mathies early last year and I have followed that up with a further meeting in January.

    Scottish Beef
    Mr. Brady
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the progress he has made in promoting Scottish beef. [76334]

    Mr. Macdonald
    The Government are making every effort in conjunction with the industry to re-establish the market for Scotch beef in Europe. My noble Friend the Minister for Agriculture, Environment and Fisheries in Scotland led a successful industry mission to Italy earlier this month. Italy was one of the best markets for Scotch beef before the export ban.

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

    Departmental Drinks
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what stocks of(a) wine, (b) spirits and (c) beer and other alcoholic beverages are held by his Department; what is their value in each case; and if he will make a statement. [74244]

    Mr. Dewar
    [holding answer 3 March 1999]: The following represents the total stocks of wines, spirits and beers and other alcoholic beverages held in the hospitality cabinets of all 7 Scottish Office Ministers in St. Andrew's House, Victoria Quay, Meridian Court and Dover House:
    132

    Total purchase price (£)

    Ministerial drinks cabinets

    Stocks held centrally for dinners and receptions

    Wines

    27.75

    1,225.90

    Spirits

    265.28

    776.59

    Beers and other alcoholic beverages

    56.83

    286.34

    These costs are part of the provision of £75,000 made for hospitality in The Scottish Office for the current financial year. That provision, of course, also covers the other more significant costs associated with hospitality, i.e. food, catering staff costs, venue hire, flowers, etc., of all official receptions, lunches and dinners hosted by The Scottish Office during 1998–99. I consider this to be reasonable provision for maintaining acceptable standards of hospitality for official visitors and guests, including representatives of foreign Governments.

    Timber Industry
    Mr. Öpik
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what measures his Department has taken to assist the UK timber industry since May 1997; and if he will make a statement. [77202]

    Mr. Macdonald
    Scottish Office support to assist the timber industry in Scotland is channelled through the Enterprise Network. I have asked the Chairmen of Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise to write to the hon. Member.

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

    Primary Class Sizes
    Mr. Nigel Griffiths
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the number of children in primary 1 classrooms in Scotland who will benefit from the extra funding to reduce class sizes to 30 pupils or under from summer 1999. [76314]

    Mrs. Liddell
    This Government have already reduced by more than 5,000 the number of primary 1, 2 and 3 children educated in classes with more than 30 pupils. By working together with authorities and providing new money—£4 million this year and a further £48 million over the next three years—we will meet our commitment that no 5, 6 or 7 year old will be educated in a class of more than 30 by August 2001.

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

    Sentencing Policy
    Ms Osborne
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the members of the committee established under Lord MacLean to review the sentencing and treatment of serious violent and sexual offenders. [78296]

    Mr. McLeish
    [pursuant to his reply, 19 March 1999, c. 841]: The membership details in the previous reply were incorrectly reproduced.
    133
    The following have accepted my invitation to serve on Lord MacLean's Committee:

    Mr. Andrew Brown, Chief Constable, Grampian Police

    Mr. David Burns QC, Advocate

    Dr. Derek Chiswick, Consultant Psychiatrist, Edinburgh Healthcare NHS Trust

    Professor David Cooke, Professor of Forensic Psychology, Glasgow Caledonian University

    Mr. David Crawford, Head of Operations, Social Work Department, Renfrewshire Council

    Ms Jeane Freeman, Parole Board member, Chief Executive, APEX

    Professor Christopher Gane, Professor of Scots Law, University of Aberdeen

    Mr. William Gilchrist, Regional Procurator Fiscal, North Strathclyde

    Mr. Roger Houchin, Governor, Barlinnie Prison

    Mr. Murray Macara, Solicitor Advocate, Beltrami and Co.

    Mr. Jamie Malcolm, Nursing Officer, Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland

    Dr. Linda Treliving, Consultant Psychotherapist, Dundee Healthcare NHS Trust

    Sheriff Charles Stoddart, Director of Judicial Studies.

    Arrangements for taking evidence will be announced later.

  LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

    Law Centres (North Yorkshire)
    Mr. Grogan
    To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on the provision of law centres in North Yorkshire. [76340]

    Mr. Hoon
    There are currently no law centres in North Yorkshire. The Lord Chancellor's Department is not directly responsible for the provision of law centres. They are not-for-profit organisations established within communities in response to particular needs, and funded from a number of different sources. The Department has provided grant support to a small number of law centres since the 1970s.

    Immigration Adjudicators
    Fiona Mactaggart
    To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to ensure the effective use of immigration adjudicators' time while explanatory statements from the Home Office are delayed. [76341]

    Mr. Hoon
    The adjudicators plan to use this opportunity to reduce the number of outstanding cases, to undertake training and to assist the Immigration Appeal Tribunal.

    Legal Aid
    Dr. Whitehead
    To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department what measures he is taking to ensure that the proposed reduction in approved legal aid practices does not result in geographical inequality of access to legal aid. [76344]
    134
    Mr. Hoon
    We are intent on providing access to quality assured legal service providers for those who qualify for help from public funds. Over seven thousand firms have already applied to join the bid panel for the first round of contracts. We expect to let over five thousand for family work alone. Comprehensive coverage will be achieved by matching legal provision to community need. There will not be a shortage of providers and the needs of all geographical areas will be catered for.

    Immigration Appellate Authorities
    Mr. Corbett
    To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department what steps he is taking to encourage more women to apply for appointment as regional adjudicators to the immigration appellate authorities. [76345]

    Mr. Hoon
    My right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor wishes to see more women appointed to all levels of the judiciary, including the Immigration Appellate Authority. His guiding principle remains that judicial appointments are made solely on merit. He has already announced a number of measures designed to encourage more applications from women practitioners, including more flexible arrangements for some part-time judicial sittings and the development of work-shadowing and mentoring schemes.

    Magistrates Court, Lichfield
    Mr. Fabricant
    To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will visit Lichfield to meet the Lichfield Magistrates Bench to discuss the dispensing of justice in Lichfield; and if he will make a statement. [76346]

    Mr. Hoon
    I am always willing to consider any invitation to meet magistrates.

    Magistrates courts are locally managed by magistrates courts committees under the provisions of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997. It is for each Magistrates Courts Committee to decide how best to deploy its resources in order to carry out its statutory responsibility to provide an efficient and effective service to court users. Decisions concerning the future and number of magistrates courts in their area are for the relevant MCC to determine. A local authority that contributes financially may appeal to the Lord Chancellor against a proposed closure. The procedure for such appeals is set out in section 56 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997. In the absence of an appeal, however, the Lord Chancellor plays no part in the process.

    Young Offenders
    Mr. Ian Bruce
    To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department what was the average time taken from charging to conviction for juveniles in(a) April 1997 and (b) at the latest date for which figures are available. [76347]

    Mr. Hoon
    The exact information requested is not available. Information on delay in Crown Court proceedings is not available broken down between juvenile and adult defendants, and therefore this answer includes only information on magistrates' courts.
    135
    The Lord Chancellor's Department Time Intervals Survey collects information on the duration of criminal cases completed in magistrates' courts in sample weeks of each February, June and October. The date of conviction is not available; instead the answer is based on the date of completion, which includes sentence, dismissal, committal, discontinuance and other final decisions in magistrates' courts.

    The accompanying table gives average times from charge to completion for defendants in indictable cases in the Youth Court. Seasonal variations in the figures mean that assessments of trends are best made between surveys conducted at the same time of year.

    Average number of days from charge to completion for charged defendants in indictable cases in the Youth Court, 1997 and 1998

    Year

    Survey

    Average number of days from charge to completion

    1997

    February

    101

    1997

    June

    93

    1997

    October

    90

    1998

    February

    91

    1998

    June

    81

    1998

    October

    80

    Notes:

    1. Excludes summonsed defendants.

    2. Cases where offence to charge was over 10 years, or where charge to first listing or first listing to completion was over 1 year, are excluded from the analysis.

    Source:

    Lord Chancellor's Department Time Intervals Survey.

    Public Appointments
    Mr. Canavan
    To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department for how many public appointments the Lord Chancellor is responsible; and how many such appointments he has made since he took office. [76348]

    Mr. Hoon
    The latest edition of the Cabinet Office publication, "Public Bodies", specifies that, as at 1 September 1998, there are 1,818 non-judicial positions in non-departmental public bodies for which the Lord Chancellor is responsible.

    The Lord Chancellor has made 496 appointments to NDPBs since he came to office on 2 May 1997. This number does not include other appointments, such as judicial appointments; or appointments the Lord Chancellor may make to bodies for which other Ministers are responsible.

    Dispute Resolution Arrangements
    Mr. Dismore
    To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to promote alternative dispute resolution; and if he will make a statement. [77872]

    Mr. Hoon
    This Government's radical programme of reform to modernise the civil justice system will encourage the use of alternative dispute resolution in appropriate cases through the exercise of the courts' new case management powers, the reform of civil legal aid, and the development of the Community Legal Service.136
    What further steps, if any, should be undertaken to promote alternative dispute resolution is a matter currently under consideration.

    Environmental Offences (Sentencing and Fines)
    Dr. Whitehead
    To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department what guidelines have been issued to magistrates in respect of appropriate sentences and fines for those committing environmental offences. [77674]

    Mr. Hoon
    Guidelines for magistrates are in the form of judgments by the higher courts, or contained in the guidelines issued by the Magistrates Association. Local benches may also formulate guidelines for local use. I am not aware of any guidelines for magistrates on environmental offences other than those which have been issued in the Nottinghamshire Magistrates Courts Service.

    Judges
    Mr. Dismore
    To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to review the retirement age of judges; and if he will make a statement. [77868]

    Mr. Hoon
    The Lord Chancellor has no plans to review the retirement age of judges. The retirement age was changed by the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1993, which came into force on 31 March 1995. This Act established a normal compulsory retirement age of 70 (except where a lower age is specified in the statutory conditions of tenure for a particular office) for all judicial office holders initially appointed on or after that date, subject to a power given to the Lord Chancellor to extend or re-extend service for a year at a time up to a limit of 75. Under the transitional provisions, judges appointed before 31 March 1995 retain their pre-existing retirement age.

    Mr. Dismore
    To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department how many(a) House of Lords judges, (b) Court of Appeal judges, (c) High Court judges, (d) circuit judges, (e) District judges and High Court masters and (f) stipendiary magistrates are presently serving; and of those, how many and what percentage in each case (i) are women, (ii) are from ethnic minorities, (iii) have Oxbridge degrees, (iv) had public school education and (v) were Queen's Counsel before appointment. [77866]

    Mr. Hoon
    The available information is set out in the table.

    Figures showing the number of judicial officer holders who have Oxbridge degrees, had a public school education or were Queen's Counsel before appointment are not available. Information of this kind is held on individual person records and is not collated centrally. It could therefore be obtained only at disproportionate cost. In any event, the information would be incomplete as details of secondary education are no longer collected.
    137

    Women

    Ethnic Minorities 1

    In post 1 March 1999

    Number

    Percentage

    Number

    Percentage

    (a) House of Lords Judges

    12

    0

    0

    0

    0

    (b) Court of Appeal Judges

    35

    1

    2.9

    0

    0

    (c) High Court Judges

    98

    7

    7.1

    0

    0

    (d) Circuit Judges

    562

    36

    6.4

    4

    0.7

    (e) District Judges

    379

    52

    13.7

    5

    1.3

    & High Court Masters

    24

    0

    0

    0

    0

    403

    52

    12.9

    5

    1.2

    (f) Stipendiary Magistrates Metropolitan & Provincial

    93

    13

    14

    1

    1.1

    1 Details of ethnic origin are provided on a voluntary basis and have been collected only since October 1991.

    Mr. Dismore
    To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the average (i) age and (ii) length of professional experience on -appointment of(a) High Court and (b) circuit judges currently serving. [77867]

    Mr. Hoon
    There are currently 98 High Court judges. Their average age is 59 years and on appointment their average length of professional experience since they were called to the Bar or admitted as a solicitor was 28 years. There are currently 562 Circuit Judges. Their average age is 58 years and their average length of professional experience on appointment was 26 years.

    Mr. Dismore
    To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department what formal training(a) House of Lords judges, (b) Court of Appeal judges, (c) High Court judges, (d) circuit judges, (e) district judges, (f) High Court masters and (g) part-time judges in categories (c) to (f) have in each case received on the new civil justice system to be introduced in April 1999. [77871]

    Mr. Hoon
    Judicial training is the responsibility of the Judicial Studies Board (JSB), which is an independent non-departmental public body and is chaired by Lord Justice Henry.

    The JSB held a series of residential seminars on the new civil justice procedures during January and February 1999 which were attended by nearly all full-time judges exercising civil jurisdiction. Those attending comprised 29 Court of Appeal judges, 83 High Court judges, 352 circuit judges, 387 district judges and 20 High Court masters and registrars. A separate seminar was held on 15 March for judges of the technology and construction court.

    The JSB will hold a series of 22 one day seminars in April, May and June 1999 on the new civil justice procedures which will be attended by all 1,400 part-time judges exercising civil jurisdiction, and by those few full-time judges who were unable to attend the residential seminars.

    The JSB has not given training to House of Lords judges.

    Mr. Dismore
    To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department what arrangements are in place to monitor judicial competence and performance; what plans he has to review these arrangements; and if he will make a statement. [77869]
    138
    Mr. Hoon
    The Lord Chancellor believes that any such arrangements must strike an appropriate balance between the obligations of the judiciary to the public and the overriding constitutional principle of judicial independence which means that judges must be able to determine each case fairly and on its merits, without fear of improper intervention. Almost all judicial decisions are subject to appeal or review enabling higher courts to comment on or redress judicial decisions or conduct. The work of part-time judges provides opportunities for their performance and, therefore, their suitability for appointment to full-time office to be assessed. The Lord Chancellor has decided to review the scope for refining and improving the arrangements for the appraisal of part-time judicial office holders, and in that context has endorsed a pilot scheme involving more structured arrangements for the performance appraisal of deputy District Judges which he hopes to extend in due course.

    Mr. Dismore
    To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department what arrangements are in place to provide continuing education for judges; what plans he has to review those arrangements; and if he will make a statement. [77870]

    Mr. Hoon
    Judicial education is the responsibility of the Judicial Studies Board (JSB), which is an independent non-departmental public body and is chaired by Lord Justice Henry.

    The JSB provides continuing education for judges through a programme of seminars on criminal, civil and family law which are attended by Circuit Judges, District Judges, Stipendiary Magistrates, Recorders, Assistant Recorders, Deputy District Judges and acting Stipendiary Magistrates. In general, full- and part-time Judges attend training courses run by the JSB every three years.

    The JSB draws up a strategy, covering three years, which is reviewed annually. In the light of the strategy the JSB draws up an annual plan. Both the strategy and annual plan are sent to the Lord Chancellor, who considers the performance targets and allocates resources to the JSB in the light of the plans and the overall resources available to him.

    TRADE AND INDUSTRY

      Gene Patenting
      Mr. Baker
      To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on his policy in respect of gene patenting. [74830]
      139
      Mr. Battle
      [holding answer 5 March 1999]: The Patents Act 1977 lays down the requirements which must be met to obtain patents for inventions in all fields of technology. Patents may be obtained for inventions which are new, not obvious and have industrial applicability. However, the Act excludes certain matter from patent rights. This includes plant and animal varieties and discoveries where there is no accompanying technical step, such as the mere discovery that a gene exists in nature. Any patent can be challenged before the courts, on the grounds that it does not meet the requirements laid down by the Patents Act. In July 1998, an EC Directive on the Legal Protection of Biotechnological Inventions was adopted. This Directive clarifies and harmonises the patent legislation as it applies to biotechnological inventions in all Member States. However, the Directive will not change what is and what is not currently patentable in the United Kingdom.

      Genetically Modified Organisms
      Mr. Baker
      To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list by title the unpublished reports into aspects of genetic modification which are held by his Department. [75099]

      Mr. Battle
      [holding answer 8 March 1999]: It is not the practice of Governments to release details of information relating to internal policy analysis, as is made clear in the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

      BMW
      Mr. Letwin
      To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will ensure that, as a condition for any grant, BMW will sell cars in the UK at prices equal to or below the prices charged for the same cars elsewhere in the European Union. [76758]

      Mr. Battle
      [holding answer 15 March 1999]: The offer of support for Longbridge is based upon being satisfied that the project will meet a number of key criteria, including the improvement of skills levels, improvements in productivity and the securing of substantial investment by BMW. It would be inappropriate, however, to place individual competitive restraints on Rover/BMW as a condition of any aid package.

      A recent report by the European Commission on car prices in the European Union showed that price differences had significantly decreased since the previous report but that the UK continued to be the most expensive market for many models. We shall be encouraging the Commission, as part of the evaluation on the cars block exemption, to identify the reasons for these price differences.

      Packaging Proposals
      Mr. Gale
      To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what assessment he has made of the impact on costs to industry of Post Office proposals for the packaging of veterinary, medical and other samples; [77224]

      (2) what clarification his Department has received from the Post Office of packaging requirements for pathological specimens; and if he will make a statement. [77225]
      140
      Mr. Byers
      [holding answer 17 March 1999]: This is an operational matter for the Post Office, which is proposing to introduce changes in transport and packaging requirements for diagnostic specimens and infectious substances in order to ensure compliance with national and international requirements on the safe transport of these substances. Discussions are continuing between officials of the Post Office, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the Health and Safety Executive and the Civil Aviation Authority to ensure both that the requirements for the safe transport of infectious and diagnostic substances are met and that costs to industry are minimised.

      Renewable Energy Sources
      Mr. Soley
      To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if his Department is preparing a White Paper on renewables; and if he will make a statement. [77901]

      Mr. Battle
      I plan to publish a consultation document on my review of renewable energy shortly, which will analyse the status and prospects for renewables, and present options for developing renewables further.

      Nuclear Waste
      Mr. Llew Smith
      To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what reports he has received from British Nuclear Fuels in respect of its current collaboration with Pangea Resources to establish a repository for high level nuclear waste in Australia. [77979]

      Mr. Battle
      BNFL's involvement in the Pangea project is a matter for the company's management. They have kept my Department in touch with developments from time to time.

      European Scrutiny Committee
      Mr. Woodward
      To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if(a) Ministers, (b) special advisers and (c) civil servants saw the European Scrutiny Committee questions brief in advance of the appearance of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for North Swindon (Mr. Wills), before the Committee on 16 February. [77847]

      Mr. Wills
      [holding answer 19 March 1999]: Neither Ministers, special advisers nor civil servants saw the European Scrutiny Committee questions brief in advance of my appearance. However, it has been a common but not universal practice over a long period for Committees to agree to give officials an indication of the broad areas they intend to cover at the hearing to ensure that the evidence session is as effective and productive as possible. I was informed of the likely broad areas of questioning in advance of the European Scrutiny Committee hearing on Tuesday 16 February.

      Clothing and Textile Industry
      Mr. Hoyle
      To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what help his Department is providing to the United Kingdom textile industry to assist it to compete. [77470]
      141
      Mr. Battle
      [holding answer 18 March 1999]: The DTI is currently funding around twenty projects to encourage the growth and competitiveness of the UK textiles and clothing industry. These projects cover research into product innovation and development, design, education and training, benchmarking and the development of supply chain partnerships. In addition, 770 textiles, clothing and footwear companies benefited from trade fair support last year. My Department is also supporting the recently formed industry-led Textiles and Clothing Strategy Group, which aims to develop a strategy for the long term sustainable development of the industry.

      Mr. Woolas
      To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) how many meetings there have been of the clothing and textile industry actions group; on what dates; who was in attendance; what progress has been made; and if he will make a statement; [77897]

      (2) what issues are being considered by the Textiles and Clothing Strategy Group. [77899]

      Mr. Battle
      The Textiles and Clothing Strategy Group (TCSG) is an industry-led body resulting from a joint management/union initiative. It is looking at long-term competitiveness issues affecting the UK textiles and clothing industry. In response to a request to the Chairman of the TCSG, James McAdam CBE (BATC), I am able to say that the TCSG meets on a monthly basis and, over the coming months, intends to look at a number of issues including: international productivity comparisons, supply chain relations, human resources (training, recruitment and skills), product development, investment, technological development, and design and marketing. As well as James McAdam, the membership of the TCSG includes Peter Aubusson (Courtaulds Textiles), Peter Booth (TGWU), Des Farrell (GMB), Paul Gates (KFAT), Professor Dick Horrocks (Bolton Institute), David Sutcliffe OBE DL (Benson Turner) and John Wilson (BATC). My Department is represented on the group by Brian Hopson, the Director of Consumer Goods and Business Services.

      Millennium Compliance
      Mr. Jim Cunningham
      To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate he has made of the number of(a) businesses and (b) British oil companies operating in the North Sea which have adequately dealt with the millennium bug to date. [77694]

      Mr. Battle
      [holding answer 22 March 1999]: The offshore oil industry together with the other key UK utilities and services are providing regular public reports on their state of Y2K compliance through the Action 2000-National Infrastructure Forum arrangements, and also via the Action 2000 and UKOOA Internet sites.

      DTI, acting through UKOOA, the trade body which represents UK offshore oil operators, has asked companies to provide assessments of their state of Y2K preparedness. All these assessments are either being carried out by peer group reviewers or by entirely independent organisations. In addition WS Atkins have been appointed by DTI to provide an independent
      142
      validation of the results of these assessments. WS Atkins aim to report their findings to DTI in early April, so they can be included in the presentation which the DTI will make to the National Infrastructure Forum meeting on 21 April.

      An analysis of the first completed assessments already shows the majority of the companies to be in the "blue" category (the assessment has not identified any risks of material disruption). The activities which remain in the "amber" category (the assessment indicates that there is some risk of material disruption, but that there is an agreed containment plan to rectify shortcomings) relate to outstanding work on external dependencies, staffing and contingency plans which are scheduled for completion by end October.

      Mr. Jim Cunningham
      To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the adequacy of measures taken to deal with the millennium bug in Britain's(a) nuclear and (b) conventional power stations. [77691]

      Mr. Battle
      [holding answer 22 March 1999]: The Office of Electricity Regulation announced the findings of an independent assessment of the whole electricity industry on 17 March. The results show that the sector is on course to beat the millennium bug.

      74 per cent. of generation plant is judged to already have Action 2000 "blue" status, meaning that the assessment has not identified any risks of material disruption. Most remaining compliance work is expected to be completed by the end of June, with a few systems programmed for later completion, by September. The assessors were satisfied that sufficient resources were available for this work to be completed in time for the millennium.

      The Nuclear Industries Inspectorate, the UK body responsible for regulating the safe operation of Nuclear Generating Stations, has carried out a full assessment of nuclear plant and is satisfied that this plant will function safely over the century date change period.

      My Department is closely monitoring the preparations being made in the electricity sector for the millennium.

    FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

      Government Codes and Cypher School
      Mr. John D. Taylor
      To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the following documents relating to the Government Codes and Cypher School's work in the Second World War will be released to the Public Record Office: the history or histories of(a) Hut 8 or German naval machine systems by C. H. O. S. Alexander, (b) the organisation and evolution of British naval sigint, by F. L. Birch, (c) the organisation and uses of naval special sigint, (d) the handling of naval special intelligence, (e) German naval signals intelligence, by Miss M. E. Storey, (f) Hut 6 and (g) 15K cryptography (Abwehr machine cyphers); and if he will make a statement. [75133]

      Mr. Robin Cook
      GCHQ maintains a document review unit which handles the release to the Public Record Office of potentially sensitive material, including the work of the
      143
      Government Codes and Cypher School. GCHQ has been able to identify all the documents referred to except: "The organisation and uses of naval special sigint", "15K cryptography (Abwehr machine cyphers)" and "The German Navy's use of Special Intelligence by McMahon". The other documents referred to by the right hon. Member have been considered for release in the past but contained information the disclosure of which at the time would have been damaging to national security, and have, for that reason, not been released.

      A version of the "History of hut 8 by A. A. Mahon" has been released in the United States.

      Documents are reviewed in the light of the degree of public interest in their release, and of advice from the PRO. I have asked that the documents in question be reviewed before the end of the year. I will write to the right hon. Member when the review is complete.

      Foreign Media Articles
      Mrs. Gillan
      To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he gave prior approval to the article by the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) published in Le Monde on 3 March. [75478]

      Mr. Robin Cook
      [holding answer 8 March 1999]: The views expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) in the article are his own.

      Sierra Leone
      Mr. Howard
      To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when(a) telegram 277 regarding Sierra Leone, (b) his Department's daily bulletins regarding the scope of the arms embargo in Sierra Leone and (c) the text of the Commonwealth Heads of Government Conference communiqué were first brought to his attention. [75808]

      Mr. Robin Cook
      [holding answer 9 March 1999]: Telegram 277 contains guidance for media inquiries on UN Resolution 1132. This and FCO Daily Bulletins are not operational papers and would not have been drawn to my attention at the time they issued. I would not have seen these papers until some time after the arrival of the letter from S. J. Berwin and Co. dated 24 April 1998. In October 1997, I attended the CHOGM which produced the Communiqué in question.

      Government Communications Headquarters
      Mr. Maples
      To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answers of 15 February 1999,Official Report, column 579, on Government communications headquarters, when he expects the final cost of the compensation packages to be established. [76301]

      Mr. Robin Cook
      [holding answer 15 March 1999]: I refer to my earlier answers to the hon. Member on 1 February 1999, Official Report, column 493 [66489] and 15 February 1999, Official Report, column 579 [69380].
      144

      Gibraltar
      Mr. Austin
      To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the implications for his policy in respect of extending the franchise to the people of Gibraltar for elections to the European Parliament, of the determination of the European Court of Human Rights of 18 February; and if he will make a statement. [77188]

      Ms Quin
      [holding answer 17 March 1999]: I refer my hon. Friend to the replies I gave to the hon. Member for Romsey (Mr. Colvin) on 17 March 1999, Official Report, column 681 [76637] and 18 March 1999, Official Report, columns 760–61 [76638].

      EU Budget Contribution
      Dr. Marek
      To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will(a) list the funding from the EU affected by the UK's abatement and (b) state the amount of required matched funding and the adjustments which had been made as a result of the abatement, for the last year for which figures are available. [78335]

      Ms Quin
      The UK abatement is one year in arrears and is, broadly, two thirds of the difference between what the UK contributes to the EU budget and what is received. It is deducted from the resources side of the budget, so reduces contributions rather than receipts. There is no requirement for matched funding linked to the abatement.

    NORTHERN IRELAND

      Electronic Red Boxes
      Mr. Maclean
      To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will name the Ministers in her Department who are regular users of electronic Red Boxes. [76182]

      Marjorie Mowlam
      None at present. I refer the right hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office on 16 March 1999,Official Report, columns 651–52.

      Prisoners (Accelerated Release)
      Mr. McNamara
      To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will update her answer of 3 November 1998,Official Report, column 488, on prisoners to indicate how many prisoners applied to the Prison Sentence Review Commission for an accelerated release date by 31 December 1998; in how many cases the Commission made a determination; and for unsuccessful applications, what reasons were given. [78158]

      Mr. Ingram
      [holding answer 22 March 1999]: Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Sentence Review Commissioners. I have asked them to arrange for a reply to be given.
      145

    CABINET OFFICE

      People's Panel
      Dr. David Clark
      To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office on how many occasions members of the People's Panel have been used as a source of membership of focus groups; and if he will provide details of each occasion. [78339]

      Mr. Kilfoyle
      Members of the People's Panel have been used as a source of membership for focus groups on two occasions earlier this year. Details are as follows:The Women's Unit commissioned 24 focus groups as part of a wider programme of consultation with women—Listening to Women. The focus groups explored a broad range of priorities women felt important to their lives, and probed in-depth their opinion on specific topics, such as women's incomes. The Women's Unit has particular interest in teenage girls and this research included 6 focus groups with this age-group in order to inform the Unit's policy area with the views of girls themselves.
      The Department for Education and Employment commissioned six focus groups to investigate parents' attitudes towards value added information in school performance tables. The research will be used to inform the development of value added measures for publication in the performance tables.

      Gross class 1 contributions as a percentage of all employed earnings, by earnings decile

      Income decile

      1997–98

      2002–03

      2007–08

      2017–18

      2027–28

      2037–38

      2047–48

      1st

      Employee

      0.0

      0.0

      0.0

      0.0

      0.0

      0.0

      0.0

      Employer

      0.0

      0.0

      0.0

      0.0

      0.0

      0.0

      0.0

      Total

      0.0

      0.0

      0.0

      0.0

      0.0

      0.0

      0.0

      2nd

      Employee

      0.1

      0.0

      0.0

      0.0

      0.1

      0.1

      0.1

      Employer

      0.0

      0.0

      0.0

      0.0

      0.1

      0.1

      0.1

      Total

      0.1

      0.0

      0.0

      0.1

      0.1

      0.2

      0.2

      3rd

      Employee

      0.3

      0.2

      0.2

      0.2

      0.2

      0.3

      0.3

      Employer

      0.2

      0.2

      0.2

      0.3

      0.3

      0.3

      0.3

      Total

      0.5

      0.4

      0.4

      0.5

      0.5

      0.6

      0.6

      4th

      Employee

      0.4

      0.4

      0.4

      0.4

      0.4

      0.4

      0.5

      Employer

      0.4

      0.4

      0.4

      0.5

      0.5

      0.5

      0.6

      Total

      0.9

      0.8

      0.8

      0.9

      0.9

      1.0

      1.0

      5th

      Employee

      0.6

      0.5

      0.5

      0.6

      0.6

      0.6

      0.6

      Employer

      0.7

      0.6

      0.6

      0.7

      0.7

      0.7

      0.8

      Total

      1.3

      1.1

      1.1

      1.2

      1.3

      1.3

      1.4

      6th

      Employee

      0.8

      0.7

      0.7

      0.7

      0.8

      0.8

      0.7

      Employer

      0.9

      0.8

      0.8

      0.9

      0.9

      0.9

      0.9

      Total

      1.7

      1.5

      1.5

      1.6

      1.6

      1.7

      1.6

      7th

      Employee

      0.9

      0.9

      0.9

      0.9

      0.9

      0.8

      0.7

      Employer

      1.1

      1.0

      1.0

      1.1

      1.1

      1.1

      1.2

      Total

      2.1

      1.9

      1.9

      2.0

      2.0

      1.9

      1.9

      8th

      Employee

      1.2

      1.1

      1.1

      1.1

      0.9

      0.8

      0.7

      Employer

      1.4

      1.3

      1.3

      1.4

      1.4

      1.4

      1.4

      Total

      2.5

      2.4

      2.4

      2.4

      2.3

      2.2

      2.1

      9th

      Employee

      1.4

      1.3

      1.2

      1.1

      0.9

      0.8

      0.7

      Employer

      1.6

      1.6

      1.7

      1.7

      1.8

      1.8

      1.8

      Total

      3.0

      2.9

      2.9

      2.8

      2.7

      2.6

      2.5

      10th

      Employee

      1.5

      1.4

      1.3

      1.1

      0.9

      0.8

      0.7

      Employer

      2.7

      2.9

      3.0

      3.0

      3.0

      3.1

      3.1

      Total

      4.2

      4.3

      4.3

      4.1

      4.0

      3.9

      3.8

      Total

      Employee

      7.1

      6.4

      6.3

      6.1

      5.8

      5.4

      5.0

      Employer

      9.2

      8.9

      9.1

      9.4

      9.7

      10.0

      10.2

      Total

      16.3

      15.3

      15.4

      15.5

      15.5

      15.4

      15.2

      Notes:

      1. Class 1 Contributions, including the National Health Service Allowance, gross of contracted out rebates and permitted employers' recoveries on account of their Statutory Sick Pay and Statutory Maternity pay payments to employees, and expressed in terms of accruals rather than receipts.

      2. The 1st earnings decile covers the one tenth of the employed population with the lowest earnings. The other deciles are defined similarly.

      Source:

      Government Actuary's Department (GAD).
      146

    SOCIAL SECURITY

      National Insurance
      Mr. Love
      To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the amount paid in National Insurance, excluding contributions to SERPS, as a percentage of national income for each income decile of the working population for(a) 1997–98 (b) 2002–03 and (c) 2007–08 and (d) each 10 years to 2047–48; what impact he estimates the changes will have on the re-distributive nature of national insurance contributions; and if he will make a statement. [74176]

      Mr. Timms
      Information is not available in the form requested because Class 1 National Insurance contributions are not separable into elements for SERPS or for the other benefits paid out of the National Insurance Fund. The information that is available is in the table and relates to gross Class 1 contributions as a percentage of all employed earnings by earnings decile. This takes account of the changes to the structure of Class 1 contributions announced in the Chancellor's 1998 and 1999 Budgets.
      147

      Disability Living Allowance
      Mr. Coleman
      To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many residents in Hammersmith and Fulham are in receipt of disability living allowance; and of those how many have had their benefits(a) reduced and (b) removed by the Benefit Integrity Project. [77841]

      Mr. Bayley
      The administration of Disability Living Allowance is a matter for Peter Mathison, Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to my hon. Friend.

      Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Iain Coleman, dated 22 March 1999:
      The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking how many residents in Hammersmith and Fulham are in receipt of Disability Living Allowance, and of those how many have had their benefits (a) reduced and (b) removed by the Benefit Integrity Project.
      The number of people in the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham who are in receipt of Disability Living Allowance, as at 31 May 1998 is 4,338.
      The information concerning how many of these have had their benefits reduced or removed by the Benefit Integrity Project is not available. To provide geographical information routinely would incur high costs and disrupt the processing of ongoing case work.
      You may find it helpful to know that a monthly statistical report can be found in the House of Commons Library.

      Welfare Reform
      Dr. Lynne Jones
      To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list those respondents to the welfare reform Green Paper, "New Ambitions for our Country: A New Contract for Welfare", who(a) requested the abolition of means testing and (b) called for means testing to be extended to all benefits. [77540]

      Mr. Timms
      The Welfare Reform Green Paper, "New Ambitions for our Country: A New Contract for Welfare" (CM 3805), set out the framework for welfare reform, based on eight principles, together with a range of success measures. Views were invited on the contents of the Green Paper, specifically on those principles and success measures. The information gathered from the responses was categorised to reflect this. As views were not specifically sought on means testing and it did not feature in the guiding principles or success measures, a list of those who commented on it is not available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

      A list of those organisations and academics who responded to the exercise, excluding those who requested confidentiality, has been placed in the Library. Copies of these responses are available on request from the Department. We have also placed in the Library a summary of responses.

      Benefit Fraud
      Mrs. Laing
      To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the cost of benefit fraud in Scotland in each year since 1992 in(a) cash terms and (b) 1998–99 prices. [77769]

      Mr. Timms
      The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the table.
      148
      The Green Paper "Beating Fraud is Everyone's Business: securing the future" set out the difficulties of measuring a covert activity such as fraud.

      Estimated fraud in Great Britain

      £ billion

      Amount

      Confirmed fraud

      2

      Strong suspicion of fraud

      3

      Low suspicion of fraud

      2

      Kali Mountford
      To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he will publish his strategy for combating fraud in social security. [78576]

      Mr. Darling
      I am publishing today "A New Contract for Welfare—Safeguarding Social Security", which sets out the Government's strategy for reducing fraud and error in the Social Security system.

      When we came into office far too much money was being lost through fraud and error. Targets were set to find fraud but not to stop it happening, and safeguarding Social Security was too often an afterthought rather than an integral part of processing claims.

      We are determined to focus on a single goal—reducing the amount of fraud and error. We will achieve this by getting payments right in the first place, keeping them right throughout the claim and putting mistakes right when we find them. We will make sure that we have a suitable range of sanctions, including prosecutions, to make those who steal Social Security realise that crime does not pay.

      We have already made a good start and have set clear goals against which our success can be judged. By tightening the gateways to benefit and requiring more supporting evidence before benefit is paid we expect to save £1 billion in Income Support alone over this Parliament. We are providing an extra £100 million to local authorities so that they can make tougher checks on Housing Benefit. We are making greater use of new technology to share information between the agencies and councils paying benefits to improve service and to avoid duplication. We are helping local authorities to prosecute more cases of Housing Benefit fraud and have launched an independent review of how best to tackle the threats to Social Security from organised fraud.

      We shall keep checking that our plans are working and we will review local performance to trace how well we are doing in each area. We have set a challenging target to reduce by 30 per cent., losses from fraud and error in Income Support and Jobseeker's Allowance, by 31 March 2007, with at least a 10 per cent. reduction by 31 March 2002. This will take sustained effort by all staff delivering Social Security. We know that they will rise to the challenge.

      Our strategy builds on the work set out in the Green Paper published last July "Beating Fraud Is Everyone's Business: securing the future" (Cm 4012). The responses we had to the Green Paper were largely supportive and I am placing a summary of these in the Library today.
      149
      We are determined to root out fraud and reduce error in the Social Security system. It will be a tough job, but for the first time we have a systematic and deliverable strategy to reduce the losses from fraud and error and safeguard Social Security.

      Housing Benefit (Scotland)
      Mr. Wallace
      To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of expenditure on housing benefit in Scotland in(a) 1997–98 and (b) 1998–99, for (i) public sector tenants, (ii) housing association tenants and (iii) other private sector tenants. [78213]

      Angela Eagle
      The information is not yet available. The information will be available after the publication of the Departmental Report on 30 March 1999. I will write to the hon. and learned Member when the information is available.

      Benefit Integrity Project
      Mr. Burstow
      To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what evaluation he has made of the effectiveness of the training undertaken by staff conducting Benefit Integrity Project interviews. [77890]

      Mr. Bayley
      The training of Benefits Agency Staff is a matter for Peter Mathison, Chief Executive of the Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

      Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Paul Burstow, dated 22 March 1999:
      The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking what evaluation he has made of the effectiveness of the training undertaken by staff conducting Benefit Integrity Project interviews.
      The Benefits Agency is committed to high quality training and all training courses, including those delivered to Benefit Integrity Project staff, are evaluated on an ongoing basis with training needs under continual review.
      All training events, including refresher training undertaken with input from the Disablement Income Group (DIG), have been separately evaluated for their effectiveness. Post-course evaluation questionnaires are completed by all staff and post-training workshops have been carried out. This information has been used to further improve the training.

      The findings of the evaluation were that the training:

      sufficiently equipped the visiting staff to be able to carry out the visits

      focused on good practices

      reinforced the purpose of the project

      Managers accompany visiting staff on a number of visits each year to ensure that the training principles have been assimilated. There has been much positive feedback from customers on how the visits have been carried out.
      DIG has prepared a report for the Benefits Agency that summarises their input into the training. They have made valuable suggestions for the future. We will be using their findings and our own evaluation to develop training for staff who will be working on the new periodic enquiry process from April 1999.

      Jobseeker's Allowance
      Mr. Shepherd
      To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to amend regulation 81 of the Jobseeker's Allowance Regulations 1996; and if he will make a statement. [78244]
      150
      Angela Eagle
      We currently have no plans to amend regulation 81 of the Jobseeker's Allowance Regulations.

    ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

      Food Control
      Mr. Martyn Jones
      To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much money was provided in the standard spending assessment in each year between 1989–90 and 1998–99 for enforcement of the law in relation to food control. [77523]

      Ms Armstrong
      The information requested is not available.

      Standard spending assessments cover the whole range of local authority services. Specific amounts are not identified for enforcement in relation to the law on food control. The level of resources for enforcement of food control legislation is a matter for individual local authorities.

      Millennium Compliance
      Mr. Nigel Jones
      To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the preparedness of local authorities and emergency services in Gloucestershire for dealing with the millennium bug; and if he will make a statement. [77484]

      Ms Armstrong
      It is each authority's responsibility, for which they are accountable to their local people, to ensure they are adequately prepared for the Millennium Bug and have proper plans in place for the emergency services. Independent assessment of the state of preparedness is being carried out by auditors and the Audit Commission, which, in June, will be naming any council which is not making sufficient progress. We have also appointed teams in the Government Offices to help councils to prepare for the Millennium Bug, and to report on the state of preparedness of the local government sector to Action 2000's National Infrastructure Forum.

      Road Surfaces
      Mr. Gorrie
      To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to hold trials of the use of shredded tyres in new road surfaces. [77424]

      Ms Glenda Jackson
      There are no proposals for trials of surfacings incorporating shredded tyres within new road surfaces on the Department's trunk roads. New road surfaces are being developed with shredded tyres forming part of their composition. The Highways Agency is working closely with surfacing manufacturers and local authority associations to develop further the scope for using recycled tyres in road surfaces and in other highways applications. The materials will be subjected to trials when capable of meeting the required levels of performance for safety and durability.

      Mr. Gordon Prentice
      To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what use is made of recycled material from car tyres in road surfaces; and if he will make a statement. [77825]
      151
      Ms Glenda Jackson
      Recycled material from car tyres is not currently used in road surfaces specified for the Department's trunk roads. New road surfaces are being developed with shredded tyres forming part of their composition. The Highways Agency is working closely with surfacing manufacturers and local authority associations to develop further the scope for using recycled tyres in road surfaces and in other highways applications. The materials will be subjected to trials when capable of meeting the required levels of performance for safety and durability.

      Environmental Rights Convention
      Mr. Chaytor
      To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to ratify the Convention on Environmental Rights signed at the Aarhus Conference in Denmark on 25 June 1998. [77656]

      Mr. Alan Simpson
      To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on progress made following the signing of the Aarhus Convention on environmental rights in June 1998; and whether Britain will have ratified the Convention in time to be involved in the first meeting of signatories in Moldova in April. [78014]

      Mr. Meale
      We intend to ratify the Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (the Aarhus Convention) as soon as we have the necessary measures in place to implement its provisions. In particular, that requires new legislation on access to environmental information. We are considering including measures in the forthcoming Freedom of Information Bill to implement the access to information provisions of the Convention.

      The United Kingdom will play a full part in the first meeting of signatories to the Convention in Moldova in April, which will discuss a work programme on follow-up to the Convention. The United Kingdom has offered to host a workshop as part of that work programme.

      The Convention will come into force when sixteen countries have ratified it. That is not expected to be until 2000 at the earliest. The Convention Secretariat is not aware that any country has yet ratified.

      Residential Leasehold Reform
      Mr. Darvill
      To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the Government plan to consult on the proposal contained in the consultation paper, "Residential Leasehold Reform in England and Wales", to give to leaseholders of houses a similar right of first refusal to that of qualifying tenants in blocks of flats. [77650]

      Mr. Raynsford
      We must first consider all the responses to the existing consultation paper, which are still being received. We expect to proceed with further consultation later in the year.
      152
      Mr. Darvill
      To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment. Transport and the Regions what form the consultation about the technical details of the Government's proposal to create a new right for a majority of the leaseholders in a block of flats to take over the management of the block will take; and when that consultation will take place. [77651]

      Mr. Raynsford
      We will issue a consultation paper on the new right to manage once we have decided on the main issues of principle in the light of the responses to our existing paper. I would expect that to be later this year.

      Mr. Darvill
      To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what research his Department has carried out on the numbers of former local authority tenants who have acquired leasehold flats under the right to buy legislation and are now unable to resell their homes on the open market; and if he will publish the results of that research. [77649]

      Mr. Raynsford
      My Department carried out two research studies which were published by HMSO in 1995 as Housing Research Reports, "The Resale of Former Council Homes" and "Leaseholders and Service Charges in Former Local Authority Flats". Copies of both reports and summaries are in the Library of the House.

      The Department has been carrying out further research into leaseholders of social landlords since 1996 as part of the Survey of English Housing. The Survey involves an annual sample of around 1 in 1,000 households and has collected data only on 256 leasehold properties which had been purchased from a local authority by a sitting tenant; and of these, only 18 had put their home on the market at some time since purchase. We shall publish results once we have statistically significant information.

      Rent Assessment Panels
      Mr. Darvill
      To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) when he plans to publish the result of the financial management and policy review of rent assessment panels in England; [77653]

      (2) when he expects to complete his consideration of the future of the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal following the financial management and policy review of rent assessment panels in England. [77652]

      Mr. Raynsford
      We intend to publish a report on the outcome of the first phase of the financial management and policy review of rent assessment panels in England by the summer. This phase will involve examining the role of the panels and their functions, assessing the extent to which these are necessary and considering options for achieving best value. We will, as part of the review, be considering all aspects of the operation of the leasehold valuation tribunals.

      RAF East Camp Site, Colindale
      Mr. Dismore
      To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to make a decision on the planning application for the RAF East Camp site, Colindale. [77865]

      Mr. Caborn
      Shortly.
      153

      Barnet Football Club
      Mr. Dismore
      To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to make a decision on the planning application for Barnet Football Club at Copthall Stadium. [77873]

      Mr. Caborn
      Shortly.

      Home Energy Efficiency Scheme
      Mrs. Ellman
      To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what criteria are used to assess bids for agencies seeking appointment to installerships under the Home Energy Efficiency Scheme with particular reference to(a) pricing of measures, (b) quality of work, (c) customer care provisions and (d) training opportunities; and if he will make a statement. [77657]

      Mr. Meale
      The Home Energy Efficiency Scheme (HEES) is managed for the Department under contract by Eaga Ltd. As part of the contract, Eaga is responsible for the appointment of installers to carry out work in designated areas under the scheme. Installers seeking appointment are required to demonstrate that they can meet the required standard of quality of work and customer care, and have the appropriately qualified and trained staff. Those meeting these criteria are then assessed on the basis of price.

      To maintain quality standards, Eaga inspect 5 per cent. of jobs done by installers. Additionally, there is an 8 month probationary period for newly appointed and re-appointed installers. The recent National Audit Office report on HEES confirmed the high quality of work achieved by the scheme.

      A51, Cheshire
      Sir Alastair Goodlad
      To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received about the need for by-passes around villages on the A51 in Cheshire; and if he will make a statement. [77608]

      Dr. Reid
      Since the Government's Roads Review, "A New Deal for Trunk Roads in England", was published last July, written representations have been received via the right hon. Member, from my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Ms Russell), and from several local residents. In addition a report has been compiled by the A51 Environmental Group that also makes representations on this issue.

      Sir Alastair Goodlad
      To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received about the need for(a) reducing traffic volume, (b) lowering traffic speed and (c) decreasing the number of heavy goods vehicles on the A51 in Cheshire; and if he will make a statement. [77607]

      Dr. Reid
      I have asked the Chief Executive of the Highways Agency, Mr. Lawrie Haynes, to write to the right hon. Member.
      154
      Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Sir Alastair Goodlad, dated 23 March 1999:
      The Minister for Transport, Dr John Reid, has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question concerning representations received about the need for reducing traffic volume, lowering traffic speed and decreasing the number of heavy goods vehicles on the A51 in Cheshire.
      We have received written representations covering all three issues from eight local residents. We have also received a copy of a report prepared by the A51 Environmental Group, which covers these points.
      As you know, the Highways Agency is carrying out two studies involving the A51. Firstly, a study of the full length of the road in Cheshire to identify where measures may be required to address safety problems either at specific locations or on the road as a whole. Secondly, a review of all villages on the Cheshire trunk roads to identify and place in order of priority, any locations that would benefit from new or improved traffic calming measures. We expect to have the results of both studies shortly.
      The A51 provides a direct link for traffic travelling between the M6 and Chester, North Wales and Merseyside. A number of residents have suggested that Heavy Goods Vehicles should be signed to use the longer route provided by the M6, M56 and M53 rather than using the A51. We have considered this carefully but have no plans to change the existing signing.
      The A51/A500 Chester to the M6 is one of the trunk routes identified as non-core and one which would be more appropriately managed by the local highway authority. Responsibility for non-core roads is to be transferred to local highway authorities by means of detrunking. I understand that the Government will be announcing a final decision on the split of the network into core and non-core routes as soon as possible.
      If the A51/A500 is confirmed as a non-core route to be detrunked, then from 1 April 2000 the Agency will only initiate further improvements that we consider necessary to keep the route in a safe and serviceable condition. It will be for the local highway authority, in this case Cheshire County Council, to consider the need for other improvements in the context of their Local Transport Plan. Provisional plans covering the period 2000/01–2004/05 are to be submitted by the end of July.

      Halon
      Mr. David Stewart
      To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what research his Department has commissioned to study the level of halon 1202 emissions to the atmosphere; [77595]

      (2) what action his Department will take to encourage the international community to include halon 1202 in the list of chemicals controlled by the Montreal protocol. [77594]

      Mr. Meale
      My Department commissions research at the University of East Anglia to analyse air samples from the archive at Cape Grim in Tasmania. They have made the first measurements of the atmospheric concentration of halon 1202 anywhere in the world. Although the concentration of halon 1202 is currently very low (0.05 parts per trillion), it is growing very rapidly, some 17 per cent. per year in 1998. We also commission routine measurements of the background concentrations of halons at Mace Head in the Republic of Ireland as part of the International Global Atmospheric Gases Experiment. Halon 1202 concentrations are currently below the limit of detectability of the instrumentation in place but instrument development is taking place to cover this substance.
      155
      As there is little information on the source of halon 1202 emissions, the United Kingdom and other Parties to the Montreal Protocol have requested the Protocol's Technical and Economic Assessment Panel and Science Assessment Panel to identify the source and availability of this substance and report back to the Parties by 2001. This information will enable Parties to take a decision to decide whether it is necessary to control this substance under the Protocol.

      Mr. David Stewart
      To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what action his Department is taking to help developing countries fulfil the Montreal Protocol ban on halon 1211 production by 2005; [77592]

      (2) what steps his Department is taking to help the Chinese Government fulfil the Montreal Protocol ban on halon 1211 production by 2005. [77593]

      Mr. Meale
      China, together with other developing countries, is committed under the Montreal Protocol to phasing out the production and consumption of halons by 2010. Assistance is available for developing countries under the Protocol's Multilateral Fund to meet their commitments. To this end, US$ 62 million has been provided from the Fund to enable China to phase out halon production, as a result of which China has given a commitment to stop production of halon 1211 by 2006, four years earlier than required under the Protocol. The United Kingdom currently contributes in the region of £6.5 million per year to the Multilateral Fund.

      Business Rates
      Dr. Whitehead
      To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what modelling he has done of local authority costs incurred in implementing the procedures for localising elements of the business rate as set out in the Local Government White Paper. [77677]

      Ms Armstrong
      Local authorities already have a statutory duty to consult businesses. The proposals in the White Paper, in respect of local authorities' responsibility to listen to their communities, require authorities to make such consultation arrangements effective. The partnership arrangements between business and local authorities needed for the localisation scheme will be based on these effective consultation arrangements. In addition, local authorities will be given the maximum flexibility to agree both suitable partnership arrangements for their areas, and the methods for securing the endorsement of these arrangements by business. The additional costs arising from the localisation scheme are expected to be small, but we will discuss with the Local Government Association any concerns it may have. A consultation paper is to be issued shortly.

      EU Fraud
      Mr. Grieve
      To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what(a) discussions he has had and (b) proposals his Department has put forward at Council of Ministers' meetings in respect of EU fraud; and if he will make a statement. [77779]
      156
      Mr. Meale
      [holding answer 19 March 1999]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him by my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary on 19 March 1999, Official Report, columns 858–59.

      Renewable Energy
      Mr. Martyn Jones
      To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to amend the planning regulations in order to help the UK to meet its targets for renewable energy generation. [77944]

      Mr. Raynsford
      None. I am satisfied that the existing regulatory framework is adequate.

      Ofwat
      Mr. Boswell
      To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what preparations are being made by Ofwat in respect of his responsibilities under the Competition Act 1998; what increase in staff is required; and what action is being taken to co-ordinate policy with the Director General of Fair Trading. [77687]

      Mr. Meale
      [holding answer 22 March 1999]: The Director General of Water Services is currently preparing guidelines on the application of the Competition Act 1998 to the water industry to be published later this year. I understand that he is considering, but has yet to determine, what increase in staff might be required in respect of his new responsibilities. The Office of Water Services (Ofwat) is a member of the Concurrency Working Party (CWP), comprising representatives from the Office of Fair Trading and those regulators having concurrent functions, which is working to ensure a co-ordinated approach to the application of the 1998 Act. Guidelines on the application and enforcement of the Act have been prepared by the CWP and issued by the Director General of Fair Trading (DGFT). In February, the Department of Trade and Industry issued a consultation document "Concurrency: consultation on the possible need and scope for regulations" on the Secretary of State's powers to make regulations for the purpose of co-ordinating the functions exercisable by the DGFT and the regulators.

      EC Transport Council
      Mr. Maclean
      To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will publish the agenda for the forthcoming EC Transport Council of 29 March. [78393]

      Dr. Reid
      The proposed agenda for the 29 March Transport Council comprises the following items:

      1. Adoption of the agenda

      2. Approval of "A" points

      Inland transport

      3. Railways policy

      4. Combined transport

      5. Working time in the road transport sector

      Air transport

      6. Modernisation of the Warsaw system on airline liability

      157
      Measures concerning all modes of transport

      7. Amendments to Trans-European Network guidelines

      8. Satellite navigation systems ("Galileo")

      9. Other business.

      Water Charges (Pensioners)
      Mr. Jim Cunningham
      To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what action the Government plans to take to assist pensioners with the payment of water charges, with particular reference to those who cannot have water meters installed for technical reasons. [77695]

      Mr. Meale
      Under proposals in the Water Industry Bill, currently before Parliament, household water customers would have a new entitlement to be charged on a measured basis without paying any initial costs for the installation of a meter. Customers using water only for basic domestic purposes who opted for a measured basis of charging and found that this did not suit their needs would have the opportunity within the first 12 months to revert to unmeasured charging. These proposals will benefit households using little water including many pensioners.

      In a small minority of cases it may not be possible to fit a meter because it would be not reasonably practicable or would involve unreasonable expense to do so. In such cases the Government would expect a water company to make an alternative charging arrangement for customers who asked to pay on a measured basis.

      The Government propose to consult later this year on what guidance should be issued and regulations made governing the provisions of companies' charges schemes.

      Leasehold Reform
      Mr. Gareth Thomas
      To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proposals he has for reforming the law in respect of leaseholds. [76342]

      Mr. Raynsford
      We propose to make it easier and simpler for leaseholders of flats to exercise their right to collective enfranchisement, give leaseholders a new "no-fault" right to manage, improve the standards of residential leasehold management and stamp out specific abuses examples of which have been brought to our attention. Further details are set out in our consultation paper on residential leasehold reform, a copy of which is in the Library.

      Private Hire Vehicles
      Dr. Tonge
      To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects the consultation document on the implementation of the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998 to be published. [78362]
      158
      Ms Glenda Jackson
      We intend shortly to publish, jointly with the Public Carriage Office, a consultation document on the licensing of minicab operators in London.

      Bus Policy
      Jane Griffiths
      To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will publish his detailed proposals on bus policy following the White Paper, A New Deal for Transport, Better for Everyone. [78531]

      Mr. Prescott
      I have today published a bus policy document which sets out the Government's proposals for a comprehensive range of measures to ensure that the bus can play its full role in an integrated transport policy. The document invites comments on specific measures for implementation. Copies of the document are in the Library and are available in the Vote Office.

      Local Government
      Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
      To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he intends to publish the draft bill on political management structures and the new ethical framework for local government; and if he will make a statement. [78575]

      Mr. Prescott
      I intend tomorrow to lay before the House a paper describing new forms of local governance, and including a draft of a Bill making provision for them. If enacted, the Bill would transform local government's political management structures and ethical framework. Local people would be able to choose forms of local governance with strong leadership for communities, powerful roles for all councillors, and high standards of conduct.

      Trunk Roads
      Dr. Naysmith
      To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what was the outcome of consultation with Regional Planning Bodies on the study programme proposed in "A New Deal for Trunk Roads in England"; and if he will announce the final programme of studies. [78577]

      Dr. Reid
      The consultation exercise with Regional Planning Bodies, launched on 10 December 1998, is now complete and we have received representations from all the regions. We want to take the studies forward in partnership with Regional Planning Bodies in order to ensure that they are closely integrated with regional planning objectives. The study programme reflects regional priorities and will feed into the development of regional transport strategies as part of regional planning guidance. I am pleased that the responses we have received are generally in favour of our approach and, in particular, our determination to examine the contribution that all modes can make to the problems of congestion, environment and safety within the study areas.

      I am now able to announce the final study programme which takes into account many of the Regional Planning Bodies' proposals, and to give more details about the timing of the studies.
      159
      Tranche 1—to begin 1999–2000
      Multi-modal studies

      West Midlands to North West Conurbation

      London Orbital

      Access to Hastings

      Tyneside

      West Midlands Area

      South and West Yorkshire Motorway Box

      London to South West and South Wales

      North South Movements in East Midlands

      South East Manchester

      Cambridge to Huntingdon

      A453 (M1-Nottingham)

      Roads-based studies

      A1 Bramham to Barton

      A66 Safety

      M40/A46 Longbridge roundabout

      A3 Hindhead

      M1 Junction 19

      A419 Blunsdon

      Tranche 2—to begin 2000–01
      Multi-modal studies

      Southampton to Folkestone

      London to South Midlands

      West Midlands to Nottingham

      London to Reading

      Hull

      London to Ipswich

      Roads-based studies

      Deeside Park Junctions

      Norwich to Great Yarmouth

      A5/A483 Shrewsbury to Chester

      A38 Derby Junctions

      Provisional Tranche 3
      Multi-modal studies

      A34 North from Southampton

      A47 West of Norwich

      A1 North of Newcastle.

      The studies are divided into two categories—full multi-modal studies which will be taken forward by the Government Offices for the Regions in consultation with regional partners, and roads based studies which, although they will take account of the contributions which can be made by other modes, are primarily directed at specific points on individual roads, and which will be led by the Highways Agency.

      Work on most of the studies in Tranche 1 will begin this spring, with all of them commencing by the autumn. The length of time it will take to complete each study will vary depending on the complexity of the issues, but we expect that they will take, on average, 2 years to complete.
      160
      As a first step, steering groups will be established, chaired by the Government Offices and to include representatives from the Regional Planning Bodies, and other regional partners, to finalise the terms of reference for each study and the timescale for delivery. Tranche 2 studies need not wait for tranche 1 studies to be completed, and we expect to begin work on these in 2000–01.

      The multi-modal studies are not a one off exercise. As we described in the recently published draft planning policy guidance note II (PPGII) "Regional Planning", multi-modal studies of transport problems will be one of the major inputs to the development of Regional Transport Strategies. Therefore in the future we expect Regional Planning Bodies, rather than central Government, to commission and lead their own multi-modal studies. From some of the additional studies proposed by the Regional Planning Bodies, we have identified a provisional third tranche of studies which could be taken forward in this way. The case for a study of the A1 North of Newcastle will depend on the outcome of the current Highways Agency route management study.

      Planning Guidance (Housing)
      Dr. Whitehead
      To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when his Department will publish new planning policy guidelines on housing; and if he will make a statement. [78607]

      Mr. Caborn
      We have today published for public consultation a new version of Planning Policy Guidance note 3: Housing (PPG3). This is another major step in delivering our commitment to revitalise our towns and cities and to protect our countryside from unnecessary development. Our aim is to achieve nothing less than an urban renaissance. Copies of the new PPG3 have been placed in the Library and are available in the Vote Office.

      The guidance emphasises the importance of making the best use of previously developed urban land and existing buildings in order to achieve our 60 per cent. land recycling target. This will minimise the use of green-field sites, encourage urban regeneration and help create more sustainable patterns of development. Local planning authorities are also advised to provide a greater choice of housing to meet the nation's changing housing needs, and to promote mixed development.

      We propose to introduce a sequential approach to the choice of sites. Local planning authorities will be required to consider using previously developed land and buildings before releasing green-field sites for development.

      Local planning authorities are also required to consider the capacity of the urban area to accommodate additional development. The guidance proposes the use of higher densities, reduced car parking and the release for housing of excess land held for other types of development. The Government are also looking for an improved quality of development and are therefore looking for improved urban design, better layouts and wider choice of sizes and types of housing. They advise developers and local

      161
      authorities to place the needs of people before cars in designing the layout of residential developments. Creating a more attractive residential environment must be a central aim for new development.

      The Government recognise that not all additional housing development can be accommodated on previously developed sites. The next most sustainable option is to develop urban extensions, making use of existing infrastructure and public transport links.

      The new draft PPG3 represents a major departure in content and style from the previous planning guidance and is an essential toolkit for planning for housing in the new Millennium.
      162

      Public Rights of Way
      Mr. Paul Marsden
      To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what(a) percentage and (b) length of public rights of way are open to (i) horseriders and (ii) cyclists in each county in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement. [76882]

      Mr. Meacher
      [pursuant to his reply, 15 March 1999, c. 468–69]: The figures contained a miscalculation. The second part of the reply should have read:
      "England and Wales have an estimated total of 130,000 miles (209,000km) of rights of way, of which over 29,000 miles (47,000km) or 22 per cent. may be used lawfully by horseriders and cyclists".
      163

    HOME DEPARTMENT

      Police Stations
      Mr. Beith
      To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police stations there were in the Metropolitan Police force area in(a) 1980 and (b) each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement. [77289]

      Kate Hoey
      The Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District (MPD) tells me that there were 164 police stations in the MPD in 1980.

      There are 152 police stations and 38 police offices currently. In 1998, the numbers were the same. In 1997, there were 157 police stations and 39 police offices.

      Mr. Vaz
      To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many new police stations were built or are planned to be built in England in 1999. [77349]

      Mr. Boateng
      The information requested is not collected centrally and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost. The police estate, in England and Wales, consists of some 7,000 properties and includes around 2,000 police stations. Police authorities have local discretion to build police stations within the resources available to them.

      The Audit Commission Report "Action Stations—Improving the management of the Police Estate", published on 17 March, found that better estate management will deliver more effective policing, save money and better serve the public.

      Table 1: Police pensions and total expenditure 1994–95 to 1998–99

      1994–95 Net total expenditure £000

      1994–95 Net pensions costs £000

      1994–95 Net pensions as percentage of total expenditure

      1994–95 Percentage real terms increase in total expenditure, excluding pensions, over 1993–94

      Avon and Somerset

      141,283

      16,969

      12.0

      3.67

      Bedfordshire

      51,514

      4,252

      8.3

      1.57

      Cambridgeshire

      58,650

      5,407

      9.2

      0.06

      Cheshire

      82,804

      7,528

      9.1

      2.30

      City of London

      52,365

      4,971

      9.5

      -0.05

      Cleveland

      69,007

      7,978

      11.6

      4.36

      Cumbria

      54,281

      5,702

      10.5

      2.99

      Derbyshire

      84,362

      7,753

      9.2

      5.05

      Devon and Cornwall

      140,830

      13,930

      9.9

      1.27

      Dorset

      66,285

      5,972

      9.0

      9.23

      Durham

      59,237

      6,905

      11.7

      2.81

      Dyfed Powys

      45,595

      5,148

      11.3

      6.72

      Essex

      not available

      not available

      —

      —

      Gloucestershire

      55,180

      4,805

      8.7

      5.80

      Greater Manchester

      320,931

      35,158

      11.0

      3.16

      Gwent

      44,148

      4,739

      10.7

      1.53

      Hampshire

      155,257

      13,610

      8.8

      3.40

      Hertfordshire

      84,435

      5,850

      6.9

      12.31

      Humberside

      92,365

      9,189

      9.9

      2.12

      Kent

      153,757

      12,510

      8.1

      6.91

      Lancashire

      145,181

      16,771

      11.6

      1.73

      Leicestershire

      81,166

      10,129

      12.5

      0.50

      Lincolnshire

      not available

      not available

      —

      —

      Merseyside

      215,461

      26,041

      12.1

      1.60

      164

      Police Cameras
      Mr. Beith
      To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what was the total expenditure of police cameras per force in each of the last three years; what was the average number of fines issued per camera in each police force; and if he will make a statement; [77306]

      (2) how many police cameras were in use in each police force on the last date for which figures are available and in each of the previous three years; and if he will make a statement. [77290]

      Mr. Boateng
      The information requested is not available centrally. Road traffic law enforcement is an operational matter for individual chief officers of police and they decide whether to employ such technology in the light of their local conditions and policing priorities. The 1996 Police Research Group paper "Cost benefit analysis of traffic light and speed cameras" provides a snapshot of the numbers of sites and costs for such cameras in service with ten forces at that time. A copy is in the Library.

      Police Expenditure
      Mr. Beith
      To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total expenditure per police force in each of the last five years; what amount and proportion of that expenditure was spent on police pensions; what was the real terms change in total expenditure apart from police pensions per police force; what is the expected change in the proportion of total police spending which will be spent on pensions in each of the next three years; and if he will make a statement. [77288]

      Mr. Boateng
      The information is set out in the tables.
      165

      Table 1: Police pensions and total expenditure 1994–95 to 1998–99

      1994–95 Net total expenditure £000

      1994–95 Net pensions costs £000

      1994–95 Net pensions as percentage of total expenditure

      1994–95 Percentage real terms increase in total expenditure, excluding pensions, over 1993–94

      Metropolitan Police

      1,588,001

      154,666

      9.7

      -1.31

      Norfolk

      68,546

      6,897

      10.1

      3.57

      North Wales

      62,647

      5,771

      9.2

      4.05

      North Yorkshire

      63,772

      8,946

      14.0

      1.74

      Northamptonshire

      60,306

      6,107

      10.1

      5.34

      Northumbria

      175,837

      19,933

      11.3

      8.38

      Nottinghamshire

      106,195

      11,397

      10.7

      5.59

      South Wales

      133,688

      14,513

      10.9

      -4.76

      South Yorkshire

      137,623

      11,121

      8.1

      6.00

      Staffordshire

      100,265

      11,610

      11.6

      3.83

      Suffolk

      56,828

      5,872

      10.3

      0.43

      Surrey

      84,371

      7,318

      8.7

      9.57

      Sussex

      130,382

      12,704

      9.7

      5.26

      Thames Valley Police

      192,080

      12,687

      6.6

      5.27

      Warwickshire

      50,000

      4,180

      8.4

      2.31

      West Mercia

      98,108

      9,489

      9.7

      3.65

      West Midlands

      313,518

      29,945

      9.6

      2.17

      West Yorkshire

      236,100

      27,367

      11.6

      2.42

      Wiltshire

      59,155

      4,143

      7.0

      6.94

      1995–96 Net total expenditure £000

      1995–96 Net pensions costs £000

      1995–96 Net pensions as percentage of total expenditure

      1995–96 Percentage real terms increase in total expenditure, excluding pensions, over 1994–95

      Avon and Somerset

      141,091

      17,780

      12.6

      -3.61

      Bedfordshire

      54,533

      4,890

      9.0

      2.06

      Cambridgeshire

      61,003

      5,871

      9.6

      0.62

      Cheshire

      87,315

      10,074

      11.5

      -0.29

      City of London

      56,042

      6,848

      12.2

      0.86

      Cleveland

      68,558

      7,950

      11.6

      -3.50

      Cumbria

      53,444

      6,145

      11.5

      -5.39

      Derbyshire

      86,015

      10,416

      12.1

      -4.11

      Devon and Cornwall

      144,513

      17,661

      12.2

      -2.87

      Dorset

      63,276

      6,947

      11.0

      -9.25

      Durham

      62,432

      7,218

      11.6

      2.52

      Dyfed Powys

      46,197

      7,036

      15.2

      -5.92

      Essex

      146,473

      14,045

      9.6

      —

      Gloucestershire

      53,977

      5,635

      10.4

      -6.75

      Greater Manchester

      331,304

      43,809

      13.2

      -2.25

      Gwent

      44,436

      3,695

      8.3

      0.45

      Hampshire

      163,193

      17,316

      10.6

      0.07

      Hertfordshire

      87,825

      6,060

      6.9

      1.10

      Humberside

      96,418

      11,228

      11.6

      -0.48

      Kent

      155,223

      15,046

      9.7

      -3.57

      Lancashire

      152,225

      19,662

      12.9

      0.31

      Leicestershire

      86,855

      10,888

      12.5

      3.91

      Lincolnshire

      59,022

      7,786

      13.2

      —

      Merseyside

      220,007

      29,934

      13.6

      -2.50

      Metropolitan Police

      1,639,392

      150,347

      9.2

      0.95

      Norfolk

      70,378

      8,489

      12.1

      -2.45

      North Wales

      65,933

      7,489

      11.4

      -0.15

      North Yorkshire

      63,096

      8,459

      13.4

      -3.17

      Northamptonshire

      57,075

      5,470

      9.6

      -7.48

      Northumbria

      178,820

      26,636

      14.9

      -5.15

      Nottinghamshire

      106,334

      11,732

      11.0

      -3.03

      South Wales

      144,452

      18,828

      13.0

      2.43

      South Yorkshire

      144,354

      12,700

      8.8

      1.13

      Staffordshire

      98,661

      11,377

      11.5

      -4.33

      Suffolk

      55,814

      7,137

      12.8

      -7.18

      166 167

      1995–96 Net total expenditure £000

      1995–96 Net pensions costs £000

      1995–96 Net pensions as percentage of total expenditure

      1995–96 Percentage real terms increase in total expenditure, excluding pensions, over 1994–95

      Surrey

      83,000

      7,803

      9.4

      -5.17

      Sussex

      137,785

      17,438

      12.7

      -0.63

      Thames Valley Police

      194,465

      15,992

      8.2

      -3.33

      Warwickshire

      47,760

      5,004

      10.5

      -9.33

      West Mercia

      95,886

      8,875

      9.3

      -4.59

      West Midlands

      331,075

      34,304

      10.4

      1.69

      West Yorkshire

      238,801

      25,775

      10.8

      -0.83

      Wiltshire

      54,448

      4,032

      7.4

      -10.95

      1996–97 Net total expenditure £000

      1996–97 Net pensions costs £000

      1996–97 Net pensions as percentage of total expenditure

      1996–97 Percentage real terms increase in total expenditure, excluding pensions, over 1995–96

      Avon and Somerset

      152,087

      22,122

      14.5

      2.25

      Bedfordshire

      56,627

      5,422

      9.6

      0.06

      Cambridgeshire

      65,024

      7,140

      11.0

      1.85

      Cheshire

      94,177

      7,917

      8.4

      8.34

      City of London

      57,317

      6,636

      11.6

      -0.06

      Cleveland

      73,108

      8,694

      11.9

      3.10

      Cumbria

      56,856

      7,307

      12.9

      1.63

      Derbyshire

      90,420

      11,075

      12.2

      1.82

      Devon and Cornwall

      150,392

      19,006

      12.6

      0.48

      Dorset

      67,831

      7,618

      11.2

      3.70

      Durham

      68,035

      8,233

      12.1

      5.07

      Dyfed Powys

      47,869

      5,979

      12.5

      3.77

      Essex

      151,412

      14,785

      9.8

      0.09

      Gloucestershire

      58,420

      7,978

      13.7

      1.23

      Greater Manchester

      341,170

      47,275

      13.9

      -0.83

      Gwent

      57,742

      5,735

      9.9

      23.84

      Hampshire

      172,845

      16,432

      9.5

      4.02

      Hertfordshire

      88,863

      7,930

      8.9

      -3.98

      Humberside

      99,719

      10,849

      10.9

      1.20

      Kent

      161,625

      14,601

      9.0

      1.75

      Lancashire

      161,865

      22,481

      13.9

      2.00

      Leicestershire

      92,853

      10,273

      11.1

      5.46

      Lincolnshire

      61,508

      7,792

      12.7

      1.71

      Merseyside

      221,172

      35,211

      15.9

      -5.09

      Metropolitan Police

      1,683,181

      170,677

      10.1

      -1.46

      Norfolk

      75,547

      9,832

      13.0

      3.01

      North Wales

      68,266

      8,829

      12.9

      -1.34

      North Yorkshire

      67,042

      9,515

      14.2

      2.14

      Northamptonshire

      59,252

      5,677

      9.6

      0.71

      Northumbria

      186,410

      27,649

      14.8

      1.20

      Nottinghamshire

      113,591

      12,912

      11.4

      3.24

      South Wales

      147,458

      20,376

      13.8

      -1.86

      South Yorkshire

      150,949

      13,065

      8.7

      1.60

      Staffordshire

      107,832

      15,465

      14.3

      2.66

      Suffolk

      60,963

      7,973

      13.1

      5.61

      Surrey

      85,345

      8,478

      9.9

      -0.83

      Sussex

      150,626

      19,702

      13.1

      5.54

      Thames Valley Police

      201,397

      17,256

      8.6

      0.09

      Warwickshire

      47,686

      4,252

      8.9

      -1.45

      West Mercia

      102,078

      10,567

      10.4

      2.03

      West Midlands

      337,992

      34,530

      10.2

      -0.80

      West Yorkshire

      265,233

      31,132

      11.7

      6.61

      Wiltshire

      59,993

      7,828

      13.0

      0.38

      168 169

      1997–98 Net total expenditure £000

      1997–98 Net pensions costs £000

      1997–98 Net pensions as percentage of total expenditure

      1997–98 Percentage real terms increase in total expenditure, excluding pensions, over 1996–97

      Avon and Somerset

      152,673

      24,389

      16.0

      -3.70

      Bedfordshire

      58,570

      6,764

      11.5

      -1.29

      Cambridgeshire

      68,681

      8,158

      11.9

      2.01

      Cheshire

      104,005

      11,778

      11.3

      4.31

      City of London

      57,893

      7,361

      12.7

      -2.73

      Cleveland

      75,426

      8,252

      10.9

      1.74

      Cumbria

      61,709

      7,881

      12.8

      5.99

      Derbyshire

      95,641

      12,430

      13.0

      2.31

      Devon and Cornwall

      155,435

      21,033

      13.5

      -0.20

      Dorset

      69,727

      9,087

      13.0

      -1.75

      Durham

      75,166

      12,697

      16.9

      1.91

      Dyfed Powys

      50,952

      6,191

      12.2

      4.25

      Essex

      157,487

      17,097

      10.9

      0.25

      Gloucestershire

      58,633

      7,721

      13.2

      -1.53

      Greater Manchester

      353,319

      58,292

      16.5

      -2.06

      Gwent

      64,598

      7,634

      11.8

      6.86

      Hampshire

      180,791

      17,272

      9.6

      1.99

      Hertfordshire

      93,011

      8,970

      9.6

      1.31

      Humberside

      106,220

      14,006

      13.2

      1.23

      Kent

      174,211

      19,914

      11.4

      2.39

      Lancashire

      169,275

      23,988

      14.2

      1.69

      Leicestershire

      98,789

      not available

      not available

      —

      Lincolnshire

      66,184

      9,266

      14.0

      3.38

      Merseyside

      224,327

      33,754

      15.0

      -0.02

      Metropolitan Police

      1,676,617

      191,041

      11.4

      -4.18

      Norfolk

      80,222

      10,719

      13.4

      3.18

      North Wales

      70,920

      9,825

      13.9

      0.28

      North Yorkshire

      71,840

      10,475

      14.6

      4.07

      Northamptonshire

      64,605

      8,030

      12.4

      3.02

      Northumbria

      195,092

      30,651

      15.7

      1.05

      Nottinghamshire

      120,556

      17,019

      14.1

      0.33

      South Wales

      159,411

      28,071

      17.6

      0.83

      South Yorkshire

      166,027

      20,321

      12.2

      3.10

      Staffordshire

      110,264

      19,077

      17.3

      -3.69

      Suffolk

      63,676

      8,374

      13.2

      1.82

      Surrey

      90,976

      12,646

      13.9

      -0.58

      Sussex

      157,631

      21,485

      13.6

      1.45

      Thames Valley Police

      210,333

      20,930

      10.0

      0.35

      Warwickshire

      51,003

      7,099

      13.9

      -1.38

      West Mercia

      107,788

      12,038

      11.2

      2.08

      West Midlands

      360,129

      44,073

      12.2

      1.61

      West Yorkshire

      281,745

      37,161

      13.2

      1.93

      Wiltshire

      58,535

      6,149

      10.5

      -2.03

      1998–99 Net total expenditure £000

      1998–99 Net pensions costs £000

      1998–99 Net pensions as percentage of total expenditure

      1998–99 Percentage real terms increase in total expenditure, excluding pensions, over 1997–98

      Avon and Somerset

      167,417

      26,877

      16.1

      6.88

      Bedfordshire

      62,317

      6,982

      11.2

      4.21

      Cambridgeshire

      71,230

      8,463

      11.9

      1.18

      Cheshire

      106,523

      11,580

      10.9

      0.43

      City of London

      60,862

      8,291

      13.6

      1.50

      Cleveland

      82,282

      11,108

      13.5

      3.37

      Cumbria

      63,000

      8,715

      13.8

      -1.61

      Derbyshire

      100,894

      13,788

      13.7

      2.13

      Devon and Cornwall

      167,117

      23,165

      13.9

      4.49

      Dorset

      73,497

      9,486

      12.9

      2.98

      Durham

      78,103

      10,166

      13.0

      6.10

      Dyfed Powys

      52,609

      6,926

      13.2

      -0.43

      170 171

      1998–99 Net total expenditure £000

      1998–99 Net pensions costs £000

      1998–99 Net pensions as percentage of total expenditure

      1998–99 Percentage real terms increase in total expenditure, excluding pensions, over 1997–98

      Essex

      168,889

      19,361

      11.5

      3.91

      Gloucestershire

      63,780

      9,138

      14.3

      4.71

      Greater Manchester

      371,497

      59,380

      16.0

      3.21

      Gwent

      67,919

      7,712

      11.4

      3.12

      Hampshire

      190,920

      20,009

      10.5

      1.97

      Hertfordshire

      97,859

      9,499

      9.7

      2.57

      Humberside

      111,587

      13,584

      12.2

      3.69

      Kent

      178,916

      20,867

      11.7

      -0.07

      Lancashire

      178,051

      24,802

      13.9

      2.91

      Leicestershire

      102,707

      12,566

      12.2

      —

      Lincolnshire

      68,322

      10,057

      14.7

      -0.13

      Merseyside

      245,277

      37,483

      15.3

      6.38

      Metropolitan Police

      1,778,001

      210,438

      11.8

      2.95

      Norfolk

      82,339

      10,148

      12.3

      1.33

      North Wales

      75,075

      11,138

      14.8

      2.10

      North Yorkshire

      75,638

      12,162

      16.1

      0.92

      Northamptonshire

      67,134

      7,067

      10.5

      3.58

      Northumbria

      205,380

      31,500

      15.3

      3.16

      Nottinghamshire

      124,828

      16,355

      13.1

      2.21

      South Wales

      163,430

      24,861

      15.2

      2.93

      South Yorkshire

      168,205

      17,248

      10.3

      1.08

      Staffordshire

      122,540

      22,383

      18.3

      7.16

      Suffolk

      65,785

      8,385

      12.7

      1.26

      Surrey

      90,738

      11,021

      12.1

      -0.71

      Sussex

      162,664

      24,846

      15.3

      -1.24

      Thames Valley Police

      221,147

      20,306

      9.2

      3.45

      Warwickshire

      53,617

      6,201

      11.6

      5.37

      West Mercia

      112,879

      12,458

      11.0

      2.32

      West Midlands

      372,296

      42,831

      11.5

      1.70

      West Yorkshire

      280,739

      37,555

      13.4

      -3.00

      Wiltshire

      66,666

      7,480

      11.2

      10.22

      Notes:

      1994/95–1997/98: Total expenditure and pensions costs taken from CIPFA Actuals

      1998/99: Estimated total expenditure and estimated pension costs taken from CIPFA Estimate

      Table 2: Estimated police pensions costs as proportion of police funding 1999–2000 to 2001–02

      £ million

      1999–2000

      2000–01

      2001–02

      Police Funding1

      7,142

      7,341

      7,631

      Police Pensions Costs2

      931

      993

      1,059

      Proportion of funding (per cent.)

      13.04

      13.53

      13.88

      1 Total Standard Spending

      2 Government Actuary's Department

      Policing (Human Rights)
      Mr. Beith
      To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the recommendations of the Justice report "Under Surveillance: Covert Policing and Human Rights Standards". [77292]

      Mr. Boateng
      I have invited members of Justice to meet me so that they can put directly to me their views on the present legal structures relating to police surveillance and how they believe it is affected by the European Convention on Human Rights. Their views will form part of the consideration which is currently being given to whether further changes are needed to the existing framework of controls.
      172

      Police (Cleveland)
      Dr. Kumar
      To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will estimate by how much the Lancet Inquiry will increase the precept for policing payable by residents of Cleveland in the next year; on what calculation this is based; and if he will make a statement. [77270]

      Mr. Boateng
      I understand from the Chief Constable that the Cleveland Police Authority has set a budget for 1999–2000 of £83.3 million which is an increase of 3.6 per cent. over 1998–99. This will mean an increase in the police precept on the council tax of 29.2 per cent. or £14 per year in 1999–2000 for Band D properties.

      I understand that the increase in the precept for 1999–2000 is not as a result of Operation Lancer but is required to maintain an acceptable number of police officers and to meet other unavoidable expenditure for police pay increases and pensions.

      It is a matter for the Chief Constable to determine how to use the resources available. The Cleveland Constabulary achieved significant savings in 1998–99 of £2.7 million. This has made it possible for the force to absorb the costs of Operation Lancet within existing resources.
      173
      Dr. Kumar
      To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will estimate the cost of the Lancet Inquiry into alleged corruption in the Cleveland police force; and if he will make a statement. [77269]

      Mr. Boateng
      I understand from Cleveland Constabulary that the estimated cost of Operation Lancet up to 31 March 1999 is £1.24 million.

      The major part of the inquiry is being undertaken by officers from the Cleveland force, for whom provision has already been made in the budget. The costs arising from the involvement of the Northamptonshire Officers and Mr. Timpson, the Chief Constable of Warwickshire Constabulary who is in charge of the investigation, have also been found from within the Cleveland budget.

      Dr. Kumar
      To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects that Inspector Ray Mallon of the Cleveland Police will cease being suspended; and if he will make a statement. [77266]

      Mr. Boateng
      Matters involving the suspension of police officers are governed by The Police (Discipline) Regulations 1985. An officer may be suspended from the force by his chief officer where it appears that he may have committed a disciplinary offence. Unless the chief officer decides otherwise, the suspension will continue until either it is decided not to bring disciplinary charges or the case has been resolved.

      This is entirely a matter for the Chief Officer concerned—in this instance the Chief Constable of Cleveland Constabulary. It would be wrong of me to comment on this matter whilst the investigation is underway.

      Dr. Kumar
      To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on progress of the Lancet Inquiry into alleged police corruption in Cleveland; when he expects completion of its work; and if he will make a statement. [77268]

      Mr. Boateng
      This is a wide-ranging inquiry and is one of the largest supervised by the Police Complaints Authority (PCA). There has been close consultation with the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) throughout. A major file on drugs-related issues was delivered to the CPS on 4 December 1998 and is now with Treasury Counsel. I understand that a number of possible criminal and disciplinary matters are still being addressed and eight officers remained suspended from duty.

      The length of the investigation is a matter for the investigation officer and the PCA.

      Firearms (Compensation)
      Mr. Robathan
      To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many claims for compensation are still outstanding under the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997; what percentage of the total number of claims this represents. [77320]

      Mr. Boateng
      Payment offers have been made on all but around 420 claims which cannot yet be fully processed, mainly because the required evidence of value of the surrendered guns and ancillary equipment has not yet been provided. This represents less than 1 per cent. of the claims received. There are around 6,000 outstanding 174
      offers of payment awaiting a response from the claimant before a final payment can be made. The bulk of these should be cleared within the next few days.

      Association of Chief Police Officers
      Mr. Vaz
      To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he plans next to meet the officers of the Association of Chief Police Officers. [77347]

      Mr. Boateng
      My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary regularly meets officers of the Association of Chief Police Officers on both a formal and informal basis.

      Police Recruitment (Ethnic Minorities)
      Mr. Vaz
      To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to increase ethnic minority recruitment in the police service. [77348]

      Mr. Boateng
      Individual targets will be set for each force for the recruitment, retention and progression of ethnic minority officers. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is chairing a National Conference on the Recruitment, Retention and Progression of Black and Asian Officers in April for chief constables and police authority chairs. The Conference will be addressing issues such as: force recruitment; promotion schemes and personnel practice.

      Diarmuid O'Neill
      Mr. Coleman
      To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the investigation of the death of Diarmuid O'Neill in Hammersmith. [77794]

      Kate Hoey
      The Commissioner of the Metropolitan police tells me that the report of the police investigation into the death of Diarmuid O'Neill, which was supervised by the Police Complaints Authority, was sent to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) on 20 November 1998. As at 17 March 1999, no decisions had been taken by the CPS about whether criminal charges should be brought.

      Police Officers (Hammersmith and Fulham)
      Mr. Coleman
      To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers were stationed at(a) Hammersmith and (b) Fulham police stations (i) on 1 May 1997 and (ii) at the latest available date. [77793]

      Kate Hoey
      The Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police tells me that the information is not available for the first date specified, but that it is available for 1 July 1997, and as at 18 March 1999, as follows:

      Number of officers as at

      Hammersmith

      Fulham

      1 July 1997

      333.52

      226.13

      18 March 1999

      301.22

      215.16

      Thai House and Siam Sauna
      Mr. Corbett
      To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the Chief Constable of Northamptonshire into the release of the name
      175
      of a person who declined to assist with inquiries into suspected breaches of employment and immigration law at the Thai House and Sian Sauna in November. [77659]

      Mr. Boateng
      The Chief Constable of Northamptonshire Constabulary has taken steps to establish whether there is any basis for an inquiry into whether the release of the name of a person who declined to assist with inquiries. I am assured that should any member of his staff be shown to have been involved in leaking information to the media about the raid on a Northampton Thai massage parlour they will be severely dealt with.

      At the moment there is no evidence to suggest that this leak did come from within his force but, should this position change, the Chief Constable will immediately instigate an inquiry and do everything possible to find out who is responsible.

      Arson Prevention Bureau
      Mr. Fitzpatrick
      To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what support has been offered by his Department for the Arson Prevention Bureau for(a) the next financial year and (b) the last three financial years. [77609]

      Mr. George Howarth
      The Home Office has a strong working relationship with the Arson Prevention Bureau. Graham Meldrum, Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Fire Services and I gave keynote addresses at two if its important events last year and officials are in regular contact with the Bureau to discuss its programme of activities. In addition, a Home Office official has been loaned to the Bureau since December 1996. The first year of that posting (December 1996-November 1997) was funded in full by the Home Office.

      My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced earlier this month his intention to publish shortly the outcome of a Home Office study which has reviewed current arrangements for combating arson. We expect to continue to work closely with the Arson Prevention Bureau to take that initiative forward.

      Persistent Offenders
      Mr. Maclean
      To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 2 March 1999,Official Report, column 637, what plans he has to make available to the public the data upon which the benchmark figure of 142 days from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders was based. [77544]

      Mr. Boateng
      The methodology used to calculate the benchmark figure of 142 days, set out in my answer of 2 March 1999,Official Report, column 637, was set out in the Lord Chancellor's Department Information Bulletin 1/98, published by the Government Statistical Service in May 1998. At paragraph 13, the Bulletin states that:
      Persistent Young Offenders and sentence dates were identified using data from the Police National Computer. Details of arrest dates (or laying of information) for these offenders were obtained by means of a survey of Police Force records. The survey included around 1,500 occasions on which persistent young offenders were sentenced in 1996.176
      The Bulletin also provided a contact point for further information about the data on which the calculation was based and for requests for further analysis of the data. A copy of the Bulletin was placed in the Library at the time of publication.

      The methodology was also set out in a written answer to the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) on 2 November 1998, Official Report, column 389.

      Criminal Offences (EU)
      Mr. Maclean
      To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 12 March 1999,Official Report, columns 379–80, if he will make a statement on the nature of his Department's concerns about the provisions on interception of telecommunications in Council Document 13144/98. [77542]

      Mr. Straw
      The provisions relating to interception of communications in the draft Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters between the member states of the European Union are currently under negotiation. The United Kingdom is negotiating on the basis that the Convention should apply to criminal investigations carried out by the Police Service and Her Majesty's Customs, and not to the operations of our security and intelligence agencies. We are also keen to ensure that the Convention does not impose unnecessary burdens on the operations of the United Kingdom's law enforcement agencies. A detailed explanation of the Government's concerns has been submitted to the European Scrutiny Committees.

      Schengen Agreement
      Mr. Mitchell
      To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list those Schengen provisions which will be adopted by the United Kingdom, stating for each provision the reasons why it is considered necessary. [77640]

      Kate Hoey
      I refer my hon. Friend to my reply of 12 March 1999,Official Report, columns 380–81, to the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean).

      EU Conventions
      Mr. Mitchell
      To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the Conventions of the European Union(a) agreed and (b) in draft relating to (i) police co-operation and (ii) judicial and court procedures together with their Treaty base, their purpose and scope. [77613]

      Kate Hoey
      I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given him by the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Ms Quin), on 1 July 1997,Official Report, columns 74–76, and by me on 19 November 1998, Official Report, columns 729–31. All the conventions listed were based on Article K3 of the Treaty on European Union. He may also wish to be aware that political agreement was reached on the draft Eurodac Convention at the Justice and Home Affairs Council on 3–4 December 1998.
      177

      Gypsies
      Mr. Norman
      To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many instances have been reported to the police of gypsies trespassing on private property in the last year in England and Wales. [77828]

      Mr. Boateng
      This information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

      Corruption Convention
      Mr. Cox
      To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reason Her Majesty's Government have not ratified the Council of Europe Criminal law convention on corruption; and if he will make a statement. [77989]

      Mr. Boateng
      The United Kingdom signed the Convention on 27 January 1999 and was one of the first States to do so. We are currently considering, in the context of a review of our legislation dealing with corruption, whether, and if so what, changes to domestic criminal law will be needed to enable us to ratify the Convention.

      Metropolitan Police District
      Mr. Burstow
      To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what transitional arrangements he plans to make in respect of the costs arising from the realignment of the Metropolitan Police District boundary with the Greater London administrative boundary. [77814]

      Kate Hoey
      [holding answer 22 March 1999]: The allocation of police grant for 1999/2000 includes special payments of £2 million, £3 million and £7 million to Essex Police Authority, Hertfordshire Police Authority and Surrey Police Authority respectively for transitional costs arising from the changes to the Metropolitan Police District boundary. We would consider any transitional cost bids made for 2000–01.

      Women's Royal Voluntary Service
      Mr. Chope
      To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to review funding for the WRVS in the light of Government policy not to assist charities' core activities. [77925]

      Mr. Boateng
      [holding answer 22 March 1999]: There is no Government-wide policy not to fund charities' core activities. During 1999, the Home Office will lead the preparation of a code of good practice on funding, to underpin the recent Compact with the voluntary sector. The code will be a vehicle for developing a cross-departmental approach to strategic funding. In the case of the Women's Royal Voluntary Service (WRVS), funding was formally reviewed in 1997. One of the review's conclusions was that, as a national exemplar for the involvement of volunteers, WRVS supported Home Office objectives and should continue to receive strategic funding.

      Freemasons
      Mr. Mullin
      To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made in implementing the Government's proposals for registering membership of the freemasons in the police, prison and 178
      probation services in respect of (i) the establishment of the voluntary register, (ii) the introduction of compulsory registration for new appointments or appointments on promotion and (iii) the arrangements for making the information available to the public. [78052]

      Mr. Boateng
      [holding answer 22 March 1999]: Home Office officials are currently working with the Association of Chief Police Officers to set up voluntary registers for existing staff in line with my commitment to the Home Affairs Committee on 20 October 1998. Arrangements for the other categories of occupation affected by the policy, including the Prison and Probation Services, will be implemented once the internal registration arrangements for the Police Service have been set up and are in operation.

      Once voluntary registers are in place for existing office holders, we will move swiftly to make arrangements for new staff and existing staff transferring between posts.

      The disclosure of Freemasonry membership by office holders and employees in the categories of occupation affected by the policy is entirely voluntary at present. Lawful publication of information about Freemasonry membership disclosed voluntarily will require the informed consent of those who have disclosed that information which can be given only once the precise nature of the publication arrangements has been determined.

      Stephen Lawrence Inquiry Report
      Mr. Efford
      To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will publish the Government's response to the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry report; and if he will make a statement. [78580]

      Mr. Straw
      I am today publishing an Action Plan setting out how the Government propose that the Report's recommendations will be taken forward. For each of the areas covered by the recommendations of the Inquiry, the plan sets out the main programme of work, who will have the lead responsibility for taking the work forward, and how we will review and assess the outcomes of the work. This is the beginning of the process, and we will revise and develop the plan as the work proceeds. There will be a full day's debate in the House on these issues on Monday 29 March.

      Serious Crime Warrants
      Caroline Flint
      To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to implement the recommendation, in the report of the Interception of Communications Commissioner for 1997, that nominated officials in the law enforcement agencies be permitted to modify serious crime warrants on behalf of the Secretary of State where the warrants are specifically endorsed to permit it. [78581]

      Mr. Straw
      I intend to implement the change, as recommended by the Interception Commissioner, on 1 April. Thereafter, nominated senior officials in the intercepting agencies will be empowered to modify existing interception warrants by the insertion of new addresses in urgent cases. This is in accordance with section 5(4) of the Interception of Communications Act 1985.
      179
      The change will not enable officials to issue interception warrants against new targets. Interception warrants may only lawfully be issued by (or on the express authorisation of) the Secretary of State.

      WPC Fletcher
      Mr. Dalyell
      To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his oral statement of 16 March 1999,Official Report, column 1016, on the case of WPC Fletcher, for what reasons the inquiries by the Metropolitan Police have taken longer than anticipated. [78242]

      Mr. Straw
      The Metropolitan Police review of the evidence surrounding the murder of WPC Fletcher has involved a number of complex international lines of inquiry which have taken longer to resolve than was originally anticipated. The timetable has often been dependent on the contribution of overseas authorities. I am assured that the police have pursued their inquiries as quickly as is possible and that the final report on their review of the case will be ready in the near future.

    HEALTH

      Elderly People (Care)
      Mr. Sanders
      To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many elderly people were accommodated in(a) private sector and (b) local authority care homes in each region in each of the last 30 years; [75918]

      (2) how many elderly people were accommodated in (a) private sector care homes and (b) local authority care homes in (i) Devon, (ii) Torbay and (iii) Plymouth in each of the last 30 years. [75921]

      Mr. Hutton
      Information on the number of people accommodated in homes for the elderly in England, for the period 1983 to 1996 in Devon, for the period 1987 to 1996, is given in the table. It is not possible to provide a consistent series for earlier years or by region because of changes in regional boundaries and changes in the methods of data collection.

      Elderly persons in residential care (England 1983–96 and Devon 1987–96)

      Number

      Year

      LA

      Voluntary

      Private

      England

      1983

      105,682

      24,917

      41,228

      1984

      98,752

      24,274

      51,810

      1985

      93,978

      22,475

      63,533

      1986

      93,247

      21,968

      75,732

      1987

      102,390

      24,719

      88,440

      1988

      99,680

      25,108

      98,640

      1989

      96,744

      25,602

      113,452

      1990

      90,827

      26,256

      122,250

      1991

      83,723

      27,315

      131,399

      1992

      72,635

      31,043

      134,712

      1993

      64,523

      33,546

      137,255

      1994

      59,536

      32,603

      131,037

      1995

      55,095

      32,633

      129,471

      1996

      53,025

      32,770

      129,452

      1997

      —

      —

      —

      180

      Elderly persons in residential care (England 1983–96 and Devon 1987–96)

      Number

      Year

      LA

      Voluntary

      Private

      Devon

      1983

      —

      —

      —

      1984

      —

      —

      —

      1985

      —

      —

      —

      1986

      —

      —

      —

      1987

      1,951

      736

      6,445

      1988

      1,943

      881

      7,577

      1989

      1,942

      857

      7,868

      1990

      1,803

      888

      8,193

      1991

      1,616

      969

      7,970

      1992

      1,374

      989

      8,268

      1993

      1,144

      1,005

      7,973

      1994

      1,089

      1,004

      7,862

      1995

      1,061

      1,001

      7,557

      1996

      777

      971

      7,393

      1997

      —

      —

      —

      Source:

      DH returns; RAC5 & RA

      Mr. Sanders
      To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many(a) private sector and (b) local authority care homes for the elderly there were in each region for each of the last 30 years; [75916]

      (2) how many (a) private sector care homes and (b) local authority care homes for the elderly there were in (i) Devon, (ii) Torbay and (iii) Plymouth in each of the last 30 years. [75923]

      Mr. Hutton
      Information on the number of homes for the elderly in England, for the period 1985 to 1997 and in Devon, for the period 1987 to 1997, is given in the table. It is not possible to provide a consistent series for earlier years or by region because of changes in regional boundaries and changes in the methods of data collection.

      Homes for the elderly in residential care (England 1985–97 and Devon 1987–97)

      Number

      Year

      LA

      England Voluntary

      Private

      LA

      Devon Voluntary

      Private

      1985

      2,361

      829

      4,840

      —

      —

      —

      1986

      2,341

      787

      5,784

      —

      —

      —

      1987

      2,588

      879

      6,882

      54

      34

      577

      1988

      2,572

      895

      7,395

      55

      39

      615

      1989

      2,532

      897

      8,247

      55

      34

      595

      1990

      2,479

      930

      8,557

      51

      37

      614

      1991

      2,330

      968

      8,730

      50

      41

      599

      1992

      2,086

      1,075

      8,655

      46

      41

      603

      1993

      1,875

      1,156

      8,582

      40

      42

      584

      1994

      1,736

      1,215

      8,509

      38

      45

      573

      1995

      1,672

      1,233

      8,414

      38

      44

      544

      1996

      1,625

      1,242

      8,477

      39

      44

      542

      1997

      1,498

      1,320

      8,988

      38

      45

      633

      Source:

      DH returns; RA1, RAC5 and RA

      Medical Staff (Ethnic Origin)
      Mrs. Brinton
      To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the number of(a) nursing and (b) medical staff in (i) mental health clinics and (ii) hospitals in the United Kingdom for the last five years; and if he will give a breakdown by ethnicity. [75948]
      181
      Mr. Denham
      [holding answer 11 March 1999]: The information requested is not available in the format requested. The table shows the numbers of National

      NHS Hospital and Community Health Service (HCHS): nursing and medical staff working in the psychiatry area of work 1 by ethnic origin—England as at 30 September of each year

      Whole-time equivalents

      White

      Black

      Asian

      Other

      Unknown

      Total

      1997:

      Nursing staff

      Community

      9,200

      430

      190

      510

      390

      10,720

      Other

      34,800

      1,980

      700

      1,660

      2,840

      41,980

      Medical staff

      —

      3,500

      290

      820

      560

      370

      5,540

      1996

      Nursing staff

      Community

      9,360

      340

      230

      300

      310

      10,530

      Other

      36,350

      1,840

      490

      1,050

      2,320

      42,050

      Medical staff

      —

      3,410

      210

      780

      480

      330

      5,210

      1995

      Nursing staff

      Community

      8,450

      310

      180

      280

      310

      9,540

      Other

      36,540

      1,660

      750

      1,150

      2,020

      42,120

      Medical staff

      —

      3,360

      220

      780

      470

      270

      5,090

      19942:

      Nursing staff

      Community

      4,210

      150

      100

      260

      50

      4,780

      Hospital

      39,740

      2,030

      570

      2,540

      1,450

      46,320

      Medical staff

      —

      3,250

      220

      730

      500

      200

      4,900

      19932:

      Nursing staff

      Community

      3,820

      130

      120

      230

      50

      4,340

      Hospital

      38,400

      2,710

      1,230

      3,160

      1,510

      47,020

      Medical staff

      —

      3,010

      200

      690

      480

      490

      4,860

      1 Figures are rounded too the nearest ten and exclude pre-registration nurse learners, agency and locum staff.

      2 Figures for Medical Staff include all HCHS doctors in the psychiatry groups specialities (psychiatry, child and adolescent psychiatry, forensic psychiatry, learning disabilities, old age psychiatry and psychotherapy).

      Notes:

      1. A new classification of the non-medical workforce was introduced in 1995. Therefore, information for 1993 and 1994 is not directly comparable with the later years.

      2. Ethnicity figures for nursing and medical staff should be treated with caution as a small proportion of staff do not declare their ethnic origin.

      Source:

      Department of Health, Medical and Dental and Non-Medical Workforce Censuses.

      Care Services
      Mr. Simon Hughes
      To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will list by region and for each of the last five years the amount spent by each health authority on home care(a) in total and (b) as a percentage of special transitional grants; [76480]

      (2) if he will list by region and for each of the last five years the amounts spent by each health authority on care services bought from the independent sector (a) in total and (b) as a percentage of special transitional grants. [76481]

      Mr. Hutton
      [holding answer 15 March 1999]: Total special transitional grant funding to local authorities in England for 1993–94 to 1997–98 was:

      Year

      £ million

      1993–94

      565

      1994–95

      736

      1995–96

      647

      1996–97

      418

      1997–98

      325

      182
      Health Service Hospital and Community Health Service nursing and medical staff working in the psychiatry area of work by ethnic origin.

      Over the same period, the reported gross local authority expenditure on (a) personal social services and (b) on home care was:

      £ million

      Year

      (a) Personal social services

      (b) Home care

      1993–94

      6,728

      729

      1994–95

      7,503

      923

      1995–96

      8,393

      1,028

      1996–97

      9,263

      1,130

      Note:

      These data are not yet available for 1997–98.

      Figures for individual local authorities have been placed in the Library.

      Data on the proportion of personal social services expenditure spent in the independent sector are not held centrally.

      Smoking
      Mr. Cox
      To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of his budget was spent on education in schools about the dangers caused by smoking in the last year for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [77549]
      183
      Ms Jowell
      Smoking education in schools is an integral part of the National Curriculum and is, therefore, the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment.

      The Department spent £3 million over the past three years in the 'Respect' programme addressing children aged 11 to 15 years old but not in a school context.

      Edgware Community Hospital
      Mr. Dismore
      To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to be able to make an announcement in response to the Edgware Community Hospital full business case. [77861]

      Mr. Denham
      Barnet Healthcare National Health Service Trust is currently preparing a Full Business Case for the development of Edgware Community Hospital. This is expected to be completed shortly. It will then be submitted for assessment by the National Health Service Executive in accordance with the established business case process.

      HIV-AIDS
      Mr. Fearn
      To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the prevalence of(a) HIV and (b) AIDS in young adults in each region. [77664]

      Ms Jowell
      The estimates of prevalence of AIDS cases and diagnosed HIV infections in young adults (15 to 24 years) in each region at the end of 1997 are shown in the table.

      Regional authority of residence

      Number of individuals diagnosed with AIDS

      Number of individuals diagnosed with HIV infection1

      Northern and Yorkshire

      7

      35

      Trent

      9

      38

      Anglia and Oxford

      4

      41

      North Thames

      24

      281

      South Thames

      33

      145

      South and West

      7

      57

      West Midlands

      2

      15

      North West

      9

      57

      Total

      95

      669

      1 Including those with AIDS

      Source:

      Survey of prevalent diagnosed HIV infections (SOPHID). Numbers given have been multiplied by 1.096 to adjust for under reporting.

      Healthy Workplace Initiative
      Mr. Nigel Griffiths
      To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he is taking to promote the Healthy Workplace Initiative. [77772]

      Ms Jowell
      I announced the launch of the Healthy Workplace Initiative in England on 9 March. The Healthy Workplace Initiative is jointly sponsored by the Department and the Health and Safety Executive. It carries the message that."Improving Health Is Everybody's Business".

      As part of this Initiative, the Department has signed a statement of intent with the Health and Safety Commission/Executive. The partnership embodied in this statement lays a foundation for working across a number
      184
      of areas. For example. we are currently consulting with employers, trade unions and workplace organisations about identifying good practice in tackling the impact of back pain in the workplace.

      The statement of intent aims to secure and improve the health of people at work by:
      identifying and promoting examples of good practice for handling key workplace health issues, such as back pain, and disseminating the results in usable forms;
      making available appropriate and up to date information which reflects available evidence and uses all forms of media;
      encouraging better access to services and helping to provide a bridge between prevention, treatment and rehabilitation, and helping to promote compliance with relevant workplace legislation.

      We intend to expand this partnership to include other Government Departments by asking them to become partners in the healthy workplace initiative.

      We will shortly be contacting 100,000 workplace organisations of every kind, large and small, public and private, encouraging them to sign up to the initiative and share our vision of a healthier workplace.

      Mental Health (Children)
      Mr. Hesford
      To ask the Secretary of State for Health what investment the Government plan to make over the next three years for helping children with(a) mental health problems, (b) attention deficit disorder, (c) phobias and (d) depression. [77752]

      Mr. Hutton
      We are making an additional £84 million available over 3 years from April 1999 to improve provision of appropriate, high quality care and treatment for children and young people by building up locally based child and adolescent mental health services. These services address a range of child and adolescent mental health problems including emotional and behavioural disorders such as attention deficit disorder, phobias and depression.

      Cervical Cancer
      Mr. Page
      To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many repeat cervical smears were taken as a result of inadequate smears in the last year for which figures are available. [77564]

      Mr. Hutton
      [holding answer 22 March 1999]: 4.4 million smear tests were taken in 1997–98. 184,111 invitations for repeat smears were issued following an inadequate smear test.

      Mr. Page
      To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many women died from cervical cancer in the United Kingdom, and what was the percentage of PAP tests falsely diagnosed as positive, in the last year for which figures are available. [77563]

      Mr. Hutton
      [holding answer 22 March 1999]: In 1997 there were 1,612 deaths from cervical cancer in the United Kingdom.

      The cervical smear test is not a diagnostic test for cancer. It looks for cervical abnormalities which if left undetected and untreated might lead to cervical cancer. Some abnormalities, particularly less serious ones, will disappear without treatment. It is not possible to say

      185
      how many women who have an abnormal result and subsequent treatment would have gone on to develop cervical cancer.

      Mr. Page
      To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the estimated detection rate for cervical cancers of the human papellonavirus test used in conjunction with the PAP test; what trials are taking place within the NHS of HPV testing; and if he will make a statement. [77565]

      Mr. Hutton
      [holding answer 22 March 1999]: Research undertaken by the Imperial Cancer Research Fund in 1995 suggests that the PAP test used in conjunction with the human papellonavirus (HPV) test will detect 90 per cent. of cervical abnormalities.

      There are a number of trials of HPV testing for cervical abnormalities underway, including the TOMBOLA study funded by the Medical Research Council. These trials are designed to clarify the role of the HPV test within the National Health Service cervical screening programme including an assessment of its specifity (false positive rate).

      Private Finance Initiative
      Mr. Simon Hughes
      To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will place in the Library a copy of the model clause on penalty payments for major Private Finance Initiative hospital schemes. [78377]

      Mr. Denham
      The payment mechanisms, which include the substance of any withholding or deduction of payments to private sector partners for their under performance, are negotiated individually for each scheme within guidelines set out by the National Health Service Executive. The payment mechanism for each scheme is described in its Full Business Case (FBC); copies of the FBCs for the major schemes that have reached financial close have been placed in the Library.

      Mr. Simon Hughes
      To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he has taken to evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness with which the contracts for those PFI schemes that have been completed were carried out; what his conclusions were; and in what ways those conclusions contributed to the negotiations over the major acute sector hospital PFI schemes selected to continue towards financial close under the first prioritisation exercise. [78338]

      Mr. Denham
      All the private finance initiative schemes taken forward under this Government, including the major acute hospital scheme selected under the first prioritisation exercise, have been closely monitored by the National Health Service Executive. Any lessons to be learnt from each scheme which reaches financial close are identified and disseminated through the NHS Executive's regional offices. In addition, we will shortly be issuing guidance to the NHS on the private finance initiative process.

      Mr. Simon Hughes
      To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 10 March 1999,Official Report, columns 298–99, on capital projects, if he will estimate the cost of collecting information on schemes with a capital cost of less than £10 million; and if he will make it his policy to do so. [78336]

      Mr. Denham
      At the moment the number, type and capital value of private finance initiative projects with a capital value of between £1 million and £10 million is 186
      monitored by the National Health Service Executive for internal management purposes. The NHS Executive will introduce within the next three months a formal central data collection system for all PH schemes with a capital value above £1 million. This will enable accurate and reliable data to be made publicly available. I will write to the hon. Member with the information as soon as it is available.

      Mr. Simon Hughes
      To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the conditions for payment of penalties in the South Buckinghamshire (Wycombe site) Private Finance Initiative scheme. [78400]

      Mr. Denham
      Details of the payment mechanism for the withholding or deduction of payments to South Buckinghamshire National Health Service Trust's private sector partner under their private finance initiative contract are contained in the full business case and contract summary for the scheme. These documents were released and made publicly available in June 1997, but due to an administrative error copies were not placed in the Library, as they should have been. South Buckinghamshire NHS Trust have undertaken to send copies of these documents to the Library within the next two weeks.

      Sexual and Reproductive Health
      Mr. Burgon
      To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the Government's approach to sexual and reproductive health. [78709]

      Ms Jowell
      I have today announced that the Government will be developing an integrated strategy that covers the whole of sexual and reproductive health. This will tackle the continuing increase in the growth of sexually transmitted infections, particularly among teenagers and gay men, and the highest level of teenage conceptions in Western Europe. Proposals will be developed on the basis of extensive consultation with the range of professionals and organisations whose support will be vital to achieving effective action. We will publish the strategy next year.

      Evesham Community Hospital
      Mr. Luff
      To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the future role of and services provided at Evesham Community Hospital. [78112]

      Mr. Denham
      Worcestershire Health Authority's strategy for providing more health care in a community setting gives a significant role for all of the county's community hospitals, including Evesham. The health authority's aim is to preserve local facilities in a way that is affordable and compatible with their overall strategy for health provision in the new millennium.

      The future role of Evesham Community Hospital will be as a central focus for the delivery of high quality community care services which reflect the needs of the local population and provide local access.

      Diagnostic Devices
      Dr. Marek
      To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list by(a) manufacturer and (b) product name, each current application for point of care diagnostic devices for inclusion in Part IX of the Drug Tariff. [77696]
      187
      Mr. Denham
      All matters concerning applications for listing Part IX of the Drug Tariff are confidential unless the applicant chooses to reveal them.

    CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

      Exhibition Centres and Galleries
      Mr. Mitchell
      To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list the funds made available by his Department to(a) local, (b) national and (c) regional (i) exhibition centres and (ii) galleries in 1998–99. [74509]

      Mr. Alan Howarth
      My Department allocated the following grant-in-aid to the national galleries in 1998–99:(i) National Gallery, £18.6 million, of which £0.7 million was allocated to maintain free admission;
      (ii) National Portrait Gallery, £5.0 million, of which £0.3 million was allocated to maintain free admission;
      (iii) Tate Gallery, £19.2 million, of which £1.0 million was allocated to maintain free admission.

      The National Museums and Galleries on Merseyside, which includes the Walker Art Gallery and the Lady Lever Art Gallery, received £12.7 million grant-in-aid in 1998–99. Funds have since been allocated to allow free admission for children from April 1999 and for pensioners from April 2000. The 8-pass will also be held at its present level of £3 per year.

      Funds were also provided for a number of national and non-national museums.

      My Department also provided £8.9 million to the Museums and Galleries Commission in 1998–99. This organisation funds the network of Area Museum Councils in England which in turn contribute to the funding of a number of museums and galleries.

      My Department allocated £186 million to the Arts Council for England in 1997–98, £12.5 million of which was spent on the Visual Arts. This money was distributed by the Arts Council's Visual Arts Department (£5.5 million) and by the 10 Regional Arts Boards (£7.0 million). An exact breakdown of spend into local, regional and national exhibition centres and galleries can be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The figures for 1998–99 are not yet available.

      Exhibition centres are not directly funded by my Department at local, regional or national level.

      Working Time Directive
      Mr. Tyrie
      To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many civil servants in his Department have been invited to waive the Working Time Directive requirement to work less than 48 hours a week on 17 consecutive weeks; how many civil servants in his Department have refused to waive the requirement; and what is the total cost of compliance with the Directive. [76812]

      Mr. Chris Smith
      All staff in my Department have been issued with guidance on the Working Time Directive and two staff have signed an agreement to disapply the 48 hour limit.
      188
      The standard terms and conditions of service for staff employed by my Department are well within the limits set by the Working Time Regulations. The Regulations do not require employers to keep records of the number of workers who refuse to sign an opt-out agreement and no central records are kept by my Department. Compliance costs are not kept centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

      Lottery Funding
      Mr. Fearn
      To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much per capita has been allocated from the Millennium Fund to each region of the United Kingdom. [77663]

      Mr. Chris Smith
      This is a matter for the Millennium Commission. I shall write to the hon. Member in my capacity as Chairman of the Commission and place copies of my reply in the Libraries of the House.

      Performing Rights Society
      Mr. Peter Ainsworth
      To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations he has received from composers concerning the abolition of the Performing Rights Society subsidy; and if he will make a statement. [78179]

      Mr. Chris Smith
      [holding answer 22 March 1999]: I have received no representations from composers about the Performing Rights Society's decision to phase out its classical music subsidy. I have, however, received three letters from others on this issue.

      TV Licence Concessions
      Mr. Burstow
      To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will estimate the cost of extending the current TV licence concessions for sheltered accommodation to all people of pensionable age. [77892]

      Janet Anderson
      [holding answer 22 March 1999]: The estimated cost of providing £5 television licences for all pensioner-only households would be £447 million a year. There are no plans at present for such a concession. The current review of the future of the BBC licence fee after 2002 includes a detailed consideration of the structure of the existing concessionary licence scheme and whether a suitable alternative structure could be available.

      National Lottery Commission
      Mr. Peter Ainsworth
      To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) if meetings of the National Lottery Commission will be held in public; [78168]

      (2) what plans there are to publish the minutes of meetings of the National Lottery Commission. [78180]

      Mr. Chris Smith
      [holding answer 22 March 1999]: This is a matter, under statute, for the National Lottery Commission and I will ask the Chairman to write to the hon. Member once the Commission has been formally established on 1 April. Copies of his reply will be placed in the Libraries of the House.
      189

    INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

      Indonesia
      Mr. Chaytor
      To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps her Department is taking to assist in(a) the development of sustainable forest management and (b) the preservation of orangutan habitats in Indonesia; and if she will make a statement. [77646]

      Mr. Foulkes
      The Department for International Development's (DFID) aim is to help poor people in developing countries gain long-term benefits from their trees, while also helping secure the global environmental benefits that forests offer. Our approach to the problem of deforestation is to support work to improve the sustainable management of forest resources in ways that lead to a range of benefits to poor communities. For the world's poor, trees and forests are a vital part of everyday survival: forests give 2,000 million people fuel to cook with; in the tropics, forests meet a large part of the needs of several hundred million people from wood products and food to medicine and income; trees increase poor farmers' security as they smooth out seasonal flows of produce and provide a reserve of capital for emergencies; forests help agriculture and fisheries by recycling nutrients, stabilising soil and influencing local and global climate; and in 18 African countries, forests represent over 10 per cent. of GDP.

      The Department's approach towards forestry is explained in the recent publication "Forests Matter" and our activities are set out in the pamphlet "Forest Sector Projects", which is being revised and will be placed in the Library of the House in due course. DFID is currently working on over 150 projects with partners in 34 countries.

      We are directly assisting the Government of Indonesia and the people living in the forests to develop better ways of managing the forest resource sustainably. We have helped pilot approaches at provincial level that give poor people more of a say in forest management. We are now exploring with international agencies and representatives of forest users possible changes to forest sector policy. Our aim is to ensure that degradation of the forests is reversed and that poor people who live in and around the forests derive more benefits from the way they are managed. This will give wildlife dependent on the forest, including orang-utans, a better chance of survival.

      HIV
      Mr. Vaz
      To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans she has to offer aid to South African medical workers to combat the HIV problem. [78127]

      Mr. Foulkes
      DFID has helped South African efforts to combat HIV/AIDS since 1995. £10 million has been provided to support the national AIDS control programme, a condom social marketing programme and community based initiatives aimed at changing sexual behaviour, especially in high risk groups. Tackling AIDS is a key priority of DFID' s new development partnership with South Africa. We plan to work with other donors to support regional action to strengthen the capacity of Southern Africa Development Community member countries to combat the epidemic.
      190
      DFID also supports South Africa's essential drugs programme which makes available short courses of antiretrovirals to medical workers (especially surgeons, midwives and dentists) affected by needlestick injuries when operating on/treating HIV positive patients as a way of reducing the risk of transmission of HIV to medical workers.

      Mr. Vaz
      To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much money she has allocated in the last year for which figures are available for Third World countries to combat the HIV problem. [78126]

      Mr. Foulkes
      In the financial year 1997–98, £43 million of Britain's overseas development budget was spent on activities directly related to the problem of HIV/AIDS in the developing world. More recent figures are not yet available.

      Biodiversity
      Dr. Tonge
      To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions she has had with the Department of Trade and Industry, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions concerning loss of biodiversity among traditional crop varieties for Third World farmers. [78361]

      Mr. Foulkes
      The Department for International Development (DFID) officials have frequently discussed the loss of biodiversity among traditional crop varieties of Third World farmers with the Department of Trade and Industry, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. Our objective is to ensure that this important issue is taken fully into account in all relevant aspects of the UK's international policies. In particular we, along with these departments, actively contribute to the UK participation in meetings under the Convention on Biological Diversity. The Convention's multi-year work programme on agriculture biodiversity specifically recognises and seeks to support the significant contribution that traditional farming communities have made to the conservation and enhancement of biodiversity and the importance of traditional varieties.

      Our officials are also actively involved in the UK participation at the FAO Commission on Genetic Resources which oversees the implementation of the Global Plan of Action on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. The Global Plan of Action includes measures to halt the loss of biodiversity among traditional crop varieties in developing countries.

      We will be actively concerned to ensure that the conservation of agricultural biodiversity in developing countries is taken fully into account in relevant negotiations under the WTO and within the EU.

      Biotechnology
      Dr. Tonge
      To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what representations she has made to the World Trade Organisation about the effects of biotechnology on developing countries. [78360]

      Mr. Foulkes
      The Department for International Development (DFID) is actively involved in discussions with Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), Ministry
      191
      of Agriculture Fisheries and Food (MAFF) and Department of the Environment, Transport and Regions (DETR) to ensure that developing country interests in the effects of biotechnology are properly accounted for in World Trade Organisation (WTO) negotiations. In addition we are working with international agencies to build the capacity of developing countries to represent their own interests in the WTO.

      All WTO members have an opportunity in the preparatory process for a new round of trade negotiations to set out any concerns they may have regarding existing WTO agreements. We will be working to ensure that specific points are taken forward appropriately.

      GM Crops
      Dr. Tonge
      To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) what discussions she has had with the Department of Trade and Industry, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions concerning terminator gene technology; [78375]

      (2) what discussions she has had with other Government departments concerning the effect of genetically modified crops on the agriculture of developing countries. [78376]

      Mr. Foulkes
      The Department for International Development (DFID) officials have had a number of discussions with the Department of Trade and Industry, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR) concerning the effect of genetically modified crops, including the so-called terminator gene technology, on the agriculture of developing countries, in particular through DFID' s membership of the Interdepartmental Group on Genetic Modification Technology (IGGMOT).

      Officials also actively supported the UK contribution to debate on the issue of terminator gene technology at the Fourth Conference of the Parties to the Biodiversity Convention in May 1998, which urged Parties to consider a precautionary approach and undertook, through its technical subsidiary body, to examine the consequences of this technology and to elaborate scientifically based advice.

      We will shortly be publishing a statement on DFID policy towards Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) and developing countries, reflecting the precautionary approach and outlining the action we intend to take, in consultation with other Government Departments, on this issue in the future. DFID will also continue to work with DETR and other Government Departments successfully to conclude the negotiation of a Biosafety Protocol to the Convention on Biological Diversity, which would lay down international rules and procedures covering the transboundary movement of GMOs and help build the capacity of developing countries in related safety issues.

    EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

      Task Forces
      Dr. Tony Wright
      To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will publish a list of 192
      (1) task forces and (2) policy reviews established by his Department since May 1997 which (a) had external members recruited by way of public advertisement, and details of any person so appointed and (b) engaged in public consultation exercises, and the form that these took. [74466]

      Mr. Mudie
      The information requested is available only at disproportionate cost.

      Reading Age (Children)
      Mr. Maclean
      To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what was the average reading age of children leaving primary school in each of the last 10 years; [74766]

      (2) in each of the last 10 years, what proportion of children leaving primary school had a reading age of 11 or above. [74769]

      Ms Estelle Morris
      The reading age of pupils is not collected centrally. The typical eleven year old is expected to achieve level four in the Key Stage 2 National Curriculum assessment tests. In the 1998 Reading test, 71 per cent. of pupils achieved level four, or above. This compares with 68 per cent. of pupils in 1997, the earliest year in which the reading test results were available.

      Class Sizes
      Mr. Syms
      To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) if he will list by(a) region and (b) local authority the (i) percentage and (ii) number of (1) Key Stage 1, (2) Key Stage 2 and (3) all pupils in maintained primary schools, who were in classes of more than 30 pupils in (i) January 1996, (ii) January 1997, (iii) January 1998, (iv) September 1998 and (v) January 1999; [74743]

      (2) if he will list by (i) region and (ii) local education authority the average class size for (a) all pupils, (b) Key Stage 1 and (c) Key Stage 2 pupils in maintained primary schools in (i) January 1996, (ii) January 1997, (iii) January 1998, (iv) September 1998 and (v) January 1999. [74744]

      Ms Estelle Morris
      The available information on classes taught by one teacher in maintained primary schools is shown in the tables, copies of which have been placed in the Library.

      Mr. Willis
      To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the total value nationwide of(a) bids made by and (b) grants made to local education authorities in (i) 1998–99 and (ii) 1999–2000, for the revenue cost of meeting the class size pledge. [77570]

      Ms Estelle Morris
      For 1998–99, local education authorities submitted bids totalling £65.135 million and received £21.32 million in grants. For 1999–2000, there was no bidding process and authorities' revenue needs were established in the context of discussions of their implementation plans. We have recently announced grants to local education authorities of £71.882 million in total for 1999–2000.

      Mr. Willis
      To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the values of the(a) bids made by and (b) grants made to each local education authority in (i) 1998–99 and (ii) 1999–2000, for the revenue cost of meeting the class size pledge. [77569]
      193
      Ms Estelle Morris
      The information requested is set out in the following table. For 1999–2000, no bids are listed as there was no bidding process and authorities' revenue needs were established in the context of discussions of their implementation plans.

      Revenue funding to reduce infant class sizes 1998–99 and 1999–2000

      £000

      Bids

      Grants

      Local education authority

      1998–99

      1998–99

      1999–2000

      Barking and Dagenham

      —

      —

      46

      Barnet

      250

      146

      273

      Barnsley

      1,000

      —

      379

      Bath and North East Somerset

      150

      —

      161

      Bedfordshire

      250

      —

      650

      Bexley

      250

      225

      360

      Birmingham

      —

      —

      72

      Blackburn

      107

      107

      263

      Blackpool

      124

      73

      285

      Bolton

      500

      —

      779

      Bournemouth

      350

      —

      77

      Bracknell

      —

      —

      110

      Bradford

      500

      625

      1,351

      Brent

      500

      —

      —

      Brighton and Hove

      150

      88

      268

      Bristol

      250

      —

      192

      Bromley

      200

      200

      571

      Buckinghamshire

      1,000

      146

      1,313

      Bury

      1,000

      584

      1,082

      Calderdale

      162

      162

      308

      Cambridgeshire

      1,000

      —

      946

      Camden

      —

      —

      15

      Cheshire

      1,000

      —

      1,370

      City of London

      —

      —

      —

      Cornwall

      1,000

      —

      760

      Coventry

      1,000

      452

      604

      Croydon

      100

      100

      298

      Cumbria

      250

      146

      834

      Darlington

      250

      —

      186

      Derby, City of

      1,000

      1,000

      1,402

      Derbyshire

      1,160

      1,160

      2,294

      Devon

      1,000

      1,000

      1,505

      Doncaster

      1,126

      —

      507

      Dorset

      1,000

      324

      1,067

      Dudley

      250

      —

      233

      Durham

      500

      250

      810

      Ealing

      1,000

      291

      442

      East Riding of Yorkshire

      250

      250

      720

      East Sussex

      250

      116

      878

      Enfield

      300

      —

      393

      Essex

      1,000

      —

      1,183

      Gateshead

      100

      100

      181

      Gloucestershire

      250

      —

      804

      Greenwich

      50

      —

      —

      Hackney

      —

      —

      91

      Halton

      —

      —

      317

      Hammersmith and Fulham

      250

      —

      —

      Hampshire

      100

      —

      1,490

      Haringey

      250

      146

      148

      Harrow

      1,000

      —

      69

      Hartlepool

      100

      100

      194

      Havering

      53

      —

      —

      Herefordshire

      500

      146

      323

      Hertfordshire

      805

      510

      1,369

      Hillingdon

      500

      291

      427

      Hounslow

      100

      —

      100

      Isle of Wight

      135

      135

      308

      Isles of Scilly

      —

      —

      —

      Islington

      —

      —

      —

      Kensington and Chelsea

      —

      —

      —

      Kent

      1,000

      —

      1,126

      Kingston upon Hull

      250

      —

      315

      Kingston upon Thames

      28

      —

      131

      194

      Revenue funding to reduce infant class sizes 1998–99 and 1999–2000

      £000

      Bids

      Grants

      Local education authority

      1998–99

      1998–99

      1999–2000

      Kirklees

      1,000

      500

      1,138

      Knowsley

      150

      —

      164

      Lambeth

      250

      —

      69

      Lancashire

      1,000

      1,000

      2,390

      Leeds

      1,020

      500

      1,313

      Leicester City

      1,000

      584

      650

      Leicestershire

      500

      291

      943

      Lewisham

      100

      —

      —

      Lincolnshire

      250

      102

      503

      Liverpool

      500

      —

      124

      Luton

      500

      —

      110

      Manchester

      1,000

      —

      41

      Medway

      —

      —

      384

      Merton

      60

      —

      131

      Middlesbrough

      250

      146

      244

      Milton Keynes

      500

      —

      195

      Newcastle upon Tyne

      1,000

      500

      759

      Newham

      250

      257

      329

      Norfolk

      502

      291

      1,217

      North East Lincolnshire

      120

      —

      253

      North Lincolnshire

      675

      675

      889

      North Somerset

      —

      —

      260

      North Tyneside

      775

      —

      192

      North Yorkshire

      1,000

      —

      1,018

      Northamptonshire

      1,020

      —

      349

      Northumberland

      500

      324

      738

      Nottingham, City of

      1,000

      146

      412

      Nottinghamshire

      —

      —

      1,100

      Oldham

      —

      —

      589

      Oxfordshire

      1,000

      584

      1,011

      Peterborough

      150

      150

      368

      Plymouth

      500

      500

      870

      Poole

      250

      —

      164

      Portsmouth

      250

      —

      91

      Reading

      —

      —

      144

      Redbridge

      1,000

      —

      131

      Redcar and Cleveland

      1,000

      —

      69

      Richmond upon Thames

      585

      —

      117

      Rochdale

      —

      —

      471

      Rotherham

      375

      219

      471

      Rutland

      —

      —

      50

      Salford

      1,000

      146

      416

      Sandwell

      1,000

      1,000

      1,212

      Sefton

      100

      59

      357

      Sheffield

      900

      525

      1,005

      Shropshire

      250

      —

      540

      Slough

      250

      88

      275

      Solihull

      1,000

      584

      848

      Somerset

      1,000

      —

      795

      South Gloucestershire

      500

      500

      1,008

      South Tyneside

      100

      100

      160

      Southampton

      —

      —

      123

      Southend on Sea

      100

      —

      123

      Southwark

      150

      —

      —

      St. Helens

      —

      —

      110

      Staffordshire

      1,000

      —

      1,201

      Stockport

      350

      204

      749

      Stockton on Tees

      250

      —

      137

      Stoke on Trent

      500

      —

      278

      Suffolk

      1,000

      —

      234

      Sunderland

      500

      —

      82

      Surrey

      250

      —

      990

      Sutton

      168

      168

      295

      Swindon

      1,000

      —

      343

      Tameside

      500

      291

      590

      Telford and Wrekin

      500

      291

      468

      Thurrock

      —

      —

      82

      Torbay

      —

      —

      167

      Tower Hamlets

      —

      —

      —

      195

      Revenue funding to reduce infant class sizes 1998–99 and 1999–2000

      £000

      Bids

      Grants

      Local education authority

      1998–99

      1998–99

      1999–2000

      Trafford

      339

      —

      288

      Wakefield

      100

      60

      427

      Walsall

      300

      146

      360

      Waltham Forest

      100

      —

      —

      Wandsworth

      250

      146

      150

      Warrington

      250

      59

      151

      Warwickshire

      1,000

      584

      1,139

      West Berkshire

      —

      —

      94

      West Sussex

      —

      —

      521

      Westminster

      —

      —

      —

      Wigan

      496

      290

      659

      Wiltshire

      500

      291

      935

      Windsor and Maidenhead

      —

      —

      128

      Wirral

      1,000

      —

      273

      Wokingham

      1,000

      —

      82

      Wolverhampton

      500

      —

      288

      Worcestershire

      1,000

      —

      548

      York, City of

      250

      146

      350

      Total

      65,135

      21,320

      71,882

      Millennium Compliance
      Ms Moran
      To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) how much money has been allocated to provide free Bug-buster courses for small and medium-sized enterprises; [75255]

      (2) how many small and medium-sized enterprises have completed Bug-buster training courses; [75256]

      (3) how many accredited training providers are offering Bug-buster courses funded by his Department to small and medium-sized enterprises; [75257]

      (4) what plans he has for the future funding of the free delivery of Bug-buster courses for small and medium-sized enterprises. [75258]

      Mr. Mudie
      £26 million was allocated to provide Bug-buster training courses. As at 5 March, 24,774 people had started training, 22,376 of these had completed, and a further 9,474 had booked places. There are 180 accredited providers offering training under the scheme.

      When the free programme ends, training will continue to be available at commercial prices. The average cost per business of a two day Bug-buster course will come to about £750 per trainee, which is a sound investment compared to the potential financial damage posed by the Millennium Bug.

      The Government have made a significant investment in developing the courses, establishing the accreditation process and quality assuring the training, and this will continue. Small and medium-sized enterprises can also get help and advice on Year 2000 issues from their local Business Link.

      Individual Learning Accounts
      Mr. Maclean
      To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many individual learning accounts have been created to date; and at what cost. [76436]
      196
      Mr. Mudie
      To date, around 3,000 individual learning accounts have been opened, through 15 development projects led by TECs. The DfEE contributed £816,000 to these projects; this funding was used to test out a range of processes, systems and marketing approaches to help inform the final framework. The National Framework will be launched in 2000, from which time Individual Learning Accounts will be widely available.

      Mr. Willis
      To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to limit the amounts(a) individuals and their families and (b) employers can invest in individual learning accounts free of tax; and if he will make a statement. [77884]

      Mr. Mudie
      There are no plans to limit the amount an individual and/or their family can contribute to the individual's individual learning account (ILA), although the incentives will be available only on the first £500 spent on eligible courses in any one year.

      There are no plans to limit the tax-free contributions that employers can invest in their employees' ILAs provided that the employers contribute to the ILAs of their lowest paid employees on similar terms and the contribution can only be used to pay for eligible learning.

      Mr. Willis
      To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment which financial institution will handle individual learning accounts; and what will be the administration fee for each separate account. [77883]

      Mr. Mudie
      The national framework for individual learning accounts is still under development. It will be ready for launch in April 2000. We hope that a range of financial institutions will be involved in the provision of accounts. At this stage it is too early to say which financial institutions will be involved or how administration arrangements will work—currently our discussions are commercial in confidence. We plan to publish detailed arrangements for the national framework later this year.

      Ministerial Meetings (US)
      Mr. Matthew Taylor
      To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many times Ministers in his Department have met their counterparts in the US Government since 1 June 1998; and if he will list the dates and locations of each meeting, the Ministers involved on each occasion, and the name of the US counterpart at each meeting. [77122]

      Mr. Mudie
      My right hon. Friend the Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities met his US counterpart, Alexis Herman, at the G8 conference in Washington in February this year. No other such meetings have taken place since 1 June 1998.

      Operational Licences
      Mr. Maclean
      To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list for(a) small and medium-sized enterprises and (b) larger companies (i) all licences and permits issued by his Department and its agencies to companies permitting them to carry out their business, (ii) the cost of each such licence or permit in (A) 1997–98 and (B) 1999–2000 and (iii) the current number of companies which are in receipt of each such licence or permit. [76847]
      197
      Mr. Mudie
      [holding answer 16 March 1999]: (i) The Department grants Training and Enterprise Councils (TECs) and Chambers of Commerce, Training and Enterprise (CCTEs) licences to operate as TEC/CCTEs in their agreed operational area. These organisations are small or medium sized enterprises.

      (ii) The TECs/CCTE licence is free of charge.

      (iii) There are 72 licensed TEC/CCTEs in England.

      Employment Service
      Mr. Healey
      To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will publish Employment Service performance data in relation to the annual performance agreement targets on a quarterly basis. [77352]

      Mr. Andrew Smith
      A summary of Employment Service performance against its Annual Performance Agreement targets will be published on a quarterly basis in future, starting with the first quarter of the 1999–2000 operational year. Performance for the 1998–99 operational year as a whole will be published in the Employment Service Annual Report and Accounts before the summer recess.

      Employment Service Direct
      Mr. Healey
      To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many people called Employment Service Direct in the latest period for which figures are available; what proportion of callers were (i) unemployed and (ii) employed; and what were the placings rates into jobs. [77351]

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

      Letter from Richard Foster to Mr. John Healey, dated 18 March 1999.
      As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has asked Leigh Lewis to reply to your question about how many people have called Employment Service Direct in the latest period for which figures are available, the proportion of callers who were unemployed and employed and the placings rate into jobs. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to Mr. Lewis as Chief Executive of the Employment Service. I am replying in his absence.
      The most recent figures show that almost 53,000 calls were made to Employment Service Direct during the week ending Saturday 13 March. Some 95 per cent. of these calls were from unemployed people. During the same week the Service placed over 1,300 people into work. Since its introduction on 4 January Employment Service Direct has received more than 480,000 calls resulting, so far, in over 9,000 job placings. Some 98 per cent. of these were of unemployed people. Further placings are likely to occur as a result of calls already made as the results of job interviews and submissions become available.
      I hope this is helpful.

      Public Bodies
      Dr. Julian Lewis
      To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright), of 8 March 1999,Official Report, column 71, about non-departmental public bodies, for what reasons the
      198
      Qualifications and Curriculum Authority declined to make its minutes available to a member of the public on 9 March. [77296]

      Mr. Mudie
      My answer did not differentiate between bodies which publish or make available to the public minutes of meetings and those that publish or make available summary reports of meetings. The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority declined to make available the minutes of its meetings when asked, as it does not publish these. The Authority does, however, publish summary reports of its meetings, as outlined in my pursuant reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright), 17 March 1999,Official Report, column 691.

      School Books
      Mr. Fallon
      To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will set out the process by which each category of school will receive the £2,000 for books announced in the Budget. [77434]

      Ms Estelle Morris
      Each local education authority will pay £20 per pupil to schools with 100 pupils or fewer, and at least £2,000 to schools with more than 100 pupils.

      Smoking
      Mr. Cox
      To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what percentage of his Department's budget is spent on education in schools about the dangers caused by smoking; and if he will make a statement. [77588]

      Mr. Charles Clarke
      The dangers of smoking form a vital part of education about drugs. We are supporting £7 million of expenditure this year through the Standards Fund programme, to assist primary and secondary schools and the youth service to deliver effective education about drugs, including alcohol and tobacco. This is 1.1 per cent. of the £627 million of expenditure being supported in total through the Standards Fund programme this year, which includes a range of grants that reflect the Government's central priority of raising standards in our schools, as set out in the "Excellence in Schools" White Paper. We will also be providing increased support of £7.5 million for drug education through the Standards Fund programme in each of the next three years.

      History Teaching (Ethnic Minority Backgrounds)
      Mr. Dismore
      To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement about the teaching in schools of the history of the backgrounds of ethnic minorities in the United Kingdom. [77644]

      Mr. Charles Clarke
      The National Curriculum sets the framework for teaching in schools, within which individual schools and teachers determine detailed delivery. National Curriculum history includes a number of study units covering British, European and world history. This presents a good deal of scope for schools to teach aspects of history relevant to the backgrounds of ethnic minority communities in the UK.

      Free School Meals
      Mr. Fearn
      To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate his Department has made
      199
      of the number of schoolchildren who would be eligible for free school meals, but whose parents provide packed lunches instead. [77665]

      Mr. Charles Clarke
      These figures are not collected centrally.

      Lone Parents (Hammersmith and Fulham)
      Mr. Coleman
      To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many lone parents in the unit of delivery covering Hammersmith and Fulham(a) are currently in receipt of benefit, (b) have been requested to attend interviews with respect to the New Deal, (c) have undergone such interviews and (d) have secured employment as a consequence. [77840]

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

      Letter from Richard Foster to Mr. lain Coleman, dated 23 March 1999:
      As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has asked Leigh Lewis to reply to your question on lone parents in the unit of delivery covering Hammersmith and Fulham. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to Mr. Lewis as Chief Executive of the Agency. I am replying in his absence.
      The New Deal for Lone Parents is targeted at those parents on Income Support whose children are of school age. It is open also to those with younger children who put themselves forward. The number of lone parents in receipt of Income Support for Hammersmith and Fulham stood at 4,000 in August 1998. This information is based on the Local Authority boundaries.
      I am unable to provide the information you sought on the number of lone parents requested to attend interviews for the New Deal. This is because information on the volume of letters issued is currently only available nationally. I should point out that the contact letter sent to lone parents under the New Deal for Lone Parents is not a request for them to attend an interview. Participation is voluntary and lone parents may choose to get in touch with a New Deal Personal Adviser when it suits their circumstances. The letter aims to make lone parents aware of the New Deal and to encourage them to contact an adviser if they want support in returning to work.
      Unfortunately, New Deal for Lone Parents figures are not formally available at this stage from Employment Service Districts. I, therefore, asked for a special exercise to be carried out to produce these figures. In February the number of lone parents that had initial interviews in Hammersmith and Fulham Jobcentres was 177. The number of lone parents who have secured employment in that period as a result of New Deal for Lone Parents was 46.
      I hope this is helpful.

      EU Fraud
      Mr. Grieve
      To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what(a) discussions he has had and (b) proposals his Department has put forward at Council of Ministers' meetings in respect of EU fraud; and if he will make a statement. [77776]

      Mr. Andrew Smith
      [holding answer 19 March 1999]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him by my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary, 19 March 1999, Official Report, columns 858–59.
      200

      Chelmsford Jobcentre
      Mr. Burns
      To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the number of vacancies notified to the Chelmsford Jobcentre in each of the last six months for which figures are available. [77813]

      Mr. Andrew Smith
      [holding answer 22 March 1999]: Responsibility for the subject of this question has been delegated to the Employment Service Agency under its Chief Executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

      Letter from Richard Foster to Mr. Simon Burns, dated 19 March 1999:
      As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has asked Leigh Lewis to reply direct to your question about the number of job vacancies notified to Chelmsford Jobcentre in each of the last six months. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to Mr. Lewis as Chief Executive of the Agency. I am replying in his absence.
      Vacancies notified to Chelmsford Jobcentre were:

      Vacancies

      September 1998

      791

      October 1998

      1,120

      November 1998

      1,005

      December 1998

      531

      January 1999

      338

      February 1999

      581

      I hope this is helpful.

      New Deal
      Mr. Jim Cunningham
      To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans the Government have to extend the New Deal for the longterm unemployed to those unemployed for less than two years. [77632]

      Mr. Andrew Smith
      [holding answer 22 March 1999]: Unemployed people aged 25 or more who face particular disadvantages in the labour market can already gain early access to the New Deal, after 12 months of unemployment. We are also running 28 New Deal pilot schemes for this age group, including one in Coventry, which will test the effectiveness of intervening more generally after 12 and 18 months of unemployment. These will be very carefully evaluated and we will be looking closely at what lessons can be drawn for the future.

      A number of measures available under the New Deal, such as work based learning for adults, are also available to people unemployed for less than two years.

      Early-years Education
      Mrs. May
      To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to the oral answer to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) of 18 March 1999,Official Report, column 1257, if he will publish a breakdown of the £8 billion of expenditure on pre-schools and early years education. [78248]

      Ms Hodge
      The estimate of some £8 billion invested in early education and childcare in England in 1998–99 and over the next three years takes into account Sure Start; local education authority expenditure on provision for under 5s; DfEE grant for nursery education provision;
      201
      DfEE childcare programmes; the childcare tax credit; local authority expenditure on the regulation and inspection of day care facilities; New Opportunities Fund expenditure on out of school childcare and expenditure by FE colleges on childcare training. Because of the different funding streams involved and the number of detailed decisions still to be taken by a variety of different agencies, it is not possible to give detailed figures at this stage.

    TREASURY

      Married Couples Allowance
      Mr. Maclean
      To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many taxpayers were affected by the restriction of the married couples allowance to 10 per cent. announced in the 1998 Budget; and what is the average cost per taxpayer. [70655]

      Dawn Primarolo
      [holding answer 15 February 1999]: In his Budget on 9 March 1999, Official Report, columns 173–90, the Chancellor announced the continuing phasing out of the married couples allowance and its replacement by the new Children's Tax Credit to support families when they need it most, when they are bringing up their children. This will make 4½ million families better off.

      Social Fund
      Mr. Webb
      To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what will be the relationship between the access to Social Fund grants and loans made available to recipients of family credit and that available to recipients of the working families tax credit. [71505]

      Dawn Primarolo
      [holding answer 16 February 1999]: Recipients of Family Credit have access to Social Fund Maternity and Funeral Payments. However, the increased generosity of the Working Families Tax Credit will mean that support provided through the tax credit could go considerably further up the income distribution than with Family Credit. The Government are therefore considering whether, in the future, it will still be appropriate to passport all WFTC claimants onto these additional benefits.

      Housing Benefit
      Ms Kelly
      To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the number of people in receipt of housing benefit who will become eligible for the working families tax credit after 1 April in (i) Bolton, (ii) the North West and (iii) England. [75633]

      Dawn Primarolo
      The estimated number of families in England in receipt of both Housing Benefit and Working Families Tax Credit is 190,000 in 1999–2000. No reliable estimates are available for numbers in either Bolton or the North-West.

      Mortgage Interest Relief
      Mr. Gibb
      To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate on the basis of the forecast interest rates used in the Inland Revenue Press Release IR2,202
      the average income tax relief cost per borrower as a result of his proposal to abolish mortgage interest relief in 2000–01. [77129]

      Dawn Primarolo
      As the Chancellor noted in his Budget statement, mortgage interest relief is worth an average of £2.50 a week.

      Taxpayers
      Mr. Gibb
      To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the number of taxpayers in 1998–99 whose taxable income is between £1,500 and £4,300. [76944]

      Dawn Primarolo
      [holding answer 16 March 1999]: There are around 4.4 million income taxpayers in 1998–99 with taxable income between £1,500 and £4,300.

      Budget Implications
      Mr. Maclean
      To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will list for each parliamentary constituency in the United Kingdom the number of families who will be(a) better off and (b) worse off as a result of each individual Budget measure announced by the Chancellor in his 1999 Budget statement; [76786]

      (2) if he will list for each parliamentary constituency in the United Kingdom the effect for each financial year from 1999–2000 to 2001–02 on (a) an average family, (b) an average pensioner, (c) an average married couple with no dependent children, and (d) a single income taxpayer on average earnings of each Budget measure introduced by the Chancellor in his (i) 1999, (ii) 1998 and (iii) 1997 Budget Statements. [76787]

      Dawn Primarolo
      [holding answers 16 March 1999]: Information is not available on the effect of individual Budget measures by constituency.

      Childrens Tax Credit
      Mr. Webb
      To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the childrens tax credit will be paid by means of the PAYE code. [77220]

      Dawn Primarolo
      [holding answer 17 March 1999]: As for other income tax reliefs and allowances, relief for the childrens tax credit would generally be given to people in employment by means of their Pay As You Earn code.

      Mr. Webb
      To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if persons entitled to the childrens tax credit will be required to claim the credit. [77221]

      Dawn Primarolo
      [holding answer 17 March 1999]: As for other income tax reliefs and allowances, people with an entitlement to the childrens tax credit will be able to make a claim for relief.

      Population (Local Authority Areas)
      Mr. Martyn Jones
      To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the estimated population of each local authority area for each of the years since 1989. [77525]

      Ms Hewitt
      The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Director of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to reply.
      203
      Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Marlyn Jones, dated 23 March 1999:
      As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your recent parliamentary question on the estimated population of each local authority area.
      ONS produce mid-year population estimates for local authority areas in England and Wales. Total population figures for each local authority area are published and the most recent publication relates to mid-1997. The attached list gives details of where those population estimates have been published.
      ONS have also published estimates at the local authority level for the United Kingdom for years from 1990 to 1996 in Regional Trends (numbers 27 to 33). For Northern Ireland and Scotland the mid-year population estimates for 1989 and 1997 are given in the tables.

      Northern Ireland District Council mid-year estimates Usually resident home population

      Persons

      1989

      1997

      Northern Ireland

      Ards

      64,200

      67,800

      Belfast

      296,200

      298,200

      Castlereagh

      61,000

      64,500

      Down

      57,400

      62,100

      Lisburn

      97,700

      109,800

      North Down

      71,800

      74,100

      Eastern Health Board

      648,300

      676,500

      Antrim

      45,300

      50,800

      Ballymena

      56,000

      58,500

      Ballymoney

      23,900

      24,900

      Carrickfergus

      31,700

      35,700

      Coleraine

      51,400

      54,700

      Cookstown

      29,800

      31,800

      Larne

      29,100

      30,300

      Magherafelt

      34,300

      37,900

      Moyle

      15,000

      15,000

      Newtonabbey

      75,000

      79,600

      Northern Health Board

      391,500

      419,200

      Armagh

      50,400

      53,400

      Banbridge

      32,500

      37,700

      Craigavon

      74,500

      79,300

      Dungannon

      44,300

      47,200

      Newry and Mourne

      81,800

      84,900

      Southern Health Board

      283,500

      302,600

      Fermanagh

      52,800

      55,500

      Limavady

      29,700

      31,000

      Deny

      96,700

      105,200

      Omagh

      44,900

      48,100

      Strabene

      35,600

      36,800

      Western Health Board

      259,700

      276,700

      Total

      1,583,000

      1,675,000

      Notes:

      Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency

      Mid-year population estimates; Scotland and its council areas

      Persons

      1989

      1997

      Scotland

      5,096.6

      5,122.5

      Aberdeen City

      213.2

      215.9

      Aberdeenshire

      210.3

      226.4

      Angus

      107.0

      110.2

      Argyll and Bute

      94.1

      90.6

      Clackmannanshire

      47.8

      48.8

      Dumfries and Galloway

      147.1

      147.3

      Dundee City

      156.4

      148.9

      East Ayrshire

      124.4

      121.9

      East Dunbartonshire

      110.9

      110.9

      East Lothian

      83.9

      89.0

      204

      Mid-year population estimates; Scotland and its council areas

      Persons

      1989

      1997

      East Renfrewshire

      85.0

      88.6

      Edinburgh, City of

      439.4

      450.0

      Eilean Siar

      30.0

      28.2

      Falkirk

      143.0

      143.2

      Fife

      347.6

      348.4

      Glasgow City

      641.7

      611.7

      Highland

      200.6

      208.6

      Inverclyde

      93.2

      86.5

      Midlothian

      79.8

      80.7

      Moray

      84.1

      86.0

      North Ayrshire

      138.7

      139.8

      North Lanarkshire

      330.5

      326.5

      Orkney Islands

      19.3

      19.8

      Perth and Kinross

      125.6

      133.3

      Renfrewshire

      177.5

      178.3

      Scottish Borders

      102.8

      106.2

      Shetland Islands

      22.2

      23.0

      South Ayrshire

      113.3

      114.9

      South Lanarkshire

      304.1

      307.4

      Stirling

      81.4

      83.6

      West Dunbartonshire

      98

      95.7

      West Lothian

      143.9

      152.3

      Western Isles

      30.0

      28.2

      Source:

      Mid-year population estimates for local authorities in England and Wales

      Year

      Publication

      Table

      Mid-1997

      PP1 98/1 ONS Population and Health Monitor

      6

      Mid-1996

      PPI 97/1 ONS Population and Health Monitor

      4

      Mid-1995

      PP1 96/2 ONS Population and Health Monitor

      4

      Mid-1994

      PP1 95/1 OPCS Monitor

      4

      Mid-1993

      PPI 94/2 OPCS Monitor

      4

      Mid-1992

      PP1 93/3 OPCS Monitor

      4

      Mid-1991

      PPI 93/2 OPCS Monitor

      4

      Mid-1981 to mid-1991

      PP1 94/I OPCS Monitor

      4

      Mid-year population estimates for local authorities in the United Kingdom

      Year

      Publication

      Table

      Mid-1996

      Regional Trends 33 1998 Edition

      14.1, 15.1, 16.1, 17.1

      Mid-1995

      Regional Trends 32 1997 Edition

      14.1, 15.1, 16.1, 17.1

      Mid-1994

      Regional Trends 31 1996 Edition

      15.1

      Mid-1993

      Regional Trends 30 1995 Edition

      15.1

      Mid-1992

      Regional Trends 29 1994 Edition

      15.1

      Mid-1991

      Regional Trends 28 1993 Edition

      15.1

      Mid-1990

      Regional Trends 27 1992 Edition

      15.1

      General Register Office for Scotland

      Euro
      Mr. Mitchell
      To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the measures, and their objectives, which require, under article 109(5) of the Treaty of Union, the unanimous agreement of the United Kingdom and those states already participating in the euro area. [77661]

      Ms Hewitt
      In accordance with Article 109L(5) of the EC Treaty the Council would adopt the rate at which Sterling would be fixed irrevocably against the euro. The rate would require the unanimous agreement of the participating Member States and the UK. The Council,
      205
      acting under the same procedure would also take the other measures necessary for the introduction of the euro in the UK, including the detailed transitional arrangements.

      Mr. Gordon Prentice
      To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps are being taken to ensure that euro coins minted throughout the EU can be used in vending machines. [77647]

      Ms Hewitt
      EU Mint Directors, in association with member states, are developing a quality management system for euro coins. This will include procedures for regular consultation with the vending machine industry for testing vending mechanisms.

      VAT (Care for the Elderly)
      Sir Michael Spicer
      To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to remove VAT on care for the elderly in cases where social services sub-contract the service and instruct the sub-contractor to recover the cost directly from the elderly.[77934]

      Dawn Primarolo
      Services performed or supervised by qualified nurses are exempt from VAT where those services are predominantly for the medical needs of the patient.

      Economic and Monetary Union
      Mr. Tyrie
      To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list those measures in the Budget which will assist the United Kingdom in conforming to his five economic tests for joining EMU. [77895]

      Ms Hewitt
      The Government have said that the UK economy needs a period of economic stability in order to demonstrate settled and sustainable convergence. The Budget reinforces economic stability by keeping the public finances under control, while allowing fiscal policy to support the economy in the next phase of the cycle. The measures contained in the Budget to raise productivity and increase employment opportunities for all will also improve the flexibility of the UK economy to adapt to economic change. These measures are in the national economic interest. Preparations should be made in this Parliament so that, should the economic tests be met, a decision to join a successful single currency can be made early in the next Parliament.

      Employment
      Mr. Redwood
      To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the impact of a 1 per cent. increase in wages on employment levels. [77888]

      Ms Hewitt
      [holding answer 19 March 19991: The impact on employment would depend on why wages increased, and how employers, employees and others in the labour force responded to the increase in wages. For example, an increase in wages reflecting higher productivity need not have any effect on employment.

      Community Projects
      Mr. Whittingdale
      To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if it is his policy to apply the guidance in VAT Information Sheet 4/98-Local Authorities, Community Projects and VAT Recovery, to contracts entered into after 31 March 1999. [78287]
      206
      Dawn Primarolo
      Yes. Expanded guidance is given in VAT Information Sheet 1/99.

      Revenue Statistics
      Sir Teddy Taylor
      To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a table showing(a) actual tax revenue and (b) national insurance revenue in each of the past three years, adjusted for inflation; and what estimates he has made for such revenues in the forthcoming year. [77626]

      Dawn Primarolo
      [holding answer 22 March 1999]: Figures for tax revenues are published in table S24 of Financial Statistics. Figures for the GDP deflator are published in table 2.1 of Economic Trends. Forecasts of tax revenues were published in table B10 of the March 1999 Financial Statement and Budget Report.

      Departmental Reports
      Ms Lawrence
      To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects the 1999 departmental reports to be published. [78425]

      Mr. Milburn
      Publication dates for the 1999 departmental reports will be as follows:

      Departments

      Tuesday 23 March

      Department of Health

      Law Officers' departments

      Wednesday 24 March

      Department for Education and Employment

      Thursday 25 March

      Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions

      Cabinet Office

      Friday 26 March

      Home Office

      Ministry of Defence

      Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

      Monday 29 March

      HM Treasury and Chancellor's departments

      Department for Culture, Media and Sport

      Tuesday 30 March

      Inland Revenue

      HM Customs & Excise

      Department of Social Security

      Scottish Office

      Welsh Office

      Northern Ireland Office

      Department for International Development

      Department of Trade and Industry

      Lord Chancellor's Department

      Wednesday 31 March

      Main Estimates (for each department)

      Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses

      Foreign and Commonwealth Office

      Tax Law Rewrite Project
      Ms Lawrence
      To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the Tax Law Rewrite project. [78572]

      Dawn Primarolo
      I am pleased to announce that the Tax Law Rewrite project continues to make very good progress. The Inland Revenue will be publishing on 30 March the project's fourth Exposure Draft, which contains draft clauses on the trading income of individuals. Copies will be placed in the Libraries of the House on that day.
      207
      This latest publication includes rewritten legislation covering the rules for calculating the profits of a trade, the basis period rules and the rules on farming. I would strongly encourage anyone with an interest in these areas to participate fully in the consultation process, which is key to the success of the project.

      Fuel Oil Duty
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
      To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the estimated additional yield from the increase in fuel oil duty in the Budget for(a) 1999–2000 and (b) 2000–01. [77457]

      Ms Hewitt
      HM Customs and Excise estimate the additional yield, compared to an indexed base, from the increase in fuel oil duty to be £15 million in 1999–2000 and £25 million in 2000–01.

      Shipping (Taxation)
      Mr. Jenkin
      To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) by what date he has asked Lord Alexander to produce his report on the taxation of shipping; and if that report will be published; [76845])

      (2) what terms of reference he has set for Lord Alexander's review of shipping taxation; [76844]

      (3) when Lord Alexander has been asked to complete his review of shipping taxation; [76912]

      (4) if the review of shipping taxation by Lord Alexander will consider matters relating to (a) social security contributions, (b) income tax contributions and (c) linkages to training; [76913]

      (5) what assistance will be provided to Lord Alexander by the Government during his review of shipping taxation; and if officials from the Inland Revenue will assist Lord Alexander during the review; [76846]

      (6) if the review of shipping taxation by Lord Alexander has considered taxation regimes other than the proposed tonnage tax; [77087]

      (7) what plans he has to introduce the changes in shipping taxation recommended by Lord Alexander in this session's Finance Bill. [77086]

      Dawn Primarolo
      [holding answers 15 and 16 March 1999]: The scope of the inquiry is set out in the terms of reference, which are:
      "To conduct an independent study of the case for, and the design of, a lower rate ring-fenced tonnage-based tax and additional enhanced training incentives, for the shipping industry, taking account of the Government's objectives for UK shipping, and the national and international tax and competitiveness issues involved, concluding as soon as is practical."
      Lord Alexander will have access to officials from all relevant departments. It would of course be premature to consider any changes to the taxation of shipping in advance of Lord Alexander's report.

      Budget Publications
      Mr. Malcolm Bruce
      To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many copies of Her Majesty's Treasury Budget Summary, "Budget 99, Building a Stronger Economic Future for Britain", have been(a) printed and
      208
      (b) sent out by his Department; what was the cost of (i) printing and (ii) postage to where they have been sent; and if he will make a statement. [77299]

      Dawn Primarolo
      [holding answer 18 March 1999]: 1.5 million Budget summary leaflets have been printed and distributed at a cost of £100,000 for printing and postage.

      Mr. Gibb
      To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the titles of the documents which his Department has issued to Ministers to explain the Budget to the press and general public. [77323]

      Dawn Primarolo
      [holding answer 18 March 1999]: The documents include the Budget 99 Report, the Budget 99 leaflet, a consultation document on the Climate Change Levy and the following Press Notices:

      Code

      Document

      HMT 1

      Budget 1999: A better deal for the people of Britain

      HMT 2

      A better deal for enterprise and business

      HMT 3

      A better deal for work

      HMT 4

      Building a fairer society

      HMT 5

      Biggest ever package of environmental tax reforms

      HMT 6

      Climate change levy to encourage energy efficiency

      HMT 7

      Reform of vehicle excise duty to protect the environment

      HMT 8

      Reducing the environmental impact of quarrying

      HMT 9

      Chancellor announces further reform of national insurance

      HMT 10

      Review of charity taxation—consultation document published

      HMT 11

      Promoting enterprise for all: a new employee share scheme

      HMT 12

      £1.1 billion investment in key public services

      Inland Revenue

      IR 1

      Reform of income tax rates and allowances

      IR 2

      Withdrawal of mortgage interest relief

      IR 3

      Better targeted support for vocational training

      IR 4

      Improving the environment: major changes to the taxation of company cars

      IR 5

      Help for Green transport

      IR 6

      Tax boost to widen computer use

      IR 7

      Burdensome tax charge on mobile telephones lifted

      IR 8

      Pension schemes earnings cap

      IR 9

      Fairer treatment for court common investment funds

      IR 10

      Capital gains tax: rates and annual exempt amount

      IR 11

      Capital gains of companies

      IR 12

      Capital gains tax simplification: Lloyd's syndicate capacity

      IR 13

      Inheritance tax: increase in threshold

      IR 14

      Inheritance tax: better administration and collection

      IR 15

      Stamp duty rates

      IR 16

      Stamp duty: compliance and administration

      IR 17

      Stamp duty: unit trusts and open-ended investment companies

      IR 18

      A new all-employee share scheme

      IR 19

      Help for small companies: new 10 per cent. starting rate of corporation tax

      IR 20

      Encouragement for serial entrepreneurs and other investors in enterprise investment scheme (EIS) companies

      IR 21

      Encouraging investment: first year allowances continue for small and medium-sized businesses

      IR 22

      Cash flow savings for small employers increase in quarterly payments limit

      IR 23

      North Sea fiscal regime technical measures

      IR 24

      Tax relief for mobile phone licences

      209

      Code

      Document

      IR 25

      Football clubs to get help with new accounting standard

      IR 26

      Self assessment for companies: minor changes

      IR 27

      Settlements and trusts for children

      IR 28

      Inheritance tax: blocking tax avoidance

      IR 29

      Capital gains of companies: sales of subsidiaries

      IR 30

      Capital gains: abuse of concessions

      IR 31

      Taxation of free standing AVC annuity payments

      IR 32

      Taxation of reverse premiums

      IR 33

      Petroleum revenue tax and North Sea corporation tax: anti-avoidance measures

      IR 34

      Loophole closed in controlled foreign company rules

      IR 35

      Countering avoidance in the provision of personal services

      Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise

      CW 1

      New choice for taxpayers—returns via the Internet

      CW 3

      Securing the tax base

      CW 2

      Increased support for small businesses

      Customs and Excise

      C&E 1

      Fairness for business on VAT groups

      C&E 2

      New pace-setting moves to update and modernise tax systems

      C&E 3

      A fairer share of VAT for business

      C&E 5

      Government support for sustainable waste management

      C&E 7

      VAT: Securing the tax base

      C&E 8

      A fairer deal for small businesses on VAT thresholds

      C&E 9

      Help for pools companies and fairness for casinos

      C&E 10

      Insurance premium tax

      C&E 4

      Alcohol duties

      C&E 6

      Tobacco and Health

      C&E 11

      Chancellor honours commitment on fuel duties to protect the environment

      Other Government Departments

      DETR 1

      Budget placing environment at the heart of the Government

      DETR 2

      Minister welcomes housing policy green paper

      Exchange Rates (Employment)
      Mr. Redwood
      To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his assessment of the effects on United Kingdom employment of the change in the value of the(a) Deutschmark and (b) euro relative to the pound sterling since 1 May 1997. [77590]

      Ms Hewitt
      The effects of exchange rate changes cannot be reliably isolated from the other influences on UK employment. Since the second quarter of 1997 total employment is estimated to have increased by 503,000 to stand at its highest ever recorded level.

    AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

      Abattoirs (Inspection Charges)
      Mr. Wigley
      To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will change inspection charges for abattoirs from hourly rates to charges based on throughput-headage payments. [66159]

      Mr. Rooker
      Although harmonised EU rules lay down standard charges for hygiene inspections in slaughterhouses and cutting plants, the Meat Hygiene Service (MHS) is required under Treasury rules to recover 210
      the full costs of the services it provides to its customers, be they fresh meat premises or the Government. As the major part of the MHS costs are the time costs arising from the deployment of MHS inspection staff in fresh meat premises, MHS charges are set on a 'per hour' basis since this basis accurately reflects the real costs of providing the inspection service in individual abattoirs and cutting plants. It also encourages operators of such businesses to plan and execute their operations efficiently. In those small premises with only low throughputs of animals or meat, the average inspection charge per animal or tonne of meat will inevitably be higher than in those high throughput premises which are operated efficiently since the latter will inevitably benefit from economies of scale. Any alternative charging system, based solely on throughput of animals or meat, would simply result in large abattoirs or cutting plants having to subsidise the small businesses. The EU Charges Directive precludes Member State Governments from subsidising hygiene inspection costs.

      In relation to charges for the enforcement of specified risk material controls, we have already acknowledged that charges based on throughput rather than an hourly rate could bring benefits to small low-throughput abattoirs and announced that officials have been asked to consider the feasibility of altering the basis of these charges. However any such change would require amendments to the legislation recently laid before Parliament to enable these charges to be levied.

      Genetically Modified Food
      Mr. Mitchell
      To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list consents he has given, specifying under what legal authority, for cultivation of genetically modified crops for(a) research and (b) sale; and for each consent the name of (i) applicant, (ii) company and (iii) owner, if different, (1) the area of (a) enclosed and (b) open tillage of the crop, and (2) its location; the purpose of (x) research and (y) sale, together with any purchaser if known, and the period of permission. [72563]

      Mr. Rooker
      I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment on 19 March 1999,Official Report, column 879.

      Mr. Redwood
      To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the genetically modified foods, crops or seeds, for which licence applications are pending which contain a translator enhancer. [73019]

      Mr. Rooker
      [holding answer 25 February 1999]: Although translator enhancers are found widely in nature, they have not been added as part of the modification for the only GM food under consideration in the EU which has been recommended for approval by the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes (genetically modified (GM) tomato products). In the case of GM green-hearted and radicchio rosso chicory, the only other pending applications which have been considered by the ACNFP, the committee did not recommend approval because, among other reasons, the molecular data were incomplete. Copies of the ACNFP's advice on both products is available in the Library of the House.
      211
      The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions hold details of applications pending under EC Regulation 90/220 for GM crops and seeds. I have asked the Ministry of the Environment to provide details of any applications which contain translator enhancers.

      Mr. Baker
      To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy to require those responsible for the production of genetically modified foods to take out adequate insurance to cover compensation claims for any resulting damage to human health. [75108]

      Mr. Rooker
      [holding answer 8 March 1999]: All genetically modified (GM) foods are subject to a full and rigorous safety assessment to ensure that they are as safe as their non-GM counterpart before approval. Whilst it is a criminal offence under the Food Safety Act 1990 to sell any food which is injurious to health or unfit for human consumption, insurance arrangements are a matter for individual companies.

      Mr. Baker
      To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to require genetically-modified food manufacturers to demonstrate clinical efficacy through clinical trials before being permitted to make claims regarding the alleged health advantages of such foods; and if he will make a statement. [76510]

      Mr. Rooker
      [holding answer 16 March 1999]: Clinical efficacy forms part of the assessment procedure for all new drugs and therefore applies to any substances, including those which have the appearance of foods, where medicinal claims are made, that is that they will prevent, treat or cure a human disease. Any GM foods, where such claims are not being made (which includes all those currently on the market), are subject to different, but equally strict, safety assessment criteria based on establishing that they do not present a danger to the public; as well as the requirements that the public are not misled in any way about them; and that they do not disadvantage the public in terms of their nutritional content.

      Claims that foods may have beneficial health (but not medicinal) effects may be made so long as they are accurate and do not mislead consumers. A voluntary Code of Practice for validation of all health claims relating to food is being developed by a joint body comprising representatives from consumer groups, food law enforcement authorities and industry.

      Joan Ruddock
      To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will announce a new labelling regime for genetically modified foods; and if he will make a statement. [77537]

      Mr. Rooker
      I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) on 18 March 1999,Official Report, column 814.

      Joan Ruddock
      To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what unlicensed genetically modified soya has formed part of the ingredients of products on sale in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [77261]
      212
      Mr. Rooker
      [holding answer 18 March 1999]: None. Recent press reports that the Worcester Trading Standards Department had detected a non-approved genetically (GM) soya ingredient related to a sample of material that entered the country before May 1997, the composition of which could not be verified analytically. There is therefore no evidence that non-approved GM material is entering the food supply. In 1997, the only GM soya grown commercially in the USA was Monsanto's Round-up Ready soya. This is the approved soya currently being used in food in the UK.

      European Scrutiny Committee
      Mr. Trend
      To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Donoughue, had in his possession the questions which he was going to be asked by the European Scrutiny Committee on Wednesday 10 February before the meeting took place. [75718]

      Mr. Rooker
      The House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee sitting held on 10 February posed a wide range of questions. The Parliamentary Secretary was aware at a briefing session two days before the meeting what were the main policy areas which would attract questions from the Committee. However, he did not know many of the questions that were to be raised.

      Having some knowledge in advance of the Committee's main questions helped the Parliamentary Secretary to reply promptly and in as informative a way as possible, for the benefit of the Committee. It is helpful to the Committee. It can avoid the need for copious follow up correspondence. It is not expected by, nor necessary to, Ministers.

      My noble Friend the Parliamentary Secretary informs me he did not know at the time of the particular contacts between officials of the Scrutiny Committee and of MAFF: he did not ask for nor initiate them and played no part in the preparation of his brief. This contact was initiated by officials of the Scrutiny Committee. It is a common, though not universal, practice which also obtained under previous Administrations.

      Imported Foods
      Mr. Gray
      To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about powers to ban importation of foods whose production standards are illegal in this country. [74696]

      Mr. Rooker
      All imported foods are subject to general and specific regulations covering food safety and quality. Responsibility for enforcing these regulations lies with port health and local authorities. Ministers have special powers if, under exceptional circumstances, it is necessary to enforce these regulations.

      Cattle Bones
      Mr. Yeo
      To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the organs, tissues and fluids to which the cells produced in cattle bones may migrate. [76224]

      Mr. Nick Brown
      [holding answer 12 March 1999]: The hon. Member may be aware that the cells produced in bone marrow contribute to the cell composition of

      213
      blood and lymph tissues. They may thus be widely distributed through the body. In the context of BSE, a large number of fluids and tissues from cattle, particularly those which enter the human food chain, have been tested for infectivity. Those which may be potentially infected are statutorily required to be removed from the food chain.

      Communications (Farmers)
      Mr. Todd
      To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he has taken to allow farmers(a) to communicate with his Department and (b) to provide details for the various forms required via e-mail. [76218]

      Mr. Morley
      We have in place a number of measures designed to help farmers communicate with my Department and its IT systems more easily.

      Under the Cattle Tracing System, movements of cattle can be communicated electronically to MAFF, particularly via markets and abattoirs.

      On CAP Schemes, we are trialling the electronic submission of application forms. This will be available following on from the introduction next year of a new IT system for IACS. More immediately, we are about to introduce a facility for farmers to receive payments under these schemes via BACS.

      We are also working on a number of other areas to consider electronic communications with the farmer—cattle passport application forms; health certification of animals for export purposes; and electronic submission of agricultural census and survey forms. As a precursor to this we are asking farmers via the 1999 June Census to provide an e-mail address if applicable.

      My hon. Friend will also be interested to note that over 200 of my Department's forms are available on the MAFF Website, some as specimens and others to be printed off for completion. Generally, however, electronic submission of completed forms awaits further development, to safeguard matters such as physical and financial security.

      Biotechnical Industry
      Mr. Baker
      To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many unminuted pre-arranged meetings occurred between(a) himself, (b) Ministers in his Department and (c) his officials and representatives of the biotechnical industry sector since 1 May 1998. [74837]

      Mr. Rooker
      [holding answer 5 March 1999]: I and my officials are in regular contact with representatives of all those with an interest in biotechnology—including environmental groups, consumer groups and biotechnology companies.

      Genetically Modified Organisms
      Mr. Matthew Taylor
      To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many representations his Department has received from the United States Government on genetically modified organisms since 1 May 1997; on what dates each representation was received; in what form each representation was made; and from which United States department each originated. [77121]
      214
      Mr. Rooker
      Details of ministerial meetings with the US government and this Department are provided in my answer of 18 March 1999,Official Report, column 819.

      Officials maintain bilateral relations with their opposite numbers in a number of other Governments, including that of the US, and also with officials in their Embassies in the UK. The UK's commitment to a science based approach to biotechnology which protects public health and the environment is made clear in all discussions about this technology.

      Food Safety
      Mr. Maclean
      To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list all those(a) food and (b) health food products on which he has received advice from his civil servants since 1 May 1997 as being a cause for concern. [76651]

      Mr. Rooker
      [holding answer 15 March 1999]: Ministers receive advice on a wide range of issues relating to the composition and labelling of food and health food products. Details of each occasion on which this happened could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

      Mr. Martyn Jones
      To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list for each year since 1990 the statutory codes of practice that have been issued, pursuant to section 40 of the Food Safety Act 1990. [77502]

      Mr. Rooker
      There are currently 20 Codes of Practice, a full list and copies of these are available from the Library of the House.

      Mr. Martyn Jones
      To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what procedure he has in place to ensure that his Department knows when the rates of(a) food sampling and (b) food analysis by local authorities, in relation to their statutory duties on food law, fall during the course of any given year; [77513]

      (2) if he will list the categories of information that have been supplied by local authorities in response to requests under section 41 of the Food Safety Act 1990; [77506]

      (3) what information he collects from local authorities, in relation to their statutory duties to enforce food law, about their levels of (a) food sampling and (b) food analysis; [775141

      (4) what use he has made of the powers provided by section 41 of the Food Safety Act 1990; [77508]

      (5) what information he collects from local authorities, in relation to their statutory duties to enforce food law, about the scopes of analysis and examination undertaken by public analysts. [77507]

      Mr. Rooker
      Statistics covering many areas of food control, including sampling, are compiled by the Ministry from returns required to be submitted by local authorities in the United Kingdom under section 41 of the Food Safety Act 1990 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. A copy of the latest return was recently placed in the Library of the House.

      Mr. Martyn Jones
      To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what guidance has been issued by the Joint Food Safety and Standards Group of his
      215
      Department and the Department of Health to local authorities with respect to their statutory obligations to sample foods; [77505]

      (2) if he will list for each year since 1989 all the occasions on which his Department and the Department of Health issued guidance to local authorities on the numbers of samples to be taken with respect to their statutory obligations to sample foods; [77504]

      (3) what steps he has taken to ensure that local authorities have (a) constructed and (b) implemented proper sampling programmes in relation to food law; [77517]

      (4) what powers he has to prevent the rates of (a) food sampling and (b) food analysis by local authorities, in relation to their statutory duties on food law, falling (i) during any given year and (ii) in successive years; [77510]

      (5) if he will publish for each year since 1989 what his Department's and the Department of Health's guidance was to local authorities with respect to their statutory obligations to ensure that samples of foods were properly analysed by public analysts; [77519]

      (6) if he will publish for each year since 1989 what his Department's and the Department of Health's guidance was to local authorities on the numbers of samples to be taken with respect to their statutory obligations to sample food; [77503]

      (7) what powers he has to direct local authorities, in relation to their statutory duties on food law, to maintain a minimum level of (a) food sampling and (b) food analysis; [77511]

      (8) if he will list each occasion on which he has exercised the powers, under section 42 of the Food Safety Act 1990, to direct local authorities to undertake adequate and satisfactory sampling of food; [77518]

      Mr. Rooker
      Responsibility for enforcement of food law rests with the relevant food authorities throughout the UK. All local authorities determine their sampling and inspection programmes in the light of local circumstances and guidance provided in the Codes of Practice issued by the Ministry and the Department of Health under section 40 of the Food Safety Act 1990. While section 40 (2)(a) of the Act imposes a legal obligation on food authorities to have regard to the Codes, it does not impose an obligation to comply with them.

      Farm Produce (Charter Mark)
      Mr. Hoyle
      To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will introduce a quality charter mark for farm produce from the North West Region. [77527]

      Mr. Rooker
      [holding answer 18 March 1999]: Quality Assurance Schemes for farm produce which go beyond statutory requirements are for the industry to take forward in light of their assessment of market conditions.

      Dairy Products
      Mrs. Browning
      To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what impact he expects the agreed Agenda 2000 package to have on(a) consumer prices for milk and (b) other dairy products in the United Kingdom. [77453]
      216
      Mr. Rooker
      [holding answer 18 March 1999]: The provisional agreement by the EU Agriculture Council on 11 March to the Agenda 2000 CAP reform package will result in a 15% reduction in support prices for butter and skimmed milk powder, over a period of three years beginning in 2003. As a consequence, the aggregate value of UK milk consumption, measured at farmgate prices, is estimated to fall by some £400 million a year by the end of the period. This will mean that consumers will benefit from lower retail prices for milk and dairy products than would otherwise obtain. If all the savings are passed to consumers, the effect will be approximately equivalent to 4% of the retail price of a pint of liquid milk, and 8% of the retail price of butter.

      Mrs. Browning
      To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proportion of the retail price for milk in the United Kingdom was accounted for by the raw milk price in January(a) 1997, (b) 1998, and (c) 1999. [77451]

      Mr. Rooker
      [holding answer 18 March 1999]: The farmgate price of milk accounted for 38.1 per cent. of the retail price in January 1997, 32.7 per cent. in January 1998 and 32.1 per cent. in January 1999. The percentages in January 1998 and 1999 are much the same as in the early 1990s. The real price spread—the difference between the retail price and the farmgate price adjusted for inflation—fell by 2 per cent. between January 1997 and January 1999.

      Animal Feeding Stuffs
      Mr. Martyn Jones
      To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) how much money was(a) spent in 1989–90 to 1997–98 and (b) allocated in 1998–99 by each individual local authority on the sampling and analysis of animal feeding stuffs in relation to statutory duties to enforce the provisions of the law controlling animal feeding stuffs; [77500]

      (2) how much money was (a) spent between 1989–90 and 1997–98 and (b) allocated in 1998–99 by each local authority on the sampling and analysis of animal feeding stuffs for veterinary medicaments in relation to statutory duties to enforce the provisions of the law controlling animal feeding stuffs. [77501]

      Mr. Rooker
      The information requested is not available.

      Mr. Martyn Jones
      To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what powers he has to direct local authorities properly to discharge their duties under the Agriculture Act 1970 in relation to the taking and submitting for analysis of samples of animal feeding stuffs. [77515]

      Mr. Rooker
      The powers to direct local authorities to discharge properly their duties in respect of sampling and analysis of animal feeding stuffs can be found at section 67, of Part IV of the Agriculture Act 1970.

      Under section 67 of Part IV of the Agriculture Act 1970, the Minister can obtain a report from each enforcement authority on the way the legislation is being enforced in its area. This report can include information supplied by the agricultural analyst to the authority. If this Part of the Act is not enforced sufficiently, by an enforcement authority, the Minister can appoint one or

      217
      more inspectors to undertake the enforcement duties of that authority. Such costs shall be repaid by the enforcement authority.

      Mr. Martyn Jones
      To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if the Government consulted the Association of Public Analysts about the proposed transfer of the duty to sample animal feeding stuffs for analysis for veterinary medicines from local authorities to the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain. [77521]

      Mr. Rooker
      Yes. A wide range of interests, including the Association of Public Analysts, was consulted by the Veterinary Medicines Directorate on 10 October 1997 about proposals for the Medicated Feedingstuffs Regulations 1998.

      Mr. Martyn Jones
      To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the duty to sample animal feedingstuffs for analysis for veterinary medicines was transferred from local authorities to the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain. [77520]

      Mr. Rooker
      Responsibility transferred to the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain on 6 May 1998, when the Medicated Feedingstuffs Regulations 1998 came into force.

      Monsanto New Leaf Potatoes
      Mr. Baker
      To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his policy in respect of the importation from the United States of Monsanto's New Leaf potatoes. [77307]

      Mr. Rooker
      As Monsanto's New Leaf potatoes are genetically modified and have not been approved under the EC Novel Foods Regulation (258/97) and EC Regulation 90/220, their importation into the European Union would be illegal. MAFF has drawn this to the attention of processed potato importers.

      Animals for Slaughter
      Mr. Cox
      To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for what reasons Her Majesty's Government have not ratified the Convention of the Council of Europe for the protection of animals for slaughter; and if he will make a statement. [77606]

      Mr. Morley
      The Government fully intend to ratify the Convention and I am pleased to confirm that arrangements to do so are now nearly complete. Legislation implementing the Convention's provisions (and EU Directive 93/119) has been in place throughout the UK since 1996, but it has also been necessary to obtain the views of the authorities of the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man in order that ratification can take place.

      Meadowlands
      Mr. Vaz
      To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to assess the report of the Council for the Protection of Rural England concerning the disappearance of meadow and grasslands. [77667]

      Mr. Morley
      As a recent CPRE publication explains, meadow and grasslands may be lost for a number of reasons. MAFF officials are working closely with the statutory environmental agencies to develop workable 218
      proposals for the implementation of particular provisions of the EU Directive on environmental impact assessment (EIA). Those provisions apply to all types of uncultivated land or semi-natural areas, but only where projects to bring such land into intensive agricultural use give rise to significant environmental effects.

      Mr. Hoyle
      To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to introduce protection for meadowland. [77529]

      Mr. Morley
      [holding answer 18 March 1999]: The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is working closely with the statutory environmental agencies to develop workable proposals. The objective is to improve protection of the environment without imposing over-bureaucratic controls on farmers.

      Food Standards Agency
      Mr. Hoyle
      To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the impact of the proposed Food Standards Agency levy on farm shops. [77530]

      Mr. Rooker
      [holding answer 18 March 1999]: The purpose of the current consultation exercise is to elicit views on the impact of the proposed levy on all types of food premises that would fall within its scope. We will consider carefully the implications for farm shops in the light of the responses we receive.

      Mr. Hoyle
      To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will replace the proposed flat rate for the proposed Food Standards Agency levy with a sliding scale based on size of operation. [77532]

      Mr. Rooker
      [holding answer 18 March 1999]: Public consultation on the proposed levy ends on 24 March. We will not reach final decisions on the proposed flat rate or any other aspects of the proposals until we have considered carefully all the responses we receive.

      Mr. Hoyle
      To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will introduce a minimum size below which shops will be exempt from paying the proposed Food Standards Agency levy. [77531]

      Mr. Rooker
      [holding answer 18 March 1999]: The proposals, on which we are currently consulting, envisage exemptions for premises on which the only food sales are wrapped confectionery, soft drinks, crisps and similar wrapped products. Premises not required to register with the local authority under the Food Premises (Registration) Regulations 1991 would also be exempt. The public consultation period ends on 24 March, and we will not reach any final decisions on exemptions or any other aspects of the proposals until we have considered all the responses carefully.

      Mr. Hoyle
      To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will apply the proposed Food Standards Agency levy to food producers. [77533]

      Mr. Rooker
      [holding answer 18 March 1999]: The proposals on which we are currently consulting are for the proposed levy to apply to food retail and retail catering premises required to register with the local authority under the Food Premises (Registration) Regulations 1991. We will not reach final decisions until we have considered carefully all the responses we receive.
      219
      Mrs. May
      To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will estimate how many people will be employed at the Food Standards Agency; and what the consequential changes will be to staff numbers in terms of(a) actual numbers and (b) establishment in his Department. [77557]

      Mr. Rooker
      [holding answer 19 March 1999]: The Food Standards Agency is expected to employ around 500 HQ staff, plus some 1,500 staff in the Meat Hygiene Service, and also have small numbers of staff based in executive branches in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

      Some 315 core MAFF posts and 1,500 from the Meat Hygiene Service are expected to transfer to the Agency, together with other posts currently in the Department of Health, the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland Departments.

      Pig Farmers
      Mr. Laurence Robertson
      To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what help he is giving to pig farmers in the United Kingdom; what assessment he has made of the impact the recent proposals to reform the Common Agricultural Policy will have on pig farmers; what plans he has to implement the recommendations contained in the Agriculture Committee's report, the UK Pig Industry (HC 87) Session 1998–99; and if he will make a statement. [77454]

      Mr. Rooker
      [holding answer 19 March 1999]: At EU level, I supported improvements in export refunds and the introduction of a private storage aid scheme. Within the UK, I miss no opportunity to make it known that the British pig industry produces a quality product to high welfare and other standards. Although pig farmers are not directly affected by the CAP reform exercise, they will benefit from the substantial reduction in cereal prices, as feed is their main costs. I welcome the Agriculture Select Committee's report on the UK Pig Industry to which the Government will shortly submit their response.

      Sheep Exports
      Mr. Prosser
      To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the monetary value in (i) 1997 and (ii) 1998 of live lambs and sheep exported from the UK for(a) slaughter and (b) further fattening; and if he will make a statement. [77949]

      Mr. Morley
      The split for the value of UK exports of live lambs and sheep between those going for slaughter and further fattening is not readily available. However it is estimated that the total value of UK exports of live lambs and sheep was £84m in 1997 and £71m in 1998. these figures include exports from Northern Ireland to the Irish Republic. The value of exports from Great Britain to all other destinations is estimated to have been £23m in 1997 and £26m in 1998, of which approximately 90% went for further fattening and the remainder for slaughter.

      Abattoirs
      Mr. Letwin
      To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will allow abattoirs to operate under the rules of the Date Based Export Scheme for part of each week whilst operating normally on other days. [78022]
      220
      Mr. Rooker
      [holding answer 22 March 1999]: European Commission Decision 98/692/EC, which governs the Data-based Export Scheme (DBES), requires that the only cattle DBES abattoirs may slaughter are those that are eligible for the scheme. However, DBES abattoirs may slaughter sheep and pigs, to which the DBES controls would not apply.

      Cattle Passports
      Mr. Letwin
      To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what percentage of cattle passports have been incorrectly issued in the past six months. [78019]

      Mr. Rooker
      [holding answer 22 March 1999]: The percentage of cattle passports incorrectly issued in the last six months is not available. However, I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) on 18 March 1999, Official Report, column 816.

      Beef Ban
      Mr. Hoyle
      To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to be able to lift the ban on the sale of beef on the bone. [78117]

      Mr. Rooker
      [holding answer 22 March 1999]: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman) by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 4 February 1999, Official Report, columns 1077–78.

      Milk Marketing Council
      Mr. Letwin
      To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will permit expenditure by the Milk Marketing Council on generic advertising. [78025]

      Mr. Rooker
      [holding answer 22 March 1999]: The functions of the Milk Development Council are set out in the Milk Development Council Order 1995. These functions do not permit expenditure by the Council on generic advertising. My right hon. Friend is, however, open to representations by the dairy farming industry on changing the functions of the Milk Development Council.

      Sea Anglers
      Mr. Steen
      To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what estimate he has made of the numbers of anglers who fish from charter boats off the south Devon coast; how many fish they catch; and how their catches affect fish stocks in the area; [77566]

      (2) if he will list each EU country which applies quotas and species bans to its recreational fishermen; and if he will make a statement. [77567]

      Mr. Morley
      [holding answer 22 March 1999]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him on 15 December 1998, Official Report, column 500.

      Grants (Diversification)
      Mr. Hoyle
      To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what grants are available from(a) Her Majesty's Government and (b) the European Union to farmers in (i) Lancashire and (ii) Chorley to help them to diversify. [78118]
      221
      Mr. Morley
      [holding answer 22 March 1999]: Funding to encourage a wide range of agricultural activities, including farm diversification, is available in the six areas designated to receive assistance under the English Objective 5B Structural Fund Programmes. The Northern Uplands Objective 5b area includes parts of Lancashire but does not include Chorley. No grant aid for farm diversification is available outside the designated areas.

      The Rural Development Commission (RDC), which is the Government Agency responsible for promoting economic and social development in rural England, can provide redundant building grants in priority Rural Development Areas, including parts of Lancashire. These grants can help owners to renovate and bring back into productive use, buildings which are lying idle and semi-derelict, or which are becoming redundant for their current use. The buildings must be used for business purposes once renovation works are complete, with the aim of providing new job opportunities, or protecting existing jobs. As from 1 April these grants will be available from the new Regional Development Agencies.

      Milk Quotas
      Mr. Letwin
      To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for what reason the EU decided not to enlarge United Kingdom milk quotas until 2003. [78020]

      Mr. Rooker
      [holding answer 22 March 1999]: The agreement reached by EU Agriculture Ministers on 11 March delayed cutting milk support prices until 2003 as a means of reducing the overall costs of the Agenda 2000 reform package. Consequently, the introduction of direct payments and general increases in milk quota will also be delayed until 2003. However, some specific increases in milk quota, including an increase for Northern Ireland, will be introduced in 2000–01 and 2001–02.

      Milk
      Mr. Chidgey
      To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what comparative assessment he has made of investment in modernisation of the milk processing industry in the United Kingdom and(a) other EU Member States and (b) other countries which export milk products to the United Kingdom; [78194]

      (2) what analysis he has made of the effect of vertical integration on the competitiveness of milk production and milk processing in the United Kingdom milk and milk products industry in relation to (a) other EU Member States and (b) other nations which export milk products to the United Kingdom; [78196]

      (3) what analysis he has made of the competitiveness of the United Kingdom milk and milk products industry in relation to (a) national industries in each of the EU Member States and (b) other nationally-structured milk and milk product industries. [78199]

      Mr. Rooker
      The Department has not undertaken any such detailed comparative analysis.
      222
      Mr. Chidgey
      To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what projections he has made of the growth or decline of the United Kingdom milk and milk products industry over the next(a) five, (b) 10 and (c) 15 years. [78198]

      Mr. Rooker
      The size of the United Kingdom milk and milk products industry is constrained by milk quotas. In the period up to 2006 the output of the UK milk and milk products industry can be expected to increase in line with the increases in the UK milk quota agreed as part of the Agenda 2000 reforms of the Common Agricultural Policy. In the longer term, the size of the UK milk and milk products industry will depend on the decisions of the EU Council of Agriculture Ministers as to the shape of the EU dairy regime beyond 2006.

      Mr. Chidgey
      To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which countries exported(a) milk and (b) processed milk products to the United Kingdom in each year from 1995 to date; and what was the value of the imports from each country in each year. [78201]

      Mr. Rooker
      The available information is shown in the following table.

      UK imports of (a) milk and (b) processed milk products 1995–98

      £ million

      1995

      1996

      1997

      1998

      Milk and cream

      Irish Republic

      35.0

      26.6

      27.2

      21.2

      France

      11.6

      12.1

      12.3

      11.8

      Denmark

      0.5

      0.8

      11.5

      18.0

      Germany

      7.6

      7.3

      4.7

      4.8

      Belgium-Luxembourg

      10.6

      4.5

      4.3

      3.6

      Italy

      1.4

      0.7

      0.9

      0.7

      Netherlands

      0.1

      0.4

      1.0

      1.2

      Others

      0.1

      0.1

      0.2

      0.0

      Imports of milk and cream

      66.8

      52.5

      62.0

      61.3

      Processed milk products

      Irish Republic

      277.3

      338.8

      279.5

      297.7

      France

      169,.8

      196.7

      217.2

      204.3

      New Zealand

      139.4

      125.7

      93.9

      104.4

      Germany

      103.3

      111.0

      110.7

      91.0

      Denmark

      77.2

      81.1

      84.5

      83.3

      Belgium-Luxembourg

      67.0

      80.1

      76.8

      63.2

      Netherlands

      63.7

      63.7

      54.2

      57.3

      Italy

      45.1

      47.7

      51.0

      53.4

      Canada

      15.3

      20.3

      20.0

      19.4

      Australia

      8.2

      12.2

      12.1

      11.8

      Spain

      7.3

      6.8

      6.7

      16.1

      Switzerland

      8.0

      8.1

      7.6

      9.0

      Greece

      7.3

      6.0

      5.4

      6.8

      Austria

      6.7

      3.5

      2.8

      1.7

      U.S.A.

      3.2

      3.2

      3.0

      3.4

      Sweden

      1.2

      3.3

      3.6

      3.0

      Others

      7.0

      8.2

      7.3

      7.2

      Imports of processed milk products

      1,006.9

      1,116.4

      1,036.2

      1,033.0

      Total imports of milk and processed milk products

      1,073.7

      1,168.9

      1,098.3

      1,094.3

      Source:

      HM Customs & Excise

      Mr. Chidgey
      To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to which countries the United Kingdom has exported(a) milk and (b) processed milk

      223
      products in each year from 1995 to date; and what was the value of exports to each country in each year. [78200]

      Mr. Rooker
      The available information is shown in the following table:

      UK exports of (a) milk and (b) processed milk products 1995–98

      £ million

      1995

      1996

      1997

      1998

      Milk and cream

      Belgium-Luxembourg

      43.5

      62.5

      55.2

      56.3

      France

      41.7

      40.0

      24.9

      23.7

      Irish Republic

      30.9

      11.9

      15.2

      34.7

      Germany

      21.8

      10.5

      13.1

      19.8

      Netherlands

      14.0

      12.0

      13.1

      3.9

      Others

      3.9

      3.8

      3.8

      3.5

      Exports of milk and cream

      155.9

      140.8

      125.3

      141.9

      Processed milk products

      Netherlands

      170.9

      97.3

      67.7

      74.7

      France

      93.1

      89.5

      82.4

      81.2

      Irish Republic

      52.0

      54.0

      62.2

      69.1

      Belgium-Luxembourg

      41.8

      41.0

      34.4

      39.6

      Germany

      44.9

      41.1

      28.7

      34.2

      Spain

      15.6

      19.1

      18.5

      18.6

      USA

      11.6

      20.9

      10.5

      13.3

      Mexico

      3.4

      5.1

      31.4

      12.6

      Denmark

      10.5

      10.4

      16.0

      9.4

      Russia

      1.4

      1.7

      27.6

      8.8

      Saudi Arabia

      21.6

      15.1

      0.8

      0.9

      Brazil

      7.4

      4.8

      11.4

      14.8

      Venezuela

      3.7

      8.0

      8.4

      12.0

      Japan

      17.4

      8.3

      3.1

      2.4

      Kuwait

      9.3

      7.7

      6.8

      6.4

      Hong Kong

      12.0

      7.4

      4.9

      5.2

      Italy

      10.6

      6.8

      5.5

      6.3

      Others

      112.8

      133.4

      181.3

      150.9

      Exports of processed milk products

      640.1

      571.7

      601.6

      560.5

      Total exports of milk and processed milk products

      795.9

      712.5

      726.9

      702.4

      Source:

      HM Customs & Excise

      Mr. Chidgey
      To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the likely impact on the United Kingdom milk and milk products industry of the proposed enlargement of the European Union. [78197]

      Mr. Rooker
      Enlargement would afford the United Kingdom milk and milk products industry unrestricted access to the markets of those countries which accede to the European Union. Equally, as part of the single market, the milk processing industries of the acceding countries would have access to the markets of the existing EU member states.

      Badgers
      Charlotte Atkins
      To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will announce the next areas to be brought into the randomised badger culling trial. [78578]
      224
      Mr. Rooker
      Using the criteria set out in their report of last July, the Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB has now identified the third triplet of trial areas. It is located in east Cornwall, and work will begin there shortly.

      Intervention Board
      Mr. Drew
      To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the Next Steps Review of the Intervention Board. [78579]

      Mr. Nick Brown
      In accordance with the Government's policy on periodic reviews of executive agencies, Agricultural Ministers have agreed that the Intervention Board should commence a thorough evaluation of Agency status in March and produce a report in July 1999. In the light of ongoing issues such as devolution and the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy, the reconsideration of the prior options element of the review has been deferred until March 2001.

      In order to ensure that all matters are considered fully, comments regarding the performance of the Intervention Board since April 1993, which should be provided by 30 April 1999, would be welcomed from interested parties. The contact point at the Intervention Board for inquiries and correspondence is:

      Mrs. A. K. Parker

      Intervention Board

      Kings House

      Kings Road

      Reading RGI 3BU.

      Farmers (North-West)
      Mr. Hoyle
      To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will provide further support to farmers in the North West. [77528]

      Mr. Rooker
      [holding answer 18 March 1999]: The package of measures provisionally agreed in Brussels recently represented a good deal for UK farmers, especially those from the hills.

      In addition, beef and sheep farmers are likely to benefit from compulsory compensation as a result of the effects of the introduction of the euro on direct payments. We hope to announce details of this shortly.

      Food Sampling
      Mr. Martyn Jones
      To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what access the Review of the Public Analyst Arrangements in England and Wales had to information about the sampling and analysis of food samples held by local authorities; and what restrictions were placed on the publication of that information. [77951]

      Mr. Rooker
      The Public Analyst Review Team sought information through submissions from interested parties, including local authorities and public analysts, and the Review Team visited a number of authorities and sought information from them directly during those visits. Some of the information relating to their enforcement activities was given in confidence. The Review Report and any non-confidential information gathered has been placed in the Library of the House.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Lincoln.

Copyright: Sound Recordings
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to reduce the discrepancy between the life of copyright for sound recordings in the United Kingdom (generally life of author plus 50 years) and in the United States (now between life of author plus 70 years and 125 years).
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Simon of Highbury): My Lords, the sound recording copyright term in the UK is governed by EC law and the UK neither wishes to nor can legislate unilaterally. We see no grounds for an increase, particularly since UK recordings should not be at a disadvantage in the US as we understand that they receive the same terms there as US recordings. To raise the EC term of 50 years from release or making of a recording to US levels would clearly be very difficult since it would mean at least doubling it.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. How do the Government intend to assist the British recording industry, particularly in the era of the Internet when a US licensee of a recording may upload it from the US and download it in the UK, creating income in the US with the UK losing out?
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, at first instance we do not understand why UK companies should be at a disadvantage since UK recordings receive the same terms in the US as US recordings. We believe that UK companies should be able to obtain payment through their US licensees for the use of their product in the US such as uploading onto the Internet as the noble Baroness instanced.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, can the Minister inform the House what the United Kingdom authorities will do to stop blatant piracy by companies based in the EU which have CDs manufactured in such countries as Croatia?
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, I am not aware that those products are being manufactured in Croatia under the terms of copyright. If that is the case I shall provide the noble Viscount with an answer. We shall have to study that case. Of course, in this context we are talking about copyright law.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, does the Minister accept that his response to my noble friend is somewhat
1140
disappointing? Does he also accept that this is a matter of concern to the UK record industry, and will he undertake to look further into it?
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, as I said in my Answer, since a UK manufacturer receives the same terms in the US as a US manufacturer I have yet to understand the disadvantage that is put to me. The 50-year law that applies across Europe is a standard that is adopted in most parts of the world. The US applies a different term but it adopts a different principle; namely, the concept of works for hire. Since we do not recognise that concept within our copyright law we are perhaps comparing apples and pears here. I would need to understand much more clearly the real disadvantage that faces UK manufacturers.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, given the Minister's answer, is he prepared to meet representatives of the British recording industry, who may be able in private discussion to explain their concerns, and perhaps expand the debate?
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, I am sure that, as always, the DTI is prepared to take submissions and to be educated. That is very good for it.

Kosovo: OSCE Verification Mission
2.40 p.m.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry Lord Renton of Mount Harry asked Her Majesty's Government:
What are their reasons for considering the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe the most suitable body for establishing peace in Kosovo.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, the OSCE is one of a number of organisations, including the UN and NATO, which have a role to play in establishing a peaceful settlement in Kosovo. The OSCE Kosovo Verification Mission played an important role in reducing tensions on the ground in Kosovo until its withdrawal on 20th March in the face of mounting security problems. The Rambouillet Accords set out the framework of an eventual interim political settlement for Kosovo. As the House will know, US Special Envoy Richard Holbrooke has been involved yesterday and today in a last-minute attempt to get the Yugoslav Government to agree to the accords. The accords envisage the OSCE establishing a mission to implement the civil aspects of this agreement. A NATO-led military implementation force will be required to underpin this agreement given the level of distrust between the two sides and the security situation on the ground.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her complete reply. I add my support to her comments about the bravery of the unarmed OSCE observers in Kosovo who have tried to resolve the conflict there but who have had to be

1141
withdrawn. I realise that my Question arises at an awkward time as there is to be a Statement later this afternoon on this matter in which doubtless many military questions will be asked and, I hope, answered. Against the very dangerous background at the moment, what continuing role do the Government envisage for international bodies such as the UN and the OSCE in the resolution of the crisis in Kosovo, given that that is within the Serbian borders, and perhaps in other consequent Balkan conflicts, bearing in mind that we do not wish the whole burden in terms of odium and cost of lives and material to fall on just a few NATO members?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, the noble Lord makes a valid point about which the Government have been conscious from the beginning; namely, that the resolution of the situation in Kosovo has to be based on the maximum possible international support and co-operation.
The noble Lord is well aware that the Contact Group includes the United States and Russia as well as NATO members. It has been one of the prime movers in seeking to resolve the situation. We are conscious of the fact that it is not a matter that can be resolved by one, two or a handful of powers. We all have to share responsibility for resolving the issue.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, perhaps we may add our warm tribute from these Benches to the work done by the verifiers. A remarkable degree of courage and common sense has been shown by them.
Can the Minister tell us whether the verifiers' information is being kept carefully in a form which will enable them to return at the first appropriate moment? Can the noble Baroness inform us whether they are being repatriated or kept as a group in readiness for their further usefulness?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, the noble Baroness and the House will understand that at the moment everything is in a slight state of freeze. We do not yet know the outcome of Envoy Holbrooke's discussions in Belgrade. However, the KVM, the monitors, have been withdrawn from Kosovo and are at present in Macedonia. At the same time, the NATO extraction force has also been kept there. They are all in Macedonia on standby for whatever is decided is the next appropriate action.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, we understand that air strikes are under consideration. Can the Minister say that the Government will not be a party to, nor support, any proposal to bomb Belgrade?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, the House would not expect me to comment on whether, in the
1142
eventuality that bombing takes place, we would or would not bomb somewhere. I would rather leave that point.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, does the Minister agree that these events may well be turned against ourselves and Ireland if we once lost our veto in the Security Council?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, in my answer to the supplementary question by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, I indicated that we would only go forward on the broadest possible international front. Therefore I do not foresee a situation where we shall be isolated, if I understood the noble Earl's question correctly.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, has Milosevic manipulated for his own end the conflict between OSCE principles of self-determination and territorial integrity? If so, what guidelines do the Government advocate on that contradiction?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, the Rambouillet Accords respect the territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia while providing for greater self-determination for Kosovo. Those accords have been accepted by the Kosovar Albanian leadership.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, do the Government have clear long-term political and military strategies if President Milosevic refuses to back down following a possible NATO campaign of air strikes?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, the Contact Group has put forward a long-term and carefully worked out strategy for the future of Kosovo. That is the subject of negotiation in Rambouillet and Paris. It provides in great detail for the future development of Kosovo. It is the long-term strategy for resolving the issue. However, it requires acceptance by both sides. So far only one side has accepted it.
At this precise moment in time, our energy has to be directed towards persuading President Milosevic, Belgrade and the Serbian leadership that the only possible sensible outcome for themselves and their own people, as well as for the future of Kosovo, is to accept the Rambouillet Accords, to allow into Kosovo the force that we think essential to oversee it, and therefore to sign the accords as the Kosovar Albanians have already done.
Lord Vivian: My Lords, against the background of the OSCE observers and our commitment of 9, 000 troops if a ceasefire deal is achieved, can the Government say how we can sustain that level of troops in the Kosovo area for longer than one year?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, the House will not be surprised to know that the military logistics have been extremely carefully worked out by Her Majesty's Government, the MoD and everyone else involved. If we make commitments which will require military forces and resources, your Lordships can rest

1143
assured that the Government will undertake only those commitments that we shall be able to fulfil along with all our allies.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, will the Minister accept that the development of events is causing much concern to people who are deeply interested in the use of military power? Does she agree that it is rare for the use of air power alone to solve any problems? Does she further agree that air strikes against Yugoslavia and Serbia, especially Belgrade, might strengthen the position of Mr. Milosevic?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, whatever tactic is considered—air strikes or any other—must be weighed up carefully. There could be mixed responses to it. However, one must examine the situation in Bosnia, Serbia and Kosovo and ask what can be done to avert a humanitarian catastrophe. Iraq is not a perfect example of a previous situation, because there are so many differences, but it is not true that air strikes and the threat of them have not brought people to a political solution. They do not in themselves solve the whole problem, but they can sometimes be an extremely effective and useful tool.

Westminster City Council: Community Funding
2.51 p.m.
The Earl of Clancarty The Earl of Clancarty asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will intervene to help prevent the cuts to arts and community funding made by Westminster City Council for 1999–2000.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the Government have no intention of interfering in the decisions taken by Westminster City Council in this respect.
The Earl of Clancarty: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Apart from the cuts, which are proving disastrous for some organisations, would not the Minister agree that one major problem is the extent to which they have come out of the blue? Can she tell us what practical measures the Government intend to take to discourage councils from acting as laws unto themselves in the areas of arts and community funding?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the noble Earl asks a complicated question. In areas where there is no statutory obligation for a local authority to provide funding—for example, Westminster City Council—the Government can offer an opportunity for a partnership approach. For instance, the coming year will see the Arts Council and the London arts boards spending between them £36 million in Westminster. But ultimately it is for the council tax payers in Westminster to make their views known when they believe that the council is not getting its priorities right—perhaps
1144
I should declare an interest as one of those council tax payers—particularly in this case when reductions of such magnitude will have a grave effect on services.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, I, too, declare an interest as a resident of Westminster. Is it not a fact that the cost of looking after the asylum seekers, which has been used as an excuse by Westminster City Council for these arts cuts, can be recovered from central government?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the Government are gravely concerned about reports that the chairman of Westminster City Council Arts Council has stated that the issue is one between funding for the arts and funding for asylum seekers. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has made available an additional £30 million to support arrangements for asylum seekers, particularly in the areas most affected such as Dover and London. Local authorities will be able to recover the: costs of accommodation and supporting asylum seekers. It would appear to be a tragic juxtaposition of two competing claims on a false premise.
Viscount Falkland: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the Government have made it clear that arts funding is fundamental to our society, as it is in any civilised society? How is it that an inner London borough which embraces many important arts projects can decide to put arts so low down its priority list? What liaison exists between the Minister's department and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport on this issue?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the noble Viscount raises a particularly difficult question. If, like the Government, one believes that some areas of local authority provision must be a matter for subsidiarity, the choice must be made by Westminster City councillors, guided by the exhortations by Members of your Lordships' House and others who believe that they are wrong. However, the Government cannot be held to account for not imposing their views on every authority and then criticised for being big brother and running a nanny state. I and the Government believe that the council's judgment is not sound in terms of its priorities, but ultimately it must be a matter for the council. I leave it to your Lordships' House to judge whether there is any relationship between, for example, the majority political controlling group and the decisions that are made.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, will the Minister not revert to her original stance that the matter has nothing to do with this House? I, too, declare an interest as a council tax payer in Westminster. Does she agree that it is a matter purely for the council, and that on all the evidence of the elections, it and we are very happy?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, your Lordships would be most surprised if I were to subscribe to the noble Lord's invitation to say that we are happy with Westminster City Council. I believe that cuts of 48 per cent. for the Serpentine Gallery in the year

1145
following an election, which will have a grave impact on the gallery's education programmes and the service offered to local residents, is very regrettable.
In a democracy we are free to express views on decisions taken, albeit by legitimately autonomous democratic authorities. I believe that for an authority to slash funding for the Serpentine Gallery, the Photographers' Gallery, the Institute of Contemporary Arts and the orchestra of St. John's, Smith Square, which must offer solace to people working in Smith Square, and to have a situation in which we are not even allowed to comment is asking too much.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, does the Minister agree that as local authorities are independent this type of situation will arise from time to time? In any event, is this not likely to become an even more common situation, given the Government's commitment to devolution?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the policy of devolution inevitably carries with it the opportunity for people in different regions and local areas to make judgments within the framework laid down by Parliament. However, I believe that the noble Baroness is mistaken in saying that it is not for Members of your Lordships' House to raise the issue here or for the Government to defend their position. Grant cuts made in a year when an additional £5 million has been given to Westminster City Council is not the kind of political action that one can expect to go unchallenged.

Commercial Television: Advertising Limits
3 p.m.
Lord Hardy of Wath Lord Hardy of Wath asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether there is any legal limit on the proportion of broadcasting time which may be devoted by commercial television companies to advertising breaks.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Broadcasting Act 1990 empowers the Independent Television Commission to give directions to its licensees on the amount, scheduling and presentation of advertising. Under the ITC code, the total amount of advertising on Channels 3, 4 and 5 in any one day must not exceed an average of seven minutes per hour of broadcasting. For cable and satellite services, the total amount must not exceed an average of nine minutes per hour of broadcasting.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that Answer which seems to confirm the general view that, on average, commercial breaks should not greatly exceed two minutes. But is my noble friend aware that quite frequently breaks of a much longer duration occur? Is that to enable the companies concerned to offer high fees; for example, in the recent case of Miss
1146
Lewinsky who is reported to have received £400, 000 when £800, 000 was said to be available? Is that not more than many millions of ordinary people will receive in a working lifetime? Does my noble friend accept that while the advertising may be more interesting and ingenious than the programmes they interrupt, they should continue to be subject to very careful invigilation?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, in my first Answer, I emphasised the arm's length basis on which we operate in these matters. My noble friend interpreted what I said as meaning that an individual advertising break would not be more than two minutes. That is not what the ITC provides. The breaks can be of different lengths within the hour. But there is a provision that even in a peak hour, not more than 12 minutes in one hour can be advertising.
The issue of fees is even more an arm's length issue and is not a matter for the Government.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, is there a legal limit on the volume at which the advertising can be played during the commercial breaks in relation to the programme material on either side of the break?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I raised that question when being briefed because I have the impression, as does my noble friend, that the advertising is sometimes louder than the surrounding programmes; just as I have the impression that Classic FM is louder than Radio 3, which I find equally infuriating. I believe that there are regulations on that. However, I shall look into the matter and write to my noble friend.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, did my noble friend see a commercial on GMTV this morning for Claims Direct encouraging compensation claims? Will the Minister consider what can be done to halt that slide into an American-style society based upon litigation?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the arm's length principle would require that we do not interfere with the content of advertising. That is a matter for the ITC. But the Home Office will be interested in what my noble friend said about encouraging a litigation society and I shall make sure that it is aware of his remarks.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, is the Minister satisfied that advertisements for programmes to be shown after the watershed conform with the rules and suggestions for programmes generally to be shown before the watershed? In other words, are they showing scenes of violence or sex that are unsuitable for children which normally would not be shown until after the watershed?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the point of the watershed is that there are different standards after nine o'clock and before nine o'clock. I do not quite understand what the noble Lord is saying.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, perhaps I may enlighten the noble Lord. Is he satisfied that the advertisements for programmes that are to be shown after the watershed

1147
conform with the rules for all programmes which should be shown before the watershed? In other words, are they suitable?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, clearly, advertisers will use their judgment as to what advertising is appropriate and profitable around which programmes. If the noble Lord is referring in particular to advertising around programmes for children, there are extremely explicit restrictions on what may be advertised around such programmes. Advertisements for alcoholic drink, bingo, certain religious matter, slimming products, lotteries, the pools and so on are not allowed around programmes which are primarily for children and which are therefore before the watershed.
Viscount Falkland: My Lords, I am sorry if I misunderstood the noble Lord but will he confirm that in a programme there is a 12-minute limit on the amount of advertising? Is it not the case that over a 24-hour period, it is nine minutes, not twelve minutes?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the average throughout the day on Channels 3, 4 and 5 is seven minutes. The average throughout the day for cable and satellite is nine minutes. In any individual hour, there can be a maximum of twelve minutes but clearly that must be compensated by fewer advertising minutes in another hour.
Lord Peston: My Lords, do the figures which my noble friend gives include the vast amount of advertising carried within programmes, including programmes on the BBC, under the spurious heading of sponsorship? That includes the logos of a large number of firms which certainly, to a naive person like myself, looks like large-scale advertising.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the answers that I have given do not refer to the BBC, although I understand from representations which have been made, that some people object to the BBC promoting its own programmes quite so extensively as they do, even to the extent of promoting forthcoming programmes during the credits of the previous programme. The restrictions to which my noble friend refers and which are the subject of this Question do not include sponsorship or accidental, perhaps deliberate, plugging for individual products within programmes. If my noble friend has any evidence, he should write to the ITC about that.
Lord Bridges: My Lords, has the Minister taken up with the BBC the point he made about the relative inaudibility of Radio 3 compared with Classic FM. I have done so with the controller of Radio 3 who denies that there is any such problem. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to deal with that matter which is of widespread public interest.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I did what I thought was even more appropriate. I took it up with the directors of Classic FM who told me that they
1148
broadcast at the volume which they are required to by communications regulations. Perhaps we should look further into that matter.

Business
3.7 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., my noble friend the Leader of the House will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is being made in another place: on Kosovo.

European Tax Harmonisation (Veto) Bill [H.L.]
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to require Ministers of the Crown to obtain the approval of Parliament and the public before agreeing in the Council of Ministers to European Community proposals for tax harmonisation. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time. — (Lord Waddington.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Business of the House: Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order 44 (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be dispensed with to enable the Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill to be taken through all its stages this day. —(Baroness Jay of Paddington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill
Brought from the Commons, endorsed with the Certificate of the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill, and read a first time.
Then, Standing Order 44 having been dispensed with (pursuant to Resolution of today), Bill read a second time; Committee negatived; Bill read a third time, and passed.

Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Bill [H.L.]
3.10 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 1 [Referral of young offenders to youth offender panels]:
Lord Dholakia Lord Dholakia moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 15, after ("absolutely") insert ("or conditionally").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, my amendment is designed to introduce a little more flexibility to the lower tariff of sentencing and thus would alleviate almost all cases having to be referred to the youth offender panel. Of course, there are some exceptions which I shall cite later. I do not wish to anticipate what the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, will say about the amendment tabled in his name and in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Renton, Lord Thomas of Gresford and Lord Campbell of Alloway. At this stage, suffice to say that the noble Lord's amendment is designed to introduce discretion in the process, whereas my amendment limits discretion at the lower end of the sentencing process.
There is clarity in Clause 1 of the Bill on which offences do not require referral to youth offender panels. I refer, for example, to: an offence where sentence is fixed by law; an offence where a custodial sentence or hospital order is envisaged, or one where an absolute discharge is appropriate. However, we need to be aware of the considerable variation in sentencing in youth and magistrates' courts. Some courts are more punitive than others and, despite sentencing guidelines from the Magistrates' Association, such variations often cause surprise and concern.
I believe, therefore, that there is no single yardstick by which we can establish a uniform method of working in the courts. However, we can restrict the discretions so that variations in sentencing are not wide. My amendment will do that in three different ways. First, it will allow magistrates to deal with trivial cases without having to refer them to the youth courts. Secondly, unlike total discretion, it will restrict magistrates to use discretion at the lower end of the tariff, thus introducing a more balanced approach to sentencing. Thirdly, it will reduce the workload on youth offender panels when trivial offences are removed from being referred to them, thus achieving the Government's objective of allowing youth offender panels to work with more serious offenders.
There are offences where absolute discharge is appropriate. Equally, a conditional discharge, which puts the onus on a youngster not to commit another offence within a specific time, could have a salutary effect on him or her. We must accept that some offences do not require youngsters to enter into a contract. A conditional discharge would serve that purpose.
Perhaps I may introduce another argument in support of the amendment. I may be wrong but I have always considered absolute discharge and conditional discharge to be part and parcel of the same thinking process. When I served as a magistrate, the exercise I was often given was whether an individual should be discharged and, if so, whether such discharge should be absolute or conditional. I do not believe that one can single out what is absolute and what is conditional unless one has heard all the facts in the court.
I have more serious reservations about giving the courts complete discretion to decide whether or not to refer an eligible young offender to the panel than do the noble Lords who have put their names to Amendment
1150
No. 2. There is a real risk that some magistrates— perhaps many—would dislike the idea of losing control of the disposal of the young offender to a panel and would use their discretion by rarely, if ever, making such a referral. If that happened, it would undermine the aim of Clause 1 which is to deal with most young offenders appearing in court for the first time in a more suitable setting than a traditional court.
It is clearly not the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, to undermine the youth referral panels. In a later amendment tabled in his name, one can clearly see the merit of the idea for many young people. Indeed, if the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, was to chair every youth court, we would be confident that he would use his discretion imaginatively and constructively. Unfortunately, I fear that some colleagues on the Bench would use their discretion much more cautiously and in a far less positive and enlightened way.
Let us remind ourselves what we would lose if the proposed youth panel system was jeopardised because magistrates chose to keep most cases in the youth court. The panel would be better able fully to involve the young person and the parents in discussing the offence, its impact on the victim and the steps that should be taken to make amends and to ensure that there is no repetition. In the formal proceedings of the youth court, young offenders and their parents often fail fully to understand what is happening. The legal procedures can hinder the process of young people and parents speaking and contributing fully to the discussion. Drawing up a contract could concentrate on the best course of action to prevent re-offending, including attention to the welfare needs of the young person and his or her family, such as family counselling, educational measures and help to overcome drug abuse.
Giving magistrates complete discretion runs the risk of wrecking this imaginative new development by starving the panels of referrals. However, there may be a case for giving the courts a more limited discretion than that suggested by the later amendment. The strongest case for discretion relates to minor cases where a conditional discharge might be appropriate. Will the Minister consider the "third way" between the Bill as it stands and the amendments that are likely to follow? That would be to insert in Clause 1 an additional ground upon which the court would not be required to refer an offender to a panel. The wording might be to the effect that the court is satisfied that the offence is not serious and that there are special circumstances which make a conditional discharge the appropriate sentence in all the circumstances. Certainly, courts could be required to give their reasons for reaching that conclusion.
I consider mandatory sentencing to be more objectionable when it requires a court to pass a more severe or onerous penalty than it would think right if it had unfettered discretion, and the requirements of a contract could be more onerous than a conditional discharge. However, the same objections do not apply to cases where a young person is mandatorily diverted to a youth referral panel instead of receiving a community sentence such as supervision, probation, tagging or a community service order. A more limited amendment

1151
on the lines suggested would not run the risk of undermining the highly constructive proposal contained in Clause 1. I beg to move.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Dholakia tabled an amendment which will add a tiny discretion to the referral order process. That discretion—to discharge the case conditionally as well as absolutely—will enable the magistrates to deal effectively and appropriately with very minor offenders. In so doing, it will avoid clogging the youth offender panel system with young offenders—perhaps I really mean young people—who have a non-existent degree of criminality.
Should the magistrates' assessment be wrong about the degree of criminality that is or is not developing in the young person, the referral order is still available should a second offence occur. I support my noble friend's amendment.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, there is a world of difference and a fundamental distinction between discretion to make or not to make the order which is the subject matter of the next amendment, Amendment No. 2, and the discretion with which this amendment, Amendment No. 1, is concerned as to whether to make an absolute or a conditional discharge. The problem with the type of distinction concerned with the subject matter of Amendment No. 1 is that there is an inherent element of contradiction. Indeed, it is the type of amendment which could, in effect, from a practical point of view, damage the working of the experiment which, on its merits, is wholly supported.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, as he moved his amendment. It was most interesting. Can the Minister tell the House, for the benefit of people like myself, what kind of conditions might be attached to a conditional discharge in these circumstances so that we can see to what extent the amendment would affect the issue?
Viscount Tenby: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, on the ingenuity of his amendment which, to some extent, also embraces the following amendment which stands in the name of, among others, the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham.
On the subject of absolute and conditional discharges, speaking from my own experience as a magistrate, perhaps I may point out that absolute discharges are rare whereas conditional discharges are given every day of the week and have a useful purpose in tying in the offender to a period of behaviour of, say, 12 months or even two years in some cases.
We must be careful with regard to youth offender panels because they will be committing youngsters who have committed and pleaded guilty to a first offence which is not very serious in nature. I am thinking of criminal damage, such as graffiti and painting on walls or something of that kind. If, as
1152
one will have to do under the terms of the Bill, one has to commit such an offender to a youth panel with its associated headmasters, criminal psychologists, magistrates and everybody else, that will take quite some time just when we are trying to fast-track the time between the commission of a crime and the execution of its sentence. At the moment, such a person would appear before a youth court and would probably be given a reparation order. That would take about 10 minutes as opposed to the three weeks of the protracted process involving the youth panel.
However, having said that—I come now to why I find the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, so difficult and why I have a great deal of angst about it—Amendment No. 2 would drive a coach and horses through the Crown jewel (if I may mix my metaphors) of this Bill, which is the establishment of youth offender panels. Therefore, I take a certain position on that amendment which I shall relate to the House when we reach it.
With regard to the gallant attempt of the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, to try to circumvent that, I am not really sure whether confining this amendment to absolute and conditional discharges would entirely do the job that the noble Lord wants it to do.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I too sympathise with the ingenious amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, in its extension of the discretion of magistrates. However, my own view, on which I shall expand a little later, is that it is not as satisfactory as the more complete extension of discretion which is represented by Amendment No. 2 in the next grouping.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, asked me to answer a specific point and I am happy to deal with that immediately. A conditional discharge is simply a discharge which is given to an offender on a plea of guilty or a finding of guilt; the condition being one of not reoffending during the period of the discharge. As the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, indicated, they often run for one year and sometimes for two years, but the requirement not to reoffend is the only condition. If the offender reoffends within the period of the discharge period, he or she is taken back to court and may be dealt with for the original offence. In that sense, perhaps the term "conditional discharge" is capable of being misleading. A conditional discharge is as simple as I have described it.
I am grateful, as always, for the careful, patient and, indeed, seductive way in which the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, moved his amendment. I have said on several occasions that the introduction of referral orders and youth offender panels is intended to be a fundamental shift in the way in which we deal with young, first-time offenders. I entirely agree; with the description given by the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby. This is not intended to be another sentencing option. It is a deliberate policy decision that, where the referral conditions are met, no other disposal should be available to the court.

1153
The exceptions are those which the noble Lord indicated. One envisages that the more common exceptions would be an absolute discharge or a custodial sentence. An absolute discharge may well be appropriate where there is technical guilt but perhaps the absence of any significant fault. A custodial sentence must remain available for those where the offence is sufficiently serious and/or there is a need to protect the public. We believe that there are strong and persuasive reasons for allowing the court that discretion in those circumstances.
We do not believe that there is a compelling argument to include conditional discharges. The problem with conditional discharges—this is why I am so grateful to have the opportunity to reply to the noble Baroness—is that they often give the impression to both the public and the offender that the offending behaviour is of no real consequence. A referral order is designed, and is intended, to be a proactive intervention—a conditional discharge is not that—which focuses on the needs of the young person in diverting him or her from further offending.
An interesting aspect of a referral order and its consequences is that it is internally flexible. That is the key to it. Therefore, as a very wide variety of circumstances will lead to such an order being made, those who devise the contract can approach the matter flexibly and focus on the offender. In other words, following an appropriate and wide-ranging inquiry, they will devise a contract which will assist the offender not to reoffend. I think that that is the policy difference between the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, and I. We have discussed this matter on a number of occasions and I am bound to say that I remain unconvinced. If the noble Lord wishes to press his amendment, I invite your Lordships not to assent to it for the reasons that I have briefly given.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response to the amendment which I tabled partly as a result of a meeting that I attended recently of the All-Party Group on Penal Affairs. The extent to which we tend to put mandatory provisions in our legislation is a matter of serious concern. Therefore, I am not in the least surprised by that response. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, will forgive me for saying that if this is the stance that the Minister is going to take on other amendments, we shall not get much further with this. We should seriously consider whether, as a matter of natural justice, we ought not to forget that from time to time discretion can play a very important part. When those discretions are limited, or to an extent controlled, then it will give justice a bad name.
I have heard everything. I shall certainly keep an eye on this matter and table Questions over time as to how the provision is working. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Windlesham Lord Windlesham moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 21, leave out from ("court") to ("to") and insert ("may order the offender").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, two weeks ago, in replying to a lengthy and important debate at Report stage about restrictions on evidence in rape trials, the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, remarked on the absence of unanimity on the part of the movers, both as to the nature of the problem addressed and the proposed solution. In contrast, Amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4 have a transparent simplicity and directness; indeed, they go to the heart of the criminal process and the principles which uphold it.
The amendments would have the effect of conferring on a magistrates' court a discretionary power to refer to a youth offender panel young first offenders under the age of 18 who do not deserve a custodial sentence. The policy of diverting suitable young offenders away from custody has been, for many years, a Holy Grail of the penal system. It is easy to proclaim, but it is very difficult to achieve in practice. The referral orders in Clause 1 of the Bill are a novel form of sentence designed to provide an opportunity for a young person, accompanied by his or her parents whenever possible, or other representatives, to review their offending behaviour with the help of a professionally qualified panel. An agreement or "contract", in the wording of Clause 8 will then be sought with the offender, containing a number of provisions designed to prevent further offending.
All of that is well thought out and offers some hope of preventing a repetitive cycle of offending. It is inevitable that there will be disappointments—perhaps many disappointments—but there should also be successes. So, in short, it is an experiment, and one that is well worth pursuing. I emphasise to your Lordships that nothing in this amendment is intended to contest the policy objectives of keeping as many selected young people as possible out of custody, which we know in many cases is more likely to harden their criminality rather than reduce it. I am confident that these objectives are widely accepted in the House; indeed, in the previous debate the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, referred to these proposals as the "Crown jewels" of this part of the Bill.
There is therefore only one matter which divides noble Lords who support this group of amendments and the Government who I anticipate will not. It does not relate to the merits of the proposed new disposal in any way. It relates to the central question of whether it should be a mandatory or discretionary decision by the magistrates' courts.
The arguments against mandatory sentencing are well known and will need to be repeated often if the gradual slide down the slippery slope of the past few years is to be resisted. Mandatory sentencing is one of the most fundamental changes of direction in criminal policy for a long time; and it is of the greatest importance. It should be on the facts of each case and the characteristics of the individual offender

1155
before the court that magistrates, like judges, decide on the type and severity of the disposal at the conclusion of a trial. The fact that a referral order differs from a sentence in a conventional sense does not alter its nature as a compulsory disposal. As the Bill is drafted, no discretion is left with the magistrates. According to Clause l(2)(b) they must,
"sentence the offender for the offence by ordering him to be referred to a youth offender panel".
This amendment would alter the wording to read, "the court may order the offender to be referred to a panel". Such a simple amendment would render unnecessary the dense thicket of Clause 2, which then goes on to define which young offenders will be eligible for compulsory referrals and which would not.
In that regard the draftsman has had to invent a new sub-category to get around an awkward corner. Under the Bill, compulsory referral follows if an offender, who has never previously been convicted of a criminal offence or been bound over to keep the peace or be of good behaviour, pleads guilty to the offence and any associated offences. But what happens if he is inconsiderate enough to plead guilty to one offence but not to others? Is he or she then eligible for referral or not? That is the sort of thing which causes the computer to crash. The draftsman avoided such an outcome by saying, in elaborate language, that in such circumstances, but only in those circumstances, the court had better have some discretion after all to decide whether or not it would be appropriate to make a referral order. But that is confined narrowly to the question of eligibility where a young person has pleaded guilty to one offence, but not to some other offences. This is an example of how a blanket provision, allowing only for minutely prescribed statutory exceptions, leaves no power in the hands of the magistrates' court to use its own judgment, or its common sense, in deciding whether or not a young person is suitable for this promising new disposal.
I conclude with this observation. There is a tendency of which many of us in this House are aware—it is to be seen in the recent Crime and Disorder Act as well—for the Government, having worked so diligently and thoroughly in developing imaginative new policies on criminal justice, to insist that every provision should be implemented in one specific way. Such a desire for total control is not necessary; indeed, it is potentially dangerous. It introduces undesirable rigidity into the administration of justice. It diminishes the responsibility of sentencers and sooner or later it is inevitable that some hard cases will result. Why is that? Because human behaviour will fail to fit into a predetermined pattern. I beg to move.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, since I was not able to take part in the earlier stages of the Bill, I should perhaps make clear to the Minister that although I want to say a few words in support of the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Windlesham, I wholly support and approve of the
1156
general thrust and principles of Part I of the Bill. I fully support the powers of the court to refer people to the youth offender panel.
This Bill contains the framework for imaginative means for dealing with young offenders. I fully support the suggestion that through reparation young offenders should be made to face up to what they have done. I believe that is an admirable move towards tackling the causes of crime among young people. I have read the speeches made by the Minister at each stage of these debates and I applaud what he has said about the purpose of the Bill. However, I believe there is a principle here as stated by my noble friend Lord Windlesham. The principle is surely that the courts should always have the necessary discretion to allow them in all the diverse kinds of cases and as regards the diverse kinds of offenders who appear before them to do that which they believe is justice.
I am opposed to mandatory sentences. As I say, I believe this is a matter of principle. I have made clear on other occasions in this Chamber during the passage of other Bills my strong opposition to mandatory sentencing. It could be said that this is only a small intrusion into the principle of mandatory sentencing, but nevertheless it is an intrusion. I understand that the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, fears that if this amendment is passed it would drive a coach and horses through the purpose and intention of Part I of the Bill. I put the following point to the noble Viscount. Does that not in a way show a lack of confidence in those who serve as magistrates under the noble Viscount and are members of the Magistrates' Association? I believe that in the vast majority of cases covered by the present proposals, referrals will be made I believe that magistrates should be encouraged to make referrals, just as in sentencing in the higher courts the Court of Criminal Appeal lays down guidelines for courts to follow.
I believe that inevitably there are bound to be cases which although they meet the criteria set out for compulsory referral do not require it. I cannot see what advantage there is to those who are referred that delay should be caused by the referral of cases that need not be referred. I believe that this Bill would be a better Bill if it retained that degree of discretion. It is for that reason that I support my noble friend Lord Windlesham in what he has said.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I made it clear at Second Reading of this Bill that I was a wholehearted supporter of the youth offender panels that are now proposed. Indeed I made the comment that I felt the measure was far too restrictive and that the youth offender panels should be introduced—as in Scotland—as soon as possible to cover the whole range of juvenile offending. The Bill as now drafted has a rigidity about it which is completely unacceptable. I am wholly a supporter of the principle to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Carlisle of Bucklow, referred a moment ago; namely, that discretion must remain with the sentencer, the

1157
magistrates' court. As experience shows, it is impossible for this Parliament to envisage all the circumstances which can arise which bring a young person before the court. It is right that a magistrate who knows all the facts should have the opportunity of imposing such order or sentence as he thinks fit.
I recall the history of the suspended sentence. When the concept of suspended sentences was first introduced, so anxious were the promoters of that idea to ensure that it took a hold upon the judiciary of this country that the sentences were made compulsory. However, it was not long before the injustices which arose from compulsory suspended sentences became clear. As a result of that there was a relaxation of the compulsory conditions. The irony is that the previous government were anxious to tighten up sentencing, but they effectively removed the suspended sentence from the armoury of the court. It can now be imposed only in exceptional circumstances which have been defined as to be so far outside the normal run of things as to occur rarely indeed. Since those provisions were brought in I can recall only one case in my experience where a suspended sentence has been imposed.
While rigidity is imposed upon the courts it is curious to note that under Clauses 2, 3 and 4 there is a built-in mechanism for the Secretary of State, by regulations, to change the compulsory and discretionary referral conditions which are set out in Clauses 1 and 2. Therefore as this Bill comes before us it is already envisaged that changes will have to be made. If one looks at Clause 2(4), one can see that the Secretary of State at some future time has to consider such matters as the offender's age, how he has pleaded, what he is being convicted of, his previous convictions and so on. Therefore the mechanism for change in order to cope with the injustices that will arise is built into the Bill. Why should the Secretary of State have this power by regulation to do something at a future stage when a magistrate who has the young offender before him can impose the necessary order or sentence by which justice will be done? It seems to me that the Government's thinking on this matter is far too rigid. I support these amendments.
Lord Taylor of Warwick: My Lords, I support the proposed amendment of my noble friend Lord Windlesham. I make it clear that I welcome the proposal to refer young, first-time offenders to youth offender panels. I regard that as a positive alternative to the other disposals available to magistrates. However, it is the compulsory nature of the referral order which I oppose. I share the view that the order should be optional and not mandatory. As presently drafted, the clause will be seen as an attack on the discretion of magistrates. They will be given no choice and no chance to exercise their own view. I ask the rhetorical question: who is in a better position to decide a case than magistrates who hear the individual facts of the offence and the personal background of the offender?
1158
In Committee the Minister described the importance of the youth offender panel as the "triggering of an inquiry". But in seeking to exercise their discretion as to sentence, magistrates are already able to order a variety of reports, including, of course, one from the Probation Service. That would require a quite proper delay during which time a detailed inquiry would be carried out. I believe that one of the strengths of our Lay Bench in particular is that it comprises responsible people drawn from a variety of backgrounds. I particularly welcome the fact that there are now more magistrates from the ethnic minority communities. They should be encouraged, not discouraged, to use their own common sense and judgment. As presently drafted, this measure is the antithesis of that.
I once represented a youth in Birmingham who was before the court for the first time. He had boasted that he could do 100 meters in record time. That sounds impressive, but he was talking about breaking into electricity meters! He was on a determined course and to pursue a youth panel contract with him would have caused more harm than good. At the very time when this Government are trying to encourage more people to come forward as magistrates surely it is unwise to give the signal that they cannot be trusted to use this new form of sentence intelligently.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, at the risk of producing a discord in this great harmony of conviction that the magistrates must have discretion in this matter—I have to say that I am not familiar with the working of the youth courts south of the Border and I do not in any way pretend to be—it seems to me that what the Government are proposing is not the imposition of a rigid rule on magistrates but the moving of the responsibility for the flexible approach to what happens to a young offender from the magistrates to the panel. It is completely moving it, with limited exceptions.
The problems of keeping first offenders from offending again have been intractable and very difficult to solve. It seems to me that there is justification in trying something quite different. If the magistrates have discretion a particular sentence would be quite different, but they would still possibly do what they have done before. It seems to me—I may have misunderstood—that young people will come to know that if they offend for the first time they will, virtually inevitably, find themselves before a panel having to discuss in a way that they have never been able to discuss with magistrates what they have done, why they have done it, whether they should make reparation and what they will have to do in order to get out of the bit, as one might say. They will have to do that possibly with a parent or two parents present. They will have to do all the things which are described in the Bill. If that is not the inevitable consequence of a first offence they will see it as they saw it before.
I think there is something in what the Government are suggesting. I think the traditional defence of the freedom of a magistrate to do what a magistrate wills

1159
is not the right response to what the Government are proposing at the moment. I do not think—unless I change my mind in the course of the discussion— that I will be able to support my noble friend's amendment.
Lord Lane: My Lords, the sad fact is that the mandatory sentence or mandatory disposal order will inevitably be a potential miscarriage of justice. The sentencing court has the difficult task of trying to reconcile all kinds of apparently irreconcilable matters. It has to determine questions of deterrence, questions of retribution, questions of punishment, questions of rehabilitation and so on. Having thought all those things out, together with the situation of the victim and the situation of the offender, the magistrate or court sentencing comes to a conclusion as to what is just and what is fair; solution "X". Then, notionally, they turn to the statute book to see whether they are allowed by statute to do what they want to; namely, sentence "X". If the statute says "yes" then, fair enough, there is no need to have the mandatory order. If, on the other hand, they are prevented from doing what they consider to be just and fair by the terms of the mandatory sentence, they are then bound to do something which is unjust or unfair. That is not a situation into which any court—a magistrates' court or otherwise—should, respectfully, be put.
It may be that this is a very small example of the mandatory sentence, but, as has already been stated, it is unfortunately an indication of the way things are going. One hoped from what one had heard when the present Government were in opposition that perhaps mandatory sentences would disappear altogether—as indeed they should—but, no, matters have become steadily worse and this is an indication of a further slide, as has been described, down the slope. I suggest, respectfully, that this amendment should be supported.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I firmly support the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Windlesham. The main issue that arises of course, as he said and as others have said, is whether there should be a mandator)' power on the part of the court to refer a case to a youth panel. I would add only one thought. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lane, with all his experience as Lord Chief Justice, my noble friend Lord Carlisle of Bucklow and all noble Lords who have judicial experience, whether current or in the past, know that the circumstances vary, that the unexpected always arises and that ever to fetter the discretion of the court is a mistake. The court is there, it sees the accused and hears all the circumstances. For Parliament to fetter the discretion of the court would lead, occasionally, to an injustice. I therefore warmly support the amendment for that main reason.
There is another issue—a less important one, I grant your Lordships—and it is this: what is a sentence? The Government have put forward the concept that if a court instead of imposing custody, a fine, a bind over, or an absolute discharge, refers the matter to a youth panel. In the wording of the Bill that is a
1160
sentence. I strongly suggest that this is not what a sentence is. I think, therefore, that, purely from the drafting point of view, these amendments also should be supported.
Viscount Tenby: My Lords, I always thought that this amendment would give me a certain amount of angst and I have had it by the bucketful following the lucid and very fair introduction of his amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham. I also appreciate that I would get into trouble with my own association, a point that has been confirmed by the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle of Bucklow. However, I suppose I must press on as best I can.
At an early stage of the Bill, when I discussed the fact that this clause related only to those young offenders who had pleaded guilty to a first offence, the Minister—I hope I am right in this; I have not checked it—was honest enough to say, "Well, yes, at a future time that quite rigid class could be extended by order". In other words, one could get a situation where the ground is being cut from underneath the legally and judicially appointed juvenile court and magistrates' Bench and taken over by what I can only describe, in a certain context, as a non-judicial body; that is, the youth panel. That does present difficulties.
However, I have to come back to my one very big reservation. I am not entirely sure that the moment one gives this discretion magistrates will not be tempted to hang on to the cases all the time, a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour. That is the big problem. I think that the whole concept of this youth panel treatment of offenders is so important that I am not sure that I am prepared to take that risk.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, 1 spoke at some length during the previous stages of the Bill and I think the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn. and I came to a gentlemen's agreement that we: had heard enough of what we had to hear from each other and the only sensible thing to do, where there was a position of amicable disagreement as a matter of principle, was to take this matter to the opinion of the House. Today, I should like to try to persuade the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, that his fear that the amendment could drive, I think he said, a carriage and four or a coach and horses through the Bill is, with the greatest respect to him, misconceived.
Those of us who support this amendment believe that the experiment is a very good one and is well worth having. All we wish to do is to improve the way in which it is administered to the individual young offender. In view of the way that this proposal was put by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lane, I hope that the noble Viscount can see, from the view of a former Lord Chief Justice, that we are not driving a carriage and four through this provision; we are seeking to improve the way in which it is applied in practice.
The only other matter is to seek respectfully to answer the concern of my noble friend Lady Carnegy. Naturally—I say this without a hint of patronage or

1161
any offence—not being intimately concerned with the theory or practice of crime and punishment, my noble friend is concerned with the deterrent effect of an automatic sentence. "They will know", she says, "these young people, that if they do this, this is what will happen to them".
Even as a Recorder, which is a fairly unimportant form of judicial office compared with that of the Lord Chief Justice, one had to be very careful about deterrent sentences. For all kinds of reasons they do not work in practice, even if one has a discretion to impose them. But where they are automatic, they are as dangerous as dynamite. They can impose manifest injustice. For that reason I hope that my noble friend can, on the merits of the argument that she has heard today, take the view that she could conscientiously support this amendment as seeking to improve what is a first-rate and necessary experiment. The inevitable possibility of error is a deprivation of due justice. That element will persist unless the amendment is accepted. No reasoned argument has been advanced in favour of a mandatory regime, other than by my noble friend Lady Carnegy, as affording any practical advantage over a discretionary regime.
There is no reason to suppose that magistrates, justices of the peace, are either incompetent or incapable of exercising their discretion in the proper manner. Is it not wrong in principle for the Government to interfere with the exercise of judicial discretion in any context? The Bill, for no good reason, derogates from that principle without any convincing justification whatever. I have not heard any such justification yet from the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn; perhaps we shall hear it today. It is said that the proposal is an experiment. That will not do. It is said by the noble Viscount that the amendment would drive a coach and horses through the provision. With respect, that will not do. It has been shown that the working of the experiment would be enhanced if the amendment were accepted. It is a wholly novel and unnecessary imposition to have a mandatory sentence for the reasons that have been given. I commend this amendment, to which I have put my name.
4 p.m.
Lord Warner: My Lords, perhaps I may remind noble Lords of the context of these clauses relating to youth offender panels. I suggest that this set of clauses represents unfinished business from the Crime and Disorder Act. The Crime and Disorder Act provided a new principal aim for all those working in the area of youth justice; namely, to prevent offending. That is no less an aim for those working in the youth courts than it is for those working in youth offending teams or juvenile secure facilities. It means that we are introducing a concept of effectiveness of sentence, as well as the elements of justice and fairness.
These provisions are an attempt to introduce the concept that we want a break with the past. We ought to be concerned about the point raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby; namely, whether magistrates
1162
will be tempted to hang onto cases rather than make that break with the past and refer people who meet the referral order conditions to youth offender panels. I suggest that we should have to be heroically optimistic about human nature if we did not believe that magistrates would be tempted to hang on to cases rather than make those referrals.
Clause 2 of the Bill already includes a considerable number of conditions which must be met before a case is referred to a youth offender panel. Magistrates will already have to exercise their discretion and judgment in applying those conditions to particular cases. I suggest that that is adequate provision for judicial discretion, and that we are seeking to give life and intent to the principal aim in the Crime and Disorder Act of preventing offending. If we were to accept this amendment, we should be weakening the break with the past that these clauses seek to achieve. We should be wise to resist this amendment.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, I wish to make a couple of points on this group of amendments. First, I strongly support the remarks of my noble friend Lord Renton about removing the word "sentence" from this part of the clause. I believe that an "order" should be made; that would give the right impression.
Secondly, my aim, which is for the maximum number of youth offenders to be referred to a youth panel, would be hindered by this amendment. I certainly look forward to the time when regulations are laid for the widening of the use of youth panels. While I do not consider that the amendment drives a carriage and four through the Bill, I also do not consider that the use of the compulsory order is "dynamite", as my noble friend said.
It seems to me that the situations in which an order must be made are very strict and limited in their use. I therefore have doubts about the amendment so far as the reduction of that compulsory element is concerned. We have discussed mandatory sentencing. However, I do not believe that this context is the same' as the context in which we normally discuss mandatory sentencing. It is rather like a red rag to a bull which is side-tracking us from our aim here. As others have said, that aim is to break with the past as regards youth offenders. I should like to see the maximum number of first time offenders being passed immediately to the youth panel. I see no reason for removing the very limited compulsory part of the provision. There is a discretionary part where there is scope for doubt. Therefore, I wish to see the limited part remaining compulsory.
Lord Renton: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, perhaps he would allow me to intervene. If the amendments are accepted there will still be the opportunity for the court in a non-mandatory way to refer as many cases as they like to the youth panels.
Viscount Brentford: Yes, my Lords, that is obviously correct.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I speak as a mere layman in these matters. Nevertheless, I wish to say to my

1163
noble friend Lord Tenby and others who also have doubts about the amendment that if Clause 2(3) and (4) remain in the Bill the Secretary of State will retain the power to deal with a situation where some magistrates may be tempted to hold on to cases which they should not in the general context of the Bill. I support the amendment and trust that the Government will accept it.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I believe the amendments will make it too easy for magistrates to avoid making a referral order. Unlike within the children's panel system in Scotland, the young offender in England and Wales will only get one chance of a youth offender contract. There is a danger that young people will slip through the net. There are so many magistrates that I fear it will be too difficult to have a uniform approach to ensuring the imposition of a referral order for a second and potentially qualifying offence.
I believe that in 1968 the 100 sheriffs were happy to give up their juvenile court duties which are now restricted to proving cases where the grounds of referral in the children's panel have been disputed. I wonder whether the magistrates are being a wee bit touchy. I cannot support the amendments.
Viscount Runciman of Doxford: My Lords, I regret that I also was unable to attend the House during the early stages of the Bill. I am conscious that my experience of the criminal justice system is limited to chairing the Royal Commission from 1991 to 1993, whose terms of reference explicitly—and we were glad that it was so—excluded sentencing.
I feel bound to speak in support of the amendment. There is a point of principle here. I have not been persuaded by speakers who have opposed the amendment that it is not a point of principle—that it is not an important point of principle or that it does not matter that it is a point of principle—because we are dealing in a different context with something which is not quite a sentencing option in the ordinary sense or dealing with relatively minor offences.
I find it difficult to understand the objections to the amendment along the lines that the Bill as drafted is not imposing a rigid rule. It is imposing a rigid rule and I entirely endorse what many speakers said—including the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lane, who speaks with far more authority than I could ever do—about the dangers of seeking to fetter the discretion of the courts by statute anywhere in the system, however trivial or serious the offence and whatever the nature of the offender. It is precisely because of the enormous variation in circumstances across the cases that come before the court that it is not only dangerous in principle but counter-productive in practice to attempt to fetter the discretion of judges or magistrates by statute. For that reason, I support the amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, this point was discussed on amendments that I moved at the Committee
1164
stage and again in the modified form at the Report stage. I support the new formulation moved by my noble friend Lord Windlesham.
In Committee, the Minister saw compulsory referral as what he described as a fundamental point of principle. It was the opposite point of principle from that just set out by my noble and learned friend Lord Carlisle. The Minister's principle seemed to be that magistrates should not be allowed to deal with first offenders who plead guilty to all the offences for which they are before the court. I do not think that that is a good or fundamental principle.
Throughout the Bill we have all supported restorative justice which will be implemented by these panels. We all hope and believe that it will work well and in due course will be extended, if that seems to be right.
The Minister said in Committee that restorative justice could be obtained only by a panel. I accept that, too. But his next sentence was:
"That is why it is mandatory"—[Official Report, 18/1/99; col. 379.]
That did not seem to me to follow at all from the earlier sentence. I believe that magistrates are the best people to decide in each case, and in the particular circumstances of each case, whether restorative justice through the panel system is the best sentence to pass. I use the word "sentence" with due deference to my noble friend Lord Renton. It seems to me that whatever word might be used in the legislation— I think the official word for it is "disposal"—many of those youths who are affected by it will see it as a sentence. It imposes, or in many cases will impose, a financial penalty on them. It imposes, or can impose, restrictions on their movements and so on. It has the nature of a sentence in the way it will ultimately work through the contract system.
I agree that the contract is supposedly voluntary, but it is only voluntary if the young person does not wish to go back before the magistrates for refusing to agree to a contract at all. It has something of the nature of a sentence within it. That is one reason I think it best for the magistrate to make the judgment in each case.
The Minister also said at another stage in our discussions that pilot schemes would be necessary in different parts of the country and then the model would be developed until it covered the whole of England and Wales. That is entirely correct and presupposes that the model will be improved. In the early stages it seems to me that magistrates will in some cases be a little reluctant to send all cases on. But as they gain more confidence that the panels work and as the panels themselves work better as a result of the pilots and of experience, magistrates will gain confidence in the panels and we hope they will see that they work. They will send more and more eligible young people to the panels to be dealt with by them.
After all, the Bill gives the Secretary of State discretion, by allowing the conditions for both compulsory and voluntary referral to be varied by order at a later stage. We all believe that they will be extended, as both the noble Lord, Lord Thomas and the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, pointed out. They may be extended a very long way; well away from first offenders, for example. There is nothing to say that ultimately this will not be extended to every offender under 18. In theory, under the Bill it could be

1165
compulsory for every offender, if the appropriate orders were laid by the Secretary of State, although I do not think that is likely to happen.
The Minister is also giving magistrates a little discretion, as has been pointed out, in the sense that they can impose a custodial sentence at one end or an absolute discharge at the other end, or a hospital order. However, the Bill gives no discretion in between. The amendment seeks to remedy that fault. I believe that the magistrate should have discretion. I also believe that the panels would work better, particularly in the early stages, if the magistrates used their discretion to send what they thought were the most appropriate cases to the panels, where they would be most effective, so as to build up experience and make the panels gain experience and work better. We want them to work better; we want them to work well; and that is why I think we should trust the magistrates and support this amendment.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, essentially, this has nothing to do with whether or not one trusts the magistrates. Perhaps I might be allowed a personal observation, which is to say how great a pleasure it is to all of us to see the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lane, as former Lord Chief Justice, contributing to this debate from his usual place, despite the fact that I respectfully disagree with his view.
When one listens to a debate of this kind, one appreciates the very great care and thought that has gone into every contribution. A thought not entirely ignoble also struck me, which is how, on listening to various contributions, one reflects how deeply conservative many lawyers are, even some who have been former Home Office Ministers. It was not until the noble Baroness offered her contribution that I said, not even sotto voce but to myself, "at last"—because here was a contribution which not only supported the stance that I was about to adopt, but which actually took an independent reflective view of what was being proposed. There was no shibboleth, no historic baggage: just a calm, reflective view.
One or two myths have been regularly resurrected, and they ought now to have a decent and fairly prompt burial. The objection to mandatory sentence as a practice in principle is as identified, I think, by a number of your Lordships—certainly by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lane, and also by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. They were pointing, I think, to the essential disadvantages as being undue rigidity—I think I quote— and possible injustice.
Perhaps we may spend a moment looking at the scheme. The scheme in fact requires in most circumstances—not where a custodial sentence is appropriate and not where an absolute discharge is right and just, but in most circumstances—the youth court to deal with those under 18 who are a particular category of offender: they are first-time offenders who have pleaded guilty. Notoriously, as the noble Lord, Lord Warner, was indicating, that is the class of offender, attention to which is likely to be most productive, to use his phrase, in preventing re-offending.
1166
They have not become accustomed to crime. They have not been playing the system, because they have pleaded guilty. I take entirely the point that was made by the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, that this is a distinct category of young offender, as regards whom our purpose must be to have an intervention at the earliest possible stage. I come back to the objection, putting it in inverted commas, "in principle", which I mentioned a moment or two ago. The point of this referral system is to afford abundant flexibility: indeed, I suggest, accurately I believe, more flexibility than the courts have at present.
The power is there to create an appropriate forum which is rather less legalistic than the magistrates can be—it is not the magistrates' fault: it is the rigidity of the present system—with more information, pace the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Warwick, more informed input and knowledge than the youth court can presently be given. Why is that? It involves the young offender directly in the development of a contract which is to affect his life. Again, notoriously, large numbers of young offenders in this class have never actually been obliged—I use the word deliberately—to have any responsibility for their lives, nor encouraged appropriately to think that responsibility truly lies with them. That is why they re-offend.
The decision, which will be obligatory in most cases, is that the young person will be obliged to go to the panel. It is much more difficult, I contend, for a young offender to have to look at his or her own behaviour, to examine properly the consequences of what, after all, is a crime. Even though the crime may have had a label which renders it apparently insignificant as a statistic, many of these crimes are not at all insignificant if one considers the offender. It obliges them for the first time to do that difficult thing: actually to look at what they have done and recognise the consequences.
That is why we are looking for a new device. It is the crown jewel. It is a forum which involves—sometimes obliges—parents, guardians, other family members, other influential adults and, where they wish it after appropriate thought, the victims also. That is a spectrum which is not available to the magistrates, and because one has the flexibility of the ultimate remedy—that is the contract— the flexibility of the ultimate remedy is in fact what tells against the apparently attractive proposition that this is inflexible and over-rigid.
It is not. There will be infinite flexibility available to the panels: I repeat, far more than the magistrates have at present. This is intended to be a fundamental shift in the way in which we deal with young people. Should anyone ask the question: "Is such a shift required?", I would simply say "Look at the figures; look at the system that we have at the moment. It has not been working over the past 25 years. "
We believe that if one has this obligatory reference—it does not matter for the present purpose whether one calls it, pace the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, an order or a sentence—that obligatory reference is intended to be restorative, in the sense that the noble Lord, Lord Cope, indicated. He said that restorative justice is not open to the magistrates, but we require panels in every case to consider that aspect of restorative justice. Is it in

1167
fact taking away all discretion from the court? No, it is not. If one looks at Clause 3(1)(c), the length of the period is for the determining or sentencing court; namely, the youth magistrates' court. It is a period of from three to 12 months, so that flexibility and lack of rigidity is there even at the earlier stage. Perhaps it is worth bearing in mind that if one looks—
Lord Renton: My Lords, if I may interrupt, it is under that provision that the noble Lord has mentioned that there must be three months in any event.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, of course; that is why I said three to 12 months. I am not seeking to disguise that: I thought I had actually drawn attention to it. Three months to 12 months is the span which the magistrates have. It is a well-known conventional device in other contexts—for instance, probation orders, which have a maximum term which the magistrates can impose.
One needs to look at what happens in community sentences at the moment. If a court sentences to a community disposition at the moment the fine detail is not set down by the sentence in court. It is actually dealt with by probation officers and social workers on the ground. I repeat to your Lordships, because it is a point of some virtue, that the flexibility offered to the youth offender panel, in other words, the final forum of disposition, is infinitely variable and infinitely flexible to deal with every circumstance and every offender.
As the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, pointed out, it is quite right that we have here a different approach. We believe that, after careful thought, we have got it right. That does not mean that we are undoubtedly correct, but I believe that we are. We are saying to magistrates that unless it is custody or an absolute discharge they are given the power of three to 12 months. After that the restorative contract that is designed fundamentally to avoid reoffending lies with the panel which will have the fullest possible opportunity to change human behaviour in young people. I hope that I have dealt with the objections of principle and detail. I cannot leave this matter without rejoicing at the new prospect, to me, of a bucketful of angst. The words of the noble Viscount very much remind me of wet Sunday afternoons in North Wales for which no better description than "a bucketful of angst" has ever been known.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, since the noble Lord makes that comment about North Wales (from where I come), is he seriously saying that to oppose mandatory sentences and to seek to uphold the discretion of the court is a deeply conservative attitude; and, if so, in what way?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, obviously I have not succeeded in what I seek to say. What is truly, deeply and depressingly conservative is simply to have a slogan, attach it to a staff and to believe that that disposes of all rational alternatives. That is what is
1168
deeply conservative. Simply to say that mandatory sentences are wrong without looking at this very careful construction is, if not conservative, extremely blinkered.
Lord Windlesham: My Lords, this has been a long debate in which 16 noble Lords from all parts of the House have spoken. We have been discussing the amendment for about an hour. This shows that on a substantial issue of public importance noble Lords can make short speeches in which they are able to display the strength of their views. In view of the closing words of the reply of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, perhaps those on this side of the House would feel more comfortable if he substituted "conventional" for "conservative". I believe that that was the burden of the message that he wished to convey, and we should like there to be no misunderstanding about it.
This has been a non-party debate, as demonstrated by the divergent expressions of opinion from each part of the House. If it is not invidious to do so, and the noble Lord, Lord Williams, did the same, may I remark on the respect with which we listened to the views of the former Lord Chief Justice the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lane, and the Chairman of the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice, the noble Viscount, Lord Runciman. Both speak with unrivalled authority, and are wholly independent of any other speaker or party. I suggest that the force of their views should be taken into account when I ask noble Lords to express their opinion.
As was indicated earlier by my noble friends Lord Renton and Lord Campbell of Alloway, when this issue was raised by myself at Report stage there was a short exchange to the effect that Third Reading was the appropriate time for the matter to be discussed in greater detail. That has happened today and now noble Lords have the opportunity in the Lobbies to decide how it should be resolved.
4.34 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 149; Not-Contents, 144.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Burnham, L. [Teller.]

Addison, V.

Butterworth, L.

Anelay of St. Johns, B.

Byford, B.

Annaly, L.

Cadman, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Caithness, E.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Biffen, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Blaker, L.

Chesham, L.

Blatch, B.

Clanwilliam, E.

Bowness, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L

Coleraine, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Cowdrey of Tonbridge, L

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Cox, B.

Bruntisfield, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Cross, V.

1169

Davidson, V.

Mountevans, L.

Denbigh, E.

Moynihan, L.

Dickinson, L.

Munster, E

Donegall, M.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Downshire, M.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Elles, B.

Newall, L.

Ferrers, E.

Norrie, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Northesk, E.

Gage, V.

Nunburnholme, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

O'Cathain, B.

Glenarthur, L.

Onslow, E.

Glentoran, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Gormanston, V.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Pender, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Poole, L.

Henley, L. [Teller.]

Rankeillour, L.

Higgins, L.

Rawlings, B.

Hogg, B.

Reay, L.

Holderness, L.

Rees, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Renton, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Renton of Mount Harry, L.

Hooper, B.

Renwick, L.

Hooson, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Hothfield, L.

Romney, E.

Howe, E.

Runciman of Doxford, V.

Hylton, L.

Russell, E.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Russell-Johnston, L.

Ilchester, E.

Sandford, L.

Ironside, L.

Sandwich, E.

Jopling, L.

Seccombe, B.

Kimball, L.

Selsdon, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Sharples, B.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Lane, L.

Shuttleworth, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Lincoln, Bp.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Steel of Aikwood, L.

Liverpool, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, E.

Sudeley, L.

Long, V.

Swansea, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Swinfen, L.

Luke, L.

Taverne, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

McNair, L.

Teviot, L.

McNally, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Marlesford, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Merrivale, L.

Trenchard, V.

Middleton, L.

Tugendhat, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Vivian, L.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Waddington, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Wilcox, B.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Moore of Wolvercote, L.

Windlesham, L.

Morris, L.

Wynford, L.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Brightman, L.

Acton, L.

Brookman, L.

Ahmed, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Amos, B.

Burlison, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Bach, L.

Carter, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Chorley, L.

Blackstone, B.

Christopher, L.

Blease, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Borrie, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Bragg, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Bramall, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Brentford, V.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

1170

David, B.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Marsh, L.

Desai, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Dixon, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Donoughue, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Mishcon, L.

Dubs, L.

Molloy, L.

Eatwell, L.

Monkswell, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Monson, L.

Exmouth, V.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Nicol, B.

Gilbert, L.

Oliver of Aylmerton, L.

Glanusk, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Glenamara, L.

Orme, L.

Goudie, B.

Palmer, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Peston, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Gregson, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Grenfell, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Hacking, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Haddington, E.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B. [Teller.]

Hanworth, V.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Hardie, L.

Richard, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Rowallan, L.

Hardy of Wath. L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

St John of Bletso. L.

Haskel, L.

Scotland of Asthal. B.

Hayman, B.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Sewel, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Shannon, E.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Shepherd, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Sheppard of Liverpool, L.

Hoyle, L.

Shore of Stepney, L.

Hughes, L.

Simon, V.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Stair, E.

Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Stallard, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Islwyn, L

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Jay of Paddington, B. [LordPrivy Seal]

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Tenby, V.

Jeger, B.

Thomas of Macclesfield, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Thurlow, L.

Kennet, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Kintore, E.

Turner of Camden, B.

Kirkhill, L..

Varley, L.

Levy, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Lockwood, B.

Warner, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Watson of Invergowrie, L.

Longford, E.

Weatherill, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Wharton, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]

Whitty, L.

Williams of Elvel. L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.

Kosovo
4.43 p.m.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, with the leave of the House I should like to repeat a Statement on Kosovo being made by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in another place. In doing so, perhaps I may renew my apologies to the House for my inadvertence last week in leaving out certain paragraphs

1171
of a previous Statement. I assure the House that I shall indeed repeat every paragraph of this important Statement. The Statement is as follows:
"As I speak, it is still unclear what the outcome of Mr. Holbrooke's talks in Belgrade will be, but there is little cause to be optimistic. On the assumption they produce no change in President Milosevic's position and the repression in Kosovo by Serb forces continues, Britain stands ready with our NATO allies to take military action. We do so for very clear reasons. We do so primarily to avert what would otherwise be a humanitarian disaster in Kosovo.
"Let me give the House an indication of the scale of what is happening. A quarter of a million Kosovars, more than 10 per cent. of the population, are now homeless as a result of repression by Serb forces. Sixty-five thousand people have been forced from their homes in the last month, and no less than 25, 000 in the four days since peace talks broke down. Only yesterday, 5, 000 people in Srbica were forcibly evicted from their villages.
"Much of the Drenica region of northern Kosovo is being cleared of ethnic Albanians. Every single village the UNHCR observers could see in the Glogovac and Srbica region yesterday were on fire. Families are being uprooted and driven from their homes. There are reports of masked irregulars separating out the men: we do not know what has happened to them. The House will recall that at Srebrenica they were killed.
"Since last summer 2, 000 people have died. Without the international verification force, there is no doubt the numbers would have been vastly higher.
"We act also because we know from bitter experience throughout this century, most recently in Bosnia, that instability and civil war in one part of the Balkans inevitably spills over into the whole of it, and affects the rest of Europe too. Let me remind the House. There are now over 1 million refugees from the former Yugoslavia in the EU.
"If Kosovo was left to the mercy of Serbian repression, there is not merely a risk but a probability of reigniting unrest in Albania; of Macedonia being de-stabilised; almost certain knock-on effects in Bosnia; and further tension between Greece and Turkey.
"There are strategic interests for the whole of Europe at stake. We cannot contemplate, on the doorstep of the EU, a disintegration into chaos and disorder.
"We have made a very plain promise to the Kosovar people. Thousands of them returned to their homes as a result of the ceasefire we negotiated last October. We have said to them and to Mr. Milosevic we would not tolerate the brutal suppression of the civilian population. After the massacre at Racak, these threats to Milosevic were repeated. To walk away now would not merely destroy NATO's credibility; more importantly it would be a breach of faith with thousands of innocent civilians whose only desire is to live in peace and who took us at our word.
1172
"I say this to the British people. There is a heavy responsibility on a government, when putting our forces into battle, to justify such action. 1 warn. The potential consequences of military action are serious, both for NATO forces and the people in the region. Their suffering cannot be ended overnight. But in my judgment the consequences of not acting are more serious still for human life and for peace in the long term.
"We must act to save thousands of innocent men, women and children from humanitarian catastrophe, from death, barbarism and ethnic cleansing by a brutal dictatorship; and to save the stability of the Balkan region where we know chaos can engulf all of Europe. We have no alternative but to act and act we will, unless Milosevic even now chooses the path of peace.
"Let me recap briefly on the last few months. Last October, NATO threatened to use force to secure Milosevic's agreement to a ceasefire and an end to the repression that was then in hand. This was successful—at least for a while. Diplomatic efforts, backed by NATO's threat, led to the creation of the 1, 500 strong Kosovo Verification Mission. A NATO extraction force was established in neighbouring Macedonia in case the monitors got into difficulty.
"At the same time, Milosevic gave an undertaking to the US envoy Mr. Holbrooke that he would withdraw Serb forces so that their numbers returned to the level before February 1998—roughly 10, 000 internal security troops and 12, 000 Yugoslavia army troops. Milosevic never fulfilled that commitment; indeed, the numbers have gone up. We believe there are some 16, 000 internal security and 20, 000 Yugoslav army troops now in Kosovo, with a further 8, 000 army reinforcements poised just over the border.
"In January, NATO warned Milosevic that it would respond if he failed to come into compliance with the October agreements, if the repression continued, and if he frustrated the peace process. Milosevic has failed to meet any of these requirements. Even then, intense diplomatic efforts have been under way. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary and his French colleague, Mr. Vedrine, have co-chaired the peace talks in France. There is an agreement now on the table.
"Autonomy for Kosovo would be guaranteed, with a democratically-elected assembly, accountable institutions and locally controlled police forces. After three years, Kosovo's status would be reviewed. The rights of all its inhabitants, including Serbs, would be protected, regardless of their ethnic background. And the awful conflict that has been a blight on the lives of its peoples could come to an end.
"The Kosovo Albanians have signed the peace agreement. The Serbs have not. They have reneged on the commitments they made on the political texts at Rambouillet. And they refuse to allow a peacekeeping force in Kosovo under NATO command to underpin implementation.

1173
"It takes two sides to make peace. So far, only one side has shown itself willing to make the commitment. It was Milosevic who stripped Kosovo of its autonomy in 1989. It is Milosevic who is now refusing to tackle a political problem by political means.
"NATO action would be in the form of air strikes. It will involve many NATO countries. It has the full support of NATO. It will have as its minimum objective to curb continued Serbian repression in Kosovo in order to avert a humanitarian disaster. It would therefore target the military capability of the Serb dictatorship. To avoid such action, Milosevic must do what he promised to do last October—end the repression, withdraw his troops to barracks, get them down to the levels agreed, and withdraw from Kosovo the tanks, heavy artillery and other weapons he brought into Kosovo early last year. He must agree to the proposals set out in the Rambouillet Accords, including a NATO led ground force.
"Any attack by Serbian forces against NATO personnel engaged in peacekeeping missions elsewhere in the region would be completely unjustified and would be met with a swift and severe response in self-defence. President Milosevic should be in no doubt about our determination to protect our forces and to deal appropriately with any threats to them.
"Mr. Holbrooke has made the position of the international community crystal clear to Milosevic. There can be no doubt about what is at stake. The choice is now his.
"Milosevic can choose peace for the peoples of Kosovo and an end to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia's isolation in Europe. Or he can choose continued conflict and the serious consequences that would follow.
"I hope the House will join with me in urging President Milosevic to choose the path of peace, and support NATO and the international community in action should he fail to do so. "
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.53 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement made in another place by the Prime Minister. I understand the complexities of the issues involved. Resolving the problems resulting from the disintegration of the former Yugoslavia have tested many minds, both political and diplomatic, for many years. Indeed, there is a great history to the difficulties created by the disintegration of Yugoslavia. They have also been created by the actions of a brutal dictator. President Milosevic holds a great deal of responsibility not only for the announcement today but for the atrocities of recent years.
First, I wish to make it plain that we on this side of the House fully support the action of the British Armed Forces. The Government have taken a big step in asking them to perform their role in the area. We on these
1174
Benches offer our support not only to those on the front line but to those who work in support of that job, maintaining the supply lines from this country to the area of operation, and to the families left behind while a difficult and dangerous job is undertaken. But the recent history of the decision has been one of dithering and indecisiveness. Indeed, does the noble Baroness agree that there is no case for the string of last warnings and ultimatums which have not been followed through?
The Government were right when they said last year that Europe had been dithering and disunited in its response. Unfortunately, that dithering and disunity continued and as a result the credibility of NATO has been called into question. Therefore, will the Leader of the House understand that while I welcome the unavoidable demonstration of NATO's credibility, I regret that action against Serbia did not take place earlier? If it had taken place, there may well have been a far swifter resolution to the problem.
One concern, felt, I suspect, all around the House, is the additional strain put on our Armed Forces and their ability to maintain pressure beyond a short period of time. I understand that a Chief of Defence staff recently said that we can maintain two operations such as Bosnia and Kosovo for only six months. Can the Minister say what steps the Government will take to ensure that the deployment announced today can be sustained?
As regards the objectives, can the noble Baroness tell us in a clear and concise manner what they are? Will the action be aimed at military targets? Can the noble Baroness inform the House whether it is envisaged that any military action will be followed up by the use of ground forces? What will the Government's response be if Milosevic does not back down; in other words, what will happen if air strikes fail? Can the noble Baroness give an assurance that any NATO action against Serbia will not amount to bombing in a vacuum and that the Government have a long-term political and military strategy?
It is impossible to deal with this issue without reflecting on what response might come from in Russia. Does the noble Baroness have any early indication of the response from Russia? To what extent are Serbian forces supported by Russian arms? As British Armed Forces will be going in to bomb positions, what technical support is provided by Russian nationals? What position will the Government and NATO take to the rearmament of Serbian positions by Russians? Finally, what reaction has there been in the European Union? Is there a united position among our EU partners and, if not, which countries have objected to the action being taken by NATO?
Obviously, we hope that the situation is resolved quickly and efficiently. Can the noble Baroness give an assurance that if there are any changes in the situation on the ground, or if it is envisaged that ground forces will be used, a further Statement will be made to this House?
4.59 p.m.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement

1175
made by the Prime Minister in another place. It is a grave but realistic Statement and I find little in it to disagree with. I support the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, in asking the noble Baroness to keep the House up to date with any changes because we all recognise that it is a fast moving situation with few fixed points. We must all hope that Richard Holbrooke's mission will succeed but—and it is the principal point addressed by the Statement—we must be ready for failure.
The decisions are difficult for both Her Majesty's Government and NATO, and for everyone involved in this extraordinary event. I can only say, and I think this would win the support of all sides of the House, that to do nothing is no longer an option, if it ever was. We cannot now draw back. It would be a humilation for NATO and, as the Prime Minister said, a betrayal of our plain promise to the Kosovo people. It would also be morally indefensible to do so on humanitarian grounds. The Prime Minister sets out in his Statement some of the details of the events with which we are already familiar but which deserve to be repeated, though they often do not bear to be thought about.
The United Kingdom's best long-term interests certainly cannot lie in withdrawing or in equivocation. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, on that. It is not only the strategic interests of the whole of Europe that are at stake, as the Prime Minister said, but also the long term strategic interests of the United Kingdom.
We now need to move fast. This is not the time to make an issue of the gap which has occurred since the withdrawal of the OSCE monitors, Mr. Holbrooke's visit to Belgrade and the time that has been lost while the talks continue and the Serbs take the action which they are doing in Kosovo. I hope there will be no suggestion of any further delay to take account of Prime Minister Primakov's visit to Washington. That cannot be a reason for delaying what now needs to be done.
We all recognise that there are grave risks in the action once begun and that it may have to go beyond air strikes. I do not press the Minister for any further comments. The air strikes may indeed have painful consequences, including civilian casualties, but it will be necessary to come to terms with the fact that once embarked upon this course we need to plan for the next step if air strikes prove not sufficient. Whatever the case, we are going into this with our eyes wide open and recognise fully that the engagement of Britain's own Armed Forces may lead to casualties which will be a further painful price to pay in a necessary duty.
I ask the noble Baroness two questions. What future role does she envisage for the United Nations and for the OSCE if the air strikes succeed? Who determines what happens to the monitors now in Macedonia? Will they be retained there and, if so, can we anticipate any future role for unarmed monitors, despite what the Prime Minister says about the achievement which may lie with them? What information do the Government have about Russian arms and technology recently reaching the Serbs and, if we have reason to believe that such developments have occurred, what representations
1176
have been made in Moscow? It would be very helpful to have the Government's assessment of the attitude of the Russians beyond their known public statements.
5.5 p.m.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am very grateful to both noble Lords who have spoken from their respective Front Benches for their welcome understanding of the very grave situation in which we find ourselves and of the potential difficulties ahead. It is also appropriate to say that of course we agree entirely with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, about the degree of responsibility for this situation which lies at the door of Mr. Milosevic. I would very much like to endorse his words of support for the Armed Forces who may well be undertaking a risk to their lives. I agree with him entirely that, although our thoughts and very good wishes go initially to the front line forces, we must never forget those who are in the lines of support back at their bases; and, in particular, their families. I am sure the whole House is grateful to him for underlining those sentiments and join him in expressing them.
Both noble Lords raised the question of the degree of international support and agreement which lies behind the possibility of military action. I emphasise that the NATO Council endorsed this position yesterday at a meeting. Thirteen countries are supporting militarily the effort in the region and therefore it could genuinely be said to be a united international effort.
The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, asked whether or not this overstretched our Armed Forces. I am sure that he was as delighted as I was that my right honourable friend Mr. Robertson said yesterday in answer to questions on this point in another place that the strategic defence review and all its implications was in no way challenged by the possibility of military action in this field because that was based on global assumptions that did allow us the flexibility to do more or less in specific theatres should the time arise. My right honourable friend also noted in answer to questions in another place that, although it is a very serious undertaking for the Army, recruitment has increased in the past year by 17.6 per cent. and, although none of us should be complacent about the possibilities of stretching our resources, there is no need to be immediately concerned on that front.
Both noble Lords made points about the long-term strategy which we face in this area, both militarily and politically, and they both understand that those are very fast-moving and fluid situations. The primary objective of the initial strikes, if they are to take place, is to do precisely what the Statement says, which is to alleviate the possibility of an appalling humanitarian disaster which is already gathering speed in various places. Of course we hope that when, in the colloquialism, Mr. Milosevic's military installations are degraded, some forces within the country will bring him to his senses in terms of trying to effect a political agreement on the Rambouillet accords. Those have already been signed by the Kosovar Albanians and form the basis for a political way forward on a very clear-cut strategy which allows for an interim agreement that would last

1177
in the first instance for three years. That would naturally, as the original agreements proposed, call for an agreement by the Serbs that the Military Implementation Support Force would be allowed into Kosovo precisely to do what its title indicates. That too, as the Statement said, is very far from Mr. Milosevic's position at the moment. Those remain the ambitions of the political and military strategy which the allies and those involved with them are seeking to undertake.
The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, asked whether there was any future for the role of the unarmed observers, the OSCE people, who of course have now left. I am sure the Government hope that were what now seem slightly theoretical objectives that I have underscored finally to become a practical reality in the wake of any military action, those people may indeed have a role in implementing the political strategy which I have outlined.
Both noble Lords asked me about the Russian position. I believe that Mr Primakov's presence in Washington is a factor in the international understandings which are being worked out at present. But that may be a positive rather than a negative ingredient, as was originally suggested. I do not have information about the most recent indication of what the Russian arms support may be in Yugoslavia. However, it is common knowledge that much of the military equipment and the way in which the Serbian Yugoslav army has been trained follows the old Warsaw Pact model. That is widely recognised.
However, we should not be too alarmed by the Russian reaction. Clearly, at a political level, they are as frustrated by the intransigence of Mr Milosevic as are many other countries. They are members of the Contact Group and have played an extremely important role in some of the earlier discussions which led to the Rambouillet negotiations. At this stage, we should be optimistic about their collaboration, if not their welcome, in relation to what may need to happen next.
Both noble Lords asked me to give them updated information and seek other opportunities to discuss the whole issue as it develops. I am only too happy to say that I shall repeat any relevant Statement on this matter. Noble Lords may be interested to hear that since I rose to repeat the Statement, I have been told that Mr. Holbrooke is now giving a press conference in Belgrade and the indications are that he will then leave the country. Noble Lords will draw the implications from that piece of information that I should expect them to do.
5.11 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, will the noble Baroness go further in relation to two matters raised by my noble friend Lord Strathclyde? Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that the air strikes do not work. Let us say that there are then three weeks of bombing. Nothing happens. The Serbs continue to beat up the Albanians. It has been true since before Alexander the Great that the only thing which achieves supremacy on the ground is either the hoplites at Persepolis or the GIs
1178
in Kosovo. It does not matter. There must be infantry on the ground and without that infantry threat, it is possible that the whole operation will go wrong.
Secondly, the noble Baroness said that she did not know a lot about what the Russians were doing in relation to arms supply. However, on the one o'clock news today, there was a report that—I believe it was— the Azerbaijanis had stopped an Antonov cargo aeroplane and had not allowed it to continue with its refuelling because it had either three or six brand new Mig fighters on their way to Serbia. It is all very well for there to be the odd half pound of semtex, but even three Mig fighters seem to make a rather larger hole in the sanctions wall. Will the Minister say something about that?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, the noble Earl referred to the Serbian forces continuing to beat up the Albanians. I suppose that the short answer to that is that NATO forces will continue to beat up the Serbs. Regrettably, that is the situation in which we are. It now becomes a question of a military threat.
As regards ground troops, my noble friend Lord Gilbert and my right honourable friend the Prime Minister this afternoon have made it clear that in order to undertake any successful intervention on the ground with troops, one would be talking of numbers in excess of 100, 000. I imagine that the noble Earl will draw from that the conclusion that there is little appetite or intention by the forces of NATO to fight their way in on the ground.
I said to the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, on the question of Russian military equipment that I do not have up-to-date information. As I said in reply to both noble Lords who spoke from the Front Bench, we are very much aware that Russian equipment and training methods have been and are being widely used by the Serbs.
Lord Shore of Stepney: My Lords, the Government have my support in the action which they may well have to take very shortly. But it will be support given with much greater reluctance, frankly, than I have been able to give in the past when we have taken analogous similar action against Iraq. The fundamental reason for that is that although Serbia Yugoslavia has dished out appalling treatment, it has done it within its own borders. It has not committed the international crime of crossing the frontiers and invading the territories of another state.
My difficulty is that I feel that that should not necessarily prevent us from taking action of this kind but it poses enormous problems when dealing with future difficulties, not just in Yugoslavia but almost worldwide. We must think extremely hard about how we can best deal with the issue. In that situation, achieving the goodwill, co-operation and, if possible, even the agreement to send Russian troops would be extremely helpful and important. I hope that that can be done.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I thank my noble friend. I am sure that the whole House will agree

1179
with him about the seriousness and gravity of the potential for the different types of escalation of this particular crisis. As was clear from my right honourable friend's Statement, no one is undertaking this action lightly or without forethought as to what the implications may be. But I am sure my noble friend will understand that the primary aim—to avert Milosevic's capability for oppression in Kosovo—is exactly the kind of cause which he would normally support. Aversion of the humanitarian catastrophe is the primary cause for any military action which is undertaken.
My noble friend's point about the goodwill or, at least, the support of the Russians is important and I mentioned that in response to the noble Earl. It was exactly that situation which I was indicating was relevant to the presence of Mr Primakov in Washington. In some of the commentaries, that is seen as a negative factor, but it could be a positive factor if it provided opportunities for face-to-face discussions with the Americans and NATO.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, we cannot avert a humanitarian disaster because it is already in train. We can only hope that the intervention will stop that disaster before it becomes worse at a time when one-third of the people of Kosovo are already refugees; when their houses are being burned once again; and when they are once again being driven, terrified, into what remains of the ruins.
I have two questions for the noble Baroness the Leader of the House. First, for how long will the West continue to treat Milosevic as the answer to the problem rather than the problem itself? It is surely now clear that that man is guilty of one crime against humanity after another. Why is it the case that absolutely no steps have been taken to bring him before the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia and why no steps have been taken to arraign similar war criminals in Bosnia, which might produce a useful lesson?
The second question I wish to ask concerns the wider regional issue. Today in Albania all young men under the age of 30 are being called up. Today, the Montenegran Prime Minister, Mr Vujanovic, has again indicated that he wishes to retain the fullest autonomy for Montenegro. In both Vojvodina and Sandjak, the widely held view is that they are next; that Kosovo is not an issue on its own but part of a story in which one part of the former Republic of Yugoslavia after another—Croatia, Bosnia, Kosovo—have been subjected to the bullying and brutal tactics of Mr Milosevic.
Can the Minister give an assurance that Her Majesty's Government will do all they can to support those people in the former Republic of Yugoslavia who share our concern and, indeed, our strong objections, to the policies of Mr. Milosevic? Will the Government recognise that they are the key to overthrowing this tyrant and that we need their help in order to do it as we will be restricted primarily to air strikes over the next few weeks?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for underlining to the
1180
House that a very large human catastrophe has already taken place. That is a concern which, of course, I share. If there was any indication in anything I said that I did not recognise that fact, I would wish to correct it.
As the noble Baroness stated, the situation is rapidly deteriorating and the human catastrophe, although something we have all felt strongly about for some time, is accelerating. If, as indicated in the Statement, 25, 000 people have been forced from their homes in four days, which has happened since the peace talks broke down, that is an impression which is almost impossible to convey with words. Perhaps "human catastrophe" is a phrase we need to revise. This situation is unbelievable and definitely inhumanitarian.
The noble Baroness suggested intervention in the political processes within Yugoslavia. She will know, as well as I, that that would entail precisely some of the questions about sovereignty which were referred to earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Shore, as regards territorial integrity and so forth. I endorse what the noble Baroness said about support for the democratic opposition to Mr. Milosevic. I believe that no one has been more adamant in their condemnation of his activities than the Government.
I take to heart the point she made about the wider regional implications of the situation in Kosovo. I think an expression was coined in another theatre 25 or 30 years ago about dominoes. That theory holds good in this situation and is one of which we should all be very aware.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords—
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Craig!
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Order!
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I think it is the feeling of the House that the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, should have the floor and then, perhaps, my noble friend Lord Jenkins.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, the noble Baroness the Leader of the House made a very significant comment in answer to an earlier question about the employment of ground forces, or the possibility of them being employed.
In the light of that comment, can she give the House some assurance about the confidence of Her Majesty's Government that the air operations which are about to begin, or look as if they are about to begin, will achieve the objectives so clearly outlined in the Statement?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and gallant Lord for raising those points. I am sure that the House will understand that I would never seek, in any way, to challenge his authority on military strategy. I would just say to him

1181
that it is the intent of the Government and, indeed, NATO, that the objectives should be attempted to be achieved in the way we have described in the Statement as being theoretically possible. However, it would clearly be totally inappropriate ever to give any guarantee about the outcome of any military intervention. All we can do is to take the best possible options to achieve what he rightly says is a clear strategy.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I rise to ask my question because I gather that the House, as a whole, is in favour of the Government's proposal to act in this matter in the way so clearly described. Before I ask my brief question I should like to say that I am not in favour of the Government's action, and that voice should be heard.
In my view and experience—which is pretty long in these matters—nothing started by bombing brings about peace. Generally speaking, bombing brings about war, and the worst war started with bombing. I see no reason to suppose that that will not happen in this case.
However, as the Government seem set upon this course, which I believe to be wrong, perhaps I may ask one question. Will they refrain from the kind of bombing which brings about massive civilian casualties? If there is bombing of a city, inevitably there will be civilian casualties, and that would be against international law. There is no reason why the Government should find it difficult to say that they will not break international law by bombing Belgrade. Let us make that exception, at any rate. It would not be disclosing their strategy to say, "We will not break international law by bombing a city which inevitably results in the killing of non-combatants: women, children, old people and so forth". Will the Government at least say that?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I suspect that my noble friend and I may disagree about the overall policy and what lies behind it in terms of the military strategy. The Statement makes clear that, although it is possible that results from military activity might produce casualties or an outcome which may lead to greater human suffering, that would be something that everybody would regret. However, it would be unrealistic to say one could possibly avoid it. Obviously, it is impossible to say that one will always avoid civilian casualties. However, I would draw my noble friend's attention to the military activity—indeed, the bombing—which took place in Iraq some months ago. By the use of precision methods and weapons, casualties were kept to an absolute minimum. That will always be the intention of anybody undertaking this type of military activity. However, it will be totally unrealistic and inappropriate to say that any sort of military action carries with it an automatic guarantee.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, do we not now need a long-term objective into which military action can be fitted? Perhaps I may suggest to the noble Baroness the Leader of the House that by having rejected the
1182
Rambouillet Accord—which offered the best possible deal to the Serbs—and by his behaviour in Kosovo since that time, President Milosevic has forfeited for Serbia any further right in the involvement of the affairs of Kosovo. The international community should now aim for an independent Kosovo with a 90 per cent. population of Albanians as a separate member of the United Nations. At least then we would be clear what we are aiming at. That would be a long-term solution to that particular problem.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, as regards the long term, I would reiterate that which was embraced in the Rambouillet political agreement to which the Kosovo Albanians have signed up. They presumably accepted the spirit as well as the letter of the agreements which included a large degree of autonomy for Kosovo, substantial self-administration and—the point made in the Statement—an independent police force, and so on. That is clearly something at which we should continue to aim. As regards independence, the noble Lord suggested that only one side is negotiating. However, I suspect if it is only one side, we would be back in the situation we were in when discussing whether or not NATO would be prepared to fight its way in on the ground. I reiterate that that is not the Government's position. However, if two sides were negotiating on independence, we could support any solution which was freely negotiated between the parties. Frankly, that seems an unlikely solution.
Baroness Ludford: My Lords, perhaps I may raise a point following on from that of my noble friend Lady Williams concerning President Milosevic being the problem and not the solution. Have I correctly noted a moving on in the position by the Government and other NATO allies? The Statement says that if Kosovo was left to the mercy of Serbian repression, there would be a risk of re-igniting unrest in Albania and destabilising Macedonia. The attitude used to be that if one envisaged any other possibilities but Serbian repression in Kosovo, that was destabilising. Have I correctly noted an evolution in thinking? Are we now to understand that it is destabilising to allow the persistence of repression rather than to keep an open mind to other possibilities, which I believe would be a more welcome evolution in NATO's thinking? The first leads to the kind of conclusion which my noble friend pointed out; that is, that we treat existing regimes, even authoritarian ones, as necessary to stability. That is the route to the problems into which we sometimes run.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, as the noble Baroness rightly points out, the Statement refers to the wider regional implications. I hope that in my reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, I indicated that that was deliberate for the reasons that I set out. I described it in shorthand as a "domino theory". I think that we all understand that.
President Milosevic has not been indicted by The Hague Tribunal, although noble Lords may find that surprising. He is the President of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and if we want to do any kind of business

1183
with him on the political solution, we must continue to have contact with him. That does not mean in any sense that we approve of him, but we think that the best way to ensure the rights of others in the region is to show the strength that we are indicating that we may have to show in relation to Kosovo.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, will the noble Baroness bear in mind that I and, I imagine, many others although supporting the Government and the Armed Forces nevertheless have grave doubts about this policy? We are not Bennites by any means, but we have doubts about this, for two reasons. First, this may have exactly the opposite effect on Milosevic from what we intend; secondly, we could get sucked into a ground war. All the talk about that today terrifies me. The noble Baroness said that NATO has no will to send ground troops into Yugoslavia, but they are already there; they are over the border in Macedonia. What happens if the Serbs attack our troops in Macedonia? It is a grave danger. I hope that the Government appreciate that, although we support them, we have grave doubts. I do not want Britain to be involved in a third Balkan war. That would be an appalling state of affairs.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, of course, I respect my noble friend's point of view. As he rightly says, I am sure that many people both inside and outside this House will feel extremely concerned about this. However, I am sure that my noble friend also feels that, to quote the exact words used by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, we are faced with a "humanitarian catastrophe". We are faced with a situation which all of us find absolutely appalling in humanitarian terms. We cannot ignore that and we must take action about it. In response to various earlier questions, I have already referred to the point which my noble friend raised about the potential difficulties, crises and problems in engaging ground troops. I reiterate that, as the Statement indicates, the NATO troops which at the moment are based in Macedonia would vigorously defend any attack made on them. There is no question that they would not do so. Equally, it is not NATO's intention that they should fight their way into Kosovo to impose any sort of military solution.

Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Bill [H.L.]
5.33 p.m.
Proceedings after Third Reading resumed on Clause 1.
Lord Windlesham Lord Windlesham moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 2, leave out ("sentence") and insert ("order").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 2 which was decided on a Division shortly before the Statement. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Windlesham Lord Windlesham moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 2, leave out ("for the offence by ordering hirn").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 5 [Making of referral orders: attendance of parents etc.]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 5, line 10, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
("(3) The court shall not under this section make an order requiring a person to attend meetings of the youth offender panel—

(a) if the court is satisfied that it would be unreasonable to do so, or

(b) to an extent which the court is satisfied would be unreasonable. ")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this group contains Amendments Nos. 5 to 9 and Amendment No. 41. They are all relatively minor amendments and have been tabled to correct slight drafting oversights. By these amendments, we also intend to give sufficient flexibility to the court and the panel in tackling offending behaviour.
Amendments Nos. 5, 6 and 7 seek to ensure maximum flexibility in dealing with parental attendance. A key objective is to ensure that parents are fully involved. Your Lordships have already agreed amendments to ensure that more than one parent or guardian may be required to attend panel meetings. However, there will be some circumstances where it is not possible or appropriate for a parent or guardian to attend. The Bill, as drafted, already acknowledges that. Previous amendments to the clause have left that provision sitting a little awkwardly, so we have revised the formulation to sit more comfortably—I hope that your Lordships agree—and to make clearer the range of considerations that the court may take into account. That may include whether or not a parent was involved in the commission of a crime, the health and domestic arrangements of the parents, and the relationship between those the court proposes to require to attend with the offender and with each other.
On Report, I indicated that I would review the element of Clause 5 relating to those cases in which it will be appropriate for a court to require a local authority representative to attend panel meetings. Our original formulation followed Section 34A of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933. On reflection, I am concerned that that may be unduly rigid, restricting, as it may, the role of the local authority to those cases where it has parental responsibility following a care or emergency protection order. I think that it is preferable to use the wider formulation of "looked after" cases, as they are described in the Children Act 1989. That is a broader category, and will include those cases where a young offender is accommodated by the local authority, perhaps temporarily during a family crisis, but where the local authority has not acquired parental responsibility.
I can assure your Lordships that that will not prevent the full involvement of parents in appropriate cases, since the courts already have the power to require more than one appropriate adult to attend panel meetings. That would mean that both the parents or guardians and a local authority representative could be required to attend if the court thinks it appropriate.
On Report, the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, tabled an amendment which sought to remove the words "or otherwise" from the provision which precludes the inclusion of electronic monitoring in the contract. I said that I thought that that amendment was technically defective, but that I would look at it again. The phrase "or otherwise" was intended as a catch-all. The noble Lord correctly identified that there is a danger that it might catch more than we intended. Therefore, Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 will reword the subsection, omitting the words "or otherwise", and I hope that they fully meet the point most helpfully raised by the noble Lord.
Finally, Amendment No. 41 seeks to ensure that arrangements in Schedule 1 for bringing the offender before the court for breach proceedings will apply in Scotland, so that a young offender who fails to comply and crosses the Border may be brought back to court to face the consequences. That rectifies a drafting oversight and I hope that your Lordships will accept it. I beg to move.
Lord Windlesham: My Lords, this group of amendments, like those to Clause 1 which we debated before the Statement, relates to another mandatory requirement. We should not let this clause go without drawing attention to that. This time, I refer to attendance by parents, guardians or representatives of local authorities at the meetings of the youth offender panel in those cases where the offender is under the age of 16. Clearly, their supportive role is important and desirable. However, again, does it have to be mandatory?
In this situation, unlike with the making of referral orders which were the subject of the previous debate, a limited discretion is left with the magistrates. Perhaps the Minister could reflect on the fact that there is some discretion here, given that earlier he argued so strongly against the possibility of allowing any discretion. The limited discretion here means that where it would be unreasonable to expect a parent, guardian or representative of a local authority to attend, there is the discretion not to require them to do so.
I note in the Explanatory Notes on page 8 that an example is given of serious ill health. As a ground that seems sensible. I do not know if the Minister is able to give us any further examples of what might pass the test.
I conclude by asking the Minister a specific question. Is it still the case, as indicated on pages 8 and 9 of the Explanatory Notes, that those parents, guardians or representatives who fail to attend a meeting against the order of the court and without good reason, should be brought before the court for contempt?
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, this is a small group of mainly minor amendments, but nevertheless they have some significance. They are welcome. I particularly welcome Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 as they arose from a suggestion of mine.
With regard to the question of compulsion, I say to my noble friend Lord Windlesham that it is a different matter for the court to be able to compel the parents or
1186
other people in loco parentis to attend from requiring the magistrates to carry out a specific course of action which is what we were discussing earlier. I believe it is a good thing for parents to be obliged to attend, subject to the court having discretion in the cases set out in the amendment.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, was tempting me to re-traverse the question of discretion and perhaps I should note his observations, which I appreciate were courteously made.
The question was put involving a parent who was perhaps suffering from ill health. The examples I gave included one where perhaps a parent had been involved in the commission of the crime. Attendance in that case would be inappropriate. The domestic arrangements may simply make it impossible for the parents to attend. For instance, one could imagine circumstances where one parent was extremely immobile and the other was simply not able to go to the court.
Though I will research this more carefully, if a court makes a referral order and an order requiring the appropriate person to attend and that person does not attend, then on the face of it the sanction of contempt would be available. I shall research that more carefully. I am reasonably satisfied in my own mind, but if I am wrong I will write to the noble Lord, if I may, and as always put a copy of the letter in the Library.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendments Nos. 6 and 7:
Page 5, line 22, leave out from ("is") to end of line 28 and insert ("(within the meaning of the Children Act 1989) a child who is looked after by a local authority. ").
Page 5, leave out lines 37 and 38.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall move Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 8 [First meeting: agreement of contract with offender]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendments Nos. 8 and 9:
Page 8, line 5, after first ("the") insert ("electronic").
Page 8, line 5, leave out ("(electronically or otherwise)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall move Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 en bloc. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 24 [Evidence given in private]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 19, leave out lines 6 and 7 and insert—
("( ) A special measures direction providing for representatives of news gathering or reporting organisations to be so excluded shall be expressed not to apply to one named person who—

(a) is a representative of such an organisation, and

(b) has been nominated for the purpose by one or more such organisations,

unless it appears to the court that no such nomination has been made. ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 10 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 11 to 13. The first three amendments provide that if the court excludes the news media from the court, one representative must be allowed to remain and the media will have to nominate that representative.
We discussed these matters on earlier occasions. The point of Clause 24 is to allow the court to exclude certain individuals who may be upsetting a witness for either the prosecution or the defence; and to allow the court to exclude as many observers as possible so that witnesses who need privacy to encourage them to give their evidence coherently, completely and accurately, may have it
On earlier occasions I indicated, particularly in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Cope, and the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, that I was in continuing discussions with the media. Having listened carefully to what the noble Lord and the representative said, we felt that we could balance that second aim better against the role of the press as representatives of the public. I stress that the press have an extremely important role to play. They are the ones able to disseminate what happens in courts, where the public may not be present, to a wider public.
Therefore my amendments require the court to allow one member of the media to remain, even if all other representatives of the news media are excluded. The court may wish to set a limit on numbers above that, and will be free to do so if—and only if—the justification provided by the clause exists for such a direction. We believe such situations will rarely arise. It will hardly ever be necessary to clear the court so completely that all but one member of the press is excluded. But there might be some circumstances where open justice can be safeguarded if only one member of the press is present.
We require the media to choose their nominee among themselves. It is better for the media to come to that conclusion. I believe, following our discussions, that they will be able to come to a consensus as to how they will nominate such a representative. If they fail to reach consensus and nominate more than one, the court will have to make the choice. It is therefore in the media's interests to choose their own representative rather than have an imposed choice.
Amendment No. 13 ensures that representatives of the broadcast media are covered by the new provisions, so that a broadcast journalist could be allowed to remain and a broadcast organisation could nominate a media representative. With the old wording of "newspapers or news agencies" that might not have been possible. Your Lordships will recall that on Report we agreed a similar amendment to the description used in the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 by agreeing Amendment No. 111B to paragraph 2 of Schedule 4. I beg to move.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, this is a helpful response to our earlier discussions. It is also helpful that the Minister emphasised the rarity with which he believes it will be necessary to use these provisions.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendments Nos. 11 to 13:
Page 19, line 8, leave out (". however, ").
Page 19, line 15, leave out subsection (4).
Page 19, line 19, leave out ("newspapers or news agencies)") and insert ("news gathering or reporting organisations)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall move these amendments en bloc. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 27 [Video recorded cross-examination or re-examination]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 21, line 42, at end insert (", or
(b) that for any other reason it is in the interests of justice to give the further direction. ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment stands alone and follows an undertaking I gave on Report following an amendment tabled by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, to Clause 27. I said that I would consider whether an "interests of justice" test was necessary to allow courts to direct that video-recorded cross-examination could be reopened in certain circumstances other than when new issues came up between cross-examination and trial that ware outside the control of the cross-examining party.
I hope that repeated cross-examinations will be rare. The kind of witness likely to be cross-examined on video before trial will be extremely vulnerable and repeated cross-examinations can be extremely distressing. Pre-trial video cross-examination should normally be the only cross-examination. Cross-examining parties will therefore be expected to exercise reasonable diligence to ensure that they cross-examine the witness on all relevant issues the first time round. Then, if something else comes up between that cross-examination and trial (whether through disclosure or in other ways) and they could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained those matters at the time of the original recording, they would be able to cross-examine on the new issue under the existing provisions in subsection (6).
Having thought about the noble Viscount's helpful contribution, I recognise that it is important not to compromise the interests of justice by preventing cross-examination of witnesses on important issues. The amendment therefore ensures that whenever it is in the interests of justice to allow further cross-examination, the judge will be able to allow it. I hope that the new provision will be relied on only occasionally, but it is a necessary safeguard to avoid unjust convictions resulting from witnesses not having been cross-examined on relevant issues at trial. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 33 [Complainants in proceedings for sexual offences]:
Lord Ackner Lord Ackner moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 24, line 29, at end insert—
("except with leave of the judge who shall give leave if, and only if, he is satisfied that it would be unfair to the defendant not to be at liberty so to cross-examine. ").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, Clause 33 is in absolute terms. It is as well to get it on the record straightaway. It is quite short. It states,
"No person charged with a sexual offence"—
I interpose to say it is not limited to rape, but any sexual offence—
"may in any criminal proceedings cross-examine in person a witness who is the complainant, either—

(a) in connection with that offence, or

(b) in connection with any other offence (of whatever nature) with which that person is charged in the proceedings".

All I seek to do is to add the proviso at the end which reads,
"except with leave of the judge who shall give leave if, and only if, he is satisfied that it would be unfair to the defendant not to be at liberty so to cross-examine".
That is not injecting a discretion; that is requiring the judge to apply his mind to the facts and to reach a judgment as to whether it would be unfair to the defendant not to be at liberty so to cross-examine. If he reaches that decision, that is a judgment which can be appealed against, as was pointed out when this matter was discussed on the second day of Report.
The well known aphorism "hard cases make bad law" has been referred to recently in relation to the Lawrence Inquiry. There have been suggestions proposed of an unexpected kind and the initial willingness to adopt all that was in Lawrence has given way to a more careful evaluation and assessment because of the danger that hard cases make bad law.
The reason for this amendment has really arisen out of two high profile cases, both of which occurred some two years ago. One was the case of Ralston Edwards and that was followed, almost by infection, by Milton Brown. In those cases the defendant in person abused his right of cross-examination. This gave rise to the necessity for ground rules to be laid down by the Court of Appeal, which was done by the Court of Appeal, presided over by the Lord Chief Justice, in extensive terms. However, I think I need quote only this paragraph,
"Judges do not lack power to protect witnesses and control questioning. The trial judge is the master of proceedings in his court. He is not obliged to give an unrepresented defendant his head to ask whatever questions at whatever length the defendant wishes. In a case such as the present it will often be desirable before any question is asked by the defendant of the complainant in cross-examination for the trial judge to discuss the course of the proceedings with the defendant in the absence of the jury. The judge can then elicit the general nature of the defence and identify the specific points in the complainant's evidence with which the defendant takes issue and any points he wishes to put to her. If the defendant proposes to call witnesses in his own defence the substance of their evidence can be elicited so that the complainant's observations on it may, so far as relevant, be invited. It will almost always be desirable in the first instance to allow a defendant to put questions to a complainant but it should be made clear in advance that the defendant will be
1190
required, having put a point, to move on and if he fails to do so the judge should intervene and secure compliance. If the defendant proves unable or unwilling to comply with the judge's instructions the judge should if necessary, in order to save the complainant from avoidable distress, stop further questioning by the defendant or take over the questioning of the complainant himself. If the defendant seeks by his address, bearing, manner or questions to dominate, intimidate or humiliate the complainant, or if it is reasonably apprehended that he will seek to do so, the judge should not hesitate to order the erection of a screen in addition to controlling questioning in the way we have indicated".
So the matter has been put clearly and fully by the Court of Appeal as to the judge's powers. Interestingly enough, while the first case I referred to was followed by the second case in a copycat type of evolution, none has occurred since the decision in May last year which I have just quoted. Therefore there is no need to feel any present anxiety.
I am not at all satisfied—even though I am sure the noble Lord who is our in-house expert on European law will tell us the contrary—that the embargo which is placed on cross-examining by the defendant in person does not go contrary to the provisions of the European convention. There has been no direct decision on it in which our system, with its great emphasis and reliance on cross-examination—our adversarial system—has been tested. But be that as it were, I ask your Lordships to bear in mind the wise words of the late Lord Lowry, whose memorial service a number of us attended yesterday, when he said in the debate in 1998 on this subject,
"If Parliament introduces the proposed restriction it will be saying, 'You will no longer have a choice of ways of being defended. You must accept counsel even if you conduct your own case'. That statement would reduce the defendant's minimum rights in Article 6, paragraph 3. Even if we are not offending against the convention, why introduce a unique restriction in one type of case just because some trials, and in particular one trial, are not sufficiently controlled by the trial judge? Seminars with advice as to how to conduct a trial are at least as important as seminars on sentencing, and the problem can be easily taken care of".
I invite your Lordships to bear in mind that there may be a number of reasons why a defendant wishes to cross-examine in person. The majority of cases nowadays are what are known as "date rapes", which are allegations of rape between a complainant and a defendant who are husband and wife, or live together, or have known each other for years on intimate terms, and the like. It is by no means being idiosyncratic that the defendant insists on cross-examining. He knows the position intimately and his questions may be much more effective.
I ask your Lordships to take the view that this is an unnecessary, strong reaction to a couple of high-profile cases which have not repeated themselves. I beg to move.
6 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, we had an excellent discussion of this issue in Committee, a discussion that was somewhat truncated by the hour on Report. There are good principles on both sides of this argument. In Committee, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham of Cornhill, said that miscarriages of justice are to be prevented "at all costs". It was argued on the other side that there is a very considerable problem of access to

1191
justice. Even one case, let alone two, sufficiently highly publicised, as they have been, obviously has a deterrent effect on the bringing forward of complaints. I think it was the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, who said that it was a case of the interests of justice and access to justice.
We have to consider not only which of these is the more terrible thing. If that was the only question, then the line taken by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, might possibly prevail. We have to consider also which is the more probable. I am as yet very far from convinced that not being able to cross-examine in person is likely to diminish the accused's chances of acquittal. If members of the Criminal Bar believe that employing the services of a competently qualified advocate makes conviction more likely, then I believe they sell themselves short. The kind of person who might want to conduct his own defence is very likely also to be the kind of person who, by doing it in a clumsy and possibly provocative way, may make an unfortunate impression on the jury and may therefore make his conviction more likely. I am very far from convinced that it is in the interests of the accused to have this facility. Were I to accept the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, that is a point on which I would need to be convinced.
I listened with considerable care to what the noble and learned Lord said about cases where there is a previous relationship between the parties. In a sense—and only a sense—I will grant his point that in these cases the potential cross-examinant knows what happened. In any matter of this kind, recollection is selective. Each party will remember some part of what happened and have a convenient or comfortable amnesia on some of the others. There will also be an inevitable element both of amnesia and of recrimination in the cross-examination. I would be inclined to think that the cases that the noble and learned Lord invokes are precisely those in which the accused should be least encouraged to exercise any right of cross-examination.
Perhaps I may return to the precise words of the noble and learned Lord's amendment, which invokes cases where it is in the interests of justice for the accused to have this right. I cannot at present imagine the kind of case in which it would be in the interests of justice to give the accused this right. I hope that the noble and learned Lord, when he replies, will enlighten me.
Perhaps I may touch on a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, in Committee.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Earl, but the words which I have used in the amendment are,
"that it would be unfair to the defendant not to be at liberty so to cross-examine".
Those words are taken from the current Act which deals with unfairness where evidence which the defendant seeks to put in on the prior sexual activity of the complainant is excluded. So it is a philosophy which is found elsewhere in the legislation on this subject.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for the correction and I apologise to the House for the error. I have the paper here and I am able to look at it.
1192
However, the acceptance of the philosophy does not answer the point about its relevance. I cannot envisage in what type of case this philosophy, however acceptable, would be relevant to the point at issue. It is that point on which I should like to be enlightened.
Perhaps I might briefly return to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu. I quote from memory and, again, I hope that she will put me right if I misquote her. She said that women as a class are not to be treated as suffering from any disabilities. I take her point entirely and I agree with it. That is why I hope that if the Bill goes forward as it is it will deal equally with victims of male rape and female rape. What is in common is the trauma and not the gender, and the Bill accepts that point.
Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, I rise to support this amendment. I have reminded myself of the lengthy debate that we had on this issue on 1st February in Committee, and in particular of the reasons given by the Minister for rejecting the proposed changes. In that debate he did not seek to argue that abuses of the kind that occurred in the two well-publicised cases which led ultimately to the Court of Appeal's judgment had continued since that judgment in May 1998. Indeed, he accepts that that judgment appears to have cured the problem by giving judges the clearest indication of what to do in these cases and confidence that robustness will be supported by the Court of Appeal. So there has been no repetition and there have been no copy-cat cases.
The Minister said that people who have been attacked are deterred from coming forward to give evidence because they fear that they may be cross-examined by their attacker in the way that the popular press reported in those two cases. He added that withdrawal of a defendant's right to conduct his own case had caused no difficulties in respect of children. What he is therefore proposing by this clause is legislation to correct a public misconception. I am very much in favour of correcting misconceptions and misunderstandings, but I do not believe that it is best done by withdrawing an important right from the defence; nor am I confident that by taking such a step the object which both he and I wish to achieve will be achieved significantly or at all.
The reasons why those who are attacked do not come forward are no doubt many and complex. Many do not want to go through the ordeal of re-living the experience; they want to put it behind them and they want to forget, especially as the trial will inevitably be delayed for some time. They may not want to see the defendant face to face; they may not have told the truth about some aspects of the case and they fear that they may be found out; or they are afraid that they may be asked difficult questions and tied up in knots by a clever lawyer. But, above all, time and time again the reason for not coming forward—one has heard it over and over—is that they fear that they will not be believed. The Bill contains means which will help in some important respects—in relation to delays; in relation to screens; and in relation to the extension of the video link. But there are some things that it is not possible to exclude. When anyone makes an allegation of serious crime, sexual or otherwise, especially when the

1193
consequence for the person accused is loss of liberty, often for a considerable period, the accused must retain the right to challenge and explore the evidence fairly and, where necessary, firmly, in relation to the relevant issues. That does not mean bullying, embarrassing or insulting the witness'. All those are things that the judge has ample power to prevent.
With child witnesses there are, I accept, good reasons to restrain the right of a defendant to do that himself. A child is always at a disadvantage. By reason of his age, inevitably he will be inexperienced; he is probably inarticulate; he is more easily frightened than an adult, and more easily intimidated. For very good reasons, children are treated differently, whether they are defendants or witnesses, and rightly so. They need special protection. But to apply a blanket ban to all sexual cases, as this clause currently does, is to ignore the wishes not merely of the defendant but also of the complainant. It is ironic that many women's groups say that they would prefer to be cross-examined by an untrained and less effective defendant than by an experienced lawyer.
The present clause may well mean that a defendant is able to appeal to a jury on the ground that he has been unable to present his case as he wished. The noble Lord asked for examples of cases where it might be appropriate for someone to cross-examine in such a case. I can only say, as I did at an earlier stage of the Bill's passage, that I have had personal experience of such a case. I am quite satisfied that no lawyer would have obtained the admission that the defendant himself, cross-examining very briefly and courteously, did from someone with whom he had lived and who had made an allegation following an argument which she then admitted to his face was false.
An advocate who comes into a case, as the Bill proposes, solely for the evidence of one witness has a difficult task to perform. If the defendant who has to instruct him either fails to do so properly—in which case his task is impossible—or tries to do so but does so inadequately, which is highly likely, the result, whatever his abilities, will be unsatisfactory too. If a jury feels that a defendant is not being allowed to present his case fully as he wishes, it is likely to try to redress what it sees as unfairness by its verdict. The procedure that is proposed under this clause may well have the appearance of unfairness to an accused and result in verdicts which will reflect that and not necessarily the evidence.
The Government are rightly worried about acquittal rates in sexual cases, and particularly rape cases. They would do well—indeed, they would do better—to examine the real causes of those acquittals: cases taken to trial on evidence that is not of sufficient strength to sustain a conviction but which, because a sexual offence is concerned and there is a fear of criticism, are pursued instead of being dropped; serious cases of that nature prosecuted by very junior counsel appointed by the Crown Prosecution Service; the knowledge of juries that
1194
a rape conviction will in every case result in a long prison sentence whatever the circumstances and degree of seriousness in their view, and when they believe that such a sentence may not be merited on the particular facts of the case that they are trying. I urge the House to consider the amendment proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, with favour. I hope that the Government will do so too.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, said in moving the amendment that Clause 33 was written in absolute terms. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will resist the amendment, because in my view the law needs to be stated in absolute terms.
The question of rape is a very difficult one. It is different from all other kinds of crime. The victim of rape, as well as being a victim, often feels some sense of guilt herself. It is important that anyone who has been subjected to a crime of that kind can feel satisfied that the law will protect her and will give her an opportunity to present her case without intimidation and without fear of feeling re-tried and having once again to go through the ordeal of the rape.
The noble and learned Lord referred to the ground rules now laid down by the Court of Appeal. He said that there has been no occurrence of this kind of trial and cross-examination since May 1998. That is less than a year ago, and we do not know whether there will be similar cases in future.
Noble and learned Lords have the benefit of looking at cases from a wide perspective. However, not all their colleagues in charge of cases approach a case with the same impartiality and broad vision and breadth of experience. I should not like to leave this question to the discretion of the judge.
I accept that the noble and learned Lord has gone some way to meeting the criticisms that were made at an earlier stage. However, in an area of this kind, which is so sensitive and difficult, if there is to be a balance in any way it should be towards the victim, not towards the accused.
The Bill as drafted provides the opportunity for the accused to receive a fair trial. He may not have the right to cross-examine. But that is a small price to pay in order to give women the sense of security to come forward and present their case in a way that they would not be prepared to do if the law were less absolute than is now intended by the Bill. Were that to happen, we should not have the same security as we shall have under the Bill as drafted, and there will not be the same sense of fairness to victims of rape. I therefore hope that my noble friend will resist this amendment.
Lord Monson: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, she spoke about the rights of the victim

1195
versus the rights of the accused? Should she not have said "the rights of the accuser" versus the rights of the accused? The accuser might not necessarily be a victim.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord is right. I meant the balance between the victim of the offence and the defendant who is accused of the offence.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, on these Benches there are strongly held views on both sides of the matter. We have decided to treat it as a matter of conscience and not to impose a Whip.
I am unable to support the amendment. In saying so, I am fully aware that I am not a criminal lawyer. I do not have the experience of the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, nor that of my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford. However, I am encouraged by the fact that an extremely powerful speech was made at the Committee stage by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws. I agreed with everything she said. That applies also to the remarks of my noble friends Lord Russell and Lord Lester.
I start from the basic principle that, first, it is wrong for the guilty to go free; secondly, it is wrong for the innocent to be convicted, and thirdly, as between those two, the conviction of the innocent is much the greater wrong. Clause 33 must be tested against those principles. Will it lead to the conviction of the innocent? I believe the answer to that is unequivocally no. No one would be behaving rationally if they chose to defend themselves when accused of a serious sexual offence, even if they were allowed to cross-examine the complainant. That includes cases of date rape as much as any other kind of rape.
The example given by the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, is based on an assumption which can only be subjective. It is that the complainant in the case would not have made the same confession to a lawyer as she did to the defendant. There is no way in which that can be shown to be true. Indeed, it seems to me inherently unlikely. I cannot imagine circumstances in which an innocent defendant, given the opportunity to be represented, would choose not to instruct an advocate or would refuse to co-operate with an advocate instructed under Clause 37 to cross-examine on his behalf. I believe that that decision would be so irrational as to indicate that the accused needed protection from himself. Therefore, I believe that Clause 33 will not lead to the conviction of the innocent in a single case. The amendment is not necessary.
Will Clause 33 as it stands lead to more frequent conviction of the guilty? I believe that it may well do so. It is not certain, but there is a real possibility. The percentage of rapes that are reported and prosecuted is notoriously low. One reason is the reluctance of victims to face the trauma of giving evidence in court. That fear is made much worse by the possibility of being cross-examined by the defendant in person. It is true that in a few cases that has happened. It is also true that the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal, through the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice, has given judges greater freedom than perhaps they thought they
1196
had previously to control any abuse of the right to cross-examination. Despite that, I believe that the mere possibility of cross-examination by the accused, however remote, is likely to deter women from reporting sex offences and giving evidence. The trouble with the amendment is that it opens up that possibility in theory. In practice it will never happen. It is impossible to imagine a case in which a judge will think that the interests of justice require the accused to be given the right to defend in person rather than to be defended by an advocate. Nevertheless, the amendment opens up that possibility. The amendment serves no useful purpose and may do harm. I propose to vote against it.
Lord Lester of Heme Hill: My Lords, I had not intended to participate in the debate. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, tempted me to do so by, I think, referring to me—I am sure it was not meant sarcastically—as some kind of guru of the European human rights convention. The noble and learned Lord is not noted for sarcasm. I am sure that he did not mean to be sarcastic. He knows that I am not a guru of anything at all, except in my mother's eyes. In no other eyes could I be regarded as a guru.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I did not use; the word "guru". What I said was intended to be a compliment. I think that when the noble Lord reads Hansard he will find that that is how it reads.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I believe the words in the Independent this morning were "the venerable human rights lawyer".
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I feel rather old as I take part in this debate. Venerable I am not. And a guru? Only to my mother. I cannot claim to be more expert than anyone else in the area since I do not practise in the criminal field. I wish to respond to the temptation to say a word or two about why Clause 33 is not absolute and why it accords perfectly with the contents of the human rights convention. It is not absolute because all it does is forbid the direct personal cross-examination of the accuser by the accused. The Bill as a whole guarantees the right to a fair trial which is enshrined in Article 6 of the convention. The European Court of Human Rights, in a case called Croissant v. Germany, made clear that there was no absolute right to cross-examine in person. The convention as a whole represents a fair balance. All the articles, even the absolute prohibitions, have been interpreted as balanced.
What are the other rights that have to be balanced? They are the right not to be subjected to degrading treatment in a trial and the right to respect for personal privacy. I am satisfied that if we are to preserve those competing public interests and rights, they must be balanced by some body. On this occasion, although I deprecate statutes that interfere with judicial discretion where judicial discretion is necessary I believe that Parliament is right to make it clear that there should be no direct personal cross-examination for the reasons I have given. The judges can normally be

1197
trusted, but I can think of no circumstances in which it would be permissible, if one is trying to protect personal privacy, avoid degrading treatment and ensure a fair trial, for there to be direct personal cross-examination. That is not the same as saying that there should be no full right of cross-examination by instructing a competent advocate to cross-examine.
This is not an absolutist position; it is a position that fairly balances matters. I am sorry that wise judges have failed in the past to prevent two gross cases of abuse of human rights, the two to which the noble and learned Lord referred. For my part, two are quite enough. It is time to put an end to such cases and to make sure that there is not a third.
The guidelines of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice are helpful. However, they give too much latitude—as does the noble and learned Lord's amendment—for a repetition of conduct of that kind. For those reasons, I entirely agree with everyone who has spoken against the amendment.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I have not taken part in any of the proceedings on the Bill although I have listened from time to time to a fair proportion of the discussion. I would find it difficult to support the Government if they were to resist the thrust of the amendment. I shall tell the noble Lord, Lord Lester, why. I have practised at the criminal Bar. I have had the opportunity of appearing in trials which would be caught by this provision. The idea that you can somehow create a proper balance, as he puts it, by imposing an absolute prohibition on the right of the defendant to cross-examine in person is a proposition which I find difficult to understand and even more difficult to accept. What the Government propose here is simply the removal of a right which, at present, exists on the part of the individuals to defend themselves if they so wish and to cross-examine if they so wish. My noble friend Lady Lockwood spoke in very sincere terms, but not in relation to the amendment. The argument seemed almost to be that one should abolish cross-examination altogether in rape trials.
As for the effect on the complainant, one has to take account of the fact that if a defendant wishes to defend himself, why on earth should he not be prepared to defend himself? Once the Court of Appeal, in the person of the Lord Chief Justice—
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Since he asked the question, would he accept that one answers it by saying that it is because it degrades the alleged victim, and therefore should not be permitted?
6.30 p.m.
Lord Richard: My Lords, with great respect, a trial is a trial. The person who is accused of a criminal offence is entitled to a fair trial and in that trial the evidence has to be tested. What this amendment and this discussion is about is the way in which that evidence should be tested in a criminal trial. If a defendant chooses to defend himself—and, with great respect, that
1198
has been a great tradition in this country over many centuries—he is entitled to do precisely that. Once you have a Court of Appeal judgment which actually regulates the way in which a defendant can cross-examine—because, as I understand that decision, it gives greater power and firmer guidelines to the trial judge to make sure that the cross-examination proceeds in a proper way—I will just finish this sentence, if I may, and then give way in a moment. What this argument is really about is whether proper cross-examination by a defendant in person should be prohibited. I am bound to say I find that an astonishing proposition. I will now give way.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Richard. I entirely accept his proposition that the evidence should be tested, but can he give me one circumstance in which the evidence can be properly tested by the accused and cannot be properly tested by counsel?
Lord Richard: My Lords, I cannot invent an example off the top of my head, but I can think of one possibility where the accused, immediately before cross-examining the complainant, finds that his counsel is either unavailable or that he cannot get on with his counsel and the judge says that the trial has to go on. In those circumstances, is it seriously proposed that the defendant should not be able to cross-examine? I find that a very strange proposition indeed. I could imagine circumstances in which a court would say that it was unfair to a defendant not to be permitted to cross-examine, but at the end of the day this is a fairly simple issue. The simplicity of the issue can be summed up in one sentence as follows. Once the judges are prepared to control the way in which a defendant cross-examines in person, is it right for Parliament to take away his right to do it? I am bound to say that I am not convinced of that. I apologise to my noble friend on the Front Bench for doing what I have not done in the course of all these proceedings before, and that is to express my unease with the proposal that the Government are making. I would find it very hard indeed to support the Government if they were to oppose the amendment put forward by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, said that rape and sexual offences are very different from other crimes. That is true. However, the difference lies not so much in the harm or hurt that is caused to those who are the victims of crime. What really distinguishes rape in particular from other crimes is that in very many cases, although it can be shown that sexual intercourse has taken place, there is no visible injury and by the nature of things there is no corroboration, because sexual intercourse normally takes place in private.
In many cases—indeed in cases in which I have recently been involved—there is no complaint. The complaint may happen, as in the case to which I referred, some 40 years later. Those are some of the distinguishing features of rape trials which make them

1199
rather different from other cases and rather difficult to deal with. What my noble and venerable friends do not entirely understand, but those of us who have spoken who have practised at the criminal Bar do, is the delicate balance of a criminal trial: the dynamics of a criminal trial under an adversarial system.
What it requires is that there be counsel of reasonably equal standing, that the judge be fair and does not intervene, that witnesses be called on either side and be subject to fair cross-examination controlled by the judge, and that after the summing-up the decision is made by a jury. When people go on about the rate of acquittals in rape cases I think they rather tend to forget that it is 12 ordinary people, selected by lot, who actually make the decision. There is not some kind of lawyers' conspiracy as a result of which rape conviction levels are low. It happens because ordinary people, who understand the witnesses who are brought before them and who have common sense on their side, realise that the charges are not made out.
The Government's proposal introduces into this delicate balance of a criminal trial an entirely novel and strange element: that is to say, that a defendant should no longer be entitled to defend himself but should have somebody appointed to do it for him. Once you introduce a person who appears on behalf of a defendant who is reluctant to have him, who perhaps objects to having him and who gives him no proper instructions and who does not fully understand the case he is putting forward, there is a twist put into the whole procedure which will result in injustice. That does not mean to say it will necessarily result in the acquittal of a defendant— it may very well result in his conviction—but it does twist all the procedures that have developed into safeguards for the individual and in the public interest over many centuries. I really have to disagree with my noble friend Lord Goodhart, who sees nothing wrong with this and thinks that it is possible to introduce this new element into a criminal trial in front of a jury without distorting the result.
The arguments that are advanced against this amendment are that cross-examination by the individual defendant may prevent complaints coming forward from people who are truly victims. It may have a deterrent effect and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, put it, this is legislation to correct a misconception. I believe that where the Government fall down on this topic is that they make no attempt to inform the public of what is happening in the criminal justice system. For example, there is no attempt to point out to the public the training that judges undergo, that no judge can sit on a rape case unless he has what is colloquially called "the rape ticket"—that is to say, that the Lord Chancellor's Department has realised that he is of sufficient weight and experience to conduct cases of this sensitivity. Rather do the Government go along with the press and the headlines, and seek by legislation to cut down the discretion and the control of the judiciary, to put a cap upon what they customarily do.
It is rather ironic that this Bill and the amendments that have been brought forward by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, do a great deal to improve the position of the press. The press cannot be challenged.
1200
The press has to be supported, and so if the press has headlines which say that rape is rampant and something has to be done about it, then this Government, instead of informing the public about the true situation, take a different view.
In Committee, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham, said that miscarriages of justice must be prevented at all costs. That was challenged by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn. He thought that was not necessarily so and that miscarriages of justice should not be prevented at all costs. He thought that there is a balance to be struck which should be in favour of the victim. That is the expression used by the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood: there has to be a balance in favour of the victim, not the accused. If one looks at the left-hand panel of your Lordships' Chamber one observes the figure of Justice, with the balance evenly held. That is the tradition of this country and of the criminal justice system, which must be preserved at all costs.
The amendment seeks to give to the judge the power to come to an appealable decision on whether it is unfair to the defendant not to allow him to cross-examine. It puts the matter in his hands. At an earlier stage today the noble Lord, Lord Williams, said that those who upheld the role and discretion of judges were deeply conservative. I do not believe that that is true. In the liberal tradition of this country we support judges and oppose the statutory imposition of fetters on their discretion. I support the amendment.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, it is important to bear in mind that there are two aspects to be considered when debating this amendment. The first is justice in the particular case that is being heard. From all that I have heard from extremely learned counsel and judges I believe that to be fairly evenly balanced on the basis of the Bill as presently drafted. The other aspect that I wish to emphasise is that there is no justice for a woman who has suffered rape but is not prepared to give evidence to lead to a prosecution of the rapist. From my researches a good number of women suffer rape but ask whether there is any danger that they will be brought face to face with their alleged rapists who will then be able to cross-examine them. On the basis of the Bill as presently drafted, the police or solicitor—whoever the woman speaks to—will be able to give the unequivocal answer that there is no possibility of the accused being able to challenge her face to face. That is why I prefer the Bill as drafted without the amendment.
I fully understand the fact that judges are likely to act properly and sensibly. The position is evenly balanced as the Bill is drafted. However, I believe that there will be a lack of justice if the amendment is accepted because some women will not be prepared to give evidence in court against the accused. Therefore, I shall vote against the amendment.
Lord Jacobs: My Lords, I sit among a large number of lawyers, so in the circumstances it is perhaps a little inopportune for a layman to get up to speak. I have listened very carefully to the debate. The main argument in favour of the amendment appears to be that not only

1201
must the defendant be given the opportunity to cross-examine but that reliance can be placed on judges not to let matters go too far. However, so far no lawyer has mentioned the difficulties faced by judges. I refer to the example of the two cases in which cross-examination went on for days on end. In those examples the judges were worried, probably rightly, that if they curtailed the cross-examination the matter might go to appeal. It is difficult to decide how far the cross-examination should proceed. All of us sitting here would probably say that one day's cross-examination would be ample. However, under some circumstances it might go on for very much longer than that. For that reason, having heard all of the arguments, on balance I believe that the amendment should be opposed.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, this matter was discussed at an earlier stage of the Bill. I shall not attempt to discuss all of the arguments that have been put forward, even if I were capable of so doing. On earlier occasio0ns I have made clear that this is certainly not a party matter but a matter of conscience. In this matter I speak only for myself. Once again the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, has moved an amendment and explained it with his usual clarity. It has been made clear again that this is a difficult issue on which to strike a balance. In practice, the cases that it covers are rare. Few defendants accused of rape conduct their own defence, and usually it is wise not to do so. The few who do conduct their own defence and cross-examine the complainants often prejudice their cases in the eyes of the jury. As the noble and learned Lord informed us, the Court of Appeal has already limited what can be asked and the way in which cross-examination is conducted.
In spite of all that, and although it is a rare occurrence, whether we like it or not this has a very big effect on the public mind. If somehow or other we could persuade the public to listen to and take account of all these debates, conceivably their minds might be changed, but I do not believe that there is any realistic possibility of that at the moment. The possibility of the complainant being cross-examined by the attacker, remote as it may be, and controlled by the rules of the Court of Appeal as it may be, certainly adds to the pressure on the victim against going into the witness box. I say "victim" because here I refer to the genuine complainant. I realise that there are other cases. I am aware from some constituency cases of which I have knowledge, apart from other reports, how difficult it is to persuade genuine victims to be prepared to go into the witness box. Without them the case fails. If those who try to ensure that justice is done can say to someone whom they believe to be a genuine victim, as they could if the Bill were passed without amendment, that the defendant—usually a man—will not be able by law to cross-examine, that is a much more powerful and persuasive argument than to say, as they would have to say otherwise, that it is very unlikely that he will cross-examine but that if he does he will be constrained
1202
by the rules of the Court of Appeal. That is not nearly so persuasive an argument to use in these very emotional and difficult cases.
I believe that if the Bill is unamended there will be fewer miscarriages of justice resulting from the failure of the victim to give evidence. One may describe that as lack of access to justice rather than a miscarriage of justice. Whatever way one looks at it, it is certainly a failure of justice. I do not claim that this clause by itself, or that the Bill as a whole with the other provisions relating to screens, video and other forms of protection, will completely end the reluctance of victims to give evidence—there are many other reasons for that reluctance—but I believe that it will help. In that way it will reduce the number of miscarriages of justice. For that reason, and speaking only for myself, I shall vote against the amendment.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, we have discussed this matter at some length today. I make no criticism of that because this is an important matter. We have also discussed it at significant length on earlier occasions. Perhaps I may focus for a moment on the terms of the amendment. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, and the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, seek to introduce, at page 24, line 29, the entitlement of a judge to give leave for personal cross-examination in rape cases. The criterion that the judge must apply in coming to his judgment is whether he is satisfied that it would be unfair to the defendant not to allow it. There is no reference there to any of the issues which have been spoken of about the anguish caused to genuine complainants.
Several propositions have been put forward which are either inaccurate or unreasonably based. On the last occasion but one the Lord Chief Justice put forward his proposition that one had to prevent miscarriages of justice at all costs. I venture to disagree with that. I give the well known example that in some jurisdictions one cannot achieve a conviction for rape without the evidence of two male witnesses. If one wants to go along the route of "at all costs"—I believe it to be unduly absolutist—one can do so, but I decline to start on that journey. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, said that these were safeguards produced over many centuries. No, my Lords, it was only 100 years ago that a defendant could give evidence in a criminal trial on his own behalf. Over the centuries most defendants were not represented, let alone at public expense.
I do not put these as tendentious points. I simply alert noble Lords that when the argument refers to "over the centuries", occasionally it is important to inform oneself about past history.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, surely the Minister will concede that over the centuries a defendant defending himself was entitled to cross-examine.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, of course he was entitled to cross-examine, but until 100 years ago

1203
he was not entitled to give evidence. I put it as part of the picture that we need to have clearly and accurately in our minds.
My noble friend Lady Mallalieu said that we should be cautious, indeed very careful, about interfering with the right to challenge and explore accusations. It is specifically preserved in the Bill. Provision is made for representation at public expense. Provision is made for the judge to consider warning the jury that the mere fact that an otherwise self-represented defendant was not able to cross-examine a complainant does not derogate from his case or the value of the cross-examination. There is no question of stopping the challenge and exploration of evidence given by the complainant.
My noble friend Lord Richard asked how it could conceivably be right to prevent a defendant cross-examining on his own behalf if he wished. I can deal with that. He also raised the related point of what happens if the lawyer is not available. The position would be exactly the same as occurs now if the lawyer is not available. The judge dealing judicially with the matter will allow an adjournment; and he will allow a proper adjournment because, if he does not do so and insists on an unrepresented defendant continuing, he will find that the conviction will be overturned (rightly) in the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division).
I turn to the fundamental point raised by my noble friend Lord Richard. In our system of criminal justice, how can it be right to stop a man cross-examining in person if he wishes? I can give the answer immediately. That has been the position in our system of criminal jurisprudence for some years past now. If one is charged with the incestuous rape of one's daughter, or any other sexual offence against one's daughter, one is not allowed to cross-examine her in person.
Let me take that example further forward. We have heard the examples given: that a kind, gentle cross-examination may effectively sometimes bring about the immediate withdrawal of the allegations. That is not the scheme we have with children. I have not heard it contended myself, nor seen any evidence of it, that that has brought about a miscarriage of justice. So sometimes— I put it gently—absolutist propositions of a golden time, or on how things were in principle, simply do not bear even cursory examination.
We must recognise— there is abundant material to bring us to that recognition— that many women who are complainants in rape cases will not submit themselves to the further ordeal of the court process. Frequently a woman officer detailed to deal with them has to tell the complainant that there is a prospect of cross-examination in person. If the complainant asks the CPS representative, he or she has to say that there is that prospect. The complainant might say to the woman officer trained in investigation of rape, "But when?". If by some mischance your Lordships support the amendment the answer would be, "If the judge thinks it is unfair to the defendant not to be at liberty to do so". I cannot imagine many women wanting to continue with their complaint on that basis.
It is true that the Milton Brown and Ralston Edwards cases led to guidelines. That does not cure the mischief. The mere prospect that in some circumstances a judge
1204
may decide that the position would be unfair to the defendant, and that personal cross-examination can be allowed, will stop women making complaints, in particular, I repeat, when the police officer and the CPS representative have to give the truthful answer, let alone if the woman goes to her solicitor for an independent view, as was pointed out earlier by the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford.
There is no suggestion in the Bill that competent cross-examination can be disqualified. There are safeguards to which I have referred. If the Milton Brown and Ralston Edwards cases were never to occur again, there would still be that significant fear that women would be subjected to a cruel and degrading experience which is forbidden by the European convention.
I do not wish to join unnecessarily in the general debate between the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, and the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Heme Hill. But occasionally your Lordships— not myself, I think— are guilty of quotation of previous excerpts from Hansard. I refer to col. 1400 of the Official Report of 1st February 1999. The nobel and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, I agree, did not say "guru". There was reference to "in-house expert" which may or may not be offensive! I take no part in that, except to be deeply helpful! The Lord Chief Justice said:
"I have never suggested in this House or anywhere that the provision is contrary to the European convention. The argument of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, is one that I readily accept".
When the noble Lord's mother regards him as a guru, she is absolutely right and I can prove it by the Lord Chief Justice's unsolicited testimonial.
I have thought carefully about everything that has been said, and have reread all the debates. There will not be a compromise on principled view. On behalf of the Government I do not accept the amendment. I do not say that discourteously. I simply put my position perfectly plainly. I recognise that when professional colleagues whom I have known over the years come to a view, it has to be taken seriously. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and I in past times have both prosecuted and defended in rape cases. That does not make us necessarily experts in the conclusions to which we come, plainly because we come to different ones. But the arguments that were deployed by a number of my colleagues and judges whom I respect have to be attended to. I believe that they have got it wrong. I do not say that on the basis of absolute certainty but after weighing up the arguments.
If a man is accused of rape, as the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, said, not all complaints are genuine; and as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, said on earlier occasions, the penalties for rape are extremely serious. We say that in these circumstances, which we believe to be genuinely analogous to the prohibition presently in our law, the defendant will have representation; he will have it at public expense; and the judge has duties to give specific warnings to juries. If a defendant says, "I wish to conduct the whole of my trial myself?, the scheme is flexible enough to enable one to say, "You may conduct the whole of the trial yourself, except when the woman complainant"— I use the word

1205
"complainant" because she has not at that stage been demonstrated by the verdict to be a victim—"gives evidence. The female complainant will have to be cross-examined on your behalf by counsel provided by the state. "That is entirely consistent with what the noble Lord, Lord Lester, said is a compliance with our obligations under the European Convention.
I cannot assist your Lordships further. I respectfully dissent from what is being said by those whose opinions I respect. I believe that we have reached the correct conclusion. I do not believe that it has led to miscarriages of justice in children's cases. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, and others are right when they say that rape is a crime which is in a category different from other grievous crimes. I shall not be able to say to a woman complainant, if she asks me, "Well, you can rely on the guidelines in Brown and Edwards. ", because I do not believe it.
7 p.m.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, we have had a long debate which in many ways has covered the points. Therefore, I shall be brief. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, asked me how on earth it could be unfair to deprive a defendant of the right to cross-examine in person. I find no difficulty in that. If one is dealing with an alleged rape case where for years the parties have lived together as man and wife, as partners or whatever, and the allegation is untrue, the defendant in person is in a far better position to be able to catch the complainant out in the answers she gives because of the way he can remind her of other events which corroborate his point. The dishonest answers to his questions can be quickly followed by further questions which, in the end, may either establish to the jury's satisfaction that it is an untrue bill or cause her, as the noble Baroness indicated in one case, to say, "You are quite right, I have made this up. We had a row and I am trying to get even with you. ".
The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, was good enough to admit that his practice does not involve dealing with crime. He says that he cannot conceive that the result of this embargo on cross-examination could possibly lead to an innocent person being convicted. Putting it briefly, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice said that one of the results could be that innocent people are convicted and guilty people are acquitted. That is in Hansard; it was his view.
It is very easy to see how the guilty person can be convicted because no judge can stop the defendant in his final speech indicating how unfairly he has been treated by his inability to cross-examine, although every other stage of the defence was conducted by him personally. It is very easy to make out a situation of unfairness, the little man being faced by the heavier personalities of the prosecution.
The constant reference to "victim" instead of to "complainant" led the Lord Chief Justice to say, which I quoted in the debate on 22nd June 1998:
"Where, for example, a defendant is accused of rape, the trial cannot be conducted on the assumption that he is a rapist and the
1206
complainant a victim, since the whole purpose of the proceeding is to establish whether that is so or not".
The emotive nature is one of the problems of a rape trial.
I do not know who accepted that under the Bill as now drafted the situation is evenly balanced. I certainly did not. It is unevenly balanced. It was evenly balanced when the defendant had the right to cross-examine personally or leave it to a professional to do so.
I conclude by referring to briefing material sent to me by Women Against Rape to deal with the debate which began when the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, drew attention to a Home Office report on the subject. It reads:
"Re: question from Lady Byford to be debated in the Lords on 22 June [1998] proposing to remove the right of defendants accused of rape from cross-examining the witness.
"We strongly oppose this proposal, which was also put forward in the recent Home Office Report on vulnerable and intimidated witnesses, Speaking Up for Justice.
"This change is not in the victim's interest, nor what most victims have demanded: it would not deal with the pervasive biases and discrimination women and children face in the criminal justice process … Removing the right of men accused of rape to defend themselves would not change the way victims of rape are treated in court by barristers who are routinely allowed to ask irrelevant questions about victims' medical and sexual history … The problem is not who asks the questions but which questions they are allowed to ask.
"Also, removing the right of defendants to conduct their own defence would set a very dangerous precedent for civil rights generally. The Report already recommends extending this ban to other offences, confirming our fears. This fundamental change to the law would not only affect the defendant's right but also the way rape cases are dealt with".
It ends in this genial way:
"The experiences, needs and demands of rape survivors rather than the agenda of opportunistic and populist politicians and the media must frame the public debate and changes in the law".
It does not appear as though the powerful support for the Bill as drafted is the same as the support from outside which was anticipated. This is a serious matter and it is high time that we had the opinion of the House. I therefore commend my amendment to that end.
7.9 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 15) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 47; Not-Contents, 149.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Ackner, L. [Teller.]

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Aldington, L.

Falkland, V.

Barber, L.

Fookes, B.

Cadman, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Harmsworth, L

Carnock, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Courtown, E.

Holdemess, L.

Craigavon, V.

Hooson, L.

Cross, V.

Hurd of Westwell, L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Ironside, L.

Dundonald, E.

Kintore, E.

1207

Lane, L.

Sharples, B.

Leigh, L.

Stockton, E.

McConnell, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

McNair. L.

Swinfen, L.

Mancroft, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L. [Teller.]

Monson, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Munster, E.

Vinson, L.

Nunbumholme, L.

Weatherill, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Wharton, B.

Renton, L.

Windlesham, L.

Wynford, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Addington, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Alli, L.

Hoyle, L.

Amos, B.

Hughes, L.

Ampthill, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Bach, L.

Barnett L.

Islwyn, L.

Blackstone, B.

Jacobs, L.

Blease, L.

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

Borrie, L.

Bragg, L.

Jeger, B.

Brentford, V.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Brookman, L.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Kennet, L.

Burlison, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Byford, B.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Carlisle. E.

Levy, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Lockwood, B.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Lofthouse of Pontefract L.

Christopher, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Clement-Jones. L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]

Clinton-Davis, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Colwyn. L.

Maddock, B.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

David, B.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Desai, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Dholakia, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Dixon, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Donoughue, L.

Molloy, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Monkswell, L.

Dubs, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Falconer of Thoroton. L.

Newby, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Nicol, B.

Fitt, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Gilbert, L.

Orme, L.

Glenamara, L.

Palmer, L.

Goodhart, L.

Peston, L.

Goudie, B.

Pitkeathley, B.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Grantchester, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale. B.

Gregson, L.

Randall of St Budeaux, L.

Grenfell, L.

Razzall, L.

Hacking, L.

Rea, L.

Hampton, L.

Renwick of Clifton, L.

Hamwee, B.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Hardie, L.

Rowallan. L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Russell, E.

Harris of Haringey, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Haskel, L.

Sandberg, L.

Hayman, B.

Sawyer, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Sewel, L.

1208

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Shepherd, L.

Uddin, B.

Simon, V.

Ullswater, V.

Simon of Highbury, L.

Walker of Doncaster. L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Wamer, L.

Steel of Aikwood, L.

Watson of Invergowrie, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Wedderbum of Charlton, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Whitty, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Wilcox, B.

Thomas of Macclesfield, L.

Williams of Crosby. B.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Tope, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Trefgame, L.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Clause 40 [Restriction on evidence or questions about complainant's sexual history]:
Lord Ackner Lord Ackner moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 29, line 2, leave out ("and") and insert ("or").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is almost a sister amendment to the one we have just dealt with. What one needs to do is compare the statutory provision as it now is with the statutory provision which the Government wish to put in. The statutory provision is found in the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976. That Act came into existence as a result of a special committee presided over by Mrs. Justice Heilbron because of anxieties which were being felt in relation to the law on rape. Provision was made with regard to restrictions on evidence in rape cases. The relevant provision is quite short. It is Section 2(1) and 2(2). Section 2(1) states:
"If at a trial any person is for the time 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?
and these words are important,
"with a person other than that defendant".
Subsection (2) provides:
"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 to that defendant to refuse to allow the evidence to be adduced or the question to be asked".
Guidance has been given and I shall not deal with it in detail. However, it is convenient to refer briefly to the case of Viola in 1982. In the words of the then Lord Chief Justice, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lane, that set out very clearly that the first question which a judge must ask himself is:
"Are the questions proposed to be put relevant according to the ordinary common law rules of evidence and relevant to the case as it is being put? If they are not so relevant, that is the end of the matter".
The second matter which the judge must consider is:
"if the questions are relevant, then whether they should be allowed or not will of course depend on the terms of Section 2",

1209
which I have read out.
What that comes to is that it would be unfair to a defendant if it was more likely than not that the particular question or line of questions, if allowed, might reasonably lead a jury properly directed in the summing-up to take a different view of the complainant's evidence from that which they might have taken had the question or series of questions not been allowed.
One turns now to what is suggested in its place. I have referred to it as a convoluted piece of drafting and I shall not read the whole of Clause 40. However, I shall read out the opening words because it is important that one has them in mind. Clause 40 states:
"If at a trial a person is charged with a sexual offence, then, except with the leave of the court… no evidence may be adduced, and … no question may be asked in cross-examination, by or on behalf of any accused at the trial, about any sexual behaviour of the complainant…The court may give leave in relation to any evidence or question only on an application made by or on behalf of an accused, and may not give such leave unless it is satisfied",
and here come the two matters on which the court must be satisfied, and they are cumulative,
"(a) that subsection (3) or (5) applies, and (b) that a refusal of leave might have the result of rendering unsafe a conclusion of the jury or (as the case may be) the court on any relevant issue in the case".
Subsection (3) states:
"This subsection applies if the evidence or question relates to a relevant issue in the case and either…that issue is not an issue of consent; or…it is an issue of consent and the sexual behaviour of the complainant to which the evidence or question relates is alleged …(i) to have taken place at or about the same time as the event which is the subject matter of the charge against the accused, 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".
I then jump to subsection (5) which states:
"This subsection applies if the evidence or question
…relates to any evidence adduced by the prosecution about any sexual behaviour of the complainant; and…in the opinion of the court, would go no further than is necessary to enable the evidence adduced by the prosecution to be rebutted or explained by or on behalf of the accused".
It could well occur that the matters required under subsection 2(a)—that subsection (3) or (5) applies—do not apply but the judge, after careful consideration, considers that a refusal of leave might have the result of rendering unsafe a conclusion of the jury as a result of refusing that material.
That is an extremely odd situation to find on the face of a Bill; that a trial is to proceed notwithstanding that the judge has been obliged by Parliament to reach a decision, which,
"might have the result of rendering unsafe a conclusion of the jury".
There will be those on the Bench who may well take the view that if a judge reaches that decision he should stop the case because to continue could have the result of an unsafe conviction which can then be put right only by an appeal.
The Minister was asked to deal specifically with that by my noble friend Lord Bledisloe on the second day of the Report Stage; that is, on 8th March 1999. The noble Viscount said:
"My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down"
referring to the Minister,
"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 evidence would render the conclusion unsafe but, nonetheless, he is debarred from admitting it by subsection (3) or subsection (5)".
That provoked a very short answer in these terms:
"My Lords, we need to turn our minds to the proper analysis of Clause 40". —[Official Report, 8/3/99; cols. 35 and 36.]
That is what I seek to do and I hope, on this occasion, that we shall receive an answer from the Minister.
Perhaps I may show your Lordships how this may work in practice, just to highlight the absurdity. As I see it, if I were the defendant, I could not ask the question of the complainant, "We have lived together for five years, have we not?" because that is not permitted, as I understand it, by the provisions. "I am not asking about something contemporaneous; I am asking about something in the past, but it is immensely relevant because it will be the foundation of my defence that the lady consented".
Imagine a case where a man has been led on to have sexual relations with a woman and, after that experience, she tells him, "I am a prostitute and my fee is £100. If you don't pay me that fee, I shall allege that you raped me". As I see these provisions, I would not be allowed to ask that question. Again, that is not dealing with contemporaneous conduct, as she has been a prostitute for many years. I do not suggest, for one moment, that the fact that a woman has been a prostitute means that she consented to anything; but, where there is a clash between the complainant and the defendant, that is one of the factors that one would expect a jury to take into account.
I have sought to right this by a very simple process of taking the word "and" out of paragraph (a) so that it is not cumulative, and putting in its place "or". So, the material would go to the jury if the court considered that the refusal of that material might have the result of rendering unsafe a conclusion of the jury, or that material would go before the jury if subsections (3) and (5), which I have read out, apply.
I am sorry that our resident expert on European law is not with us but, in my respectful submission, I would have suggested that subsection (2) as it stands, with the word "and", is in breach of the relevant convention because it indicates on the face of the Bill that there can be a situation in which material which is relevant has been refused because it does not come within a couple of categories but the judge, nevertheless, is put in a position where the trial is apparently to proceed although the result may well be an unsafe conviction.
I am sorry that at the moment there is no real prospect of an authoritative contradiction, but I would have submitted that such a provision on the face of a Bill cannot enable the Minister's certificate about

1211
compliance with European human rights to be valid. In those circumstances, I beg to move my amendment, confident that if it is agreed to we would be complying with the European Convention on Human Rights and there would be no real prospect of an unsafe conviction.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, my Amendments Nos. 17 to 20 are grouped with those of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, and, for the convenience of the House, I shall speak to them together.
As noble Lords are aware, I am not a lawyer but a lay person. In Committee I tried to argue on the side of the complainant about Clause 40. I was unfortunately not present on the second day of Report when the amendments tabled by my noble friend were debated and accepted. However, if one reads Hansard, one sees that much of the debate was not on those two amendments but on others which argued on the side of the lawyers and judges rather than that of the lay complainant, if I may so describe it.
These amendments concern Clause 40(3) which was introduced on Report. I should like to deal with them in turn. In a previous debate, the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, made an interesting comment which I should like to use as a preface to my speech. It is right that the legal system should ensure that although the guilty may escape conviction, no innocent person shall be convicted. That is quite right.
However, it must be said that although that may be true on a case-by-case basis— and, indeed, it is a vital freedom that we have— the whole system has failed women in rape cases. That can be seen by the lack of complaints. Obstacles are set up, whether legal or psychological, which prevent women from coming to court. The literature, which is now quite extensive, shows that there are bitter complaints about the way the courts deal with such cases. That indicates to me, as a lay person, that something must be done about the system. Certain presumptions in our culture are taken as obvious truths and are not even questioned.
My Amendment No. 17 deals with the first of them, which is all about belief in consent. I remember saying in Committee that, as far as I am concerned, consent is consent, and nothing else. There has to be real consent at the moment when the incident is alleged to have happened. I take an almost existential view of this— that the past and the future do not matter and that all that matters is whether, at the moment in question, there was consent. I remember that in Committee my noble friend Lady Mallalieu introduced the fanciful concept of "the balcony scene". I said that I did not care how many times a woman had staged the balcony scene, or even if it happened four hours before the incident; the point was that if she did not consent at that moment, she did not consent.
The idea that belief in consent can be admitted as a ground of defence can almost be described in the words of the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, who referred to driving a coach and horses through the provisions. That would damage Clause 40, which was very good when it started out.
1212
In a largely sexist society, some men believe that all women are there for them to have sexual relations with and they cannot get it into their heads that a woman has a mind of her own and an autonomy of her own and that when she says "No", she may actually mean "No" Regardless of what such men's friends may have told them about the woman or what they may think that they have heard, they must realise that "No" means "No".
That view was taken by the Law Commission. I refer to section 7.19 on page 95 of its Consent and the Criminal Law, which states
"Arguably this should depend on the nature of the defendant's reasons, (if any) for believing that she does consent when she obviously does not. If, for example, he thinks so merely because he has been told by a third party that he can expect her to resist, we consider that it is arguable that such a basis for his conduct should be regarded as simply illegitimate— that, if he chooses to ignore the woman's actual response in favour of what someone else has told him, he must take the consequences, because his conduct involves a denial of her autonomy and a lack of respect for her status as an individual with a will of her own. Similarly, if he thinks that she consents because he thinks that when a woman says "no" she means "yes", it is equally arguable that he is relying on an attitude towards other people (female or male) which is no longer acceptable. The question is whether society should state clearly that a man who ignores a woman's express refusal will not be permitted to claim that he did not think she meant it".
That is a clear statement about belief in consent.
I have tabled Amendment No. 17 because I am worried that, although sexual history cannot be introduced to show sexual consent, it may be brought in by the back door to show something about belief in consent. Belief in consent would then become another spurious ground on which many matters which we did not want to be introduced into a rape trial would be introduced. That is why my Amendment No. 17 seeks to insert the words on the Marshalled List into subsection (3)(a).
Amendments Nos. 18 and 19 are slightly different. They relate to the concept of similar behaviour. Amendment No. 18 is cast much more broadly. Amendment No. 19 is much more narrowly drawn and deals with subsection (3)(b)(ii). Again, the same kind of issues arise. When we speak about "similar behaviour", relations with third parties might be introduced as might previous history. Indeed, all sorts of what I would consider to be irrelevant details would arise, such as those not relating to the moment of the alleged incident.
I do not like the 24-hour provision which has been introduced because I think that 24 hours are a long time in a person's life. A person may change his or her mind in a period of 24 hours. People can get divorced in 24 hours— or even married! Therefore, with regard to the "similar behaviour" statement, we should make quite sure that any evidence being admitted has probative value. The notion of probative value was cited in the Canadian case. I am not a lawyer so I shall not refer to that except generally. If such evidence is introduced, one must be quite sure that it is not cited only to prejudice the jury or to upset the complainant. It must have probative value. As it is now quite late, I rest my case there and commend my amendments to the House.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, in introducing his series of amendments, the noble Lord, Lord Desai, suggested that there were two opposing camps, so to speak, in this matter. He referred to a lawyers' and judges' side in opposition to the lay and complainants' side. As a layman myself, and someone who is just as ignorant of the law as the noble Lord, I do not think that it is quite so simple. The noble Lord has forgotten one important group. What about the unjustly accused?
Let us consider the case of a girl student who, from time to time, tends to drink too much, as students often do and as students have always done throughout history. One evening, in an alcoholic haze, she allows herself to be taken advantage of, to use a very old fashioned phrase, and the next morning she wakes up stone cold sober, albeit with a throbbing headache, and notices with horror a male student in bed next to her. She sincerely but mistakenly believes that she never consented and that therefore she has been raped. What is the poor male student, the innocent male student, to do if he is not allowed, for example, to cite previous cases of similar behaviour on the part of the lady in question?
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I have a good deal of sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Desai, suggests, but I think that he may be on the wrong track. The problem is not in the procedure, but in the substantive law. It seems to me that the English law has gone wrong in allowing unreasonable belief as a defence to a charge of rape. To make that change in the law so that belief in consent was only a defence if it was reasonable would involve a change in the substantive law on rape, and that is not something that can be done in this Bill.
The problem with the noble Lord's amendments is that they would exclude relevant evidence not only in cases where belief was unreasonable, but also in cases where the belief was reasonable. That is why I do not feel able to support the noble Lord in his amendments although I have much sympathy with the motivation behind them.
Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Desai, says that questions asked in this area must have probative value. That is one of the tests currently applied under the present law. Questions as to previous history are not permitted by the judge unless they have probative value.
The noble Lord said that the issue is whether the woman consented at that moment and that what happened previously and what happened subsequently are irrelevant. However, the jury has to decide whether the woman consented at that moment. It may well be that in certain circumstances things which have happened before or subsequently may assist members of the jury to reach the right verdict about her view at that time. If a woman says "No" and the defendant then tries to advance the defence that he believes that she consented, he is unlikely in my experience to be believed by a jury. For those reasons, I cannot support the noble Lord's amendment, but I strongly support that tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner.
1214
The Minister must be aware that there is a profound dismay at the Criminal Bar about the provisions of Clause 40; it is one shared by many of the judges who will have to try the cases. The clause is widely felt to be not only unnecessarily complex, but also draconian in its effects. My best efforts at earlier stages of the Bill and in subsequent correspondence with the Minister, for which I thank him, failed to dissuade him from his belief that he has "got Clause 40 about right". I leave it tonight to others and also to those in another place to try to amend the clause. I have little doubt that should it reach the statute book in its present state without amendment, in common with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham of Cornhill, when he spoke at Committee stage, justice in some cases will not be done.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, it is always difficult to comprehend the sort of circumstances that can arise in a rape trial before it happens. But I want to pose a simple situation. Suppose a man and woman are living together happily for a period of time but then another man comes into the woman's life and she runs off with him. He then leaves her and she returns to her original partner. It is not a complicated set of facts; it is something that might frequently happen. Suppose she then has a row with her original partner about having run away with the other man and following that row she goes to the police and complains that her partner raped her.
That is not caught by subsection (3), which says:
"This subsection applies if the evidence or question relates to a relevant issue in the case and either … (b) it is an issue of consent and the sexual behaviour of the complainant to which the evidence or question relates is alleged … (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".
It has nothing to do with that situation; it has nothing to do with subsection (1).
At the trial for rape, counsel for the original partner wishes to put to the complainant that she made the complaint because of a row that she had over her going away with the other man. He cannot do it. Subsection (3) does not apply; subsection (5) does not apply. Indeed, such a question might be caught by subsection (4), which deals with material which impugns the credibility of the complainant as a witness.
So the very essence of the quarrel between the two, which the defendant says caused her to make the complaint of rape, cannot be investigated. It does not appear before the jury at all. The judge hears about it in the absence of the jury and determines that refusal of leave to cross-examine the girl about running away with another man and being left by him— having a relationship with somebody else, the pinpoint of me quarrel between them— might have the result of rendering unsafe the conclusion of the jury. What is the judge then to do? He cannot allow the case to continue. It is not possible that a case can be put right on appeal if the statutory formula has been followed. Appeals do not come into it.

1215
So the situation arises where the judge says, "I am sorry, under this legislation I cannot permit you to question this girl about the relationship when she ran away with another man before coming back to the defendant; the essence of the quarrel between them. I cannot allow you to ask that question. But I appreciate that if I cannot do that, there is the possibility of a grave injustice in this case. So this case will go no further; I withdraw it from the jury. "That will be the end. It may be that the defendant's defence was true. It may be that it was not true. If it was not true an injustice has been done and a guilty man has got away. But the judge could not permit the matter to proceed.
It is impossible to devise legislation— all this wordy stuff that is so difficult to understand— which can cope with all the possibilities. That is the reason why the Criminal Bar, as a whole, is against these provisions. That is why we perceive the possibility of injustice. I believe that the amendment proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, which seeks to put the simple word "or" instead of "and" would permit the jury to investigate exactly what went on between those two people and the third person and would result in a proper verdict. It is only by the use of a simple word that a dramatic difference can be made to the possibilities of justice in this case. I support the amendment.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, this amendment, like the last one, is not a party matter; it is a matter of conscience. It is something about which each of us must decide and I speak only for myself.
It is a difficult matter to get right, as this short debate and earlier discussion on the Bill have shown. A most ingenious and simple amendment has been moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. I congratulate him on the ingenuity of his drafting, if it is not lèse-majesté to say so to a distinguished lawyer.
The original proposals in the Bill have been improved as a result of amendments made. But the principle remains; that is, that the sexual history of the complainant should only be brought out in court to a veiy limited extent, as set out by the noble and learned Lord in moving the amendment. At the same time, the restrictive effects of the Bill are not as powerful as some would wish; hence the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Desai.
In relation to the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Desai, it seems to me that the defendant's belief or otherwise in the consent of the complainant at the time of the alleged offence, will often be highly crucial. The sexual history of the complainant will be very relevant to a decision by the jury on whether or not he, assuming it is a he, believed in her consent. In that way the sexual history can be extremely relevant to the court case. I am not therefore inclined to support the amendment of the noble Lord to limit to an even greater degree the way in which it can be brought out in support of arguments about belief in consent.
But it is a difficult judgment to veer between the proposed amendment of the noble and learned Lord, and the noble Lord, Lord Desai. For myself, I am prepared to support the Government on this amendment. It comes
1216
back to discussion on the previous amendment; that is to say, to the agonised decision and discussions which take place when a complainant is deciding whether or not she is prepared to support her charges. Everything I said on the previous amendment is relevant here.
I want more rape cases to be decided in court by juries, and not decided by default of the woman not being prepared to pursue the case. I am satisfied that at present women are understandably deterred from so doing. As I said on the previous amendment, I do not believe that this clause— even taken with the other protective provisions in the Bill for screens and so on— will absolutely remedy this difficulty; of course it will not. However, I believe it moves in the right direction. Therefore, on balance I continue to support the Bill as it has been put forward to us by the Government in its amended form. However, as I say, I speak only for myself.
8 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, in this group, apart from the amendments which stand in the names of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, and my noble friend Lord Desai, is Amendment No. 21 wliich stands in my name. I shall deal with that first. The amendment to Clause 42 brings the rule-making power under that clause into line with those under Clauses 20 and 36. The amendment would allow for rules to be made to govern confidential or sensitive information being withheld from parties to the proceedings.
I now turn to the more fundamental questions. I shall have to speak at a little length, for which I apologise in advance. The amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, seems to be inspired by the idea that there are relevant pieces of sexual behaviour evidence that Clause 40 as currently drafted excludes, but which ought to be admitted. I do not agree with that proposition. My belief is that Clause 40 allows enough scope for all relevant evidence about a complainant's sexual behaviour to be introduced. Clause 40 provides a statutory framework for determining relevance. The questions that we consider to be appropriate are the following. First, is the evidence relevant; that is, does it fall under subsection (3) or subsection (5)? If it does, is it significant enough that refusing to admit it might render the jury's or the court's conclusion on a relevant issue in the case unsafe? That is the answer that I sought to give to the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, on the previous occasion we discussed this matter. We see this significance test as a modified version of the test in Section 2 of the 1976 Act, to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, referred earlier.
There is a difference of approach between that of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, and mine. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, considers that previous sexual behaviour can be so strong that it is relevant to the complainant's credibility or consent, despite it being outside the ambit of subsections (3) or (5). That is our point of disagreement. I have to make it plain that as a matter of government policy we have concluded that evidence of a complainant's past attitude to or experience of sexual relations is not material upon which a jury should reasonably rely to conclude that the

1217
complainant might indeed have consented on the occasion that is the subject of the complaint. Consensual sex does not mean consent to sex in general— it does not even mean consent to sex with a particular person— it means consent to sex with a particular individual on a particular occasion.
I do not think it would be appropriate, as my noble friend Lord Desai suggests, to require judges to warn juries that consent on one occasion does not imply consent on another. I sympathise with the sentiments behind his amendments as outlined in his speech. However, the complainant is not on trial. I do not think there ought to be a statutory requirement in this regard although, of course, judges may sometimes find it appropriate to make exactly the point that my noble friend Lord Desai suggests.
There are only three exceptions to the ban on sexual behaviour evidence in relation to consent. The first exception is where the evidence is needed to rebut specific claims made by the prosecution on behalf of the complainant. The second exception is evidence of the complainant's sexual behaviour at or about the same time as the alleged offence. The amendment that I laid at Report stage is not intended to widen the time limit substantially beyond the 24 hours limit originally suggested. The provision is intended only to catch behaviour that is practically contemporary with the alleged offence. For example, sexual behaviour running up to an alleged rape, where the complainant said she had decided not to consent to full sex at the last minute.
Anything that happened more than 24 hours before or after the alleged offence should only rarely be considered to take place,
"at or about the same time"
as the alleged offence. However, the new formulation in subsection (3)(b)(i) gives more flexibility if something happened a few minutes— or at the very most, a few hours— outside that 24 hour limit. The reverse is also true. If something occurred just within 24 hours of the offence, but the court did not really consider it as having taken place,
"at or about the same time"
as the alleged offence, it could exclude it.
It is not intended to catch evidence of behaviour three or four or five days before the alleged offence. I think particularly of the description in Committee by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice of a situation where a complainant had sex with four different men a few days before the alleged offence. If the issue is actual consent itself to the alleged offence I believe it is right that such behaviour should not be admissible.
My noble friend Lord Desai raised questions as to the distinction between consent and belief in consent. That was raised on a more general basis. The Law Commission's views are being examined— as I said on an earlier occasion— under the umbrella of the sexual offences review currently being carried out in the Home Office. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, is right in saying that one is dealing with the substance of description of the offence. I agree that this is not the occasion to try to tinker with that.
1218
I am content to leave it to the courts to decide whether there would be grounds— specific to a particular case and the knowledge the defendant had of the complainant's habits— for finding this relevant to a defence of belief in consent. There is an important distinction which is often elided between the two issues. The fact that a complainant has consented previously does not mean that she will consent again. A woman exercises— and is entitled to exercise— her consent independently on each occasion. The defendant's accumulated knowledge and experience of the complainant may affect his belief in consent at the time of the alleged offence, even though, if he reflects on it later, he may recognise and concede that that belief was mistaken.
I turn to strikingly similar and non-coincidental behaviour. The only other circumstance where earlier sexual behaviour should be admissible in relation to consent is provided for in subsection (3)(b)(ii). That is, where the behaviour was so similar in detail to the defence's version of the event when the offence was alleged to have taken place that there is no way that the similarity between the two occasions can be reasonably explained as a coincidence. That might include something along the lines of the Romeo and Juliet scenario introduced by my noble friend Lady Mallalieu, where the circumstances in which the alleged offence took place were so unusual that the jury should know that the complainant had consented in strikingly similar situations in the past.
The term "strikingly similar" does not include evidence of a general approach towards consensual sex such as a predilection for one night stands, or for having consensual sex on a first date. Still less does it include the fact that the complainant has previously consented to sex with people of the same race as the defendant, or has previously had sex in a car, for example, before alleging that she was raped in a car. Such behaviour could reasonably be explained as coincidental, as it falls within the usual range of behaviour that people display. Behaviour that can be admitted under subsection (3)(b)(ii) must be the sort of behaviour that is so unusual that it would be wholly unreasonable to explain it as coincidental.
For example, supposing a complainant alleged gang rape, and a co-accused in the case claimed consent. If the defence could produce specific, factual evidence that the complainant had previously engaged in consensual group sex under similar circumstances, this might be relevant to the jury's determination of whether she consented to the events that she is now claiming she did not consent to. The complainant's previous involvement in sexual activity of this nature should only be introduced where it is so unusual that it might affect the jury's view of the complainant's behaviour at the time of the events in question.
We have considered other models, as I mentioned briefly on our earlier visits to this territory. We have considered the legislation in Scotland, Canada and New South Wales. The wording of the Scottish legislation places little emphasis on relevance or probative value. Research done for the Scottish Office in 1992 concluded that the "interests of justice" gateway in that

1219
legislation—which allowed evidence to be introduced without a specific statutory constraint on how it could be considered relevant or its probative value—meant that sexual behaviour evidence was admitted much more often than had been intended. Some practitioners who were questioned said that the inclusion of the gateway made the legislation "a waste of time".
The New South Wales legislation provides a list of circumstances where sexual behaviour evidence can be admitted. We did not consider that an exclusive list of circumstances was appropriate. In Clause 40 we have introduced a framework setting out how sexual behaviour evidence could be considered relevant to an issue in the case.
We briefly discussed Canada on the previous occasion. The noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, brought to your Lordships' attention the challenge in the case of Seaboyer. Following that challenge, Canada established a complete ban on the use of the complainant's sexual behaviour to suggest that she would have been "more likely to have consented to the sexual activity that forms the subject matter of the charge" or that she "is less worthy of belief' In other words, a ban on sexual behaviour evidence being used in relation to consent or credibility.
All other sexual behaviour evidence is covered by a relevance test: that it relates to an issue in the trial; it must also be of a specific instance of sexual activity; and it must have significant enough probative value that that value is not substantially outweighed by the danger of prejudicing the jury or the court if it is introduced.
Perhaps I may turn to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Desai, and its general approach. We decided not to require the court to weigh probative value against the risk of prejudice and to use the test in subsection (2)(b) of Clause 40—that a refusal of leave to introduce the evidence might have the result of rendering unsafe a conclusion of the jury or the court on any relevant issue in the case. We chose deliberately to do that because, having redrawn the law on relevance in Clause 40, it seemed preferable to us to require the courts to consider only the significance of relevant evidence, and to admit it even if there was a risk that it would prejudice the court against the complainant.
Another aspect of our legislation reflecting the Canadian experience is that both cover evidence of sexual behaviour between the complainant and any other person, including the defendant. We believe it is appropriate to put all sexual behaviour on the same footing, whoever it is with. Behaviour with the defendant may sometimes be irrelevant; behaviour with someone other than the defendant may sometimes be relevant.
We believe that the only way to achieve a more consistent application of the law across the board is to create a statutory framework of relevance. I believe that that is what we have done in Clause 40. Under subsections (3) or (5) the relevance test must be passed and then Clause 40(2)(b) introduces the question of the refusal of leave in the way that I discussed earlier.
1220
A number of examples were mentioned. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, raised the question of a man who enters into an arrangement with a prostitute, has sex with her, refuses to pay and she cries rape. There is nothing in the Bill to stop the defendant making that clear in his defence.
I believe that if one analyses Clause 40—this is the phrase I used in answer to the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, on the last occasion—one sees that it sets a statutory framework. That statutory framework deals with relevance. We believe that in the past the law has not been sufficiently balanced between respective interests. We believe—I am sorry to say this to my noble friend Lady Mallalieu—that we have got it right in Clause 40. That is why I invite your Lordships not to agree to the amendments put forward by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, which seek to alter "and" to "or", and, for distinct reasons which I hope I have ventilated sufficiently, I also invite your Lordships not to agree to the different approach put forward by the amendment of my noble friend Lord Desai.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, can he tell me whether it would have been permissible for a defendant in the light of the: provisions of this Bill to ask the complainant the question: "Until six months ago we were living as man and wife and had been so living for three years"? With regard to the prostitute example which I gave, how is that permissible under the clause? How can a defendant ask the complainant: "Is it not a fact—a fact which I have only recently learnt—that you have been carrying on the profession of a prostitute for the past two years?"?
8.15 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, that was not the example that the noble and learned Lord put earlier. The example he put earlier was of the prostitute having sex with the defendant and then saying, "My fee is £100. If you do not pay I will accuse you of rape"'. I believe that is admissible under Clause 41(l)(c). As to the other point of whether the question could be put that "We have been living together for years or months and we have had a sexual relationship", that depends on the issue to which the evidence is intended to go. Is it a question of consent or is it a question of belief in consent? I believe that the statutory framework in Clause 40 enables the court to distinguish between the two. Too often the issue of consent or belief in consent are hopelessly intermingled. We have tried to point out that these are different aspects of relevance; belief in consent is one; consent is another. They are not the same and they should be approached as conceptually different.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, before my noble friend finally sits down, can he tell us what he considers is the right approach of the judge who says, "The material you want to put in, although relevant, does not qualify under subsections (3) or (5), but I accept that my refusal to allow this material may have the result of rendering unsafe a conclusion of the jury"? Is he to continue with I the trial, or what is his function? Does my noble friend

1221
accept that a provision on the face of the Bill in these terms cannot justify a certificate that the human rights legislation has been complied with?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I believe that the Bill in its present form complies with our obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights. Secondly, the judge's duty— I am putting it as bluntly as this because I have been asked to— at the end of the day is to apply the law that Parliament passes. He therefore needs to put his judicial eye and mind to the final form of legislation; he then has loyally to put that law into effect. I believe that judges recognise their duties because they take an oath to do that.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I shall be very brief. Dealing with the last point, the noble Lord seems to have overlooked the inherent obligation of a judge to see that justice is done within his court. If he concludes that a situation has arisen which might well result in an unsafe verdict, he is entitled— and some would say obliged— to stop the trial. That is only one indication of an unfortunate piece of drafting in Clause 40. It also provides a situation which is quite unreal in insisting on contemporaneity as regards the sexual activities of the complainant.
The simplicity of the position at the moment was summed in a case of Brown in 1982:
"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. It was a question of degree in every case".
Your Lordships are invited to exchange that simplicity for the unintelligible (in some respects) complexity of Clause 40. I accordingly invite your Lordships to pass the amendment that I have proposed.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Turner of Camden): My Lords, the Question is that this amendment be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say "Content"; to the contrary, "Not-Content". I think the Not-Contents have it.
Amendment negatived.
Lord Desaihad given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 17:
Page 29, line 8, after ("consent") insert ("nor of the accused's alleged belief that there was consent").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I merely wish to thank my noble friend for the long and detailed answer that he gave. I shall not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 17 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 18 and 19 not moved.]
Clause 41 [Interpretation and application of section 40]:
[Amendment No. 20 not moved.]
Clause 42 [Procedure on applications under section 40]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 31, line 6, after second ("to") insert (", or withheld from, ").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 43 [Restrictions on reporting alleged offences involving persons under 18]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 31, line 10, after ("applies") insert ("(subject to subsection (3))").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a substantial group of amendments. It contains Amendments Nos. 22 and 23, 28 to 36, 39 and 44.
Amendments Nos. 22 and 23 are designed to ensure that children who are complainants of sexual offences do not qualify for protection under this clause and so do not lose the stronger anonymity protections under the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992. That means that there is no public interest defence available to editors who publish information leading to die identification of alleged victims of sexual offences at any age.
The new subsection 48 (7A)(b)(ii) provided in Amendment No. 32, and Amendment No. 44 to the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992, ensure that there is no waiver defence either for children under 16 who are allegedly victims or for witnesses of sexual offences.
This provision is to close a loophole in the current version of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 which allows a waiver to be granted by a child victim of a sexual offence, even without provision for parental or local authority involvement in the decision. In our discussions, which I have mentioned on a number of occasions, media representatives were confused as to whether a waiver from a child would be valid. We have no record of publishers ever trying to rely on them.
Amendments Nos. 22 and 23, therefore, ensure that the defence of publication being in the public interest is also not available for the identification of children who are witnesses to the commission of a sexual offence. That brings the protections of the pre-charge stage for child witnesses to these offences into line with child victims since the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 does not provide a public interest defence for the latter.
The BBC and ITC regulatory codes and the PCC code all expressly provide that information leading to identification should never be published about children who are allegedly victims of, or witnesses to, sexual offences. Therefore, our amendments bring the law into line with the codes.
The next sub-series of amendments begins with Amendment No. 28. Perhaps I may deal with Amendments Nos. 28 and 29 and 32 to 35. Broadly, Amendments Nos. 32 and 33 split existing Clause 48 into two clauses, one dealing with offences and one with defences. The amendments add legislative provision for new defences based on the granting of consent to the

1223
publication of information. Amendment No. 33 splits Clause 48. A number of changes are made to Clause 48 before it is split by Amendment No. 32. They provide a new defence, that of gaining consent to publish from the person involved in the offence but not the person suspected of committing the offence. Amendment No. 32 introduces eight new subsections to Clause 48, subsections (7A) to (7H).
The split that Amendment No. 33 makes to Clause 48 places subsections (1) to (4) and subsections (8) and (9) in the clause under the rubric, "Offences under this chapter", and places subsections (5) to (7H) in one with the rubric "Defences". Amendments Nos. 28, 29, 34 and 35 are purely consequential.
I now turn to Amendment No. 36. This is one of a series of government amendments designed to address some further concerns about the way in which the new provisions restricting reporting apply. The amendment gives a list, neither exclusive nor exhaustive, of matters to which the court must have regard when deciding when something is, or is not, in the public interest. That responds in part to a desire expressed by some sections of the media, and certainly reflected in amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, on Report, to have a list of public interest indicators to guide their decision-making.
We thought that the Opposition amendments were too heavily slanted, as a list, in favour of the right of the press as opposed to the rights of individuals. So the new clause makes it clear that there is an interest in the open reporting of crime and of matters relating to human health and safety. It also emphasises, rightly and deliberately, the importance of the welfare of the individual. The clause also contains mention of the importance of exposing and preventing miscarriages of justice and the consideration of the views of the appropriate and protected persons. We believe, therefore, that the list is more balanced than that previously suggested, trying as it does to indicate the range of issues which publishers and the court should consider in deciding whether publication of the restricted information is justified. I repeat, it is not intended to be an exclusive list.
I shall now deal with Amendment No. 39. This amendment reflects the view of the print media that there is no case for imposing reporting restrictions on the identification of children who are alleged to have been the victims of, or witnesses to, any criminal offence other than sexual offences unless they have been identified as victims or witnesses involved in criminal proceedings. The print media argued that there was no case for pushing back the ban on identification of juvenile offenders beyond the point of arrest.
The print media argued that the imposition of such restrictions is in contravention of Article 10 of the European convention. They cited as part of their argument the case of Gleaves v. Deakin (1979). In Gleaves, the House of Lords came to the view that Article 10 was not contravened where, by reason of its nature or the circumstances in which it was published, suppression of a publication by penal sanctions was necessary in the public interest. That is our justification for introducing the measures in Clause 43.
The policy underlying the clauses is that the public interest is best served by making the interests of the child paramount over the interest in freedom of expression, and that the interests of the child are best served by mandatory privacy from public identification where it is alleged the child has committed an offence, and by a presumption towards that privacy where the child is alleged to have been the victim of, or witness to, an offence, unless those with responsibility for the child are content that the child's welfare will not be harmed by such publicity (Amendment No. 32 and related amendments) and that the only interests paramount over the interests of the child are the interests of justice, or, in the case of victims and witnesses, the wider public interest, having taken all such factors and factors, such as the need to protect public health and safety, into account (Amendment No. 36).
I believe that I have dealt with all the amendments which are extensive in this group. Essentially, we have come to these conclusions following the interventions of the noble Lord, Lord Cope, and the noble: Viscount, Lord Astor. I am happy to repeat my gratitude for the tone and approach that the noble Lord adopted. These provisions also follow lengthy discussions which I promised to have with representatives of the various media.
It is worth repeating that I listened carefully to the Article 10 questions that have been raised. It is important that we put frankly our reasons for the provisions in the clause. I repeat that those measures have been put in place for the reasons which I specified: public interest in the interests of the child; the interests of the child best served by privacy from public identification; the interests of the child best served by presumption towards privacy; and the only interests paramount over the interests of the child are the interests of justice. I have read out those features and factors in full detail and I simply headline them again as the basis for our policy approach.
I have listened to the press. I do not believe that they have persuaded me away from the conclusion that selective decisions about when to publish information are needed from the start of reporting such information; that the need to make such selective decisions should be imposed by statute; or that where such decisions are to be made at all, they should be made by parents or guardians of the child or be subject, if it is thought necessary, to confirmation by the courts. That is what the new Clause 43, as amended, will do.
It is important to bear in mind that the presumption created in Clause 43 does not automatically criminalise all publishers who deliberately or inadvertently make such identifications. Where a publisher has or is recognised by a court as having one or more of the defences, no criminal offence is committed.
The noble Lord, Lord Cope, asked about missing persons investigations and how they might be affected by the new provisions. As I said on that occasion in response to him, a police investigation of a missing person is not usually a criminal investigation in the early stages when appeals for information are made. I believe— and I am confirmed in it by experience—

1225
that the police take pains to make that distinction. That is an observation that the noble Lord had in mind. When the police have concluded that a criminal investigation is necessary, recourse to the court to get restrictions limited would be necessary only if the parents refuse permission or if it was suspected that the report could not be defended as in the public interest. I would be surprised if that were ever thought necessary, if a child's life were seriously in danger.
I hope that I have been able to cover those disparate matters to your Lordships' satisfaction. I beg to move.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for most of the bloc of amendments which he moved, covering a number of different aspects of the restrictions on press freedom which are being imposed under the Bill.
On the question of missing persons, on occasions I have accompanied the police when missing persons have been reported and the hunt for them has started. Although obviously the first effort is directed at finding the missing person, whether a child or an adult, at the back of the minds of the police on the spot is the possibility, particularly in the case of a child, that an offence may have been committed. They would be failing in their duty if they were not alert to possible indicators that an offence may have been committed and that potentially there may even be evidence for future use. The possibility of a crime having been committed is present from more or less the first moment of the incident arising.
Of course, one of the changes to the Bill has been modification of the moment at which the restrictions start. I shall come back to that. My main interest in speaking on this group of amendments is Amendment No. 39 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Astor. The amendment suggests that Clause 43 should not come into force until the Secretary of State provides, along with the order appointing a day for it to commence, a statement setting out, on the one hand,
"the necessity for the commencement of that section; and"
on the other hand,
"how that section complies with Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights"
to which the Minister referred.
I start from the proposition, which I do not think is contentious, that we should not put legal limits on the freedom of the press, except for good, proven reasons. The Minister has not tonight, or very much on previous occasions, attempted to set out the necessity for the commencement of the restrictions on Clause 43. The Government have not produced many examples to your Lordships' House about cases where the restrictions would have prevented mischief of one form or another. As I understand it, they have not produced an explanation or relevant examples to the representatives of the press when they have met them.
1226
It is therefore at best unproven that this restriction is necessary. It is the reason for paragraph (a) in Amendment No. 39: the requirement that the Secretary of State should set out
"the necessity for the commencement of that section".
We are not denying it to the Secretary of State entirely; we are just saying that in order to restrict the press the Secretary of State must set out the necessity. That is made more important by the fact that there are still some difficulties in the drafting of the clause. I believe that the Minister and his colleagues in the Home Office are still in the course of having discussions with representatives of the press. Perhaps the Bill will be further modified or improved in the course of its passage through another place.
I draw attention to the lack of certainty as to the commencement of an investigation. It will sometimes be difficult for representatives of the press and television to know when an investigation has commenced and hence when the restrictions will apply. That is one difficulty which remains in the drafting.
Amendment No. 32 helps, as the Minister set out, by providing for a waiver—I think that is the term—to be given in writing by the victims if they are aged 16 or 17 or by a parent or other responsible adult if the child is under that age. Obviously it may assist in some cases and it is a helpful amendment. However, it will not help in all that many cases because often it will be impossible, from a practical point of view, to obtain written permission in the form suggested.
We should bear in mind that we are dealing at least some of the time with circumstances where there has been a criminal event affecting a young person. That is not an easy moment at which to approach the parents for such a waiver or to expect them to make a considered judgment in a calm way about whether to sign a waiver of that type.
However, sometimes it will also affect even fairly routine coverage. There are often stories about young people who might be the victims or witnesses of offences under investigation often with photographs and so on willingly supplied, describing theft or vandalism or whatever it might be, and media coverage could be to the benefit of those who are affected. It will be difficult sometimes, with these stories, to get the necessary waiver, with the parents in a position of being faced with a lot of representatives of the media—regional and national in some cases—all wanting waivers signed so that they have a defence if the case should later come to court.
The second half of our amendment, that is subsection (b) of our Amendment No. 39, refers to the question of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. I heard what the noble Lord the Minister said. Of course I would expect him and his legal advisers to believe that this is within the convention, and he would sign a certificate to that effect, I am sure, after careful consideration of the different elements which might apply. Unfortunately at this moment we do not have the benefit of what I think the noble Lord described as our venerable in-house experts on the convention, but I understand that some lawyers advise that Clause 43 fails to comply with the convention.

1227
I shall not enter into the legal arguments—I am not qualified to do so—and this is a case where legal opinion evidently can come down on either side. That should not surprise us because in every court in the land every day half the lawyers are proved wrong when they lose their cases. So it should not surprise us that there is more than one view as far as concerns the European convention. That is why Amendment No. 39 suggests that this clause should not come into force until the Secretary of State has formally set out how the section complies with Article 10 in a statement which should accompany the order allowing it to start.
I would say again that Amendment No. 39 does not attempt to prevent Clause 43 ever coming into force, but it does attempt to make sure that it really is required. Also, I hope it will encourage the noble Lord the Minister and his colleagues in the Home Office to continue their discussions with representatives of the media to make sure that the freedom of the press is safeguarded, as well as the interests of the young persons concerned, which is what we all want to do. I attach considerable importance to Amendment No. 39, although obviously we shall not reach it until later. However, it is down to be discussed with this group.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I wonder if I could respond in the helpful way that the noble Lord has dealt with these matters. I think he had a specific question about police investigations, and one finds the definition of a criminal investigation in Clause 43(12)(b). Dealing particularly with his points on Amendment No. 39, it would probably be helpful if I were to reply immediately. I do not believe that this amendment is necessary because the Secretary of State would have to set out the necessity for commencement. I do not think that would be a proper way to approach it. We have already certified of course that the section is compliant with Article 10, and the Secretary of State himself, introducing this in another place, will have to give his certificate also.
Essentially, I think I can answer the noble Lord in one or two sentences. One concerns the particular nature of childhood. I have not gone into the very helpful speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, in Committee on 8th February, because it seemed to me idle simply to repeat what he said, to the general agreement of your Lordships I think, about our international treaty obligations. So I have deliberately not gone into that at this stage. It seems to me that the over-arching answer is that Parliament passed the Children and Young Persons Act in 1933 and our basic approach has not really altered at all since then.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, but the approach is being considerably extended by the provisions of the Bill. So far as concerns Article 10 of the convention, yes, as I said in the course of my remarks, I am aware that the noble Lord signed a certificate. The amendment suggests that the Secretary of State should set out how Clause 43 complies with Article 10. I think that in view of the fact that there is more than one legal opinion, that will not be a mere certificate. It would be a statement of how, in the view of the Government and their legal advisers, it actually complied with that clause.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 31, line 22, leave out ("But the restrictions imposed by subsection (2)") and insert ("The restrictions imposed by subsection (2)—

(a) do not apply where the person involved in the offence as mentioned in that subsection is a person in relation to whom section 1 of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 (anonymity of victims of certain sexual offences) applies in connection with the offence; and

(b) in every case").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this amendment formally.
On Question, amendment agreed to. 3
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 31, line 35, leave out from beginning to ("include") in line 36 and insert ("The matters relating to a person in relation to which the restrictions imposed by subsection (2) apply (if their inclusion in any publication is likely to have the result mentioned in that subsection)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in this group are also to be found Amendments Nos. 25, 27, 42 and 43. These amendments are virtually identical in form and certainly in intention. They amend Clauses 43, 44 and 45 and Schedule 2 to the Bill. The changes to Schedule 2 are alterations to the amendments made to the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 and to the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992.
The effect of all these changes is to clarify the intention behind providing a list of pieces of information about a person which may lead to their identification. Concerns have been expressed about the benefits of including a list and there has also been some confusion about its purpose. The matters referred to in the list contained in the various provisions are only prohibited from publication if they lead to the public identifying one particular person. Name, address and photograph are obvious candidates but, for example, simply naming a school will not necessarily lead to the identification of one particular pupil.
Our intention in these provisions has never been for all such pieces of information to be routinely kept from the public. The intention has always been to protect the most vulnerable members of society from unwarranted publicity, not to restrict the publication of information which should rightly be in the public domain. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 44 [Power to restrict reporting of criminal proceedings involving persons under 18]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 33, line 39, leave out from beginning to ("include") in line 40 and insert ("The matters relating to a person in relation to which the restrictions imposed by a direction under subsection (3) apply (if their inclusion in any publication is likely to have the result mentioned in that subsection)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this amendment formally.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 45 [Power to restrict reports about certain adult witnesses in criminal proceedings]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 34, line 37, leave out from ("with") to end of line 38 and insert ("being identified by members of the public as a witness in the proceedings. ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is designed to make it clear that reporting restrictions should only be imposed when a witness is particularly frightened or distressed about the public identifying him or her as a witness in a criminal case. If a witness is therefore simply intimidated or distressed about giving evidence in general, that in itself should not be a justification for restricting reporting. The court must be satisfied that media reporting which led to the witness being identified would in itself reduce the quality of the witness's evidence or co-operation; otherwise it should not restrict the reporting. As the media have suggested to me, this is an important safeguard to avoid reporting restrictions being imposed unnecessarily. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 35, line 19, leave out from beginning to ("include") in line 20 and insert ("The matters relating to a witness in relation to which the restrictions imposed by a reporting direction apply (if their inclusion in any publication is likely to have the result mentioned in subsection (6))").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 48 [Offences under this Chapter]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendments Nos. 28 to 33:
Page 37, line 37, leave out ("this section") and insert ("section (Offences under this Chapter)").
Page 37, line 42, leave out ("this section") and insert ("section (Offences under this Chapter)").
Page 38, line 8, leave out ("involve") and insert ("relate to either—
(i)")
Page 38, line 10, at end insert ("or
(ii) (where that offence is one in relation to which section 1 of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 applies) a person who is alleged to be a witness to the commission of the offence, ").
Page 38, line 16, at end insert—
("(7A) Subsection (7B) applies where—

(a) paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (6) apply, and

(b) the contravention of section 43(2) relates to a person ("the protected person") who is neither—

(i) the person mentioned in subsection (7)(b)(i), nor

(ii) a person within subsection (7)(b)(ii) who is under the age of 16.

(7B) In such a case it shall be a defence, subject to subsection (7C), to prove that written consent to the inclusion of the matter in question in the publication had been given—

(a) by an appropriate person, if at the time when the consent was given the protected person was under the age of 16, or

(b) by the protected person, if that person was aged 16 or 17 at that time,

1230
and (where the consent was given by an appropriate person) that written notice had been previously given to that person drawing to his attention the need to consider the welfare of the protected person when deciding whether to give consent.
(7C) The defence provided by subsection (7B) is not available if—

(a) (where the consent was given by an appropriate person) it is proved that written or other notice withdrawing the consent—

(i) was given to the appropriate recipient by any other appropriate person or by the protected person, and

(ii) was so given in sufficient time to enable the inclusion in the publication of the matter in question to be prevented; or

(b) subsection (7E) applies.

(7D) Where—

(a) a person is charged with an offence under section (Offences under this Chapter), and

(b) the offence relates to the inclusion of any matter in a publication in contravention of a direction under section 45(2),

it shall be a defence, unless subsection (7E) applies, to prove that the person in relation to whom the direction was given had given written consent to the inclusion of that matter in the publication.
(7E) Written consent is not a defence if it is proved that any person interfered—

(a) with the peace or comfort of the person giving the consent, or

(b) (where the consent was given by an appropriate person) with the peace or comfort of either that person or the protected person,

with intent to obtain the consent.
(7F) In this section "an appropriate person", in relation to the protected person, means a person who is a parent or guardian of the protected person, except that—

(a) where the protected person is (within the meaning of the Children Act 1989) a child who is looked after by a local authority, it means a person who is—

(i) a representative of that authority, or

(ii) a parent or guardian of the protected person with whom the protected person is allowed to live; and

(b) where the protected person is (within the meaning of the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995) a child who is looked after by an authority, it means a person who is—

(i) an officer of that authority, or

(ii) a parent or guardian of the protected person with whom the protected person is allowed to live.

(7G) However, no person by whom the offence mentioned in section 43(2) is alleged to have been committed is, by virtue of subsection (7F), an appropriate person for the purposes of this section.
(7H) In this section "the appropriate recipient", in relation to a notice under subsection (7C)(a), means—

(a) the person to whom the notice giving consent was given,

(b) (if different) the person by whom the matter in question was published, or

(c) any other person exercising, on behalf of the person mentioned in paragraph (b), any responsibility in relation to the publication of that matter;

and for this purpose "person" includes a body of persons and a partnership. ").
Divide Clause 48 into two clauses, the first (Offences under this Chapter) to consist of subsections (1) to (4) and (8) and (9) and the second (Defences) to consist of subsections (5) to (7H).
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 49 [Offences committed by bodies corporate or Scottish partnerships]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendments Nos. 34 and 35:
Page 38, line 25, leave out ("48") and insert ("(Offences under this Chapter)").
Page 38, line 36, leave out ("48") and insert ("(Offences under this Chapter)").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 36:
After Clause 49, insert the following new clause—
DECISIONS AS TO PUBLIC INTEREST FOR PURPOSES OF CHAPTER IV
(". —(1) Where for the purposes of any provision of this Chapter it falls to a court lo determine whether anything is (or, as the case may be, was) in the public interest, the court must have regard, in particular, to the matters referred to in subsection (2) (so far as relevant).
(2) Those matters are—

(a) the interest in each of the following—

(i) the open reporting of crime,

(ii) the open reporting of matters relating to human health or safety, and

(iii) the prevention and exposure of miscarriages of justice;

(b) the welfare of any person in relation to whom the relevant restrictions imposed by or under this Chapter apply or would apply (or, as the case may be, applied); and

(c) any views expressed—

(i) by an appropriate person on behalf of a person within paragraph (b) who is under the age of 16 ("the protected person"), or

(ii) by a person within that paragraph who has attained that age.

(3) In subsection (2) "an appropriate person", in relation to the protected person, has the meaning given by section 48(7F). ").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 60 [Regulations and orders]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 43, line 37, after ("order") insert ("made by the Secretary of State").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is technical and is designed to ensure that orders made by courts under the Bill, such as referral orders, are not subject to the restrictions in Clause 60(4). Clause 60 is intended to apply only to regulations and orders made by the Secretary of State; in other words, to secondary legislation, not court orders. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 62 [Corresponding provisions for Northern Ireland]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 44, line 21, after ("II") insert ("(other than section 56)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with this amendment are grouped Amendments Nos. 38, 40 and 45 to 59. The essence of the Saunders judgment was that the use made by the prosecution of transcripts of evidence given to an inspector under the Companies Act constituted an infringement of the right to a fair trial by virtue of Article 6(1). Amendments were tabled at an earlier stage to amend similar provisions on the admissibility of answers given under compulsory powers in other enactments in the regulatory sector in Great Britain. The effect of those amendments, which were accepted, is that answers obtained pursuant to a procedure which includes the power to compel answers, whatever the investigative or regulatory regime, cannot be used as part of the prosecution case except for the limited purposes of proceedings for offences that may include, for example, perjury arising out of the giving of evidence. These amendments make the necessary changes to Northern Ireland legislation by identifying trie relevant statutory provision for the "sanction offence" in those UK enactments that are directly applicable to Northern Ireland. They amend the Northern Ireland equivalent to the Companies Act 1985, the Insolvency Act 1986 and the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986.
Schedule 3 restricts the use that can be made of answers obtained under compulsory powers in legislation that regulates financial and commercial activities. Such answers can be used only in criminal trials in very restricted circumstances. Where the offence being tried is an offence of having failed or refused to answer a question, or failing to disclose a material fact, or for having given an untruthful answer, obviously the answers will need to be used in prosecution evidence. The offences in Section 94 of the Banking Act 1987 are those of having given false and misleading information in answers obtained under compulsory powers. Their omission from the original schedule was an oversight. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Ampthill): My Lords, I believe that Amendments Nos. 39 to 59 have already been spoken to.
Clause 64 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 44, line 34, at end insert ("but any order appointing a day in respect of section 43 shall be accompanied by a statement by the Secretary of State setting out—

(a) the necessity for the commencement of that section; and

(b) how that section complies with Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. ").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to Amendment No. 39 earlier. In view of the Minister's reply I seek the opinion of the House. I beg to move.
8.54 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 39) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 54; Not-Contents, 109.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS>

Aldington, L.

Higgins, L.

Annaly, L.

Hooper, B.

Barber, L.

Jopling, L.

Blaker, L.

Kelvedon, L.

Blatch, B.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Boardman, L.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Brentford, V.

Luke, L.

Bridgeman, V. [Teller.]

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Burnham, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Byford, B.

Monson, L.

Cadman, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Campbell of Alloway, L

Mountevans, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Northesk, E.

Chesham, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Courtown, E.

Rees, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Renton, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Rowallan, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Seccombe, B. [Teller.]

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Stewartby, L.

Elton, L.

Stockton, E.

Ferrers, E

Swinfen, L

Fookes, B.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

Glentoran, L

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Goschen, V.

Wakeham, L

Hayhoe, L.

Wise, L.

Henley, L.

Wynford, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Gould of Pottemewton, B.

Addington, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Alli, L.

Grenfell, L.

Amos, B.

Grey, E.

Ampthill, L.

Hacking, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Hampton, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Hardie, L.

Bach, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Blackstone, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Blease, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Borrie, L.

Haskel, L.

Bragg, L.

Hayman, B.

Brookman, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Burlison, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Carlisle, E.

Howie of Troon, L.

Carter, L.

Hoyle, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Chandos, V.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L. [Teller.]

Christopher, L.

Jeger, B.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Judd, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Kennet, L.

Craigavon, V.

Kintore, E.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Kirkhill, L.

David, B.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Lockwood, B.

Dholakia, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Dixon, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]

Donoughue, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Dubs, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

McNair, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Geraint, L.

Molloy, L.

Gilbert, L.

Monkswell, L.

Goodhart, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Goudie, B.

Morris of Manchester, L.

1234

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Nicol, B.

Simon, V.

Palmer, L.

Simon of Highbury, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Pitkeathley, B.

Steel of Aikwood, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Thomas of Macclesfield, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Razzall, L

Turner of Camden, B.

Renwick of Clifton, L.

Uddin, B.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Warner, L.

Sawyer, L.

Watson of Invergowrie, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Whitty, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Sewel, L.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
9.2 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendments Nos. 40 and 41:
Page 45, line 11, after ("sections") insert (" 56, ").
Page 45, line 11, at end insert—
("( ) Paragraph 3(4) of Schedule 1 extends also to Scotland. ").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Reporting restrictions: miscellaneous
amendments]:
Lord Williams Lord Williams moved Amendments Nos. 42 to 44:
Page 51, line 40, leave out from beginning to ("include") in line 41 and insert ("The matters relating to a person in relation to which the restrictions imposed by subsection (1) above apply (if their inclusion in any publication is likely to have the result mentioned in that subsection)").
Page 54, line 22, leave out from beginning to ("include") in line 23 and insert ("The matters relating to a person in relation to which the restrictions imposed by subsection (1) or (2) apply (if their inclusion in any publication is likely to have the result mentioned in that subsection)").
Page 56, line 30, at end insert—
("( ) In subsection (3) (cases where written consent not a defence), at the end insert ", or that person was under the age of 16 at the time when it was given. "").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Restriction on use of answers etc. obtained under compulsion]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendments Nos. 45 to 58:
Page 58, line 11, at end insert ("or
(d) an offence under Article 10 of the Perjury (Northern Ireland) Order 1979 (false statements made otherwise than on oath). "").
Page 58, line 27, at end insert ("or
(d) an offence under Article 10 of the Perjury (Northern Ireland) Order 1979 (false statements made otherwise than on oath). "").
Page 60, line 40, at end insert ("or
(c) an offence under Article 7 or 10 of the Perjury (Northern Ireland) Order 1979 (false statements made on oath otherwise than in judicial proceedings or made otherwise than on oath). "").
Page 61, line 11, at end insert ("or
(d) an offence under Article 10 of the Perjury (Northern Ireland) Order 1979 (false statements made otherwise than on oath). "").
Page 61, line 28, at end insert ("or
(d) an offence under Article 7 or 10 of the Perjury (Northern Ireland) Order 1979 (false statements made on oath otherwise than in judicial proceedings or made otherwise than on oath). "
Companies (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 (N. I. 6)
The Companies (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 is amended as follows.
In Article 427 (production of documents and evidence to inspectors conducting investigations into companies), after paragraph (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 paragraph 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) Paragraph (5A) applies to any offence other than an offence under Article 7 or 10 of the Perjury (Northern Ireland) Order 1979 (false statements made on oath otherwise than in judicial proceedings or made otherwise than on oath). "
In Article 440 (production of company documents to Department), after paragraph (8) (use of statements made under the Article) insert—
"(8A) However, in criminal proceedings in which that person is charged with an offence to which this paragraph 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) Paragraph (8A) applies to any offence other than—

(a) an offence under paragraph (6) or Article 444; or

(b) an offence under Article 10 of the Perjury (Northern Ireland) Order 1979 (false statements made otherwise than on oath). "").

Page 61, line 42, at end insert ("or section 94(1)(a) below;").
Page 61, line 47, at end insert ("or
(d) an offence under Article 10 of the Perjury (Northern Ireland) Order 1979 (false statements made otherwise than on oath). "").
Page 62, line 10, at end insert ("or section 94(4) below;").
Page 62, line 15, at end insert ("or
(d) an offence under Article 10 of the Perjury (Northern Ireland) Order 1979 (false statements made otherwise than on oath). "").
Page 62, line 27, after ("above") insert ("or section 94(l)(a) below;").
Page 62, line 32, at end insert ("or
(d) an offence under Article 10 of the Perjury (Northern Ireland) Order 1979 (false statements made otherwise than on oath). "").
Page 63, line 12, at end insert ("or
(d) an offence under Article 7 or 10 of the Perjury (Northern Ireland) Order 1979 (false statements made on oath otherwise than in judicial proceedings or made otherwise than on oath). "
Companies (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 (N. I. 18)
—(1) Article 23 of the Companies (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 (admissibility in evidence of statements) is amended as follows.

(2) That Article is renumbered as paragraph (1) of that Article.

(3) After that paragraph insert—

"(2) However, in criminal proceedings in which any such person is charged with an offence to which this paragraph 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) Paragraph (2) applies to any offence other than—

(a) an offence which is—

(i) created by rules made for the purposes of this Order under the Insolvency Order, and

(ii) designated for the purposes of this paragraph by such rules or by regulations; or

(b) an offence under Article 10 of the Perjury (Northern Ireland) Order 1979 (false statements made otherwise than on oath).

(4) Regulations under paragraph (3)(a)(ii) shall after being made be laid before the Assembly. "
Insolvency (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 (N. I. 19)
—(1) Article 375 of the Insolvency (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 (admissibility in evidence of statements of affairs etc.) is amended as follows.

(2) That Article is renumbered as paragraph (1) of that Article.

(3) After that paragraph insert—

"(2) However, in criminal proceedings in which any such person is charged with an offence to which this paragraph 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) Paragraph (2) applies to any offence other than—

(a) an offence under Article 34(6), 57(6), 58(8), 81(7), 84(5), 85(3)(a), 111(7), 162(2), I72(l)(a) or (d) or (2), 174, 199(5), 324(1), 325(l)(b) or (5) or 327(1) or (3)(a) or (b);

(b) an offence which is—

(i) created by rules made under this Order, and

(ii) designated for the purposes of this paragraph by such rules or by regulations; or

1237

(c) an offence under Article 7 or 10 of the Perjury (Northern Ireland) Order 1979 (false statements made on oath otherwise than in judicial proceedings or made otherwise than on oath).

(4) Regulations under paragraph (3)(b)(ii) shall after being made be laid before the Assembly. "").
Page 63, line 30, at end insert ("or
(c) an offence under Article 7 or 10 of the Perjury (Northern Ireland) Order 1979 (false statements made on oath otherwise than in judicial proceedings or made otherwise than on oath). "").
Page 63, line 38, at end insert—
("Proceeds of Crime (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 (N. I. 9)
In paragraph 6 of Schedule 2 to the Proceeds of Crime (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 (admissibility of evidence), for sub-paragraph (b) substitute—
"(b) on his prosecution for some other offence where evidence relating to any such answer or information is adduced, or a question relating to it is asked, by or on behalf of that person; or". ").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 59:
Page 67, line 16, at end insert—
("Companies (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 (N. I. 18)
In Article 3(1) of the Companies (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 (interpretation), in the definition of "regulations" after "subject" insert "(except in Article 23(3)(a)(ii))".
Insolvency (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 (N. I. 19)
In Article 2(2) of the Insolvency (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 (interpretation), in the definition of "regulations" for "Article 359(5)" substitute "Articles 359(5) and 375(3)(b)(ii)". ").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
An amendment (privilege) made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commmons.

Disability Rights Commission Bill [H.L.]
9.3 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 2 [General functions]:
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone)The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone) moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 16, leave out from ("persons") to end of line 17 and insert—
("(ba) to take such steps as it considers appropriate with a view to encouraging good practice in the treatment of disabled persons; and").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 1, I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 3 and 6. I take account of the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and other noble Lords who spoke during Committee and Report on the matter. Recognising the strength of feeling on the issue, I am content for the commission's responsibilities with
1238
regard to good practice to be expressed as a duty rather than a power. That is the intention behind Amendment No. 1.
Amendment No. 3 is consequential. The power in Clause 2(2) to encourage good practice is redundant as a result of the duty set out in Amendment No. 1. In preparing the amendments it was helpful, as the noble Baroness suggested, to draw on the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Rix. I am grateful to him. Amendment No. 1 also seeks to remove the words "in all fields of activity" from the commission's duty to promote the equalisation of opportunities. Those words were originally included in the Bill to ensure that it was made clear beyond doubt that promoting equalisation of opportunities was not confined to activities covered by the Disability Discrimination Act.
However, on further consideration the Government have decided that the better legal view is that it would be safe to delete the words. This is merely a tidying up measure. I am happy to place on record that the commission's activities in respect of promoting the equalisation of opportunities and encouraging good practice go wider than those areas covered by the Disability Discrimination Act.
I hope that these amendments meet the concerns raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and other noble Lords on the matter. I beg to move.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I welcome this group of amendments. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Rix, with whom I worked closely at earlier stages of the Bill, would welcome them. I am delighted that this group of amendments makes it a duty on the commission to encourage good practice in the treatment of people with disabilities rather than just establishing a hope.
However, might the wording of my noble friend's amendment be preferable as I suspect that it is slightly better English, being rather briefer?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness most warmly for the letters that I and I suspect other Members have received since the last stage of the Bill. They have been helpful. It is clear that the Minister has moved a long way to meet some of the concerns expressed at that stage. I am deeply grateful to the noble Baroness.
The amendments respond positively to a convincing case put to the Minster at Committee and Report stages. However, even at this late stage and at the risk of sounding churlish—that is not my intention—I should like to recommend that the House accepts Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 rather than Amendments Nos. 1 and 6.
If my Amendment No. 2 were accepted there would be the need for a minor amendment to Schedule 1. That could be tidied up as the Bill moves to another place. The reason given for removing the words "in any field of activity" was not convincing. The Minister said that they appeared in order to make the Bill clear beyond any doubt whatever. I suspect that they have been removed because someone in the back room—probably counsel—said that it is safe to do so, but without giving any intellectual reasons.

1239
I believe that the words "in any field of activity" make clear that the provision goes wider than the Disability Discrimination Act. It gives those who must put the commission's work into practice a feeling that under the Bill they have a right to move into all fields of activity which impact on the lives and work of disabled people. Therefore, I should like a further and deeper explanation of why those words should be removed.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Swinfen for supporting my amendment because it provides a straightforward form of words in keeping with the crisp way in which Clause 2 is set out. It provides that:
'The Commission shall have the following duties … to work towards the elimination of discrimination against disabled persons … to promote the equalisation of opportunities"—
and, if my amendment were accepted—
"to encourage good practice regarding the treatment of disabled persons".
It is clear and straightforward. It is not couched around "to take such steps as it considers appropriate". Of course, the commission will only act when appropriate; that goes without saying and does not have to be written into statute. The phrase:
"to take such steps as it considers appropriate with a view to encouraging good practice",
is not as crisp or direct as putting the duty on the commission,
"to encourage good practice regarding the treatment of disabled persons in any field of activity".
In thanking the Minister most warmly for all the help she has given since the previous stage of the Bill, the difference between us is a little more than semantics. It is not only plain English, but a clear statement of duty. I would leave it to the commission to determine when it is appropriate to act. It is highly unlikely that it would act when not appropriate or would take action which was not with a view to encouraging good practice. I hope that the noble Baroness will come a little further along the road.
Baroness Darcy de Knayth: My Lords, I, too, warmly welcome the Minister's amendment in response to that tabled by my noble friend Lord Rix. He is sorry that he cannot be here, but I pay tribute to him and to the Minister for their diligence in pursuit of the matter.
Does not the Minister agree that the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, is wider and firmer than her amendment? When I read that the Minister was removing the words, "in any field of activity" I wondered whether we were losing something.
Lord Addington: My Lords, this short debate addresses the question: what is the best of two good options? It seems churlish to say more than that. However, the noble Baroness has proved again that, in the elegant expression of my noble friend Lord Russell, she has become part of the country party on this. I was thinking of saying something about her being gamekeeper-turned-poacher, but I am afraid that under no circumstances can I see her sneaking across a field with a sackful of dead rabbits and a ferret.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I appreciate what the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, is trying to do, but I
1240
wish to speak in support of the Minister's amendment. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, will not pursue her request to the House to reject Amendment No. 1.
As my noble friend Lady Blackstone explained, Amendment No. 1 is designed to overcome the controversy of using "shall" or "may" in relation to good practice. It places the encouragement of good practice firmly among the commission's duties and together with other duties. It permits the commission to carry out the task as it wishes, giving it certain flexibilities. It is an issue in respect of which it is best not to tie the hands of the commission on specific methods.
The words in the Bill which precede the amendment of my noble friend Lady Blackstone are so vital to disabled people. They are:
"to promote the equalisation of opportunities".
That is the equalisation which disabled people want. They want to be treated like everybody else. The word "equalisation" is clear, specific and crucial. All action to bring about equalisation is welcome. I believe that the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, would do just that. I hope the House will support Amendment No. 1.
9.15 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: I am very grateful for the comments that noble Lords have made in response to these amendments and I am glad that I have been able to meet at least some of the concerns addressed in previous debates. In fact, I think I have met the concerns; it is a question of arguing about the wording.
Perhaps I may respond to the noble Baroness. The amendment seeks to remove the words "in all fields of activity" from the commission's duty to promote the equalisation of opportunities. I have to repeat what I said before: these words were originally included in the Bill to ensure that it was made clear beyond doubt that promoting equalisation of opportunities was not confined to activities covered by the Disability Discrimination Act. I hope that explains why the amendment has been put in the form of words that the Government have brought forward.
Placing a rigid duty on the commission to encourage good practice, which would be the effect of the noble Baroness's amendment, could lead to a conflict with its other main duties. For example, working towards the elimination of discrimination will sometimes involve the commission in doing things other than encouraging good practice, such as supporting individuals taking cases to court or tribunal.
Where the case involves a question of principle there may not be an established body of good practice on which to rely. Moreover, even if there were to be some good practice relevant to the issue under consideration, the commission may judge that the principle should be tested so that the law is clarified for the benefit of all. The government amendment is designed therefore to allow the commission some flexibility while placing on the commission the duty to encourage good practice. In framing such a provision we need to take care not to

1241
constrain the commission too closely. We also have to guard against a provision that is so rigid that it may expose the commission to judicial review for not encouraging good practice where, in the judgment of the commission, another course of action is appropriate.
I hope that with that explanation the noble Baroness is able to accept that the Government's amendments here are very much in the spirit of what she wants to achieve and will avoid some possible disadvantage as regards her formulation.
Baroness Blatch: I certainly will not press my amendment and if I have to concede the other amendment of course I will do so. As the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said, these are two amendments both trying to achieve the same thing. There was a slight difference of emphasis between us. I should like it to be more clear cut, but I do not believe it is.
On the other point of Amendment No. 1, the noble Baroness has given very good reasons why those words should be on the face of the Bill. The noble Baroness has not given good reasons why they should be removed from the face of the Bill. The reason why they should be on the face of the Bill, if I may paraphrase what the noble Baroness said, was to make it absolutely clear beyond any doubt whatever that the commission will have a responsibility that goes wider than the Disability Discrimination Act, and yet those words are being removed. If they were there to put this beyond doubt, they have been removed to introduce a doubt. I find that very strange indeed. I will not press that, but I do leave this debate to be continued in another place. Sadly, of course, the Bill will go to another place without these words in the Bill. I suspect that the disability groups who are outside this Chamber will read this with very great interest and will seek, I suspect, informally to find out from the department why it was that those words were removed. I will not be moving my amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 20, leave out subsection (2).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 5 [Agreements in lieu of enforcement action]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 4:
Page 3, line 38, at beginning insert ("to suspend or").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in dealing with Amendment No. 4 I refer to the explanation in the very helpful letter of 19th March, although I have to say that it was an extraordinarily technical explanation and did take two or three readings before I managed to understand what it was telling me. It does, I believe, meet my concerns about a stage in the process which allows for a further opportunity to return to the investigation stage in the event that the terms of an agreement were not met. In other words, as I understand it, it gives another chance to delay (or even, we hope,
1242
prevent altogether) the need to resort to court proceedings. I am grateful to the noble Lord for that explanation and I shall not move my amendment.
[Amendment No. 4 not moved.]
Clause 8 [Codes of practice]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 7, line 6, at end insert—
("(10) An order under subsection (6)(c) shall be made by statutory instrument; and no such statutory instrument shall be made until it has been laid in draft before, and approved by resolution of, each House of Parliament. "").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, with Amendment No. 5 we are returning to that old parliamentary chestnut of affirmative or negative resolution. In responding to my amendment on Report, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, made my case for me and reinforced the argument as to the use of the affirmative rather than negative resolution procedure,
On Report, the noble Lord said:
"subsection (6)(c) allows the Secretary of State to revoke a code of practice",
so that it is not merely an amending regulation,
"by order at the request of the commission. Such orders would be subject to the negative resolution procedure. The purpose of the noble Baroness's amendment is to make these orders subject to the affirmative resolution procedure … it seems that it would be unusual for a code of practice to be revoked rather than simply being revised and reissued". —[Official Report, 11/3/99; col. 411.]
The noble Lord said that any revocation of a code of practice would be an extremely serious issue. Indeed, it would happen only on rare occasions. As I said, I am not talking about a simple amending regulation whereby extremely minor changes are made which update a code of practice. We are talking about revocation of the code itself. That may be linked to European legislation or to major shifts in legislative practice which mean that substantial changes must be made to the code.
It will be a very important code of practice. Given that it will not happen very often, it is a matter which should come before the House to be dealt with. Therefore, I ask the Minister to think again. They have confirmed that it is a serious issue and revocation will happen only rarely. But when it happens it will happen for important reasons. There will be no revocation of the code unless there is good reason for it. It seems to me that on those rare occasions the two Houses of Parliament should be given an opportunity to discuss any changes. I beg to move.
Baroness Darcy de Knayth: My Lords, I firmly support the amendment. Just because something is rare does not mean that it is unnecessary to do something about it. I have read what the noble Lord said in Committee at cols. 411 and 412 when the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, referred to a European directive making such a major difference in the law that it would mean the

1243
withdrawal of the existing code. I felt that that was very much in support of the noble Baroness's amendment. I hope that the Government will accept it.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I too support the amendment. As the House knows, I have spent many years fighting for the rights of disabled people. The beginning of the clause refers to,
"employers, service providers or other persons".
The codes of practice referred to in the clause are relevant not only to disabled people. They affect large chunks of the business community and other communities in this country. They may have a considerable effect on them. I think it only fair to them, as well as to disabled people, that the matter should be discussed properly in Parliament. That means that an affirmative rather than a negative resolution procedure should be used. I am sure that Parliament as a whole, with the affirmative resolution, will make certain that the rights of disabled people are looked after and balanced properly with the needs of the business community at the same time.
We must remember that if we make life too onerous for businesses, there will not be employment for anyone, let alone disabled people. There is still a tendency among many people to let disabled employees go before their able-bodied employees. Many able-bodied people still have no understanding of disability or what disabled people are capable of doing. I believe that the amendment is much more important than my noble friend indicated when she moved it.
Lord Addington: My Lords, we on these Benches have had a fairly consistent attitude towards secondary legislation and feel that it should be examined and discussed wherever possible. I feel a considerable degree of sympathy for the amendment and with this general approach and hope that the Government are able to give a reasonably positive response. This is a matter of principle that we should encourage. It must be remembered that disability legislation has a great tradition of being driven into Parliament from pressure groups and that could happen again. Generally speaking, this sort of legislation should be open to the greatest possible level of scrutiny.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, stated, we return again to this Parliamentary chestnut and to the debate on whether orders made by the Secretary of State revoking the code of practice should be subject to the affirmative rather than the negative resolution procedure. I have considered the amendment further, but I have to say that I am not persuaded to change my mind.
I refer to the points that I made both in Committee and on Report. First, the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation has given careful consideration to all the regulation-making powers contained in the Bill and indicated that it was content. The Committee was set up with a specific function to consider all forthcoming Government legislation and to advise on whether the regulation-making powers
1244
contained in each Bill allow for sufficient parliamentary scrutiny. I believe that we must have regard to those views.
Secondly, in the majority of cases, revoking of a code of practice would be a tidying-up exercise brought about simply by the fact that the old code was so substantially changed that it would be a new, rather than a revised, code. I accept the point to which the noble; Baroness referred—the point that I made on Report—that there may be unusual circumstances surrounding the revocation of a code of practice where Parliament may have views.
However, that does not suggest that all orders revoking codes of practice should automatically be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. The really substantive point is that the negative resolution procedure would allow debate to take place if the circumstances of revoking a particular order warranted it. On that basis, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, will not feel it necessary to press her amendment.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is true that we greatly value the work done by the scrutiny committee. I believe that the House has a very fine record of always accepting its views, particularly the recommendations made where it believes that a power is being exceeded. However, we do not have to stop there or hide behind what a committee does not say. Therefore, I do not believe that is an argument for not accepting the amendment.
I believe this to be an important issue, in particular because of the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth. We are now at a time where European directives make substantial differences to the way in which our own legislation works. There has to be modification.
Perhaps I may refer once more to revocation of the whole code rather than amending regulation. Revocation of the whole code is done for substantial reason. That will not be done very often but, where it is, it seems to me that, in the interests of the workings of the Disability Discrimination Act and of the disability rights commission, it is important that both Houses have an opportunity to discuss any substantial changes.
I heard what the Minister said about the House possibly having an opportunity to discuss it, but that is only if the government of the day and the usual channels decide that time would be given for that. What we are talking about—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am sorry, but that is simply not the case. If there is a Prayer against a negative resolution instrument, it will be taken, as the noble Baroness knows. She has never had one refused under this Government.
9.30 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, that is, of course, true, but perhaps I may also point out that I do not receive regulations from the department as regularly as I receive press notices. I get all the glitzy press notices, but I do

1245
not get the regulations. Several came through during the Summer Recess and I did not receive them. I arrived back here at the end of the Summer Recess to find that by the time that I had discovered those regulations I was out of time and out of date for taking action. This is too hit and miss. Some detective work is required on the part of those of us who are not backed up in the way in which the Minister is backed up in her department. The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, shakes her head— and, no, I am not a stupid whatever-it-was, as the noble Lord said in an aside that was less than sotto voce. I am talking of my direct experience of the way in which I am treated by the Department for Education and Employment. As I have said, I receive some things from the department and sometimes I receive several copies of the same thing, but what I do not receive, and what I have never received, are the regulations in draft form—
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the Department for Education and Employment sends the noble Baroness many, many documents—far more than I ever received when I was the Opposition spokesman when the noble Baroness was the Minister. I never, ever received regulations from the department when she was the Minister. I expected my Whip to provide information on such matters. I think that the noble Baroness is being wholly unreasonable in castigating the department in this way.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am talking from first-hand experience of the department. As a Minister, my office on my instructions always contacted my opposite numbers, whether I was at the Home Office, the Department of the Environment or the Department for Education, to talk about the business in the pipeline and opportunities to discuss it before it reached Parliament. There was never anything that was not shared with the Opposition when I was a Minister. I do not think that I was a Minister opposite the noble Baroness on the other side of the fence; I am talking about the way in which I operated as a Minister and about my first-hand experience at the department.
Perhaps I may give an example because it seems that the noble Baroness does not believe what I am saying. When the teachers' pay review document was received, in the course of one day I received, one at a time, eight copies of exactly the same document. Indeed, on many occasions I do not receive any copies of a document. All that I am saying is that there is a very schizophrenic system in the department. Some parts of the department operate very efficiently; others do not.
I had to telephone the department this weekend because I had not been aware of the A-level presentation other than from what I had read in the newspapers or heard on the media. That information arrived at my home at 10 o'clock on Saturday night by personal courier. That was as a result of my own request to the office of the noble Baroness. What I am saying is that—
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, perhaps I may clarify something. I made it absolutely clear to my
1246
officials before there was any request from the noble Baroness that, as the announcement was made on a Friday and the House was not sitting, the press notice about A-levels should be sent to the noble Baroness and that we should make sure that she got it over the weekend.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, that does not alter the fact that I telephoned the office of the noble Baroness on Thursday about the rumours and the information that was then appearing in public, in the press and on the radio and television media.
I am not happy about this. It is an important point. On Report, I was supported by Members on all sides of the House, including from the Government Benches. I beg to test the opinion of the House.
9.33 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 5) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 46; Not-Contents, 81.

Division No. 5

CONTENTS

Annaly, L.

Leigh, L.

Blatch, B.

McConnell, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Burnham, L. [Teller.]

Masham of Ilton, B.

Byford, B.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Colwyn L

Millerof Hendon, B.

Courtown. E.

Mountevans. L

Glentoran, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Goschen, V.

Palmer, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Rees, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Rowallan, L.

Henley, L. [Teller.]

Seccombe, B.

Higgins, L.

Stockton, E.

Hooper, B.

Swinfen, L.

Kingsland, L.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Wise, L.

Wynford, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Bragg, L.

Addington, L.

Brookman, L.

Alli, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Amos, B.

Burlison, L.

Ampthill, L.

Carlisle, E.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Bach, L.

Chandos, V.

Blackstone, B.

Christopher, L.

Blease, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Borrie, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

1253

David, B.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Dixon, L..

Mallalieu, B.

Donoughue, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Monkswell, L.

Dubs, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Nicol, B.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Orme, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Pitkeathley, B.

Geraint, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Gilbert, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Goudie, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Grenfell, L.

Razzall, L.

Grey, E.

Renwick of Clifton, L.

Hacking, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Hardie, L.

Sawyer, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Sewel, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Simon, V.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Simon of Highbury, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Steel of Aikwood, L.

Hoyle, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Taylor of Blackbum, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Judd, L.

Thomas of Macclesfield, L.

Kennet, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Kintore, E

Uddin, B.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Warner, L.

Lockwood, B.

Watson of Invergowrie, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Whitty, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Young of Old Scone, B.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
9.41 p.m.
Schedule 1 [Constitution etc.]:
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 12, line 22, leave out ("and (b) and (2)") and insert ("to (ba)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Formal investigations and non-discrimination notices]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 16, line 7, at end insert—
("(5) Where the Commission refuses to receive oral representations under sub-paragraph (4), it shall give reasons for that refusal in writing to the parties concerned. ").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 7 I speak also to Amendment No. 8. Again I return to the helpful letter sent by the noble Baroness following the Report stage. Amendment No. 7presumes in favour of giving reasons,
"Where the Commission refuses to receive oral representations under sub-paragraph (4)".
In her letter the noble Baroness said that the Government were prepared to accept the idea behind my amendment. I am grateful for that.
Amendment No. 8 seeks to make provision for the disability rights commission to remove a non-discrimination notice from the public register,
"when the action required by the notice has been complied with".
Again the Government declare themselves sympathetic to this point in the letter from the noble Baroness. I am also pleased about that. However, the noble Baroness suggests that there may be practical issues which need to be addressed. We discussed those at the previous stage of the Bill. I believe it is important that a timescale be considered. There will be a number of practical consequences of such an amendment. I believe those are precisely the kind of matters that need to be dealt within secondary legislation. I believe they should be dealt
1248
with by the negative procedure as they will be relatively straightforward, technical criteria concerning how the provisions work in practice.
The noble Baroness also states in her letter that both of these amendments may have implications for future policy with regard to the powers of the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Commission for Racial Equality. I accept that. The noble Baroness states in her letter:
"I am pleased to confirm that we are currently consulting other relevant departments with a view to bringing forward government amendments in the House of Commons".
I hope that the House will forgive my cynicism about interdepartmental discussions. Time is now short. The Bill goes to the Commons tomorrow. It is a short Bill. I understand from my colleague in another place that it will be dealt with in a short timescale. Therefore I am not confident that there will be discussions with the Equal Opportunities Commission, lawyers, counsel and all the people who need to be consulted in order to obtain an appropriate form of words or for my amendments to be accepted.
I therefore wish to make what I hope is a reasonable plea to the Minister—with their majority in another place the Government are able to do absolutely anything with the amendments—that the Government put something on the face of the Bill. I suggest that both of my amendments should be accepted. The Government agree with the principle behind them; they are negotiating to discover how it can be achieved; and they have promised that there will be an amendment in another place. But if that is not achieved, if the negotiations are not complete, then an amendment cannot be tabled in another place. That means that the Bill will return to this House and there will be no opportunity for this House to take a view as to whether it should treat the disability rights commission as a separate entity from the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Commission for Racial Equality.
Each amendment stands alone. Amendment No. 7 seeks to establish that there should be a presumption in favour of giving reasons why someone should not make an oral presentation. There should also be a provision for exceptions where there are good reasons why someone should not make an oral presentation.
Amendment No. 8 deals with the removal of a non-discrimination notice from the register. A company may have genuinely complied with absolutely everything but may be unwittingly in breach of the Disability Discrimination Act. The commission has come along and persuaded it to make changes. The company makes changes—it has complied—but the non-discrimination notice is on the register. Just as criminals have records removed from registers after a certain period of time, it is important for the reputation of companies that have done the decent thing that there should be an opportunity for them to have their names removed from the register. It is a reasonable request.
If the Government do not like my amendments they can simply remove them completely. If they want to amend them they can do so in a way that meets the objectives. They can do almost anything. It would be

1249
hugely helpful to give this House an opportunity to have the last say on whether we need to come back and do something quite specific and free-standing for the disabled community. I beg to move.
9.45 p.m.
Baroness Darcy de Knayth: My Lords, I strongly support the amendments, particularly Amendment No. 8. In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, made some very valid points about time and timing. It struck me that this would not be a matter for primary legislation, but that the detail could be worked out later. I hope that the Minister will be able to accept the amendment or at least give a strong assurance that something will be done in another place.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I support both amendments. Amendment No. 7 provides that the commission shall give reasons in writing for a refusal to accept an oral submission. It is an important amendment. In paragraph 10 of the schedule we come to appeals against a non-discrimination notice. It may well be that part of the appeal will be the objection to receiving oral representations from someone that the commission considers to be unsuitable. It might be unusual, but it is possible that that could form part of the appeal. Therefore it is right that my noble friend's first amendment should be accepted. It may need to be improved in another place. I am quite happy with that.
Amendment No. 8 provides that the removal of a non-discrimination notice from the register should happen when it has been complied with. Again, it may be right and proper that the non-discrimination notice should remain on the register for a time—perhaps months or several years. But it should be removed eventually; otherwise, a young person starting a company in his or her early twenties who unwittingly makes mistakes will cause the name of the company and himself or herself to be on the register; and they can still be there 40 years later. Some unpleasant individual can raise the matter against that person when he or she is in their sixties. I strongly support both amendments.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, for tabling Amendments Nos. 7 and 8. It gives me an opportunity to confirm the Government's intentions with regard to them.
Amendment No. 7 seeks to make provision in the Bill for the commission to give reasons in writing why it has refused to receive oral representations from a person to whom it reasonably objects as being unsuitable.
My noble friend Lord Hunt argued on Report that we should leave it to the commission to exercise its judgment in a fair and balanced manner. However, in view of the concerns expressed by the noble Baroness, I am prepared to accept the principle behind the amendment and can confirm that we shall be bringing forward a government amendment at the next stage. I hope that that commitment is one that noble Lords can accept and that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
1250
Amendment No. 8 seeks to make provision for the commission to arrange for the removal of a non-discrimination notice from the public register when the action required by the notice has been complied with. As my noble friend Lord Hunt indicated, we are sympathetic to the idea behind the amendment, although it raises a number of practical issues which need to be addressed. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, referred to them. For example, as the noble Baroness said, we need to be clear about the period after which a non-discrimination notice should be removed from the register and when the period should be calculated as starting.
I am pleased to confirm the statement in my letter. We are currently considering the practical issues raised by this amendment with ministerial colleagues. We need to consult them as it has implications for future policy on the powers of the EOC and CRE, as I think the noble Baroness recognised.
I give the noble Baroness an absolute assurance that there can be no question of inadequate time being allowed for the interdepartmental discussion before the Bill is considered in another place. There will be plenty of time. While I hope that it will be possible to bring forward a government amendment at the next stage, I am sure the noble Baroness will understand that I cannot give an absolutely firm commitment at this point until that interdepartmental discussion has taken place.
Noble Lords will also be aware that we are seeking cross-government agreement for a proposal defining the scope of non-discrimination notices on the face of the Bill. I have already made clear that, given cross-government agreement, we shall bring forward an amendment providing for that too.
I hope that the noble Baroness is reassured by our intentions on both amendments and will therefore agree to withdraw them.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I would like to say I was but the noble Baroness made two totally conflicting statements. At one stage she said—and I wrote it down verbatim—we will bring forward an amendment. However, a little later she said that she could not guarantee it because the negotiations might not be complete in time. Perhaps she will be able to do two things. First, can she explain to the House what negotiations are taking place and what is the timescale? Secondly, if the negotiations are not complete before the Bill proceeds through another place, does it mean that there will not be an amendment to the Bill? The answers to those questions are important. Unless something goes on the face of the Bill as it leaves this House, this House will have no further opportunity to return to those important matters. We all know—it happens with all governments—that once a piece of legislation is passed it is many years before we return to it in order to amend it.
Perhaps I may also ask for clarification of another point the noble Baroness made. She appeared to make a

1251
distinction between the two amendments. As I read her letter, it says, referring to Amendments Nos. 7 and 8:
"Both these amendments may have implications for future policy on the powers of the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Commission for Racial Equality. I am pleased to confirm that we are currently consulting other relevant Departments with a view to bringing forward Government amendments in the House of Commons".
The noble Baroness referred to that, relating to the second amendment and not the first. I should like clarification that it refers to both amendments and that, irrespective of whether negotiations are completed or not, amendments will be put on the face of the Bill in another place.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, there is absolutely nothing conflicting in what I said. I thought I made it clear that we would be bringing forward a government amendment on the noble Baroness's amendment, Amendment No. 7. I thought I made that clear. What I said was, as concerns Amendment No. 8, that we were still consulting ministerial colleagues. Until that consultation was complete, I could not give her an absolute guarantee that the Government would be able to bring forward an amendment in another place in relation to the second issue covered by Amendment No. 8.
The reason I can make a commitment with respect to the noble Baroness's Amendment No. 7 is that there is already intergovernmental agreement about it. However, the more complicated issue covered by Amendment No. 8 has as yet not had the intergovernmental discussion necessary. I hope that that clarifies the position and that in the light of it the noble Baroness is able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I am grateful for that clarification, but it is different from the letter. The letter refers to both amendments in the same sentence. I will read the letter again. It states:
"I am pleased to confirm that we are currently consulting other relevant Departments with a view to bringing forward Government amendments in the House of Commons".
That refers to both amendments.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am sorry if I did not make myself clear. As concerns the first amendment, the consultations are complete and there is agreement. That is why I can give the absolute guarantee that we will bring forward a government amendment. On the second amendment, those consultations are not yet complete.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful for that, but the explanation I am getting now is not the explanation that came in the letter. All I was saying is that the letter I received was different.
I do not see the problem with the second amendment. If a company is found in breach of its obligations under the Act and a discrimination notice is put on the public register and the company quite willingly and without delay remedies that, it seems to me only fair that at some
1252
stage the name should be removed from the register; that is, given the practical difficulties about what the time-lag should be.
The noble Baroness cannot give a timescale, she cannot even guarantee now that there will be an amendment in another place. That means that companies' names will go on the register; good will will be lost and the reputation of the company will remain tainted. As long as it is on the register for having been in breach and is never removed, even though it has conformed quickly, it will be on the register with the names of people who have been laggardly about conforming. They will be on the same register as people who have conformed without delay. That is unfortunate. It would destroy a great deal of good will from the very people for whom the disability rights commission will be in business, to work with them and encourage them. I am deeply disappointed in what the noble Baroness said about Amendment No. 8. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 7.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 17, line 6, at end insert—
("( ) The Commission shall arrange for the removal of a non-discrimination notice from the register when the action required by the notice has been complied with. ").
9.58 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 8) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contends, 33; Not-Contents, 91.
An amendment (privilege) made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Criminal Cases Review (Insanity) Bill [H.L.]
10.8 p.m.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. I moved that the Bill be read a second time in July of last year without any hope that it would get through in time. However, we were anxious to see the reaction of the Government who have at all times proved most helpful and sympathetic.
The case of Ian Hay Gordon is the stimulus behind the Bill. He was tried on indictment in Northern Ireland in 1953 for the crime of murder. The jury returned a special verdict under the Trial of Lunatics Act 1883 that he was guilty of the act charged against him but was insane when he did that act. He was in consequence committed to an institution from which he was released in 1960. He made an application to the Criminal Cases Review Commission set up under the provisions of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995 seeking to have his case referred to the Court of Appeal of Northern Ireland with the object of having the jury's verdict reviewed. After giving consideration to its jurisdiction, the commission took the view that it did not have the power to refer such a case to the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal
1254
under Section 10 of the 1995 Act, but decided to seek the assistance of the Court of Appeal in order to get its view on the issue of jurisdiction. The Court of Appeal of Northern Ireland decided that the commission's decision was correct.
Your Lordships may recall that Section 3 of the 1995 Act abolished the power of the Secretary of State previously exercised under Section 12 of the Criminal Appeal (Northern Ireland) Act 1980 to refer cases to the Court of Appeal. The Criminal Cases Review Commission was established by Section 8. Its powers to refer matters to the Court of Appeal were set out in Section 10. Section 10(l)(a) provides that,
"Where a person has been convicted of an offence on indictment in Northern Ireland, the Commission may at any time refer the conviction to the Court of Appeal".
The commission's powers in respect of cases involving insanity are contained in Section 10(6) which states:
"Where a finding of not guilty on the ground of insanity has been recorded in Northern Ireland in the case of a person, the Commission may at any time refer the finding to the Court of Appeal; and a reference under this subsection shall be treated for all purposes as an appeal under section 12 of the 1980 Act against the finding".
Mr. Gordon submitted to the commission that he had had power to consider and refer his case since the wording of Section 10 was sufficient to cover a case in which the verdict was one of guilty but insane. The subsequent issue therefore was whether a specific verdict under the 1883 Act is a conviction of a nature which comes within the scope of Section 7 of the Act so empowering the commission to refer it to the Court of Appeal of Northern Ireland for review.
I can take the reference to the historical situation of the legislation quite shortly. Where a defendant is of unsound mind, he is regarded by the common law as unable to form the guilty mind required to found a conviction. Before 1880, when the jury found that the defendant had committed the act but was insane, it could either return a general verdict of not guilty or a special verdict that he had committed the act but was non compos mentis in which event the court would enter a verdict and judgment of acquittal. The judges had power to order him to be detained in custody as a dangerous person although it appears that this practice was not always followed.
The practice was made mandatory by the Criminal Lunatics Act 1880 under which, if a defendant were found not guilty of a felony by reason of insanity, the jury had to return a special verdict to that effect. Then the court was obliged to order the defendant to be detained during Her Majesty's pleasure. The terms of the special verdict were changed by Section 2(1) of the Trial of Lunatics Act 1883, which prescribed that it was to be:
"to the effect that the accused was guilty of the act or omission charged against him, but was insane… at the time when he did the act or made the omission".
The special verdict under the 1883 Act was no different in substance from that given under the 1880 Act. There was of course no right of appeal. The general law governing mental health was modernised in Northern Ireland by the Mental Health Act (Northern Ireland) 1961, which brought into law a range of powers

1255
for dealing with persons suffering from mental disorder. Section 56 enacted new provisions for persons found to be insane. Paragraph (2) of subsection (4) of Section 56 is close to the provisions of the 1883 Act, which was repealed in its application to Northern Ireland in the following terms:
"(2) whereupon the trial on indictment or on an information of any person charged with the commission of an offence (a) evidence is given that the person charged was insane at the time the offence was committed and (b) the jury find that although the person charged did the act or made the omission charged he was insane so as not to be responsible according to law for his actions at the time, the court shall direct a finding to be recorded to the effect that the person is not guilty of the offence charged on die grounds of insanity".
The special verdict under the 1883 Act was accordingly replaced by a "finding", a term echoed in Section 10(6) of the 1995 Act to which I referred. The current provision relating to findings of insanity is contained in Article 50 of the Mental Health (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 as amended by Article 50 of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1997. It is basically similar in terms to that contained in the Mental Health Act (Northern Ireland) 1961 and provides for a finding to the effect that a person is not guilty of the offence on the ground of insanity. Thus the primary submission advanced by Sir Louis Blom-Cooper on behalf of Mr. Gordon was that Parliament, in enacting the words of Section 10(6) of the 1995 Act—"was not guilty by reason of insanity"—intended to include the phrase "guilty but insane". His thesis was that the two phrases are interchangeable in essence and intent and that the change from the first to the second and back again was no more than terminological.
However, the Court of Appeal Northern Ireland concluded that the wording of Section 10(6) of the 1995 Act is, on the face of it, clear enough; that only a finding of not guilty on the ground of insanity recorded in Northern Ireland may be referred by the commission to the Court of Appeal.
The Court of Appeal considers that there is not a sufficient reason to depart from the plain meaning of the words in Section 10(6) of the 1995 Act, that a reference can be made in respect of the finding of not guilty for cause of insanity which applies only to cases decided under the 1966 Act and not in respect of cases where the special verdict under the 1883 Act was "guilty but insane".
In my submission the omission of the verdict of "guilty but insane" is a simple error in drafting, but it has created the long-standing and tragic absurdity that Mr. Gordon cannot have his case investigated. That outcome was never intended by the Runciman Commission, the work of which established the commission. I understand that the commission has expressed a wish for the law to be changed. Mr. Gordon's is not only a "guilty but insane" case. It is generally recognised that it would be absurd for "guilty but insane" verdicts to be excluded. Their effect was the same. Only the nomenclature of the verdict changed. Not to include them and not to amend the Act would be to perpetuate in those cases the lack of
1256
appellate rights and to perpetuate what could be a violation in that respect of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It would certainly be to obstruct justice in the particular case to which I returned.
I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(Lord Ackner.)
10.22 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I am sorely tempted to say that I have heard everything that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, has said and I have nothing to add, but it would be discourteous if I did not congratulate him on his persistence in presenting this Bill and also thank those from the Home Office who have produced some very informative and helpful explanatory notes to which the noble and learned Lord has consented.
I recall in practice that cases of this nature, where there is a disability of the mind, present very considerable difficulties. This is particularly true when there is an issue as to whether the defendant committed the act which caused the death. I recall in one case for example listening to the prosecution evidence and cross-examining on it, submitting "no case to answer" unsuccessfully, and then having to switch to establish the insanity, resulting in a verdict of "not guilty but insane", which was almost impossible to appeal.
There was another case from Rhyl about 15 years ago where I recall the defendant went to the police station saying that he had gone home and discovered his girlfriend dead. He was a paranoid schizophrenic and after two days of questioning, during which he denied the offence of murder, he was questioned about his religion. A number of questions were put by new police officers who had not previously questioned him which, in the words of the Court of Appeal, enabled them to enter the defendant's closed and bizarre world and caused him to experience an episode of schizophrenic terror during which he made a statement which contained a mixture of obviously unreliable, questionably reliable and obviously reliable matter. That included his saying:
"Arbitrised humans and small molecular people were screaming at me. My body has been breaking up for the last year. Our relationship was broken. People in my head were yelling out and telling me to kill her, she heard them as well. My birthday came and a little town was telling me for their sake to kill her, millions of lives depended on it. There was trouble in the town and I turned and said I couldn't take it no longer. I pulled the knife our and killed her and lay her on the bed".
He was found guilty of manslaughter by reason of diminished responsibility but the Court of Appeal found that the jury would have had no difficulty in distinguishing between the rational and irrational parts of his confession and that his statement had been correctly introduced in evidence.
I refer to that case simply to illustrate the problems which may arise where there is a disability of mind. It is my hope that the Bill will have an effect on a number of cases so that the question of whether the defendant

1257
did what he was said to have done can be brought before the commission and justice may be effected in the end. I welcome the Bill.
10.25 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Warwick: My Lords, I too support the Bill introduced by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. I extend my gratitude to him and to the Home Office for their assistance.
There appears to be a gap in the law in this regard. As I understand it, the Bill merely enables the Criminal Cases Review Commission to refer to the Court of Appeal a verdict of guilty but insane and gives the Court of Appeal powers to hear and dispose of an appeal on such a reference.
Although the verdict of guilty but insane was abolished in the 1960s, it had the same practical effect as its replacement; namely, not guilty by reason of insanity. As I understand it, there may still be a small number of people who were the subject of such a verdict and who would like to have it reconsidered by the Court of Appeal. Indeed, we have heard of the particular case of Iain Hay Gordon from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. Because of the present situation, Mr. Gordon cannot even have his case investigated. That cannot be justice.
It seems an injustice that someone who has been found guilty but insane should have no possibility of an appeal. It is a long-standing injustice which should be rectified as soon as possible.
10.27 p.m.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, from these Benches, I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, for piloting this Bill. In particular I congratulate him on his persistence because he has had to introduce the Bill twice. I associate myself with the thanks given to the Home Office for the extremely helpful explanatory notes. They are particularly helpful to the layman. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and my noble friend Lord Taylor of Warwick for their helpful comments as noble Lords who have experience of the courts. On this side of the House, we welcome the Bill and support it.
10.28p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, and pay willing tribute to the noble Earl, Lord Portsmouth, who, for many months, has pressed vigorously but always courteously for the law to be changed.
At Second Reading last year, I said that the Government support the purpose of the Bill. I repeat that and I accept that there is a gap in the law.
Since the last Session, my officials and I have kept in touch with the noble and learned Lord and with the noble Earl. I am grateful for the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, about the quality of the officials' work. It is extremely clear guidance and it is pleasing to have that work recognised publicly. I am grateful to him.
10.29 p.m.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his assistance throughout our attempts to have this Bill introduced and supported. I am grateful to all those who have spoken in support of it. I commend the Bill to the House and respectfully ask that it be given a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Railways (Rateable Values) (Amendment) Order 1999
10.30 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 24th February be approved [11th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this order amends the rateable value of the British Railways Board in England and Wales to ensure that it does not pay rates on property which it no longer owns.
The rateable value of the board is prescribed by the Secretary of State. It was last set on 1st April 1995, at the start of the 1995 rating list, at about £11 million. That was done by the Railways (Rateable Value) Order 1994 and is known as prescribed assessment.
Since that date, as your Lordships will know, the board has sold a lot of its property including its rail freight and maintenance operations to Railtrack, among others. A recalculation mechanism contained in the 1994 order has reduced its rateable value from £11 million to about £7.5 million. This recalculation was intended to reflect the property disposals of the board but, in reality, the reduction has been too small. The Valuation Office Agency, which is responsible for rating valuations, now estimates that the board has overpaid in excess of £3 million in rates since 1995 and that a more accurate rateable value would be about £6.5 million.
It is, of course, necessary for the Government to correct this rateable value and compensate the board for the overpayment. The order would achieve this by reducing the Board's rateable value for the next year to £100, 000. I commend the order to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 24th February be approved [11th Report from the Joint Committee]. —(Lord Whitty.)
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I must apologise to the House and to the Minister. The debate, having been extremely long-winded all through the afternoon, speeded up to such an extent that I was caught napping.
As far as I have been able to hear from the noble Lord's introduction, the order corresponds precisely to what I had partly worked out for myself and partly been informed about through the kind offices of a member of his department.

1259
My only slight worry is the very sharp down valuation of the BRB arrangements. The Minister told us a good deal about that. Now is not the moment to go into detail as to what the £5 million—I think it is—of diminution comprises. That will be for another day. At the moment, I am content with the order as presented.
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of the order which, as usual, was concise and to the point. It raises a number of issues and I quite understand if the Minister wishes to reply by letter at a later stage.
I understand that the Secretary of State prescribes the rateable value in these issues. However, could the Minister tell the House how Railtrack properties and the railway lines are evaluated for rateable purposes?
In addition, an issue was raised in another place which I do not think was covered by the Minister. I refer to shops on platforms or on property covered by the order and how they are dealt with. Are they rated by the valuation office or under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of State?
Another issue relating to Scotland has become apparent. I refer to the intention to phase out the system there. Is there the same intention about the future of the system for England and Wales?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I believe that, by and large, the noble Earl was referring to Railtrack's rateable value rather than that of the British Railways Board, and, in so far as I understood his intervention from a sedentary position, no, it is not the same thing. Immediately on privatisation Railtrack invested in certain properties. The British Railways Board has sold on some other properties, but Railtrack is the organisation which, by and large, runs the stations and owns the land which is there for transport and railway purposes.
The British Railways Board is a residual organisation which retained certain land from the old British Rail and hence disposed over the period since privatisation of certain areas of land. As noble Lords will know, the present Government imposed a restriction on such sales. Prior to that—effectively, prior to the election—35 sites had been exchanged since the last rateable value figure and sales of 65 to 70 were so advanced that it was necessary to continue those sales. Another 40 sites have been sold on for transport purposes, in line with the present Government's policy. We have disposed of substantial parts of British Rail's residual land. However, the properties to which the noble Earl referred are Railtrack's and have been so since privatisation. Their rateability and rateable value are therefore determined with Railtrack as the operator and in line with business rates elsewhere and are not really relevant to this order. If the noble Earl would like further details, I can give them to him, but that is not relevant to this debate.
The noble Baroness alluded to the fact that British Rail had dramatically reduced its assets over the period since privatisation in line with the past policy and, to some extent, in line with present policy in terms of disposing of land for transport purposes. What remains
1260
of British Rail's assets will, as I understand it, in the future be subject to rateable value in the normal sense, whereas previously both nationalised and post-nationalised organisations, if I may put it that way, had a prescribed rate laid down by the Secretary of State. That proved too high over a period of four years. In order to compensate for that, we have reduced it to the notional £100, 000 this year. Next year, and for as long as British Rail continues in existence, it will be subject to the normal rateable value assessments and not to prescribed rates. As noble Lords know, the Government intend to introduce legislation to bring the British Railways Board into a strategic rail authority. Within a couple of years, that matter will therefore be resolved differently.
However, for the moment, this order compensates for overpayments in a mechanism which the Secretary of State lays down. That will not have any knock-on effect on other organisations. I commend the order to the House.

Civil Legal Aid (Financial Conditions) (Scotland) Regulations 1999
  Advice and Assistance (Financial Conditions) (Scotland) Regulations 1999

    Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (Application to Summary Proceedings) Order 1999
    10.38 p.m.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sewel)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sewel) rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 22nd February and the draft order laid before the House on 8th March be approved [11th and 12th Reports from the Joint Committee].
    The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move en bloc the three draft orders standing in my name of the Order Paper. I am conscious of the lateness of the hour, so perhaps it may be convenient for the House if I first briefly describe the main terms of the three orders. I shall then be happy subsequently to answer any questions.
    The Advice and Assistance (Financial Conditions) (Scotland) Regulations provide for the uprating of financial eligibility limits in relation to advice and assistance. The regulations raise the lower weekly disposable income limit from £72 to £75 and the upper limit from £172 to £178. The regulations also revise the bands which determine the level of contribution payable by those who receive advice and assistance.
    The eligibility limit uprating represents an increase of 3.2 per cent, on the previous year's limits. This is consistent with increases proposed in the level of

    1261
    income-related social security benefits. More importantly, the uprating ensures that people on low and modest incomes will continue to have access to advice and assistance when they need it.
    The Civil Legal Aid (Financial Conditions) (Scotland) Regulations uprate the financial eligibility limits for civil legal aid. The regulations increase the lower disposable income limit, below which civil legal aid is available without contribution by the assisted person, from £2, 625 to £2, 680 a year; and increases the upper limit, above which civil legal aid is not available, from £8, 571 to £8, 751 a year. The changes represent an increase of 2.1 per cent, on the previous year's eligibility limits. As with advice and assistance, the uprating is consistent with social security benefit increases.
    The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (Application to Summary Proceedings) Order 1999 extends the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission's remit to include convictions, sentences and findings in summary proceedings from 1st April 1999. I am aware that this has been a matter of discussion within legal circles in Scotland—whether there ought to be the extension to summary proceedings. The law as it stands would limit the review procedures to solemn proceedings. We thought it appropriate, through this order, to extend them to summary proceedings. The advice we have is that this would not unduly burden the legal system and believe it to be totally appropriate at this stage to match the two together.
    On that basis, I hope your Lordships' House will accept the reasoning behind the order. The present order will also enable summary cases to be referred to the High Court for determination, where there is evidence of a miscarriage of justice. That is a significant innovation in terms of our present procedures. At the moment it is basically left with the Secretary of State or what would be the First Minister. It is always preferable to have a route through the courts rather than a route through the Secretary of State or First Minister in this type of case. I hope that these are wholly acceptable provisions and I commend them to the House.
    Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 22nd February and the draft order laid before the House on 8th March be approved. [11th and 12th Reports from the Joint Committee]. —(Lord Sewel.)
    The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, with regard to the two legal aid orders, the uprating of the income levels is to be welcomed. There has to remain a major concern about the range of the legal aid system. Although the definition of "disposable income" is more generous than "gross income", it remains that these uprating enfranchise only one-third of the Scottish population, if that, and leave two-thirds excluded. We are therefore left where we started, with justice difficult to access by medium earners and only available to the well-off and lowest income groups.
    I am advised by the Law Society of Scotland that it has concerns—as do I—about eligibility for legal aid and, in particular, the way that the eligibility criteria
    1262
    affects single women with children on low incomes. The pilot modifications for the recovery of contributions over 10 months must be welcomed. But there are still difficulties for people on low incomes who need to take legal action quickly—for example, to protect themselves from violence. The Scottish Legal Aid Board still needs to take substantial contributions, reputedly up to £1, 200, making the legal process an impossible one in those speedy circumstances.
    I move on. With regard to the extension to summary proceedings of the work of the Scottish criminal cases review commission, this extension of activities can certainly be welcomed. The commencement of this commission on 1st April definitely has to be welcomed. There has been an increase in the number of cases in the Scottish jurisdiction where there is some nagging doubt about the safety of convictions. It is worth mentioning, as examples, the cases of Thomas Campbell and Joseph Steele—the so-called Glasgow two—and, indeed, the case of Andrew Smith, which was highlighted in today's Scotsman newspaper. Will the Secretary of State refer these cases and others to the commission, or are the individuals themselves required to refer themselves to the commission?
    I appreciate that there has always been a presumption of confidence in the Scottish criminal justice system, but now there are questions and these must be answered. I hope that the Scottish criminal justice system will be restored to full confidence, but only if it really deserves to be so. The order wisely extends the commission's work to cases arising in the sheriff courts. This is a sensible extension. I predict that this kind of work will be sparse, but that would be no reason not to make the extension. One miscarriage is, of course, one too many at any level.
    The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of this order which helped me to understand it. I also thank the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, for mentioning the points which have been made by the Law Society of Scotland, with which I entirely agree. While we have no objection to the Scottish criminal cases review commission order, can the Minister tell me what additional resources will be required by the commission to handle summary cases without delaying the handling of solemn cases?
    Lord Sewel: My Lords, I thank the noble Earls who have participated in this brief but, I believe, significant debate. I shall deal with the specific points made by the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie. I believe he has concerns with regard to the extension of legal aid. The orders before us today do not deal with the extension of legal aid; they deal with the matter of uprating. I recognise that there is a perfectly legitimate argument to be made as regards the extension of legal aid, but that really is a matter for another time and perhaps another place.
    As regards the specific cases the noble Earl mentioned, some specific cases are before the Secretary of State at this time. If they cannot be resolved before 1st April—I believe that as regards the specific cases the noble Earl mentioned, it is unlikely that they will be

    1263
    resolved before 1st April—they will be transferred to the Scottish criminal cases review commission. I anticipate that it would give a degree of priority and urgency to those cases.
    As regards the matter raised by the noble Earl, Lord Courtown, of resources and solemn and summary cases, our advice is that the number of summary cases at present falling before the Secretary of State are few indeed. It is a matter of two or three a year. Therefore we do not expect that this will represent a significant drain or charge upon existing resources. We hope that they would easily be able to be dealt with within the existing provision. On that basis, I hope that noble Lords will feel able to support the orders.

Scotland Act 1998 (Consequential Modifications) (No. 1) Order 1999

  Scottish Adjacent Waters Boundaries Order 1999
  10.50 p.m.
  Lord Sewel Lord Sewel rose to move, That the draft orders laid before the House on 25th February and 8th March be approved [11th and 12th Reports from the Joint Committee].
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am even more conscious of the lateness of the hour. If it is convenient I shall take the two orders standing in my name together and briefly refer to them. I shall first talk to the adjacent waters boundary order before turning to the consequential modifications order. Both orders have been debated in another place. In view of our previous debates I am slightly hesitant to use the word "technical", but the orders are essentially technical in nature.
  The Scottish Adjacent Waters Boundaries Order is needed to implement the devolution settlement for Scotland in relation to certain maritime matters, most notably in relation to sea fisheries. It does so by establishing a boundary between the waters within the British fishery limits that are adjacent to Scotland and those that are adjacent to other parts of the United Kingdom. In this way it creates a Scottish zone within British fishery limits. In general terms, Scots law for sea fisheries will apply within that zone. I hope that it will be helpful if I set out the relevant provisions of the Scotland Act a little more fully to explain the significance of this Scottish zone and of the maritime boundary.
  Under Schedule 5, the regulation of sea fishing outside the Scottish zone, except in relation to Scottish fishing boats, is reserved. Section 126 provides a definition of such a Scottish zone to mean the sea within British fishery limits which is adjacent to Scotland. At
  1264
  Section 126(2), Her Majesty is enabled by Order in Council to determine a boundary to distinguish between waters which are adjacent to Scotland and those which are adjacent to other parts of the United Kingdom. The draft order sets out such a boundary by listing the necessary co-ordinates in the schedule to the order. An illustrative map has been attached to the draft order so that your Lordships can see where the boundary will run.
  The boundary follows the normal convention for determining similar international boundaries, that is, a median line between the nearest points of land on either side using the "baselines" which have been established around the coast of the United Kingdom in accordance with international law.
  Within the Scottish zone the Scottish Parliament will have competence to make law for sea fisheries and Scottish Ministers will exercise functions in relation to the regulation of sea fisheries. In both cases, of course, the Parliament and Scottish Ministers will have to act in accordance with our international obligations, notably with EU law for fisheries and the common fisheries policy. In practice, therefore, the Scottish zone marks the sea area where the EU law on fisheries, as well as Scots law, will be enforced by Scottish Ministers and their officials and by Scottish courts.
  The boundary provided by the draft order has particular significance for sea fisheries. I wish to make it clear—though it should be self-evident—that the boundary has no significance for other matters at sea which are reserved. In particular, it has no relevance to the regulation of oil and gas exploration and production at sea since these are reserved matters.
  In addition, noble Lords will see from Section 126 of the Scotland Act that "Scotland" does extend to include the territorial sea around Scotland, and that is relevant to certain provisions of the Scotland Act. One example is Section 75 of the Act, which defines a Scottish taxpayer with regard to the number of days spent by a person in Scotland. In that respect, the boundary provided within the territorial sea will also be relevant for those purposes of the Act. Put briefly, if you have a boat and moor it outside Aberdeen harbour, you do not escape being a Scottish taxpayer.
  I now turn to the Scotland Act 1998 (Consequential Modifications) (No. 1) Order 1999. The order is made under Section 105 of the Scotland Act 1998. It makes a variety of amendments to legislation to take account of the Act.
  This order contains the amendments which are required to come into force on 6th May and 20th May in connection with the creation of the parliament and the transfer of the Lord Advocate from the United Kingdom Government to the Scottish Executive. It also contains a small number of amendments that come into force on 1st July. A second consequential modifications order will be laid in May to cover the main bulk of the amendments which will come into force on lst July. So, my Lords, we shall meet again.
  The order only makes amendments which are considered necessary or expedient as a consequence of the Scotland Act. As I said, this is essentially a technical instrument. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the draft orders laid before the House on 25th February and 8th March be approved [11th and 12th Reports from the Joint Committee]. —(Lord Sewel.)
  Lord Steel of Aikwood: My Lords, I could be mischievous and ask what happens if I moor my boat outside Berwick harbour, but I shall not be, as I do not have a boat.
  I wish to ask one question on Article 2 of the Scottish Adjacent Waters Boundaries Order. It helpfully tells us under the heading, "Interpretation", that a "line",
  "in relation to any list of co-ordinates in this Order, means a loxodromic line"
  My simple question is: what is a loxodromic line?
  Lord Sewel: My Lords, I was prepared for that question. The world is round; but when we draw a line on a map it is a straight line on a flat map. That is a loxodromic line.
  The Earl of Courtown: Well, my Lords, we learn something every night!
  My noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Drumadoon told me that the Scotland Act 1998 (Consequential Modifications) (No. 1) Order 1999 was a purely technical order. I shall go no further than that.
  A point raised by one of my noble friends in relation to the Scottish Adjacent Waters Boundaries Order was whether it would help to resolve the ongoing difficulty of jurisdiction in the Solway. I hope the Minister can help me on that matter. If he cannot, I shall be happy to receive his reply in writing.
  Lord Sewel: My Lords, this is a significant question. The problem of the Solway boundary has befuddled and bewitched us for some time. It is quite difficult to ensure that one can prosecute successfully because of the nature of the boundary being, to put it in common terms, the mid-point of a channel which itself moves from time to time and which is submerged at high tide. In those circumstances it has been somewhat difficult to know under which jurisdictions prosecutions should take place.
  The best that I can offer the noble Earl is that, although this order does not affect the common law boundary, it is our hope and intention that we can move to a situation where the rights, particularly in regard to salmon fishing, are brought into consistency with the new boundary that we are proposing.

Social Security and Child Support (Decisions and Appeals) Regulations 1999
  Child Support (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 1999

    Child Support (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 2) Regulations 1999
    11 p.m.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Baroness Hollis ofHeigham)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Baroness Hollis ofHeigham) rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 4th and 8th March be approved [12th Report from the Joint Committee].
    The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the regulations provide for the new arrangements that will be introduced from the second half of this year. The draft Miscellaneous (Amendments) (No. 2) Regulations contain some consequential amendments to the child support regulations. All these regulations are derived from the powers provided in the Social Security Act 1998.
    The Child Support Miscellaneous (Amendments) Regulations make a small number of amendments to the secondary legislation which provides the structure of the child support scheme. For the most part, they correct minor errors and clarify the intention of the legislation in cases of doubt.
    The current system of determining claims and resolving disputes in social security is too long and too complex. People have a right to expect their claims and applications to be dealt with correctly and speedily. When they wish to dispute a decision, they expect to see it resolved swiftly wherever possible or progressed rapidly to the appeal stage.
    The draft regulations provide for an improved decision-making and dispute resolution system, a simplified appeal system where five different types of tribunals are replaced with a single jurisdiction and the introduction of a modern, accountable appeals service.
    Noble Lords will recall that one of the main provisions of last year's Act was to provide that all initial benefit and child support decisions will be made by officers acting on behalf of the Secretary of State. This replaces the current system where there are a variety of different types of decision-maker.
    The current inflexible system for reviewing decisions often forces people into a frustrating and time-consuming appeals process. Clients often appeal against a decision simply because they are not aware of any other way, in practice, to get their decision checked. In future, where decisions are clearly wrong, the agencies will put them right quickly with the minimum of fuss. The same straightforward and simple rules on how and when decisions can be changed will apply across all benefits and business areas.
    Regulations 3 to 24 contain the detail of the changes to the decision-making process. Regulation 3 allows decisions to be revised and replaced with a new decision, for any reason, where a dispute or appeal is made within one month of the decision being notified. This regulation further provides that some decisions may be revised after the one-month time limit in order that we may be sure that any errors are corrected. Regulation 30 allows an appeal to lapse where someone appeals against a decision at the outset and the decision is revised in their favour. There will, however, be fresh rights to dispute and appeal the revised decision which Regulation 31 confers.
    Even where errors are identified outside the one-month time limit and the decision cannot be revised, a decision may be superseded under Regulation 6. Superseding decisions, as Regulation 7 details, will generally take effect from when the decision is made or when the application was made.
    In planning for the introduction of these new arrangements the agencies have taken the opportunity to begin to improve their notifications. The notification will invite clients to contact the agency if they are not satisfied with the decision or if they have a query. They will be given the opportunity to discuss it and to present any new relevant information. The agency will then reconsider the case and either confirm the original decision or issue a new one. In either case their right of appeal is protected.
    I will now deal with the provisions on appeals. This is covered by Regulations 25 to 59. Current delays in the handling of appeals are unacceptable. Noble Lords will be aware that appeals take, on average, seven months to be heard. Many people wait a year or more. That is unacceptable and this Government are committed to delivering significant improvements in performance.
    These regulations introduce a number of important changes. First, they simplify the confusing jumble of time limits that currently operate. At the moment where appeals are lodged out of time, we have different rules governing their acceptance or rejection and the period during which such applications may be admitted. The arrangements are a mess and we propose to replace them with a single one-month limit for each stage of the process. Various regulations—for example Regulation 3 for revisions and Regulation 31 for tribunal appeals— achieve that.
    Secondly, Regulation 36 ensures that tribunals have the necessary expertise to deal with the range of issues that may come before them. A disability benefit appeal, for example, will be heard by a three-person tribunal (lawyer, doctor, disability expert) while a retirement pension appeal raising questions of fact and law would normally be heard by a lawyer sitting alone. Such an approach will allow the appeals service to concentrate expertise on the cases that need it and speed the service it offers to all appellants. For the most part it is these regulations that will determine the composition of any particular tribunal. However, where the exercise of discretion is involved I would like to make clear that it will be the president or his judicial staff who will decide
    1268
    how a tribunal will be composed. While on the subject of tribunal composition, I would like to clarify the position on appeals relating to incapacity for work. All such appeals will be heard by a lawyer and a doctor and we are looking again at the wording of Regulation 36 to ensure that that is made clear.
    Thirdly, 10 per cent, or more of appeals received by ITS (Independent Tribunal Service) have no prospect of success. For example, child benefit is not payable for children over the age of 19 and an appeal in those circumstances simply cannot succeed because the law is explicit. The same is true in the case of the disability living allowance mobility component in relation to a child under the age of two. It is essential that we build in arrangements to ensure that such cases (10 per cent, of the whole) do not undermine the ability of the appeals service to handle other appeals speedily and effectively. But there will be safeguards to ensure that appeals are handled properly. People will still have the opportunity to argue in front of a tribunal that their appeal is not misconceived if they wish to do so.
    Fourthly, I want to make clear to the House that the Government are expanding the role of tribunal clerks from that we envisaged when the Bill was debated. We have done this following discussions with Judge Harris, to whose helpfulness and co-operation I should like to pay tribute. At present tribunal chairmen must spend time dealing with clear-cut interlocutory matters including the disposal of certain appeals. That time would be better spent hearing appeals and helping to ensure that the delays and backlogs in the system are reduced. That will mean a speedier service for all appellants. So we have decided that clerks may handle matters involving a simple assessment of straightforward facts. Regulation 46 gives effect to that. Of course, the clerks will be properly trained to perform these duties and Judge Harris has kindly agreed to assist in both the training and guidance provided for clerks. Clerks will not strike out appeals in any other circumstances. I particularly want to draw the House's attention to these changes both because of their importance and because they represent a change from our earlier proposals.
    Lord Higgins: My Lords, perhaps it might save time if I just intervene at this moment. Will these clerks be legally qualified?
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, no; but they will be trained. The kind of things they will be looking at, for example, are striking out a claim where someone is seeking to challenge a pay date when that is laid down by legislation: it is a clear fact and no discretion is involved. Another example might be whether they turn up on a fortnightly basis or otherwise to get their JSA: the law is unambiguous. They will also be handling matters like renewals, deferments and so on. They will not be legally trained, but the kinds of decisions they will make will not require legal training. I hope that has addressed the noble Lord's point.
    I turn now to the Child Support Miscellaneous (Amendments) Regulations 1999. As I said earlier, these make a small number of amendments to the secondary

    1269
    legislation, which provides the structure of the child support scheme. For the most part, they correct minor errors and clarify the intention of the legislation in cases of doubt.
    This package of regulations marks a step along the way of improving the CSA. We all know the difficulty that the CSA has is particularly marked in obtaining maintenance from self-employed non-resident parents. Regulation 6 introduces provisions which self-employed parents should find helpful, enabling them to provide the figures which they use for self-assessment of their earnings for tax purposes, for use in calculating maintenance. Only where they are unable to provide them, for example, if the business is a new one, will the agency have to continue to use the old cumbersome arrangements.
    The package also includes a regulation, Regulation 3, to defer the re-introduction of fees until April 2001. That was originally provided for in legislation. It was subsequently deferred on a couple of occasions, and until the service is of sufficient quality we do not think it is appropriate to talk about fees. Therefore we are proposing not to re-introduce fees for at least another two years.
    A further measure in Regulation 6(7) restores the policy intention in respect of the valuation of property transferred before 1993 in lieu of child maintenance, where a decision by a child support commissioner has resulted in that value being less than was originally intended.
    These are the most significant of the changes contained in the package. Your Lordships will be relieved to hear that I do not intend to go over the regulations one by one since they are very extensive; but I will do my best to answer any questions that may arise before us today. I hope that your Lordships will accept the regulations. I beg to move.
    Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 4th and 8th March be approved. [12th Report from the Joint Committee]. —(Baroness Hollis of Heigham.)
    Lord Higgins: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Baroness for her explanations of these three orders. I believe that it is convenient to deal with the orders en bloc, although the first one deals with very important issues relating to appeals whereas the second and third are rather more detailed and relate to the Child Support Agency.
    In the light of the debates last year on the Social Security Bill I have some serious concerns about these orders. We complained at that time that if the implementation of the Act took the form of statutory instruments, we would not be able to amend them. In relation to a number of points arising on the orders had it been possible to amend them I would have wished to do so.
    Before turning to the points of substance, I thank the noble Baroness for writing to me explaining some of the points dealt with in the orders. Obviously, the orders are very complex and require detailed examination. In that context I make one particular point.
    1270
    In the course of considering these matters I came across the various documents produced for the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. Those appeared to me to be a vast improvement on the Explanatory Notes on the back of the orders. Given that a number of these issues will be of great concern to outside bodies like the Child Support Agency, Citizens Advice Bureaux and so on, perhaps the noble Baroness and her department—I do not ask that it be dealt with this evening—will consider whether the documents produced for the Joint Committee should be more widely distributed to general advantage. To a large extent, these complex matters must be explained by the various bodies to the people whom they seriously affect. The more information that can be provided, and the simpler the explanation, the better. It seems to me that the documents to which I have referred achieve that end.
    Next, perhaps the Government Chief Whip could say what determines the order in which these measures come before the House as opposed to the other place. Some have come ahead of these and some after. I understand that one of the orders is to go before the other place tomorrow. The other place will not have the benefit that we have had of hearing the debates in the other place. Perhaps that is also a point that can be considered.
    I turn to the substance of the matter. Some of these issues have been raised with a number of outside bodies which have expressed very considerable concern about the way in which the orders operate. The Explanatory Notes provided to the Joint Committee point out that the orders will not be referred to the Social Security Advisory Committee. Given their importance, I was not clear precisely why that was so. Apparently, it was based on the fact that there was a short time lag between the Act on the one hand and the making of the orders on the other. But I am not sure why we have not had the advantage of the Social Security Advisory Committee's comments on these orders.
    Essentially, what we have here is a simplification in the sense that a number of different jurisdictions are to be amalgamated. But one feels that the simplification is not by and large to the advantage of the people affected by these orders. The tendency has been to take the lowest common denominator in terms of time limits and so on. In addition, the situation now is one in which the Secretary of State is said to take the decisions. Perhaps the Minister can say who in practice will make the decisions. I doubt whether Mr. Darling will see each of them individually. It appears that provision is made whereby, if the officials concerned discover that they have made a mistake, they can take immediate or very rapid action to put it right.
    Having said that, there are a number of points about which the outside bodies make complaint, in particular the composition of tribunals. As I understand it, the fact is that a number of them selected by the president will in the light of these orders be single-member tribunals. Can the Minister confirm that if they are single member tribunals he or she will be a lawyer? That would be helpful to know.

    1271
    I have received two separate sets of representations regarding the situation which may arise if there is a single member tribunal. In a specific case there was no presenting officer. Apparently it is now common for presenting officers not to turn up. The appellant was not represented, as is commonly the case. During the hearing the appellant had a psychotic fit. If a single member tribunal is sitting with no presenting officer, considerable problems may arise if some appellants are unhappy or indeed disturbed by the situation. It is a genuine point which needs to be considered.
    Having thought that that was a one-off example, somewhat to my surprise a similar case was brought to my attention. Apparently, not satisfied with the decision, the appellant tried to jump out of the window and had to be restrained. I raise the point because I was surprised to hear of the first case and even more surprised to hear of the second; and as a result of the Bill and these orders we shall have single member tribunals.
    In addition, I have had representations pointing out that the chairman, sitting alone, has to take a note, keep the questioning going, observe the appellant, and does not have the advantage of the experience of colleagues if a larger number of individuals were to be involved in the tribunal. I hope that these points can be clarified.
    The noble Baroness will know that there is concern regarding the reduced time limits. It is difficult not to receive the impression that the time limits to lodge an appeal are being reduced on the ground that it will reduce the period before the appeal can be heard. As the noble Baroness pointed out, on average appeals take something like seven months, and perhaps significantly longer, to be heard. A month seems a somewhat short period when people may have to assimilate the decision against which they wish to appeal. Two weeks also seems extraordinarily brief. People may be on holiday. Mail may not be received as swiftly as it might, and so on. Those time limits seem very tight indeed.
    The third cause for concern is the wide powers to strike out a specific application. I was not greatly reassured by the Minister's response to my intervention. The striking out provisions may be made by an individual who is not legally qualified. If we were able to amend the order we would wish to examine that provision in detail and perhaps vote upon it.
    As regards the time limit to appeal to the commissioners—it can only be on a point of law and is effectively to a body the equivalent of the High Court— it is a shorter period than would be the case if there were an appeal to the High Court. The time limit for appeals to commissioners on a point of law should be the same as that which applies for appeals to the High Court.
    All those matters give considerable cause for concern, as does the fact that a legally qualified panel member can reinstate an appeal. However, I understand from the Minister that all tribunals will have a legally qualified member who can reinstate an appeal if appropriate.
    I turn rapidly to the second and third orders. I am puzzled that we should suddenly have new child support regulations when, as I understand it, the Government are making progress with their proposals for changing the law with regard to the agency and expect to produce a
    1272
    White Paper fairly soon. I have only one or two relatively minor points on the orders. First, there are provisions in the orders for people who happen to be serving in the reserve forces. That seems an extraordinary sledgehammer to crack a. nut. 1 am not in the least clear how many members of the reserve forces are likely to be engaged with the Child Support Agency—
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Too many!
    Lord Higgins: Too many perhaps, my Lords, but I wish to ask the noble Baroness how many. We are legislating here for probably a small number of people. There are other problems, particularly with regard to disclosure of information. As the noble Baroness knows, I am concerned about the confidentiality of information within government, particularly with regard to information held by the Inland Revenue and so on. There are provisions in the orders for the transfer of information from one party to another which has been obtained from a third party. For example, if in a specific case the CSA has information which it has obtained from a third party—perhaps the Inland Revenue—it can then transfer that information, which may well be private and confidential, to the other person involved in the child support case, whether the parent with care or whoever it may be. That seems to be a sudden relaxation of the rule which previously existed.
    Those are most of the points which one might appropriately raise at this stage. We look forward to hearing what the noble Baroness says. Having said that, it is unfortunate that on some of these important points, which are of concern both to the individuals who are affected by the orders and also to the various organisations outside which seek to help them in relation to this legislation, we do not have a better chance to amend the measures. We can either accept the orders or reject them.
    Lord Addington: My Lords, on these Benches we support the principle of making appeals work more smoothly and more speedily. However, we have some misgivings about the idea of efficiency as very often "efficiency" means in Treasury-speak "cheap". The Treasury's shadow is always cast over regulations. Whenever we consider a measure which mentions efficiency we should bear that point in mind.
    We have some misgivings about the reduction in the number of people on tribunals, not because someone has had a fit, as the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, suggested. The idea that there is a difficulty in someone having a psychotic fit is an understatement of which we should all be proud. Such a reduction may lead to there being a lack of expertise on a tribunal. For instance, in a case that involved allegations of domestic violence, it might be appropriate to have at least two members on the tribunal, one of each gender.
    We are concerned about the time limits that are applied to the lodging of material for appeals. We are particularly concerned that the clock should not start

    1273
    running until the appellant, or potential appellant, knows that it is running. That would be a step in the right direction.
    We are also concerned about the wholly exceptional circumstances in which the detail might be extended. I believe that those few noble Lords present—I believe we are just quorate—would benefit from having a better idea of what the wholly exceptional circumstances might be. The Child Support (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations give effect to some provisions in the context of the CSA but do not call for separate comment. The other CSA regulations allow for the use of the income tax data of the self-employed who, while enjoying apparently considerable means, nevertheless appear to be stating that they are incapable of supporting their children. The idea of allowing the argument for civil liberties to stand in the way of someone being required to give full support to his children is one that my colleagues and I would find totally inappropriate. Having civil liberties does not give you the right to starve your own children.
    We welcome the further postponement of the levying of fees by the CSA as it is far from clear that it has yet achieved a level of service that would justify the fees. It has been a consistent line from these Benches that the agency is not to blame; it is the complexity of the legislation. It is to be hoped that the efficiency I mentioned before will allow the agency to do its job.
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, this has been, to use a word much favoured by the Civil Service, although I am not sure it really exists, a "timeous" debate. By that I mean not a fearful debate but one that is expeditious and on time. I congratulate your Lordships on helping us to extend the English language.
    I shall do my best to answer the points that were raised. The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, referred to the opaqueness of the explanatory note compared with that produced by the Joint Committee. I have two responses to that point. First, any individual will be able to ask the agency for a full explanation of its decision. Any individual affected will have rights that currently do not exist. I am happy to follow up the noble Lord's more general point and see whether that is a helpful way of proceeding. I entirely accept that these are technical matters and that one would not expect people who seek to represent themselves fully to understand their import. I am happy to follow that point through.
    The noble Lord's second point concerned the relationship of the regulations and the role of the Social Security Advisory Committee. The regulations have not been referred because regulations made within six months of the relevant commencement order do not need to be referred to the Social Security Advisory Committee. However, we will be writing to the Social Security Advisory Committee about the regulations and their effects.
    The noble Lord asked about the appearance of presenting officers at tribunals. This is an important issue. The president is discussing with the Benefits
    1274
    Agency when presenting officers will be present at appeals. The noble Lord was right to draw our attention to that point.
    The noble Lords, Lord Higgins and Lord Addington, asked about the composition of tribunals—single member tribunals, and so on. I am happy to confirm that the single member of a tribunal will be a qualified lawyer. The case raised by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, seemed to be a mental health case, which would involve a two-member tribunal. We will be discussing with Judge Harris the question of security, in so far as that was presented, and I am happy to say again that where there is a single member tribunal, as in other tribunals, a clerk will be present to handle the paperwork and administration. There will be other people, so to speak, in the room.
    It is worth reminding ourselves that 50 per cent, of all tribunals are expected to have two members, 25 per cent, to have three members and 25 per cent, to have one member. Though this matter will be laid down in regulations, it will be open to Judge Harris to come back to us if he feels that any of these composition balances are inappropriate.
    The next point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, which was a concern shared by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, was the general point about time limits. Two sets of time limits apply: the first concerns the appeal to the tribunal from the decision of the agency; the second is the appeal from the tribunal to the commissioners. The regulations propose two different sets of arrangements for each of those.
    First, there is a limit of 14 days in which to get a full explanation for the decision from the agency. There is then a one month period for that person to be involved in discussion, dispute or negotiation with the agency. There is then a further one month following that for the appeal to be registered. Therefore, in practice, that person has a minimum of two months, almost two-and-a-half months, for that appeal to be made from the original decision of the agency through to the tribunal.
    The time limits are extended further for an appeal from the tribunal to the commission. In reality, there is a three-month time limit in relation to such an appeal. There is one month in which to request a full statement; one month from the issue of the full statement in which to apply for leave to appeal; and there is one month after that for the appeal to be lodged. Therefore, effectively, there is a time limit of three months for the appellant to go from the tribunal to the commissioners.
    In addition there is an absolute time limit of 12 months which applies in cases of somebody facing illness—and that may be what the noble Lord, Lord Addington had in mind—bereavement, absence abroad, postal strikes and other exceptional circumstances to be determined by the commissioners. There can be an absolute limit of up to 12 months.
    Those arrangements are perfectly decent and proper. I hope that they will ensure that we deal with appeals as expeditiously as possible. That is why I believe your Lordships accept the point about striking out misconceived appeals. A time limit of seven months in

    1275
    which to go to the tribunal and up to a year in which to go on to the commissioners is far too long. Throughout that time, a person's benefit status is uncertain and it is right that we should speed up that process as far as possible.
    Lord Higgins: My Lords, it is extremely helpful to hear that explanation. However, is it not the case, under the current regulations, that if a claimant does not apply within 14 days for a request for an oral hearing, that may be struck out, as I understand it, by a clerk with no legal training?
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, as I understand it, a person may request either an oral or a paper hearing. He certainly needs to give due notice of the fact that he wishes to appeal. He has 14 days in which to ask for an explanation of the decision and one month in which to go into dispute. I take it that the noble Lord is talking about appeals to the tribunal rather than to the commissioners?
    Lord Higgins: My Lords, my understanding is that if a claimant does not reply within 14 days in relation to whether or not he wants an oral hearing, it will be struck out and that is it.
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, an appellant has the right to receive a full decision from the agency, which takes 14 days. He has a month in which to go into dispute and a month in which to appeal. If he does not reply to the request as to whether he wishes an oral hearing, there would normally be a paper hearing. Perhaps we should follow up that matter through correspondence because it may be that there is a misunderstanding.
    The other issues raised by both noble Lords were about the proposals for the Child Support Agency. We are expecting to issue a White Paper fairly soon. If parliamentary time permits, we hope to see legislation in due course, but not in this parliamentary Session. However, it will take a couple of years, starting from scratch now, to get the IT system in place on which any reform of the Child Support Agency will depend. Without such an accurate, reliable and robust IT system, it will simply implode on us.
    Therefore, because we are several years away from seeing the improvements which we all wish to see, we need to make interim improvements. Part of that is to ensure that where people are self-employed, the basis of the information which is submitted to the Inland Revenue for tax purposes, is the same set of accounts as is produced for the agency. I believe that that has been welcomed.
    The noble Lord asked me a question which I certainly cannot answer, and I do not think that anybody in the Chamber tonight could either. I do not know how many people in the reserve forces are affected by this regulation.
    I have noticed in the caseload of letters received that there is sometimes what appears to be a disproportionate problem of people in the Armed Forces. This is partly
    1276
    because they feel aggrieved that, as members of a disciplined force, they are obviously vulnerable if payments are not made regularly. There is often a dispute as to the appropriate payment. We are determined to ensure that all people, including those in the reserve forces and the Armed Forces, contribute as they should. However, I will write to the noble Lord on the particular point concerning the Armed Forces.
    Given the lateness of the hour, I hope that I have answered the questions raised. However, if there is any point which either noble Lord would wish, upon reflection, to follow up in correspondence—these are typically complex regulations—we shall obviously do our best to answer questions and to be helpful. I commend the regulations to the House.

Social Security (New Deal Pilot) Amendment Regulations 1999
11.35 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 22nd February be approved [11th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, these regulations support the New Deal pilot schemes introduced at the end of November to help people aged over 25, who have been unemployed for at least 12 or 18 months, back into work. Building on the New Deal for people aged 25 and over, introduced in June, the purpose of the pilots is to find new and effective ways of helping unemployed people in this age group back into work. The regulations we are debating today enable the pilot providers to try out additional ways of encouraging and supporting people in moving back into work.
We propose that in 10 pilots, those unemployed for 12 months or more are included. In the other 18 pilots, those unemployed 18 months or more are being targeted. We wish to look at this to see what is the most effective point of intervention.
Such pilots will include a gateway period of up to 13 weeks, and exceptionally up to 17 weeks, to offer extra intensive help to assist people in their job search, based on the lessons learnt from the 18 to 24 New Deal. A period of intensive activity, which will usually last 13 weeks, will tackle barriers to work and help job-related training or assistance into self-employment.
In consulting widely on the content of the pilot schemes, partnership and private sector providers expressed a desire for additional flexibilities. That is why we seek to build on the regulations we made last November.
Two consistent requests which emerged from those working with "New Deal people" and which have emerged in consultation were the facility to help people who wish to start their own businesses and wider scope to use top-up payments to assist participants into work. The proposed regulations will enable us to respond positively to both such requests.

1277
Perhaps I may briefly skim through what is a limited number of regulations. Regulation 1 sets out the coming into force date of the amendment regulations and their duration. Regulation 2(3) to (5) introduces further disregards in the treatment of income and capital to allow top-up payments funded from sources other than those by ES, such as the European Social Fund, to be ignored in the calculation of JSA. Such new disregards will allow partnerships, who wish to extend the period of intensive activity for some people, to continue to pay top-up grants beyond 13 weeks.
Regulation 2(4) contains a technical amendment to the New Deal Pilot Regulations 1998 which corrects a minor drafting error. This amendment will ensure that payments made to participants by the Employment Service in respect of childcare costs are disregarded as intended.
Regulation 2(6), which is substantive, extends the rules for self-employment that already exist in the New Deal for young people, to participants—that is, the over 25s—in these pilots. Where agreed by the participant and the New Deal adviser, the participant will be able to trade as a self-employed person. However, as that person will remain on JSA, special arrangements will apply.
Perhaps I may describe them briefly. The gross receipts and expenses relating to their business will be handled through a special account which will be administered by the New Deal provider. This capital may be held separately from the special account if it comprises additional grants from organisations such as the Prince's Trust.
This "test trading" may continue for a period of up to six months or until participants have accrued £2, 000 in their special account after the payment of expenses. The agreements made with the pilot providers will ensure that the proceeds of special accounts—the trading funds—will be payable immediately to people who leave JSA or IS to go into work. If people remain on JSA or IS, the proceeds of the account will be payable 13 weeks after they cease test trading (or immediately if they leave JSA or IS before the end of the 13-week period). If people move off JSA and claim an in-work benefit, the funds in the special account will be treated as capital. These measures are designed to provide people with an extra incentive to leave JSA and go into work.
The focus is firmly on moving people from welfare into work. We need this framework and we are giving those concerned that £2, 000 limit which we think mimics realistic self-employment conditions.
Participants will be supported throughout the test trading period by a New Deal adviser. As the enterprise develops, the adviser will be on hand to discuss the viability of the business and, where the business is showing signs of success, to discuss the point at which it is sensible for the participant to leave benefit, possibly before the expiry of the normal JSA period. If, after 26 weeks, a participant has still not achieved a £2, 000 profit the participant will need to discuss with the adviser his or her future chances of success. The limit
1278
also ensures that people do not build up large profits while receiving benefits designed for those unable to sustain themselves from employment. That is why we have provided the £2, 000 limit. We want the New Deal to offer the maximum choice possible to people. The self-employment route, which these regulations introduce, adds to this choice.
In asking for briefing, I found a number of heart-warming examples of the success of self-employment for 18 to 24 year-olds. Some people had set up, for example, a removals business or a double-glazing repairs business. That immediate self-employment would not have been open to them in terms of employment capacity. We are seeking to expand the same opportunities for those over 25 for whom this would be even more appropriate, given that they are already more likely to have appropriate skills under their belts, but who, because of what happened to a previous employer, may not now have the opportunity of traditional, employed work. For many, we think that this will be a more promising route than working for an employer. With the introduction of the regulations, people will be able to try out self-employment with the safety net of continuing with JSA.
I hope that your Lordships' House will welcome these regulations which amend, and give added flexibility to, the regulations laid before the House last November. They will offer those 25 and over the same opportunities. We do not expect it to help many— perhaps 5 per cent.; we do not know—but we think that the notion of a trading account and the ability to receive advice from a New Deal adviser, together with the ability to remain on benefit while undertaking this, will produce not only an appropriate safety net, but also an appropriate springboard. I commend the regulations to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 22nd February be approved [11th Report from the Joint Committee]. —(Baroness Hollis of Heigham.)
Lord Higgins: My Lords, as was the case with the previous regulations, I found the note prepared for the Joint Committee extremely helpful. As a result, I have very few points to make. I am grateful to the Minister for responding earlier to my points about those documents. I was slightly surprised that they did not appear to be in the Printed Paper Office, as I would have expected.
This is an optimistic and ambitious project, involving stimulating people to set up their own business, which is clearly a much more risky operation than simply finding a job. I understand why the Minister said that it may not affect many people. If I may express a personal view, the idea of test trading has something to commend it. However, what, roughly, does the Minister expect the cost to be per job, given that the risks involved are considerable? If the Minister does not have that figure, perhaps she can tell me the likely total expenditure on the operation.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I too have few points to make on these regulations. One concerns the incapacity pilot regulations. We welcome the

1279
recognition that there is an intermediate state between people who are totally incapable of working and those who are able to work. We thank the Government for that.
However, we feel that the IS limit on earnings which allows earnings without loss of benefit is far too low. The limit has not been updated since 1988; if it had been, it would be nearly £28. I hope that the Minister will bear that in mind for the future.
The Government said that they are determined to help people avoid the poverty trap. However, it would appear that the person who earns £15 while on incapacity benefit keeps it; but if that person earns £16 a week, they keep none of it. Surely that is an error in the nature of the regulations. I hope the Minister will be able to assist with an explanation.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, again I shall do my best to reply to the points raised. First, we are talking about the New Deal pilots for those over 25, not the IB regulations. Perhaps I have misunderstood the point of the noble Lord, Lord Addington.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I shall make a small admission. I am speaking on behalf of my noble friend Lord Russell. I may well have got that point wrong, and if so I shall withdraw it.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, it is an easy mistake to make at this time of the night when there are so many regulations. But the noble Lord's points were pertinent to the set of regulations rather than to specific ones.
The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, made the point—as we all accept—that self-employment is risky. As I say, some of the examples coming from young people—one became a tree surgeon—are very impressive. But my statistics indicate that 2 per cent, of the young people on the New Deal have gone into self-employment. I was asked what we might expect to see in similar circumstances. It may be double that, given the extra human capital of skills that older people, by definition, would employ. But the noble Lord is right; it is the niche market. However, for those for whom it is appropriate, it can be extremely rewarding.
We therefore do not have workings as costs per job as different people will be working for different periods. They will come off benefit earlier. Some will springboard off benefit for ever by going into work; others will come back in. We have allocated £129 million on die New Deal pilots for those over 25, but we will only be able to work out effective cost for a person in employment, without them going back on to benefit, when the scheme is well under way.
I believe those were the points raised. Again, if I have missed any, I shall write to noble Lords. I commend the regulations to the House.

Social Security (Incapacity, Earnings and Work Trials) Pilot Schemes Regulations 1999
11.47 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 10th March be approved [12th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the purpose of these regulations is to test two measures aimed at helping people with a disability or a long-term illness to try out work while remaining entitled to benefit payable on the grounds of incapacity.
These are the first regulations to be made using Section 77 of me Social Security Act 1998. This power allows beneficial changes to be made on a pilot basis which will give us the ability to test different measures to determine which are the most effective in helping people with a disability or long-term illness who wish to move towards the world of work. It allows us to learn from pilots what works and what does not and therefore offers us a learning loop which is denied us when we start out with the roll-out of the national scheme.
The regulations form part of a package of pilot changes which includes a £200 Jobfinders Grant and a £50 a week jobmatch payment—independent research suggested that those were two of the most effective measures in helping people back to work in terms of value for money. They were brought in using powers in me Employment and Training Act 1973.
Regulation 1 provides for the way in which the regulations are to be described and the period for which, subject to parliamentary approval, they are to have effect— namely, from April 1999 to April 2000—and interpretation of terms used in die regulations. I could describe what is meant by "pilot scheme", "pilot scheme period" or "pilot scheme area", but bearing in mind die lateness of the hour I shall not do so unless your Lordships request it.
Regulation 2 provides that the regulations will apply to people living in a pilot scheme who are receiving a benefit on grounds of incapacity from one of die pilot offices. Regulation 3 sets out the people to whom the regulations apply. Regulation 4 sets out die conditions for die first pilot we wish to test, the incapacity earnings provision. The current benefits system has been built on the principle that a person is entitled to benefit on the grounds of incapacity if they are, or are treated as, incapable of work. At die moment someone on incapacity benefit is not allowed to do any work at all unless it falls within one of die exceptional permitted work categories such as therapeutic earnings. This creates a considerable barrier to re-entering die labour market, making it a very big step for people to take up work. We want to test allowing people to do a small amount of work while receiving an incapacity benefit, so that they can take a more modest first step if they wish.
Under this pilot a person receiving an incapacity benefit will be able to do any work subject to a limit of £ 15 a week without losing benefit. The kind of situation we have in mind is where someone with a substantial learning difficulty may only want, or be able to work, two or three hours a week. As a result of this regulation such a person

1281
would be able to keep all of the earnings—unless he or she is paid extremely generously—up to £15 without it affecting their benefit. Whereas DWA rules kick in at, say, the 16-hour limit, we are talking about people who may be working for small periods of time and therefore for quite modest sums which nonetheless they will be allowed to keep under the £15 a week rule.
Regulation 5 provides for the second change to the benefit system that we wish to test. Under this proposal, a person will be able to undertake a work trial without losing benefit. Work trials are run under an existing Employment Service programme that allows employers to offer vacancies to clients on an unpaid basis for up to three weeks. This allows a client to see whether the job is suitable and allows the employer to evaluate the suitability of the jobseeker. During the trial the client remains on benefit and both they and the employer take part without obligation. Work trials are used for real, full-time vacancies where the job is expected to last at least six months. We know that there is a rather high success rate with these trials and that people are kept on.
Regulation 6 makes provision for people who, for whatever reason, move out of a pilot scheme area but who continue to do the work started under the pilot. In some cases it would have been unfair if they were forced to give up the work they had started. This regulation therefore allows for geographical mobility.
Regulation 7 provides that on expiry of these regulations a person can continue to benefit from the pilot measures for six more months. That allows for sensible planning of an end to the work if a person decides not to continue with it.
These two measures which I believe are entirely beneficial and which I believe will be widely welcomed are designed to give people claiming an incapacity benefit the opportunity to try out work without risking their position. We hope that for some people with a disability these measures will represent a real opportunity to take the first steps in moving from benefit into work. I hope your Lordships will support these regulations. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 10th March be approved [12th Report from the Joint Committee]. —(Baroness Hollis of Heigham.)
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I have only one point to make as there is something I do not quite understand. As I understand it, the programme allows employers to offer vacancies to jobseekers on an unpaid basis for up to 15 working days. I say 15, but the noble Baroness mentioned three weeks, and I am not sure which is the correct figure. No doubt she will tell us.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, me technical language is 15 working days, but that is three times five which makes three weeks.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, given the weight of the programme we have this evening I shall not go into that. But be that as it may, I am slightly puzzled about the work on an unpaid basis for up to 15 working days. However, it also appears that the jobseeker remains on benefit during the work trial and both the employer and the jobseeker take part
1282
in it without obligation. It appears that the work trials are used for full-time vacancies of at least 16 hours where the job is expected to last six months. I am not clear what the relationship is—no doubt it is due to the lateness of the hour—between the 15 working days, or three weeks, on the one hand, and the idea that the jobseeker will have a job that lasts six months. No doubt the noble Baroness can explain that. Further, given that this is a niche market, I am not clear why this has to be full-time employment rather than part-time.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I briefly and humbly refer the noble Baroness to the points I made when I spoke to the wrong order.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I had hoped that in my introduction to these regulations I had, to some extent, addressed the noble Lord's point. I accept the point I think he was seeking to make that £15 is a modest sum, but it is modest because it is parallel, for example, to the amount that a lone parent can retain if she is on income support and is working. There are perfectly decent and proper "reads across", but the group for whom we think it may be particularly appropriate are those working very short hours indeed—for instance, someone with severe learning difficulties who may nonetheless be working in a retail outlet, but supported. They will be able to keep that money, and it seems right that they should.
This brings me to the second point made by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, who was baffled about the relationship between the 15 days and the work vacancy. This may have been because I was cutting corners when trying to explain the scheme, being mindful of the time. Basically, the work trial is not work experience but a trial in a real job. The trial means that for three weeks a person can do a real job and continue to receive benefit. At the end of the trial the client and the employer can decide whether they wish to continue the employment. To qualify for that three weeks, the job must be a real job in the sense that it is full time. By full time we mean over 16 hours; not necessarily 30 or 35 hours but the point at which family credit, working family tax credit or DWA would kick in.
Secondly, the job must be one that is not temporary; in other words, it must be a job that lasts at least six months so that, if the work trial is successful, the person will go into a real and worthwhile job. The definition of that real and worthwhile job is that it is full time—more than 16 hours— and it will last a minimum of six months. As I say, there appears to be an attractively high success rate as a result.
With a disabled person, for example, an employer may not be aware of the disabled person's capacity; in turn, the disabled person may not be fully aware of how much staying power, physical fitness or aptitude he may need for a particular job. It is a no risk, no obligation situation. In practice it has turned out to be very successful. Both parties come in and, as a result, a person goes on to gain a job. With that explanation I hope that your Lordships will accept the regulations.

National Minimum Wage (Offshore Employment) Order 1999
11.56 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 10th March be approved [12th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the order standing in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham.
On 2nd March we had a useful debate on the two sets of draft regulations which implement the minimum wage. I now present a draft Order in Council which will extend the provisions of the National Minimum Wage Act, as well as the implementing regulations, to people who work offshore.
The employers of these workers will be subject to the same obligations as other employers under the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 and the National Minimum Wage Regulations 1999. They will be required to pay the workers at least the national minimum wage and to comply with the other requirements relating to the calculation of minimum wage pay and hours and the need to keep sufficient records.
Such workers will also have a right of access to their relevant records if they believe they are not receiving the national minimum wage and will be entitled to bring a claim for failure to pay the national minimum wage before an employment tribunal or other civil court. The draft order provides that tribunal claims will be heard before tribunals in England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland according to the offshore area where the relevant act or failure to act took place.
Noble Lords may ask why it is necessary to extend the Act at all to offshore workers. The oil and gas industry is not one which would normally be associated with low pay. Instead, at least until recent months when the price of crude oil dropped significantly, it has usually been described in terms of bonanza, boom and oil riches. The workers who have been employed offshore have generally done very well from the exploitation of North Sea oil and gas. I believe that this remains true of the general picture and probably for 99 percent, of cases.
But even in the richest sectors there may be pockets of low pay. Not everyone is an oil or gas engineer or a construction worker. Someone has to do the less well-rewarded jobs such as cleaning, general maintenance or refurbishment. That may also be the case in the oil and gas sector. If one believes what is reported in the press, there are stories that some workers who paint North Sea rigs are paid as little as 81p an hour. If such stories are true, 81p an hour is as unacceptable in United Kingdom waters as it is on dry land. It is right that workers should receive the minimum wage whether they are on dry land or offshore. It is therefore right to extend the provisions of the Act in this way to offshore employment.
I trust that your Lordships will find this draft order straightforward. We have had the arguments of principle about the national minimum wage. It will shortly become a reality for workers on die mainland. It must be right to extend the protection of the Act to offshore workers. It is logical to do so, and it complies with standard practice. It means that the national minimum wage picture will be complete from 1st May, when this order will come into force.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 10th March be approved [12th Report from the Joint Committee]. —(Lord Sainsbury of Turville).
Lord Higgins: My Lords, die Minister rightly says that the matter of principle involved in the National Minimum Wage Act has been debated at considerable length. He is fully aware of the views of those of us on this side of the House.
The Minister referred to the level of pay of those working offshore but seemed a little uncertain, although the figure he quoted was very precise. He seemed to believe that there were people who were paid as little as 81p an hour. Given the precision of that figure, he presumably has some evidence. If that is so, perhaps he will tell us how he sees the Act operating as regards those people.
Secondly, how are the number of hours worked calculated when employees are on board a ship or a rig when there is no means of getting them off during the course of a tour of duty? Finally, how is the time spent on board counted for the purposes of the Working Time Directive?
Midnight
Lord Razzall: My Lords, we share the objectives of the Government with regard to the national minimum wage. We welcome the implementation of the legislation and the regulations laid under it.
I wish to make just one point to the Minister. These regulations are aimed at the offshore oil and gas industry. In the light of publicity over the past 24 to 48 hours in relation to the road haulage industry, does the Minister have any plans to extend the regulations to that industry?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I shall take those points in order. Regarding the figure of 81p, I was referring to a case that appeared in the press. My caution in confirming that is that I do not always believe everything that I read in the press, particularly these days.
On the question of hours, the provision applies in the same way as on land; that is, whenever people are working. The Working Time Directive does not at this point apply to offshore workers, who were one of die excluded categories. That is now being looked at as a further extension of the provision. So far as concerns its application elsewhere, I shall leave that for another occasion. I commend the order to the House
House adjourned at two minutes past midnight.

  Equal Rights in the EU
  Equal Rights in the EU
  Young People in Custody on Remand
  Young People in Custody on Remand
  Genetically Modified Animals
  Genetically Modified Animals
  Immigration and Nationality Directorate: Failure of Computer Systems
  Immigration and Nationality Directorate: Failure of Computer Systems
  Citizenship Rights: Channel Islands and Gibraltar
  Citizenship Rights: Channel Islands and Gibraltar
  Interception Warrants
  Interception Warrants
  Stephen Lawrence Inquiry: Government Response
  Stephen Lawrence Inquiry: Government Response
  Family Law: Seventh Protocol
  Family Law: Seventh Protocol
  Aid and International Development: Paid Staff
  Aid and International Development: Paid Staff
  Airborne Stand-Off Radar
  Airborne Stand-Off Radar
  Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill: Human Rights Act
  Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill: Human Rights Act
  Sexual and Reproductive Health
  Sexual and Reproductive Health
  Northern Ireland Assembly: Transition Programme
  Northern Ireland Assembly: Transition Programme
  Regional Transport Studies
  Regional Transport Studies
  Local Governance
  Local Governance
  Regional Development Agencies: Membership
  Regional Development Agencies: Membership
  Shipping
  Shipping
  Food Labelling: GM Content
  Food Labelling: GM Content
  Abattoir Closures
  Abattoir Closures
  British Beef
  British Beef
  WTO Rules and Precautionary Principle
  WTO Rules and Precautionary Principle
  Rural Affairs Ministry
  Rural Affairs Ministry
  Ilisu Dam Project
  Ilisu Dam Project
  WTO Rules and Precautionary Principle
  WTO Rules and Precautionary Principle