Sitting of 24 March 1999

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

  Transport (Eastern Region)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jamieson.]
  9.33 am
  Mr.Kelvin Hopkins: I am pleased to have the opportunity to raise in the House the substantial subject of transport in the eastern region. I have lived in the eastern region of England for the past 30 years, and have travelled its length and breadth many times by a variety of transport modes. I have also been a rail commuter for all those 30 years. Moreover, I have a long-standing interest in transport policy.
  Between 1973 and 1977, I was employed in the Trades Union Congress's economic department, working primarily on transport policy. My immediate predecessor in that post was my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts), and my immediate successor in the post was my right hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson). My immediate superior at that time is now a Member of the other place and the Minister for Roads and Road Safety, with whom I now meet and correspond to discuss transport and specifically roads policies. It was pleasing to renew old acquaintances on entering the House.
  After the TUC, I was employed by the National and Local Government Officers Association and Unison as a policy research officer working on transport policy, among other things. I wrote a number of papers on transport policy and the unions' response to the previous Government's deregulation of bus services. I opposed deregulation then and still believe that it was a profoundly misguided policy. I am pleased with the publication this week of the Deputy Prime Minister's bus statement.
  A few weeks ago, I was one of a number of Labour Members from eastern region constituencies who undertook an experiment to test public transport services in the region. We all travelled from our constituencies by public transport, meeting up at Stevenage on a Friday afternoon. Some of my hon. Friends may refer to their experiences later in the debate. The experiment demonstrated both the possibilities and the difficulties of using public transport. Some journeys were relatively simple; others were time consuming and tortuous.
  North-south journeys on routes radiating from London are relatively straightforward, whereas east-west, cross-country routes are difficult. Indeed, the coherence of the eastern region is weakened by poor east-west transport links, and by a sense of relative isolation between the eastern coastal counties and Hertfordshire and Bedfordshire in the west of the region. With the increasing
  306
  importance of regionalism in our constitution, good transport links across the region are essential to the development of a sense of unity and a strong identity.
  More important still is the need to ensure that transport links are sufficient for the regional economy to develop and prosper. The eastern region as a whole is one of the more prosperous in the country, but within the region, there are areas of deprivation and unemployment, notably in the coastal towns of East Anglia and parts of my town, Luton. Both areas require improved transport communications to assist their economic development. The region as a whole must keep improving its communications network if it is to develop its full economic potential.
  A recent Confederation of British Industry survey in the region recorded a high proportion of local economic development officers stating that transport links of all kinds needed to be improved. In particular, almost 100 per cent. of them thought that rail provision needed to be upgraded.
  The eastern region is well served by mainline and commuter services fanning out from London, with Euston, St. Pancras, King's Cross, Liverpool Street and Fenchurch Street all serving parts of the region, but all those services require new investment and upgrading to enable them to carry more passengers and take pressure off the roads.
  In that context, I shall raise the more parochial matter of Thameslink 2000. I travel to and from Luton by rail every day, and during my two years in the House, have never yet driven to Westminster. I am fortunate that Thameslink is one of the better commuter services, at least on the north side of the Thames. I know that, on the south side, overcrowding is horrendous. I recently had a long meeting with Euan Cameron, the managing director of Thameslink. There is clear concern that even Thameslink's relatively good performance has begun to deteriorate, and investment in track and in new additional train sets is urgent.
  The multi-million pound Thameslink 2000 investment programme has been badly delayed. The original intention was to complete the project by 2000. It then slipped to a start date in the year 2000. Now the project will not start until some time after 2000–2006 seems to be the earliest likely start date. Cash has been allocated—Railtrack has the cash to do the work—but no start date has yet been agreed.
  Thameslink wishes to purchase a considerable number of new train sets to increase the length and frequency of its trains, and to take many more passengers to and from London each day. I ask Ministers to do everything they can to ensure that the Thameslink modernisation programme goes ahead at the earliest opportunity, and that steps are taken to ensure that Thameslink is upgraded before 2006. That could perhaps be a first task for Alastair Morton and the new Strategic Rail Authority.
  I shall touch on roads, specifically the M1 motorway, which passes through the heart of my constituency. Last July, I welcomed the roads review and the decision by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport to abandon plans to widen the M1 north of junction 10 through Luton. However, that decision made the need to upgrade commuter rail services, especially Thameslink, still more crucial. Car commuters cannot be expected to abandon their cars and travel by train if they cannot find a seat in peak hours, if services are not reliable, and if fares are too high.

  307
  May I say in passing that the privatisation and fragmentation of the railway system inflicted on the country by the previous Government have done nothing to help. I welcome the establishment of the Strategic Rail Authority, which I am confident will restore some coherence and rationality to the development of rail services.
  Another matter of great local concern in my constituency is the environmental impact of the Ml motorway. Between London and the north, my constituency contains the only stretch of the motorway that passes within feet of homes and schools. The noise and airborne pollution, together with the recently lifted threat of motorway widening, have caused considerable blight in the area.
  I have raised the matter with my noble Friend the Minister for Roads and Road Safety, and have had meetings with the Highways Agency and the local authority. I am hopeful that noise reduction measures, including barriers along stretches of the M1 through my constituency, are a real prospect. I have also asked the Highways Agency to investigate whether noise reduction barriers combined with appropriate foliage can help to reduce airborne pollution in the immediate vicinity of the Ml, and the agency is looking into the matter.
  During the debate on the roads review, which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport announced in July, I was much encouraged by his positive answer to my question about possible measures to counter the environmental problems caused by the M1 in my constituency. I shall continue to pursue that matter and will not let it go.
  Luton needs other transport infrastructure improvements if economic development and the number of jobs in the conurbation are to be maximised. On the positive side, Luton airport is expanding with large investment in new terminal buildings and aircraft handling capacity. The new Luton Parkway station will soon open, and airport passengers will be able to check in for their flights directly off the rail platform.
  The translink corridor project could provide an important new passenger traffic route between Dunstable and Luton, on the route of the old railway line. That would require money, and people at every level of government must ensure that such investment opportunities are not let slip. In the best of all worlds, the venture would be a matter for public enterprise and Government investment. I cannot imagine such a project in France being delayed for years by shortage of funds.
  Finally, I must refer to the motor car. The car is a boon to modern living and, for most of us, essential for certain journeys, but inappropriate car usage, not car ownership, has been the problem. I recently spoke to shop stewards at the Vauxhall Motors plant in Luton and drew attention to the situation on the continent of Europe, where motor car ownership is generally higher than in Britain, but motor car usage is lower.
  However, exhorting motorists not to use their cars for inappropriate journeys must go hand in hand with the provision of first-class public transport services. We must accept, too, that public transport, in economists' terms, can never be a perfect substitute for the motor car.
  308
  Each has a role to play, but there is a crucial balance to be struck between public transport and driving one's car. The car remains vital for most people who travel around the eastern region. I am sure that other hon. Members will raise matters of concern for their own areas and I hope that the House will forgive the parochial elements of my contribution.
  I have taken to heart one of the messages from my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister. I have rediscovered walking as a mode of transport and it is not only cheap and non-polluting, but beneficial to my health. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will take note of the points that I have made and do what she can to promote improvements in transport in the eastern region as a whole and in my constituency in particular.
  9.42 am
  Mr. Malcolm Moss: I shall address the House on the A47 Thorney bypass, which was one of the casualties of the Government's decision to slash their road building programme from 160 schemes to about 37. The White Paper "A New Deal for Transport: Better for Everyone" proposed massive changes to the road building programme. That proposal certainly did not make things better for my constituents in Thorney and the community is extremely angry.
  I attended a public meeting last November, which was packed to the gunwales. There are about 2,000 souls in the village and I should think that every one was present. They are determined that the long-promised bypass will go ahead in the near future—and as soon as possible. The villagers set up the Bypass Thorney campaign and, such has been the strength of feeling, they have already held two rallies on the A47 in the village in which traffic was held up for a considerable time. They of course have the full co-operation of the police and the local authority.
  The campaign for a Thorney bypass has a long and chequered history. The villagers have been campaigning for their bypass for 67 years. A campaign started in 1932, and a great Isle of Ely route was proposed to improve the A47 across the fens from Peterborough to King's Lynn, and on to Norwich. Plans were resurrected in the 1960s and published in 1962. A start date was confirmed in 1968. In the 1980s, a public consultation determined that a single carriageway should be routed north of the village and a start was planned for 1986.
  In June 1987, the bypass was again confirmed, on environmental grounds, by the then Under-Secretary of State for Transport with a planned start date of 1989–91. The plan for a bypass was changed to one for a dual carriageway in 1990 and a start date of within two years was confirmed. In 1994, the Department inexplicably decided to test Thorney for trunk road traffic calming measures. I think that Thorney was one of three projects on which the Government decided at that stage, and I shall discuss traffic calming a little later.
  The fear at that time, which I shared, was that traffic calming measures in the village were a way round going ahead with the bypass, and an attempt to alleviate some of the problems of delay and the high accident rate. In 1996, the programme was changed and the bypass was put into the second phase, but the real body blow came in 1998, when the present Government dropped the Thorney bypass from the road development programme.
  Thorney is a heritage village. Its centre is a conservation area with 167 listed buildings, 116 of which front on to the A47. The road bisects the village,

  309
  which is linear, right the way through. Most residents are affected by the heavy traffic. The village is built on fenland soil, which is part peat and part silt, and the vibrations from the increasing traffic cause significant problems for buildings.
  The village's terrific tourist potential is not in any way realised because of the problems of pollution and traffic. The traffic problem is essentially that 16,000-plus vehicles a day go through this small fenland village, and 19 per cent. of those are heavy goods vehicles. They cause severance to the village, because the road bisects the built-up area, and create noise and pollution. Even though traffic calming measures have been taken, delays are caused.
  Traffic does not go through the village only during the day. The campaign team recently carried out a survey which found that a massive number of HGVs go through all night and, between midnight and 6 am, the HGV count was much higher, at 57 per cent. The village also suffers from traffic going through its centre seven days a week. There is additional holiday traffic at weekends as people go from the midlands to the north Norfolk coast.
  The village is bisected by the road. There are two zebra crossings—one at each end of the village—but, during peak times, no one in his right mind would risk crossing that road. It is so dangerous that parents invariably take their children to the school, which is on the road by one of the zebra crossings. However, they take their children to school by car, because there have been accidents involving children, particularly those on bicycles, over the past 10 years or so.
  Traffic calming measures are causing more problems for residents. The clatter of HGVs going over the humps and bumps and round the chicanes has exacerbated the noise and pollution problem that they were designed to solve. Those measures have caused delays, which add to the problems of the environment and cost.
  Even the Government office of the east, which is based in Cambridge, has concluded that there are great merits in the 1996 scheme for a dual carriageway of 4.3 km, which would have cost about £15 million at that time. The Government office has also concluded that the accident rates in Thorney are higher than average, with clusters on bends in the road and at minor junctions, and that the traffic calming measures, which were installed in 1994 at a cost of almost £500,000, have not overcome the basic problems. Thorney's rural location means that public transport is not only unlikely to be provided, but would not in any way provide a solution to the problems.
  The figure obtained by the cost benefit analysis is comparatively low at 2.3, but that is for a dual carriageway. The figure would probably double if the Government pursued their proposals for a single carriageway. Along with the villagers, I shall press for the road to become a single carriageway, in which event the figure would probably be nearer 5.
  The villagers of Thorney would want me to put another point to the Government. I believe that every other village on the A47 has been bypassed, all the way from the midlands around Peterborough, across the fens and around Wisbech, King's Lynn and the stretch leading to Norfolk. Why, after all this time, is Thorney the only community that has to suffer such heavy traffic at its heart?
  The GOE believes that an improvement in the road—even a bypass for Thorney—would help to regenerate the northern fens area. Wisbech currently enjoys assisted area
  310
  status, as it has since 1993—although that is being reviewed—and is at the heart of an objective 5b area, while much of the northern fens region has rural development status.
  What is the way forward? The Bypass Thorney campaign submitted its proposals to the panel at the public examination of the draft regional planning guidance for East Anglia earlier this year. I am told by Lord Whitty, the Minister responsible for trunk roads, that the panel's report is due in mid-May. At that point, the Secretary of State will have the power either to accept the report or to modify its conclusions, but, in any event, he will have to consult those involved.
  My constituents and I want the go-ahead to be given for the reintroduction of this much-needed bypass into the programme as a single carriageway. For all the reasons that I have given, we believe that the community needs and deserves the bypass. Other communities may not want improved roads—although I suspect that they are far fewer that the Government would have us believe—but this community does. The campaign will not go away: these people are serious, and they will continue to blockade the A47 for as long as it takes to make the Government see reason.
  9.53 am
  Mr. Bob Blizzard: In any transport debate, our first task is to strip away the ideology. Nowadays, too much of the argument is taken up by certain groups. There are those who see transport only in environmental terms, as an inconvenience or an obstacle to the pious business of saving the planet, having no regard for our economic and industrial needs. Some of those "interest groups" have no realistic economic policy; they are at heart anti-car, indeed anti-motor vehicle. Then there are those who ignore the issues of pollution and climate change. They are typified by the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Redwood), whom I heard speaking to the annual dinner of the Institute of Petroleum. His rallying call to an audience whom he expected to be friendly was, "What we need are lower taxes and more motoring". He did not impress the institute, however, because most of the companies involved have signed up to the Kyoto agreement.
  Then there are those who rage on with arguments about public versus private. There is the champion of public transport, who refuses on principle to own a car and who, witnessing a traffic jam, repeats in a sort of Orwellian duck-speak his long-cherished belief that Soviet-style buses always were better than the decadent private motor car. On the other hand, there is the car-lover who prides himself on the fact that he would never deign to ride in a lowly bus or train. Sometimes those hollow, stale arguments are dressed up, but we hear too much of them.
  An oft-used maxim of the present Government is, "What counts is what works", and I think that that maxim should be applied to transport. A practical approach is needed, and I hope that such an approach will be reflected in the composition of the new integrated transport commission. I hope that it will consist of practical people with real interests, rather than experts with ideological interests. We need a bold approach, but an approach that is, above all, practical.
  It follows that there should not be just one approach to transport throughout the United Kingdom and in every type of community. We cannot have a one-stroke policy

  311
  to be applied everywhere. We need to get that message across. My rural constituents write to me expressing the fear that they may have to pay a congestion charge to drive into the local small market town. Of course such policies have to be considered in the case of cities, but there is no prospect of their being introduced in small market towns.
  Let me make three general observations. First, I do not think that people will accept less mobility than they have grown accustomed to. Secondly, whatever we do about transport, it must continue to operate for the benefit of our industry as well as our environment. It is an engine of the economy, and, in the context of costs and journey times, it is important to maintaining our competitive position in Europe.
  The overwhelming picture of our transport system, however, is of a poor-quality infrastructure suffering from chronic underinvestment in all modes of transport. As we near the end of the century and look back, we see that the Labour party has been in government for only 23 years of this century. It is fairly clear which party we can pin the blame on. Our railways have been decimated and, unlike cities elsewhere in Europe, we have seen our trams being wiped out. Buses have disappeared from rural communities, and a sporadic convoy system has been introduced in towns. We have the fourth lowest number of miles of motorway per 1,000 sq km in the European Union: only Portugal, the Irish Republic and Greece have fewer.
  That brings me conveniently to the subject of East Anglia. I am afraid that I do not know enough about the more western parts of the eastern region to talk about them.
  Mr. Moss: What about Thorney?
  Mr. Blizzard: Thorney will do; I can follow Thorney.
  We have a poorer transport infrastructure than any other English region, and transport is now the dominant issue in our part of the country. Most visitors comment on the lack of modern roads in East Anglia. The traveller has history before his eyes as he travels. Footpaths between fields were widened and became bridleways, the bridleways were widened into lanes and the lanes were widened into roads, but, unfortunately, our roads still wind between the fields of East Anglia, through—and here we come to Thorney—ancient villages and historic market towns. That is even true of trunk roads. It is possible to travel up the A12 and to see tiny cottages below the road level, looking up at the huge trucks that rumble past. The further north and east one ventures into East Anglia, the worse the road links become, until eventually one reaches Lowestoft, Britain's most easterly point, which is in my constituency.
  Our rail links are no better. Train services are infrequent, expensive and slow, and the lines are few and far between.
  I firmly believe that we need an integrated transport policy. Lowestoft is simply not integrated into the national transport network. It is a port, whose function is to integrate land and sea, but it is difficult for it to perform that function when there are such poor links on the landward side. Lowestoft is further from the continuous dual network system of roads than anywhere else in
  312
  the country. Ministers past and present have often arrived late in my constituency, and have always been surprised by the journey time.
  It is not so much that our roads in East Anglia are congested by traffic; it is just that the pace is so slow. The winding single carriageway is clogged with tractors, lorries and, in the summer, caravans. It is not only an inconvenience for the leisure-time motorist; it is taking its economic toll. Lowestoft has lost its traditional industries and it finds it difficult to attract new ones. What company will locate at the end of such poor links? They also make it tough for existing businesses—it is hard for them to expand. All the businesses in my constituency are unanimous in their view that we must have better road links. Poor transport links cost time and are key factors in business competitiveness and inward investment.
  Some people sometimes question whether the link between transport and economic prosperity is proven. I mention just the figures for East Anglia. Along the A14 corridor, unemployment is currently 2.4 per cent. in Huntingdon, 2.2 per cent. in Cambridge, 2.1 per cent. in Bury St. Edmunds and 3.6 per cent. in Ipswich, but, further north and east, it is 9 per cent. in Lowestoft, and 10 per cent. in Great Yarmouth. There has to be a link. People know that there is a link.
  My constituents are frustrated and angry about that point. However, they are delighted at yesterday's announcement that work is to start soon on studies of the trunk road between Norwich and Great Yarmouth, the A47. We are convinced that they will show it has to be improved and dualled, which is what we have been after.
  Should we look for improvements not to the roads, but to the railways? I hope that the railways can be improved. Again, we have to look at practice, rather than theory. Unfortunately, towns in my constituency are linked by single track lines, with lots of small lanes and farm tracks crossing them. A slow speed limit has to be invoked for safety reasons. The only way in which those lines can be improved is by grade separation of all crossings—road bridges over or under the railway. That would be very expensive and time consuming, and I doubt whether it is viable. I hope that we can improve rail to a degree, but it cannot be a substitute for road improvement.
  I mentioned the problem of heavy lorries rumbling through the narrow streets of ancient villages and market towns. I raised the matter because I am not clear where we were with village bypasses. Of course, we must examine all the alternatives before we approve plans for a village bypass, but, in Bungay in my constituency, a study has been done. There is no alternative, yet there are no plans for a north-south bypass. It has not even been put on the list by the county council, even though the company that is the main source of the lorries is willing to contribute to the construction of such a road. People in Bungay are asking whether the lorries are to rumble through Bungay for ever more. Again, we need a practical solution, not an ideological one.
  In the most general sense, what should be the transport policy for the rural part of East Anglia? We definitely need rural buses because there are people living in villages who do not have access to a car at all. Therefore, we welcome the rural bus fund, over £1 million of which has already come Suffolk's way in the first year of its operation. That is welcomed by people who live in the

  313
  villages, but will more buses encourage a modal shift to buses by those who have a car? Let us examine the practicality of that.
  People will not shift unless there is a regular service. If there are only a couple of buses a day, they will not wait three hours to avoid their car journey. Let us suppose that they would wait half an hour. What would it take to institute a half-hour bus service to shuttle around all the villages in East Anglia? The cost would be phenomenal. Existing services are disappearing or under threat, propped up by the county council. Therefore, although I welcome more buses, I do not envisage that buses will be an alternative to the car in rural areas and produce any real modal shift.
  That leads me to the fuel duty escalator. People in my constituency, particularly those in the rural part, find it hard to grasp the measure. It is a blunt instrument in that respect. It is not a progressive tax; there is not much social equity in it. People question whether it can have the desired environmental effect in rural areas, where there is no practical alternative. Therefore, I hope that we will look at where we are going with the fuel duty escalator and its effect on rural areas.
  Mr. Simon Burns: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Blizzard: No, because I am winding up my speech. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will make his contribution later and I want to allow other hon. Members to get into the debate.
  I hope that the Government will take measures to reduce congestion, and that they will focus on the parts of the country where congestion and pollution are serious problems. I hope that they will manage to avoid any suspicion of a broad one-stroke policy, which would seriously worry those in my constituency and in rural parts of East Anglia.
  10.5 am
  Mr. Norman Baker: I shall be brief as I am conscious that there are local Members who want to speak in the debate.
  From my knowledge of the region and from the representations that I have received, it seems that some of the problems in the region are common to the rest of the country, whether they be congestion, pollution, overdependence on the road network or the reduction in rail lines. Unfortunately, many lines were closed under Beeching. In many towns with which I am familiar, such as in Hadleigh in Suffolk, the rail network seems to have been taken away. Sadly, sizeable communities now depend on road transport.
  Of course, for the rail transport that is there, rail fares increased by 74.8 per cent. above inflation between 1974 and 1996, whereas road transport costs have decreased by 3.5 per cent. Those who complain about the fuel duty escalator should bear those figures in mind.
  The Government accept that the region is less well served by east-west rail connections; the point was made by the hon. Member for Luton, North (Hopkins). All roads seem to lead to London, as do rail lines. If we are to regionalise our country, as we should, we need to deal with that fundamental point.
  314
  I want to suggest one or two areas that the Minister might pursue. I should be grateful for an indication on whether the channel tunnel will benefit the eastern region in any way. Will there be connections to the eastern region from the channel tunnel?
  Mr. Burns: Stratford, of course.
  Mr. Baker: Yes, but, to take the point of the hon. Gentleman, who has rudely interrupted me, we want connections to the eastern region north of Stratford. We also want to ensure that rail connections to Felixstowe are maximised to ensure maximum movement of freight transport by rail.
  It has also been drawn to my attention that there is a problem with public transport links north of Stansted to Stansted airport. From London, the links to the airport are quite good, but north of Stansted, the links are a problem.
  I draw to the Minister's attention one or two excellent examples of transport in the eastern region, particularly cycling schemes, which are an important part of the Government's strategy. Many towns in the region contain the highest levels of cycling. They include Cambridge, Peterborough and King's Lynn, although not, to my knowledge, Luton.
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Or Colchester.
  Mr. Baker: Or Colchester.
  I draw to the Minister's attention Kesgrave high school near Ipswich. I understand that nearly 60 per cent. of journeys to the school are by bicycle, compared with the national average of 2 per cent. That success has been achieved by developers incorporating cycle routes into their town planning. Routes to the school from the entire catchment area were built. The result is that more than half the students cycle to school. Some people say that we can never shift transport away from the private motor car, but there are examples in the region and elsewhere to demonstrate that that can happen.
  I regularly ask about road traffic reduction measures and the Minister gives me slightly different answers on each occasion. I do not wish to be churlish. I am happy with the direction in which the Government are going, but I should like some clarification.
  The Minister has said in written answers to me that, in certain parts of the country, an actual reduction in road traffic will be achieved. Can she tell us whether any part of the eastern region will be one of the areas where there will be a real reduction—as opposed to a reduction in growth—in road traffic? Can she quantify when that might be achieved? When will road traffic levels throughout the country be less than in the previous year for the first time?
  10.9 am
  Mr. Miss Melanie Johnson: As it is very easy to misunderstand the issues, I should like to offer a perspective from the southern part of the eastern region, particularly Hertfordshire, which contains my constituency, and to sketch some of the characteristics of Hertfordshire. I also agree with the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard)

  315
  on the need, in debating and considering transport needs, to consider the needs of individual areas—which vary considerably, even across the eastern region.
  Hertfordshire is the United Kingdom's third most densely populated county, with a million people and 19 urban areas. It therefore has very high car usage. Nationally, Hertfordshire has the third highest level of car ownership. Sadly, it also has the United Kingdom's second highest road casualty rate per head of population. Last year, it had 6,826 road injuries and 58 road deaths.
  One of Hertfordshire's main characteristics is that primarily radial routes pass through it, from London, up to the north and east. However, there are few links in Hertfordshire between east and west. I should like to return to that theme later in my speech.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) mentioned Luton and Stansted airports. Over the next four years, Stansted expects a rise of more than 3 million passengers. We are looking forward to airport forums improving passenger transport in and out of the airport.
  The A1(M) provides an important link through Hertfordshire, which also has a substantial road maintenance backlog.
  I have raised these issues because they are important in considering transport in my part of the eastern region. The issues were very different 20 years ago. In the past 20 years, we have lost time in which we could have done much to address issues both of infrastructure and of people increasingly using private, rather than public, transport. It has been a missed opportunity, which the current Government must now try to salvage.
  Mr. Dr. Ian Gibson: Does my hon. Friend agree that the most recent occasion on which a debate on transport in the eastern region was held was in 1977—when, in an all-night sitting, some of the problems that she is dealing with were mentioned? After that debate, an Opposition Member—who is not in the Chamber—emerged bleary-eyed, asking for dual carriageways and for all the issues that my hon. Friend has raised to be addressed. He became a Minister and did some work on the issues, but not enough. I agree with my hon. Friend that not enough has been done in the past 20 years. Why does she think that is?
  Miss Johnson: I can only put it down to the policies of the previous Government. I thank my hon. Friend for his comments on the lack of debate since 1977. What a tragic waste of all those years, in which—with investment and public transport—we could have dealt with the growth in transport need and population growth in counties in the eastern region, such as Hertfordshire. Until the current Government started to address the issues of bus deregulation and rail privatisation, those policies, too, were the source of more problems than answers.
  Rail transport is a substantial concern to people in my constituency, many of whom commute to work in London and expect to be able to use rail services to get about. I receive in my office many complaints about trains that are too frequently over-crowded, and about the lack of services and punctuality. Often, commuters suffer the most, as they travel at times of day when trains are
  316
  likely to be crowded. I therefore particularly welcomed the Deputy Prime Minister's comments on the subject, when he said that he was "switching the points" on the privatised rail industry and clamping down on issues such as standing, train schedules and punctuality, which are all crucial to people in Hertfordshire.
  Billions of pounds could have been invested in rail transport had the British Rail sell-off been done at a more realistic market price. It is very disappointing that that opportunity was lost. That lost opportunity is a shocking public scandal, from which people in my constituency trying to travel by rail to London or elsewhere suffer daily.
  There are serious issues of accountability and competition in rail service. We need exactly the type of action now being taken by Ministers at the rail summit. We have to be persistent, and to support investment in rail.
  There is some scepticism about some of the action being taken to deal with matters such as train overcrowding. The action proposed on overcrowding seems to be based on very old standards of what constitutes overcrowding. People who live in areas in which journey times to destinations are perhaps only 13 minutes are concerned about how lateness is measured, as trains must be at least 30 minutes late before compensation is paid. The relative lateness of trains is crucial to such travellers.
  I particularly welcome the Government's initiative on the Strategic Rail Authority, which will make a substantial difference in addressing many of the issues that I have raised.
  Rail issues are connected to the future of the east-west transport link that Hertfordshire requires. The central Herts passenger transport scheme is expected to create a transportation link between Watford—through St. Albans—and Hatfield, in my constituency. Establishing an east-west link is the No. 1 priority for the southern part of the region, as it would help to integrate public transport and provide modal links—which Conservative Members seemed to find so amusing when mentioned earlier in the debate. Modal links are one of the ways in which we shall tackle the crucial difficulties of transport.
  An east-west link would provide integrated and sustainable transport, and the necessary links for regeneration in my constituency—particularly after closure of the massive British Aerospace site at Hatfield. The site may now be developed for housing and for use by the university of Hertfordshire, and by retail and other business. However, that opportunity will be fully realised only if action such as the central Herts passenger transport scheme is implemented. The scheme would reduce traffic reduction, and links with the university would help both local education and the local economy.
  Those are long-term issues. Even if agreement is given soon to start planning the central Herts passenger transport scheme, it will not operate until 2006. It is another example of the long-term work that the previous Government neglected to do on behalf of passengers in the eastern region. If the scheme is agreed, by 2015, 9 million passengers will be using it. I therefore hope that, in October, Ministers will approve the scheme when the outline case is submitted to them.

  317
  As my hon. Friend the Minister has visited us on at least twice since the general election and seen what Hertfordshire county council is doing, she will be well aware that the county council is in the vanguard of addressing transport issues. The council has pioneered Travelwise to develop sustainable transport; gained European Union support for a business Travelwise scheme; increased its partnerships to reduce child casualties and to increase journeys to school by means other than car, which is the source of much traffic congestion on roads—the issue of car transport to private schools should perhaps also be examined; and developed safer routes to schools and the Walking Bus project.
  Hertfordshire has taken all those actions to tackle the transport issues facing us. I believe that, with the setting provided by the Government, we now have the mechanisms necessary to drive forward transport—by rail, bus and road—and thereby to ensure that the economic future of the southern part of the region is secured.
  10.19 am
  Mr. Keith Simpson: I welcome this opportunity to contribute to this important debate on transport in the eastern region. I do not have to remind the House that transport is a crucial issue in the region, particularly for Norfolk and my constituency. I welcome the speech of the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker), although it is a pity that no other Liberal Democrat Member is able to contribute to the debate.
  Traditionally, Norfolk has felt geographically isolated. It is somewhere that people travel to rather than pass through. Indeed, our national hero, Horatio Nelson, used to write about going into and coming out of Norfolk as though it were some strange foreign country. Malcolm Bradbury, the distinguished professor at the University of East Anglia described Norfolk as being cut off on three sides. He said some 20 years ago that it was cut off on two sides by the sea and on the third side by British Rail. Unfortunately, very little has changed since then.
  I wish to raise two specific points. The first, the dualling of the A47, was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss). It is a crucial issue for everyone in Norfolk, but particularly for people in my constituency where two large stretches remain to be dualled. The Brundall-Lingwood stretch, east of Norwich is a death trap for many local people and for visitors.
  Mr. Anthony D. Wright: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, under the previous Administration, no fewer than 23 Ministers with a roads portfolio visited the area and agreed that urgent work was necessary on the A47 east of Norwich, including the Acle straight linking Norwich and Great Yarmouth? In 1996, the then roads Minister took the project out of the scheme, but the present Government have put it back and are conducting a study. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the study will produce a way forward for that stretch of road?
  Mr. Simpson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that unpartisan point as he has enabled me to comment in an unpartisan way that, before the general election, he and his hon. Friends promised the people of Norfolk the earth and told them that the A47 would be
  318
  dualled. In fact, it has not been dualled. The Government have failed to keep their promises, and he and his hon. Friends now have to answer difficult questions in their constituencies.
  Miss Melanie Johnson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Simpson: I am sorry, but I want to allow other hon. Members to speak.
  The A47 has not been dualled. It is a killing zone on the eastern side of Norwich. There are also two dangerous stretches in the Dereham area.
  The A47 is vital for two reasons. First, at the strategic level, it provides communications that are vital to all people in Norfolk, whatever their political views. Secondly, there is the matter of safety. My constituents of all political parties are disappointed by the Government's decision, after many promises in opposition that they would carry out yet more studies on the A47. Indeed, the hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) referred to that.
  Under the previous Government—and under the present Administration—the A47 has been studied to death. We want action and the A47 to be dualled. There can be no more excuses.
  My second point has been touched on several times, mainly by Labour Members who consider it an embarrassment. The continued increase in fuel costs penalises motorists in rural areas, particularly in my constituency of Mid-Norfolk where a car is not a luxury; it is a necessity for many of the poorest families who are penalised time and again. The proposed cut in road licence tax for cars with smaller engines is irrelevant to poor families with large cars. Are they expected to sell their cars and buy new ones?
  Transport should be about offering people a choice. In most of Mid-Norfolk the geography of the area creates a major problem in respect of providing an integrated public transport system. Cars are vital in Norfolk, and it must be the Government's duty to provide every opportunity to support people's ability to use their cars. So let us keep the fuel costs down and make certain that our main trunk road—the A47—is dualled. Let us deliver on the promises that Labour made in opposition and has so far failed to deliver.
  10.24 am
  Mrs. Anne Campbell: I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) on securing today's debate on an important issue which affects us all. I also welcome yesterday's announcement by the Government on the multi-modal studies, particularly that relating to the A14, which runs from Cambridge to Huntingdon, and which is designated to start in 1999–2000. It is most welcome. The Cambridge Evening News conducted a great campaign and collected 10,000 signatures. The Government's approach looks at the whole area around the A14. It involves not simply building a four-lane highway through the middle of Cambridgeshire, but looking at other modes of transport—including public transport and the Cambridge-St Ives railway line, for which many of us have campaigned for many years—and provides an opportunity to get those issues onto the agenda and

  319
  consider them in a sensible way, with land use planning, public transport and road transport all playing a role in the economic development of Cambridgeshire.
  I know that the present Government, unlike the previous Administration, will produce not simply an empty, unfunded wish list, but proposals that will have a real chance of being implemented. The previous Administration did a real disservice to the people of Cambridgeshire by misleading them about what was in the roads programme and funded. Their wishes were extremely misleading.
  Mr. Andrew Lansley: Further to the point that the hon. Lady is making, I hope that the Minister will be able to say not only that the study will take place sooner, which is welcome, but that if it concludes that the A 14 should be upgraded, that should happen quickly and, if necessary, be included in the Government's targeted programme of road improvements, even though it is within the seven-year limit that was set last July.
  Mrs. Campbell: I acknowledge the work that the hon. Gentleman has done on this issue and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will respond to the point that he has raised. I certainly hope that the work on the road will be completed as quickly as possible.
  Let me spend a little time talking about my constituency in Cambridge, which is not rural but has a great problem that affects many people. I receive constant complaints from a variety of people—mainly school children—about the difficulty of walking to school because of the enormous amount of road traffic that affects my constituency more severely than most. Some 40,000 people commute into Cambridge every day—an excessive number given that only about 100,000 live in the city.
  People in Cambridge have tried to solve the problem in their own way. The city has one of the highest proportions of people who travel to work by bicycle. The figure is around 20 per cent. in Cambridge—a higher percentage than for any other city in the UK, and which rivals some cities in Denmark and Scandinavia. I have to praise West Anglia Great Northern railways for making it easier for people to use bicycles as part of an integrated transport strategy. WAGN has provided extra parking space at Cambridge railway station and railway carriages that can carry bicycles without inconveniencing other passengers. It has provided secure cycle parking at Cambridge railway station. If one buys a season ticket to commute into Cambridge, it is possible to borrow a bicycle free of charge. Those facilities could be emulated elsewhere and are an extremely welcome development. Real efforts are being made to attract cyclists.
  There are problems with taxis that need to be addressed. I understand that WAGN proposes to lease part of the station forecourt to an operator of O-licensed public service vehicles. I understand that the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) also has an O-licensed taxi problem in his constituency. The vehicles often appear to be identical to taxis. Some operators have been using O-licensed vehicles in the same way as taxis, but they are not subject to the regulation imposed on regular taxi cabs. Not unnaturally, taxi drivers in my constituency are outraged at the intrusion.
  320
  I know that my hon. Friend the Minister is taking the issue seriously and will introduce regulations so that the drivers of such vehicles have to undergo the same safety and criminal record checks as conventional taxi drivers. I welcome that. I hope that she will also consider the effect on taxi drivers, many of whom have paid many thousands of pounds for their licence plate and are worried that they will lose that investment and be driven out of business by the unregulated taxis.
  I want to know what the Government have to say, but I also stress the importance of making the unregulated O-licensed vehicles stick within the strict confines of the law. I understand that there has been some laxity in its application in Chelmsford. Taxi drivers in my constituency are concerned about what has happened there. I hope that any infringement of the rules will be taken seriously and dealt with promptly.
  The success of the Government's exhortations to people to use public transport has created problems. Many commuters are finding rail services unsatisfactory. The Cambridge to King's Cross commuter line has been subject to various delays in recent weeks, causing inconvenience and making people lose valuable time and resources.
  Stagecoach Cambus took over the bus services in Cambridge some time ago. We have had several months of complete disaster with the bus services. I feel strongly about the issue, because it affects the most vulnerable people in my constituency—those who cannot afford a car and have to rely on public transport to get around. I have had letters from elderly people who wanted to go to hospital or into town to do some shopping and had to wait an hour or an hour and a half for a bus, when they should come at 10-minute intervals.
  I have had several meetings with the directors of Stagecoach. They are taking the problem seriously now and are effecting some improvements, but there is still some way to go. Anything that my hon. Friend the Minister can do to encourage quality partnerships between county councils and local bus operators would be welcome.
  The park-and-ride bus service works very well. Unfortunately, it does not help my constituents, although it may help the constituents of some Conservative Members. However, it reduces the amount of traffic coming into the city, because people are encouraged to leave their cars in the park-and-ride car parks, knowing that they can get a regular and reliable bus service into the city.
  I congratulate the Government on the long-overdue measures that they have taken to encourage public transport. I hope that they will lead to traffic reduction in Cambridge city. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to take every possible means to encourage public transport, the increased use of bicycles and better facilities for pedestrians, which will all help to achieve the reduction in traffic on our roads that she and I want.
  10.34 am
  Mr. Simon Burns: I shall be brief, because time is pressing. I should like to talk about the issue that the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) referred to—the definition of regulations as they affect authorised taxi drivers. I wrote to the

  321
  Minister earlier in the week, because a delegation including my constituents and, I am sure, the hon. Lady's, came to lobby us on the issue.
  The problem has arisen out of confusion in the drafting of the Transport Act 1985. We urgently need clarification of the legal meaning of the Act so that we can see whether it addresses the problem properly and can be enforced. If the law is so badly drafted that it is meaningless, I should be grateful if the Minister would advise the House of what the Government are prepared to do. The hon. Member for Cambridge said that the Government were committed to regulations. I was interested to hear that. I should like to hear more from the Minister about the background to that and whether she feels that we can move forward on that basis.
  No one wants to restrict competition for customers and price competition that results in better value for customers, but it is important that everyone who provides a taxi-type service should operate on a level playing field. They should have the same safety checks for the protection of the public and of themselves. The same applies to pricing policy. In Chelmsford, prices for licensed taxi drivers are determined by the local council. Those who do not come within the ambit of the council can set prices off their own bat. When two groups of people provide the same service, it is unfair that one group is hamstrung by having to abide by rules and regulations—with implicit financial costs—and the other group is not. I urge the Minister to clarify the situation as far as she can and sort out an unintended muddle in the law so that we can ensure that our taxi services are efficient, first-rate, price-competitive and, above all, safe for passengers and for drivers.
  10.37 am
  Mr. James Paice: I shall try to be very brief. I thank the Government for changing their plans and announcing yesterday that the A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon road would be brought into the first tranche of multi-modal studies, as the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) said, although she might have admitted that if the Labour Government had not taken the improvement out of the programme originally, the issue might have been more straightforward.
  The stretch of the A14 from Girton, on the edge of Cambridge, to the Suffolk border is all in my constituency. Although the problems of traffic volume on that stretch are not as severe as those on the Cambridge to Huntingdon stretch, they are considerable and are causing significant problems of noise impact for those who live nearby.
  The public inquiry 26 or 27 years ago proposed the building of noise barriers alongside the villages of Histon and Impington. They are still not built. I hope that the Minister will examine the Highways Agency's argument that the requirement for noise attenuation measures applies only to new roads. Many existing roads now carry far more traffic than they were designed for and it should be possible to put in noise barriers in such cases.
  The Government have proposed to detrunk the A10, but we do not know what that means, when it will happen and whether there will be any dowry to maintain or improve the road. That critical link from Cambridge to Ely and the fens could be used to push the development
  322
  pressures further north, but that will not happen until the road is improved. I hope that the Minister will soon give Cambridgeshire county council the details of the detrunking plan so that the county council can give it the priority that local people attach to it.
  The A142 connects the fens and Ely to the A 14 further east, and goes through to Felixstowe port, which is obviously important. There is only one village on the A142 that is not bypassed: the village of Fordham. I declare that that happens to be where I live, but the bypass is No. 1 on Cambridgeshire county council's list of road improvements.
  Last year, I took a delegation, representing all tiers and all parties in government in the county, to see the Minister. She listened courteously, but was unable to put the money into Cambridgeshire. I hope that she will look again at what is a major requirement. A lot of industrial development is taking place in the area, and such improvements would make the world of difference to the community.
  In the whole of the East Cambridgeshire district, atmospheric pollution levels are highest on the stretch of road where the A142 runs through Fordham. That is not what anyone would have expected, but all the tests demonstrate that that is the case. We are only talking about a £12 million bypass—not a large sum. However, the county cannot even begin the design or go through the necessary procedures until it has an undertaking that the money will be forthcoming.
  I hope that the Minister will take on board those points, but particularly the need for clarification on the A10 and the need to look again at the Fordham bypass on the A142.
  10.41 am
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I congratulate the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) on obtaining this debate. It is notable that debates on regional and local transport seem to be more common—perhaps reflecting frustration and disappointment with the delivery of the Government's much-vaunted integrated transport policy.
  The hon. Member for Luton, North launched an attack on bus deregulation. Unfortunately, the Government broadly accepted the privatised framework of the bus industry in the recent White Paper. We welcome any measures to improve bus services, but the White Paper has a sting in the tail. The UK has some of the safest buses in the world, but the Deputy Prime Minister thinks that we need those corrupt EU officials to tell us to make them safer. The White Paper says that the bus industry will be brought under the EU working time directive, which will force up bus operators' costs and reduce the number of viable routes—another great triumph for the Deputy Prime Minister.
  Otherwise, the White Paper is a glossy brochure with a requirement for yet more consultation, underlining that it is more publicity puff that lacks policy. The Government are still fumbling for something positive to do. The White Paper does not radically change Conservative bus policy, but builds on privatisation and competition. Local authorities will need to put aside outdated anti-privatisation attitudes, and will have to work more positively with commercial operators than many have in the past.

  323
  The hon. Member for Luton, North talked about delayed investment in Thameslink 2000. That is regrettable, but at least there is an investment programme—including new train sets. That is a big contrast to the much-vaunted public-private partnership on the tube, where nothing is happening because the Government are hidebound in their ideology about who should own the tube.
  The hon. Member for Luton, North said that there was a great task for the Strategic Rail Authority—but where is it? We are two years into the life of a Government who promised immediate benefits to the travelling public, yet the Deputy Prime Minister has been unable to secure any transport legislation. We are still waiting for the SRA.
  The hon. Member welcomed the roads review, and—extraordinarily—welcomed the abandonment of the widening of the MI. Does he honestly believe that it is a viable long-term option not to widen the MI? He said that he wanted to improve rail links, and certainly there has been improvement. Despite his opposition to privatisation, the privatised railways will announce tomorrow that they are increasing investment by another £10 billion.
  That means that the Government have inherited a £30 billion investment programme in the railways. Where would that money have come from if the service had not been privatised? It would have been stuck in the same groove as the tube, with no investment at all. Who seriously believes that the railways can be built to take sufficient capacity to avoid the need for widening schemes such as the M1?
  The hon. Member complained about the lack of money for investment in local transport infrastructure, yet Luton airport is owned by Luton council. There is a source of funds. If the council were not dedicated to the 100 per cent. ownership of the airport, it could get involved in a public-private partnership to raise capital for investment in the airport.
  Mr. Hopkins: Luton airport is a public-private partnership, and money is coming in from the private sector. However, the long-term ownership remains with the local authority.
  Mr. Jenkin: I put it to the hon. Gentleman that, by sticking to the outdated socialist ideology of public ownership and ultimate public control, he is cutting off his nose to spite his face. The council could raise far more money if it transferred the business to the private sector, as the Government are doing with National Air Traffic Services.
  My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) referred to old chestnut of the A47 Thorney bypass. I regret that the previous Government did not deal with that problem.
  Mr. Blizzard: They had only 18 years.
  Mr. Jenkin: The delay and dithering of which the hon. Gentleman is accusing us has been mimicked successfully by his own Government. We must move on. It is odd that Labour Members pick on policy failures of ours to justify policy failures of their own. The Government promised an integrated transport policy, and they are failing to deliver.
  324
  The way forward is not another study, and the real reason for a study is that the budget is being cut. There is no alternative to a bypass at Thorney. Friends of the Earth support bypasses in such circumstances because they are good for the environment. The only reason that it has been delayed again is because the budget has been cut.
  The hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) made a sensible speech, and asked us to strip away the ideology—and he did so. However, the road improvements that he wants for his constituency to deal with unemployment are not within Government policy. Unless they change their attitude to the importance of roads to economic development, the hon. Gentleman will be a long way from getting those roads. Again, the studies on the A47 are just another excuse for inaction.
  The hon. Member, rightly, said that rail in all circumstances cannot be a substitute for road improvement, and there is no substitute for the bypass round Bungay.
  The hon. Member's comment on the fuel duty escalator was apposite. He said that it was a blunt instrument which lacked social equity, and road hauliers in his constituency are suffering badly because of it. We think that the point of an escalator is that when you get to the top, you get off. It is time that the Government reviewed the policy.
  Mr. Blizzard: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the outcome of the roads review, which showed that the routes to my part of the region, the All and the A47, were deemed to be justified on the grounds of economy and integration? That was clearly marked on the map that encapsulated all the policies. What we have for the A47 is a step forward from the complete deletion of the scheme by the previous Government.
  On road haulage, is the hon. Gentleman aware of the KPMG report yesterday that showed that this country has the second-lowest road freight costs of all of the G7 countries?
  Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman should try telling that to his road hauliers—I would be interested to know what happens to him.
  The hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) talked about the importance of cycling, and I agree. However, I wonder where the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell) is, because Colchester borough council has been criticised by cyclists for not providing sufficient cycling facilities.
  The hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Miss Johnson) complained about the roads maintenance backlog—which, I should point out, is getting worse under this Government.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) talked about the dualling of the A47—another broken promises, and another study as an excuse for a lack of money. He is right to say that the Government should be delivering choice, but that they have failed.
  The hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) also wants a new road. It is interesting how many participants in this debate want new roads, contrary to the Government's policy. The outcome of the study, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) said, is bound to be the widening of the A14, and the Government are simply using that as an excuse.

  325
  My hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) picked up on the need to clarify the Transport Act 1985. The official Opposition share that objective and will provide the Government any assistance for primary legislation on that score.
  Transport taxation is rocketing, while spending on transport is falling under the comprehensive spending review. Vital investment programmes are being cut or are hidebound by ideology. The Government promised an integrated transport policy, but they delivered a standstill Britain, which is why more and more hon. Members are queueing to take part in these debates. They promised immediate benefits for the travelling public but they have failed to deliver.
  The Government should put the environment first, put choice second and come up with real new ideas and fresh thinking to deal with our transport challenges.
  10.51 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Glenda Jackson): Every single contribution, other than that of the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), has highlighted the vital importance of integrated transport infrastructures for the eastern region. Member after Member, both Conservative and Labour, underlined the total failure of the previous Administration to begin to address the issues of integrated transport and its impact on a sustainable economy. Member after Member highlighted the failure of previous Administrations to tackle the serious issues concerning rural communities and the peripherality of the region.
  In a debate as short as this, the contribution of the hon. Member for North Essex was contemptible. He used it exclusively for empty party political purposes. It was as ill-informed as it was ill-structured. His total failure to acknowledge the Conservative Government's responsibilities with regard to the issues in the eastern region was lamentable.
  The Labour Government have transformed the direction of transport in this country. We have put massive funding into the eastern region, via the local transport plans and investment in rural bus companies. Every single contribution, other than that of the hon. Member for North Essex, underlined the fact that our actions will bring the co-ordinated benefits that will begin to tackle the serious problems that have existed in the eastern region for far too long.
  Mr. Keith Simpson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I genuinely seek your advice. The Minister seems to be including me in that blanket approval of Government policy, but, as you know, I expressed no such sentiment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): That is a matter of debate, not a point of order.
  Ms Jackson: Conservative Members may have approached in a somewhat more oblique way the lamentable failures of the previous Administration, but that is a problem more for their consciences than for this debate.
  Themes have recurred in the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins), whom I congratulate on securing this debate, and my hon. Friends
  326
  the Members for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard), for Welwyn Hatfield (Miss Johnson) and for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) all spoke of the serious problems of east-west routes in the region. The difficulties concern both the strategic road corridors and the railways. Without exception, my hon. Friends welcomed the steps that the Government have taken in introducing a Strategic Rail Authority and the benefits that will stem from the rail summit.
  We are delivering on the strategic routes, which hon. Members have identified as the All, A 14 and A47. Let me remind the hon. Members for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) and for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) that it was the previous Government who withdrew the then roads programme. There will be some disappointment that not all schemes and studies can be completed straight away, but we have to be realistic.
  I regret the fact that the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) is not present. He left me a note explaining why he could not be here. I am sure that he will be aware that future investment priorities are to be considered by the regional planning bodies as part of their regional transport strategies.
  Most of the issues that have been touched on concern how we can begin to offer genuine choice for the transport of both individuals and freight in the eastern region. Clearly, integrated transport is the way in which that can be achieved. We have already begun the process by asking local authorities to produce integrated transport plans. Perhaps even more important are the responsibilities for regional transport forums and regional development agencies. Transport is a major player in issues such as reintegration, regeneration and breaking down the barriers of social injustice: burdens left to us by the previous Administration which we are tackling with great speed and concentration.
  My hon. Friends highlighted the need to use, for example, pedestrian and cycling facilities, not only to offer us greater choice as individuals but, very importantly, to begin to reduce the need for children to be taken to school by car. My hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield spoke of the extremely good work being done in her part of the region. I had the privilege of joining the Walking Bus when I last visited her part of the world, and a delight it was. Ensuring that routes are safe and reducing the need for children to be taken to school by car can make a contribution not only to reducing congestion and pollution but to our children's health.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge and the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) spoke about O-licences. As my hon. Friend said, we are examining regulations, especially in relation to safety. I was aware of the lobby that took place, and I have given a commitment that I will meet representatives from the Transport and General Workers Union's taxi section to discuss the issue.
  It is entirely appropriate to touch lightly on the issue of quality partnerships, as, only yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister launched yet another daughter document to our White Paper, dealing with buses and the way in which we can ensure that local authorities and bus providers, working together, deliver buses that will transform that form of transport from the old workhorse to a steed of great parentage and blood.

  327
  Huge improvements can be made to people's lives by, for example, the introduction of accessible buses. We want the process to expand. There has been massive funding in the eastern region from our rural bus fund and the rural bus challenge. We look to local and regional authorities to build on those innovations to ensure that we can begin to break down the social isolation suffered in far too many parts of the eastern region.
  The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire mentioned detrunking and noise on roads. I am sure that he is aware of the announcement by my noble Friend the Minister for Roads and Road Safety on the criteria and funding that the Government will introduce to consider noise on roads that are currently outside the structures for additional noise barriers. On detrunking, negotiations are continuing between local authorities and the Department. It does not mean any loss of status for the roads concerned and we want to transfer a fair amount to local authorities to ensure the whole-life maintenance of such roads.
  The hon. Member for—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

  Metropolitan Police Budget
  11 am
  Mr. Edward Davey: I am grateful for this opportunity to raise the issue of the Metropolitan police budget for the next financial year. It is right to start this debate with a few words of heartfelt praise for the work and efforts of the Metropolitan police across the capital, especially as the force has faced a tough few years. The cuts imposed by the previous Conservative Government, coupled with controversial internal reforms such as the introduction of tenure, have meant that the morale of the capital's police force has been sorely tested. After the tragedy of Stephen Lawrence's murder and the revelations and publicity surrounding the Macpherson inquiry, that test has been truly tough. However, Metropolitan police officers, day in and day out, have put those pressures and frustrations aside and got on with the job. We should be grateful to them and pay tribute to the excellent work they do for all who live in, work in, and visit this great city.
  It is because the Metropolitan police have played such an integral and vital role in London that I wish to raise my concerns about the budget allocation made by the Government for the force next year. It is not enough. That is not only because the budget has gone up by only 2.7 per cent., when the Met themselves say they need 6.1 per cent. just to stand still. It is not only because the number of officers is falling by 75 next year, following a fall of 230 this year. The budget is not enough because, in the daily experience of my constituents, the police are increasingly overstretched and unable to do the job that the community wants them to do.
  I am indebted for information about the key elements of the Metropolitan police budget for next year to the Receiver of the Metropolitan police and the Minister. I owe a particular debt to the receiver, because—as a member of the Standing Committee that considered the Greater London Authority Bill—I helped to abolish him, or rather his post. However, the receiver reassures me that he is happy to be abolished. I am not so sure that the Minister will feel that this speech is recompense for her kindness in ensuring that I received yesterday personal copies of the Met's new policing and efficiency plans for next year, but I thank her none the less.
  The budget figures are stark. The small cash increases awarded to the Met for next year represent a real cut of 0.8 per cent., following a fall this year of 0.9 per cent. Nor do those cuts follow years of growth. The Audit Commission's report, published in January, reveals that between 1994–95 and 1997–98, the Metropolitan police were one of only three police authorities in the country to see real-term budget cuts. It has not been boom and bust for the Metropolitan police, but bust and bust. There will be no relief even after next year. In years two and three of the comprehensive spending review—the two years after the next financial year—there is little sign of a turnaround.
  In practice, the budget situation is even worse that I have described, because of various other factors including, in particular, the mushrooming pension bill of the Met. which is largely paid for out of revenue. Other factors include cost pressures due to increasing demands on and duties for the Metropolitan police, such as those arising from the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and the new laws regulating minicabs.

  329
  The coming financial year will also see specific one-off cost increases for the Met, including the capital city costs for policing the millennium, the costs arising from the change in the Metropolitan police district and the need to support moves to borough-based policing. I hope that the Minister will address those one-off costs in her reply. Will she reflect on whether the Government should use cash from the contingency reserves to supplement the 1999–2000 Met budget? That would at least recognise that the Met face some extraordinary expenditure items next year—expenditures that the budget allocation we are discussing this morning has not yet specifically covered.
  Over the longer term, the increasing pension bill adds 1 per cent. a year to the direct costs of the Metropolitan police. That means that inflation for the police is already 1 per cent. higher than general inflation before anything else, such as pay, is considered. The pension pressure by itself implies that inflation-adjusted cuts to the Met's budget next year, as in the previous years I have already mentioned, present too rosy a view of the underlying position.
  Considerable cost pressures arise from the issue of pay, because of the significant problems that the Met have with recruitment. Partly as a result of the abolition of the London housing allowance after the Sheehy report, the numbers coming forward to join the Met have been falling. If the Met are to recruit more officers from ethnic minorities, for example, they will have to ensure that pay remains competitive. My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) will try to catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to say more about the Met's recruitment problems, but, for my purposes, they illustrate the financial challenges that the Met face.
  The Minister and I may disagree about many issues today, but I hope that we can agree that the Met's budget has been, and continues to be, cut in real terms. Part of the reason for the negative trend in the Met were the changes in the early 1990s to the formula dividing the national police budget between different police forces. That deliberately introduced an anti-London bias. Chief constables from outside London convinced Home Secretaries that London was being featherbedded. As a result, the Met have seen their share of the national police budget shrink from 29 per cent. before the changes in the formula to some 22 per cent. today.
  We must now seriously question whether that squeeze on the Met can be sustained for much longer. I understand that the Government are trying to bypass the worst effect of the formula for London by increasing specific grants to compensate for the distinct national and capital city functions that the Met undertake, in protecting royalty and diplomats and policing major events. However, formulae that have served their useful life should be changed, and I urge the Minister to revisit the formula and tackle the anti-London bias.
  The comparison that makes London's case well is how London's police officer establishment compares with that in other capital cities of equivalent size and population. While London has some 26,000 officers, New York scrapes by with 40,000—not including Federal Bureau of Investigation and anti-drugs officers—and Paris has a mere 50,000 officers.
  London's police precept, compared to other parts of the country, is low and there appears to be a clear intention, which started with the previous Government and looks set
  330
  to continue, that this precept gap should be closed, and London's council tax payers will be asked to fork out more. It is possible that Londoners will readily accept that, but only if they feel that the extra money they are paying is being used to increase London's police.
  The political problem that the Government have is simultaneously cutting London's police budget and demanding higher and higher precepts. How can such a perverse combination be explained to the voters? A member of the Kingston police and community consultative group, Mrs. Alison McWhinnie, put the point well in a letter about the situation in Kingston:
  "Local feeling is very strongly against the police cuts, particularly against the backdrop of what is perceived to be a totally unjustified rise in council taxes. Local people feel that they are having to pay more—to get less in return."
  I hear that complaint increasingly frequently and I completely agree. It is verging on the undemocratic to ask voters for more money for the police and then, because of the complexities of the police funding arrangements, to proceed to cut the total budget.
  The Government have only one major argument against that analysis of the Met's budget, and that is efficiency savings. The Government's view is that all the real-terms budget cuts and all the dire short and long-term budget pressures on the Met can be absorbed through efficiency savings. They have assumed, for example, that next year the Met will save 3.5 per cent. through efficiencies, of which 1.8 per cent. can be cashed in for redirection. Indeed, the central budgetary role of efficiency savings has become a pet theme of the Home Secretary. He seems to be convinced that the police are so riddled with inefficiencies that their performance will be unaffected if budgets are slashed.
  Dr. Jenny Tonge: In my constituency, efficiency savings have meant the closure of a sub-police station in Ham. Local volunteers kept going until recently, but sadly that will not continue. The main police station in Richmond town centre, an area which is widely regarded by the Metropolitan police as the drinking centre of London, is manned in the evenings only during the summer. For the rest of the time, the residents have to be content with a telephone on the wall. How does my hon. Friend feel about that as an efficiency saving?
  Mr. Davey: I share my hon. Friend's concern about that type of efficiency saving. New Malden has also lost a police station, and my constituents tell me that they do not wish to see efficiency savings such as that. The Home Secretary goes on about efficiency savings. Last Thursday, warming to his theme, he quoted the former Conservative Chief Secretary to the Treasury—the quote was taken in turn from the memoirs of Lord Baker—as saying of the police:
  "We have thrown money at them and we have the highest level of crime in our history."
  The Home Secretary quoted that remark with apparent approval, implying that Labour agrees with the Conservatives. Home Office Ministers appear to have done a complete volte face since they were in opposition, positively revelling in the self-evident and all too convenient statement that it is not police numbers or budgets that count, but whether or not crime is going down. It is not inputs that matter, but outputs, they say.

  331
  Who could disagree with a search for efficiency savings or with the notion that the police, like all public services, should focus far more on outputs? We do not disagree with that analysis, but we do not share the Government's logic that basic budgets can therefore be cut.
  As a member of the Liberal Democrat Treasury team, I studied last year New Zealand's experiment in budget setting by output. Output budgeting drives greater efficiency and enhances accountability because Ministers, Parliament and the public can see more easily how taxes are being spent. The estimates that Parliament receives become thick tomes rather than a few pages. They mean something, and debate can flourish about what is wanted from the police.
  We agree with a focus on outputs, but I enter one note of caution. There can be perverse outcomes when budgets for public services are set in terms of outputs, with purchased amounts of services measured and targeted. Towards the end of one financial year, Wellington traffic police had carried out nowhere near the number of breathalyser tests that it was contracted to perform, and to meet its contractual obligation, the police brought Wellington to a standstill, breathalysing almost everyone in a motor vehicle.
  Despite such occasional absurdities, output budgeting has largely worked in New Zealand. Directly relevant to this debate is the fact that when a public service analysed what it was trying to achieve, the result was not cuts. Indeed, in many areas, the police realised that more spending was needed.
  That is the crucial lesson which I wish to share with Ministers. Focusing fully on outputs, such as reducing fear of crime, might make it clear that more resources are needed. To reduce the fear of crime, we need high-visibility policing, including, at least in some areas, more bobbies on the beat.
  I have read the Metropolitan police's policing and efficiency plans for 1999–2000, which were published yesterday, and I saw how Government and the police plans are evolving towards output budgeting. A start has certainly been made. Building on inherited performance targets and indicators, the plans attempt to set out what the Government are trying to achieve with the police and to set out intermediate targets to measure and attain those objectives.
  However, detailed consideration of the efficiency plan makes it clear that the Government's approach remains input budgeting. They have set out the outputs that they want, but those outputs are not driving efficiency plans. Instead, those plans are clearly driven by the desperate need to plug the gap in the Met's budget left by Government underfunding rather than by a more strategic analysis of roles, responsibilities and processes.
  That is not to say that the efficiency plan is not excellent and might not achieve results similar to those of pure output budgeting: it is, and it might. It is right, for example, to tackle absenteeism and sickness rates, and to reduce them. If that is done, the police officers lost to budget cuts may, at least partially, be offset by the fact that at any one time, fewer officers will be off sick.
  It is right to reduce the cost of buildings, to be more efficient in procurement and to use technology to cut costs. However, because the efficiency plan has had to
  332
  come up with very large figures for savings, over a short period, setting very ambitious targets, one is left with the concern not only that the targets will not be met, but that something is being lost under this approach. What is being lost might be services or features of the Met police that ought to be retained, such as the police stations mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge).
  Let me illustrate the problems with examples from my constituency. Kingston division has been hit hard in recent times. We lost more than 40 officers under the Tories in just the two years before the election. Last year, we were threatened by another round of major cuts, and only by hard lobbying of New Scotland Yard did the police community and consultative group and I manage to bring about a rethink.
  Mr. John Greenway: How many of the 40 officers were in senior ranks?
  Mr. Davey: A few of them were in senior ranks, but many others were ordinary beat officers who have been lost to the Metropolitan police or transferred to inner London. They are certainly not on the streets of Kingston.
  Instead of our losing officers, New Malden police station was closed. This year, the Metropolitan police commissioners are back with proposed cuts of 14 officers next year, and eight more from April 2000. All the cuts are the direct result of Government cuts to the Metropolitan police budget.
  Kingston is doing its bit towards efficiency drives. In February 1998, Kingston division lost 702 police staff days to sickness. A year later, that had been cut in half to just 328 days, which is excellent. Also excellent is the fact that, with intelligent policing, the burglary rate in Kingston fell last year by 33 per cent.—the fastest fall in any London division. That is brilliant work by the police officers of Kingston division, and I thank and praise them for it.
  These efficiency savings and good performances have not prevented the budget shortfall creating other real problems. To start with, New Malden police station remains closed, which is very bad news for an area in which the police presence was appreciated and had a deterrence value. People must go into Kingston to report crime, which may even have distorted crime figures. There is no doubt that closure represents a significant worsening in the police service to New Malden. The sooner the station is reopened, the better.
  A second major issue is response times, particularly to areas on the perimeter of the division. The Metropolitan police's policing plan acknowledges how budget cuts are affecting performance:
  "In recognition of the increasing demands for police services, and the resource constraints on the Service, the MPS Charter target for responding to emergency calls within 12 minutes has been adjusted from an 85 per cent target to an 80 per cent target".
  That is an admission that services are being downgraded.
  In Kingston, we have felt the reality of that. Constituents tell me that when there are problems in Chessington, say from a gang of youths on Hook parade, or problems in Worcester park around the station with vandals and graffiti, the police response time has dropped. That is borne out by figures supplied to me by our excellent new chief superintendent, Alan Given, showing that Kingston police

  333
  arrived at emergency calls within the 12 minutes target more than 90 per cent. of the time last year, but performance has dropped this year to 85 per cent.
  A third issue is concern about recent upsurges in youth crime and petty crime in general. Local people see a direct link between this upsurge and the reduction in the number of permanent beat officers in the division. Gerald Lambert, a local neighbourhood watch co-ordinator, told me this week:
  "More and more I hear neighbours and colleagues telling me that they do not bother to report petty crimes because they are so common, and they know the police do not have the resources to deal with them."
  The reality of the cuts is a loss of officers, and no amount of efficiency savings can hide that. It is all very well for the Government to talk about community policing, zero tolerance and tackling persistent youth offenders, but in Kingston, despite superb and improving efforts by the local police, such talk is treated with derision.
  In Kingston, and probably elsewhere in the Metropolitan police area, there is a feeling that when the local police do well, they are punished. There are perverse incentives in the police formula for London. If that formula were fully applied to Kingston, we would lose many, many more police officers. Why? Because crime statistics suggest that we have relatively little crime by comparison with central London, and that there has been a great deal of success in recent years.
  Where would such reductions take us? As Roland Kerr, of Kingston Vale neighbourhood watch puts it:
  "I am appalled not just by the reductions but by the continued reductions, year after year. At the "nth" degree we will have no police".
  We must recognise that places such as Kingston are not over-staffed, whatever the formula says. I urge Ministers to revisit the London police resourcing formula to make sure that success in reducing crime in areas such as Kingston is not punished.
  Other places in London are being hit by the cuts. That is why the main focus of this debate is the Londonwide budget. Indeed, my constituents want the whole of London's police to be better resourced. Higson of the Cambridge Road estate residents association in Kingston put it very well when he wrote:
  "We feel at times government concentrates too much on the cost of fighting crime to the extent they ignore the cost of crime to the citizen."
  That brings me back to what are probably the core issues for this debate: whether efficiency savings can make up for real-terms budget cuts facing the Metropolitan police, and whether, when crime is reduced, we should cut back on resources. Efficiency savings ought to be a bonus to a local police force, so that it can develop services, not a continual requirement that must be met if wholesale redundancies are to be avoided. Efficiency savings are difficult to make when total budgets are pared back so much. When will anyone judge that the scale of year-on-year efficiency savings has become impossible to meet? Surely Ministers do not think that that model can continue in perpetuity.
  Nor should Ministers be complacent when crime is falling. Falls can surely be explained by a number of factors, from under-reporting of crime to the relatively low level of unemployment. I am sure that the falls are also to do with improved policing, but they are not simply
  334
  a result of that. Even if crime is falling, surely we do not accept the levels with which we are left. Crime is still far too high. If the police are more successful at reducing crime, we should invest in them and their efforts.
  I hope that the Minister will at least acknowledge that the Metropolitan police budget is creating difficulties across London. Officers are being lost and communities feel that they are losing their beat officers. I hope that she will take this opportunity not simply to defend the Government's policy but to show that Ministers are ready to think again.
  11.21 am
  Mr. John Horam: I am delighted that the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) has raised this topic this morning. It is undoubtedly important, and I am sad that so few hon. Members are in the Chamber to hear what he said. It was worth listening to. I join the hon. Gentleman in saying some nice things about the Met. I believe that they have been traduced recently. They do an excellent job in Bromley. Their record in reducing crime there is good, but, as the hon. Gentleman said, that is not an excuse for reducing the number of police. The fact is that crime is too high and always need to be fought.
  The position in Bromley is serious. It is no doubt brought about by the underfunding of the Metropolitan police in London as a whole. As the hon. Gentleman said, there has been a reduction in real terms in the funding for the Met and the consequences are spread around the whole Metropolitan area. It is apparent that the underfunding will be spread over the next three years. That is the problem. The comprehensive spending review locks in funding for three years so there is no likelihood of any change in the present position, which is extremely unsatisfactory.
  As the hon. Gentleman also said, the problem is compounded by early retirement, the pensions problem and the exceptional problems of the millennium. We face a bleak future of inadequate funding. What underfunding means in an area such as Bromley is simple. At present, we have seven police stations in the borough, which as the House will know is large in London terms. Two of the stations—Biggin Hill in my constituency and Chislehurst in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth)—will certainly close this summer. The alarming thing is that it is rumoured that the station in Chislehurst will be turned into a large themed pub. Hon. Members will be able to imagine the concerns of local residents that a police station, which they look to as a source of security and quietness, may become a large themed pub, with all that goes on inside and outside such places. However, that is merely a rumour.
  So two police stations out of seven will certainly go. There are also rumours about two other police stations. The one in St. Mary Cray opened only in 1992 under the Conservative Administration. It was campaigned for long and hard by me, by local councillors of all parties and by local residents. We got it built only after a great deal of trouble. It is necessary because the area is a crime hotspot. It has done a good job since it opened. Crime has been reduced in the area. It has had a wholly good effect.

  335
  I am sure that the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton agrees that the existence of a police station in an area has a beneficial effect and reduces crime in an area. That has been proved year in and year out by the evidence from St. Mary Cray since 1992. Now, it, too, is under threat.
  I am told by the local police that the latest position is that they intend to keep the police station at St. Mary Cray. I am very glad to hear it. They also intend for the moment to keep the station in Penge, which is also under threat, but it is likely that, eventually, those two stations will go. Then we will be left with only three police stations.
  It can be argued that we should not put too much money into bricks and mortar; that it does not necessarily produce better policing and that it is better to spend the available money on front-line policemen. That argument has been advanced by the Labour party since the general election. However, that is not how the policing works out in reality. As the hon. Gentleman said, there is a perverse incentive. If police stations are closed in Bromley, the area will not be able to keep the money in Bromley and put it into extra policemen. The money will disappear into a pot somewhere in London and will be dealt out to some other area. So Bromley suffers a double whammy. It loses two police stations and also loses front-line policemen. That is the problem on the ground.
  In the current financial year, the number of policemen went down by 10 in the Bromley division and it will fall by an unknown number—the figures have not yet been worked out—in the next financial year, but the local chief superintendent tells me that it will not be by fewer than 10. So numbers are declining and police stations are closing. Not only that, but, with the new system for rotating police officers, home beat officers are disappearing after two or three years on the beat. The new people know little about what is going on in important crime hotspots. That is a further dilution of the professionalism and effort put into local policing. It is a great tragedy.
  The three things that I have mentioned—reduction in the number of police stations, reductions in front-line police numbers and the increased turnround of police officers as a result of the new system—are leading to serious consequences for the further reduction of crime in a typical London borough such as Bromley.
  I have more examples of the strains that reductions are causing for the local police. One constituent wrote to me the other day that her partner's tools had been stolen from his car when it was parked outside the house. There were fingerprints and mess everywhere. When she telephoned the local police, they said that they could not send an officer to take fingerprints because no one was available. So, although obvious evidence was there which could help secure a conviction, it was not possible to collect it because the resources were not available.
  In my part of London there is a great deal of what another constituent has referred to as youth vandalism and terrorism. Other hon. Members will be familiar with the problem. Areas are troubled by youths who have had too much to drink and have too much time on their hands and
  336
  the result is bricks through windows, graffiti on walls, cars sprayed and frightening behaviour. That has occurred in a number of areas, and in one particular area recently.
  Dr. Tonge: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that youth vandalism is increasing because of a lack of bobbies on the beat? I know that the police are keen to respond when a crime occurs, although he has given us an example of when they did not, but the visibility of police on our streets is surely a big factor in prevention—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The hon. Lady should not make a little speech on an intervention.
  Mr. Horam: She may be making a speech, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but the hon. Lady is right. Although the police at Biggin Hill station responded rapidly to the problem of youth vandalism and were able to clear it up, there was huge concern. There was a meeting of ratepayers in the local church hall to which 200 people turned out because they were so concerned about the general atmosphere, the mindless vandalism and the fear that had been generated in one area. The police were able to cope and sent a force along and the problem has been cleared up temporarily—but it may well recur. A grateful constituent wrote to me:
  "However, we are sorry to learn that the resources of the police are being further reduced and that the Biggin Hill Police Station is most likely to close. This, surely, will only make the local problems worse and it will be only a matter of time before the perpetrators of this vandalism realise that they can resume their reign of terror."
  Exactly my point. The closure of a police station will lead local youths to realise that they can get away with things once again and another reign of terror will be promulgated in the area.
  Mr. Jim Fitzpatrick: Surely the hon. Gentleman highlights the anomaly between foot patrols and mobile patrols in cars. In a car, officers can attend two or three incidents in a short space of time, whereas on foot they can attend only one. Visibility is one thing, but we need to make sure that officers in cars have a rota to make sure that down time is spent not sitting in side streets but attending the very hotspots that the hon. Gentleman mentions.
  Mr. Horam: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, but policing cannot be satisfactory if there are not enough policemen. I am complaining about the reduction in the number of front-line policemen, whether they patrol on foot or in cars. That reduction is the problem; fewer and fewer policemen cannot do more.
  A further consequence of the funding cuts is the effect on the confidence of local institutions. In Bromley, as in other areas, there is a police-community consultative group, which has been extremely effective. It is well attended—I go to its meetings whenever my parliamentary duties permit—and is a useful source of information to the police, the local authority and residents; it offers opportunities for people to ventilate their complaints. One of my constituents—a man in whom have great trust—wrote to me about a recent meeting of the consultative group:
  "The chairman allowed me to read out a paper which I had prepared prior to the meeting and members of the public present agreed with my views."

  337
  His views were:
  "Overall the members of the public are not happy with the way the Group runs. While the police listen to what is said, there is seldom any sort of positive response which we like …It seems that all we can look forward to is a continually diminishing police force even less able to enforce all the laws and discharge matters which they, and no one else, currently have responsibility for."
  That is the problem. He told me privately that people were attending the consultative group less, because they did not see the point of going to meetings at which the police said sensible things and appeared to be trying to do their best, but simply did not have the resources to deliver what the local community wanted. That is worrying.
  As the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton said, the Government's only answer to these problems is efficiency savings. That imposes far too great a burden from one possible course of action, and, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, it should be a bonus and an incentive for the police to be more efficient, not a necessary criterion of their keeping even their current resources. Indeed, resources in areas such as Bromley are actually diminishing.
  We face a bleak future, if we continue down the path on which the Government are set; it is totally at variance with the promises Labour made on the crime front at the general election.
  11.32 am
  Dr. Vincent Cable: I am grateful to be able to speak in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey). I apologise to the House because I shall have to leave shortly after my speech. I have to speak in my constituency on the Government's new deal; I think that that is a sufficiently worthwhile reason for making a rapid exit.
  My motives in speaking are similar to those of my hon. Friend. We can all see that cuts are taking place. I campaigned against the cuts in police funding that took place under the previous Government. Since 1997, that process has not merely continued but accelerated; in the Twickenham-Richmond area, we have lost 29 officers—more than 10 per cent. of the establishment—and the effects are felt every day. I echo the comments of the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam): although the police have received some bad publicity recently, they are an extremely popular and respected public service. The message is simple: people want more police officers, not fewer.
  There are two essential levels at which we must analyse the economic problems of the police budget. The first relates to overall public financing and the familiar debates, which we do not need to go into, on such matters as Government public allocation and the role of taxation. In that context, the police service has seen a real reduction in expenditure. Although we have touched on those matters, they are not the essence of this debate.
  My hon. Friend has already mentioned the one-off requirements, but he did not mention others; for example, if the Lawrence report is implemented in full, considerable additional costs will be required of the police service for training, additional effort in recruiting and compliance procedures. That will require additional budgets of millions of pounds, for which there is currently no provision.
  In respect of national funding, I reinforce the points made about pensions. The hon. Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Mr. Fitzpatrick) is in the Chamber; he is
  338
  the leading authority on public service pensions, especially in the fire service where there is an analogous problem. I appeal to the Minister to consider that matter carefully. The fire service and the police have a uniquely difficult problem with unfunded pensions; pension obligations are now eating up well over 10 per cent. of their budgets, and that percentage increases every year. They have to make a trade-off every year between service provision and pension obligations. In the fire service, that has already led to a virtual breakdown in the service; in three to five years' time, the police service will be in a similar position. That needs to be anticipated and a radical solution found that does not merely start new pension arrangements, but deals with the outstanding stock of pension obligations. The Government have the opportunity and the obligation fundamentally to address that problem.
  There is a process by which national funding is allocated between different police authorities. I confess that I do not fully understand it, but I hope that the Minister and others can help me to achieve a better understanding of how the funding formula works. Who sets the weighting between different police forces? As I understand it, the weighting is established by a committee of chief police officers who are not properly representative of the weighting of different forces, in that small police forces have equal weight with the Metropolitan police. That is wholly inappropriate.
  I hope that the Government will consider carefully not so much the sums of money as the structure within which the formula is set, because it seems to be inequitable and unsatisfactory. It does not fully capture London's genuinely distinct problems. Some of those problems are acknowledged—for example, the obligation of the Metropolitan police to deal with the problems of terrorism or to cover the royal palaces. Some of those problems are more subtle: the fact that London is a centre for organised crime and is at the centre of the big end of the drug business. I am not sure how much those problems are reflected in the formula, either.
  An even more subtle problem, but one that totally disrupts the funding of the Metropolitan police, is the labour market that prevails in London. It is exceptionally difficult to recruit high-quality police officers on current pay and conditions. The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis has made it clear that he is exceedingly disturbed by the way in which current pay and conditions affect the influx of new police officers. He has to recruit people with extremely low educational qualifications, or even no qualifications at all. He cannot recruit from those people who would be available if pay and conditions were substantially improved; he cannot recruit enough women, or enough people to achieve the correct ethnic mix. That is partly because the formula, set nationally by the committee of chief constables, does not fully recognise the distinctive problems. I hope that that factor will be taken into account.
  There are some other relevant issues. The first is priorities; most of us want to talk about our own areas and the way in which they have been affected by the cuts, but broader service sectors in the Metropolitan police have been especially badly hit. The traffic police are severely affected; they have a relatively low priority within Metropolitan police objectives. Many traffic police officers have been redeployed and their posts are no longer filled. The traffic police admit freely that

  339
  enforcement of serious traffic offences is no longer being carried out with the necessary thoroughness. The dog service is another relatively low-profile police service which has just, rather precariously, been saved from extinction. Such low-priority areas tend to suffer in a tough budgetary environment.
  We shall always argue for more money; given the pressures on public services, that is inevitable. But there are ways in which the Government could encourage the Metropolitan police and other police forces to be more imaginative in raising funding. There are two particular methods of doing so. The traffic police could become almost self-financing if they were allowed to retain revenues from funds; hypothecation might be productive in that instance.
  A matter more parochial to Twickenham, and one that I have raised with the Home Secretary, is the completely inexplicable practice of large commercial organisations, such as the Rugby Football Union, that organise public events charging the costs of policing the event outside the ground to the public through the Metropolitan police. A major rugby international costs the Metropolitan police about £40,000 in overtime for extra police officers to police traffic and pedestrian movements outside the ground; those costs add up to about £500,000 a year. The number of events organised by such large commercial organisations is growing.
  With other events and activities taken into account, each year several million pounds that should properly accrue as revenue to the public sector are being spent on providing services free. The Home Secretary should consider that matter. I realise that there may be technical difficulties: ring-fencing the problem areas; deciding whether to charge in respect of, for example, Chelsea flower show or only big sporting events; and drawing the dividing line between a big event and a small one. However, the issue remains important.
  I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton for raising these issues, and I regret that more hon. Members are not here to participate in the debate.
  11.41 am
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I shall be brief, as I am conscious that the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) speaking for the Conservatives and the Minister should have the opportunity to respond fully to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey).
  I hope that I betray no secrets in saying that my hon. Friends and I tried to organise an opportunity for this debate, and that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton struck lucky. We wanted to have it before the end of this month and before the beginning of the financial year to which the debate is addressed. Like the Minister, I am conscious that this is the third policing debate that we have had within about a week. We had a sometimes fairly aggressive and heated debate in the Standing Committee on the Greater London Authority Bill, which was attended by the Minister in her capacity both as a Home Office Minister and a London Member of Parliament. Also present were the hon. Members for Poplar and Canning Town (Mr. Fitzpatrick) and for Upminster (Mr. Darvill), and my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton.
  340
  In that debate, we considered the whole range of policing issues as they stand and how they will be affected by the new arrangements for London. We are aware that the enactment of that Bill—which we strongly support on the question of police arrangements and in other respects—will mean that, from next year, the London police will have their own police authority, independent of the Home Office, which in years to come will allow the force to speak more boldly to the Home Office as the responsible Department.
  Mr. Fitzpatrick: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is appropriate to acknowledge the establishment of the all-party group on police, and the role of the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable), who chairs the group, as a measure of how much more attention police matters now receive in the House?
  Mr. Hughes: I certainly do. I am grateful for the acknowledgement of the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable), who, as a member of our London team of Liberal Democrat Members of Parliament, has led for us on police and fire services matters since the general election, in establishing that all-party group. It is important that the police should know that parliamentarians support them, want to work with them and are well informed about some of the difficult issues affecting them.
  Let me reinforce and add to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton about the need for the Home Office not to be governed in its formula for allocating resources by the European Union-style, non-weighted voting system, whereby each police force has one vote, which results in the Met, because of that voting system and because of the common perception of the Met as a big, well-funded force, not being able to win the votes required to get them the money that they need. Of course the Met is a big force—it polices the biggest area and the largest number of people. Of course that force is numerically large, with 26,000 officers, which is more police officers than almost everywhere else; but no one has ever argued that capital cities do not need that intensity of policing. There should not be a simple formulaic response which states that police forces throughout the country must have the same ratio of police officers to population, and that is the end of the argument.
  We must take into consideration the intensity of effort and work that London requires. I hope that the formula and its workings will properly reflect the fact that, like other London services such as fire, education and social services, London's police services have to cater for the demands of a highly complex and diverse community in terms of ethnicity, language, and so on. London police have to deal with people who speak no English and so have to call in interpreters far more often than police in other parts of the country. In the interests of solidarity and understanding, the London police need officers who come from the various communities. The issues are extremely complex, so to say that we must have the same ratio of police officers to people in London as in, say, Herefordshire—an area I know well—simply does not work. Each case must be judged on its merits.
  As a capital city, London, by definition, has an intensity of demand for complex policing that requires a particular concentration of resources. My hon. Friend the Member

  341
  for Kingston and Surbiton argued that the number of personnel should not be cut. London, sadly but inevitably, has more serious crimes than places elsewhere in the country; there are more murders, homicides, manslaughters and killings. As I told the Standing Committee, I have been involved, to a greater extent than I would have liked, in working with the police to tackle such crimes in my area over the past few years. I can testify to the time and effort, the plain hours of work, required to discover who has committed such a crime.
  It is no good saying that police must seek greater efficiency savings. Police officers trying to discover who killed Jamie Robe on the streets of Rotherhithe nearly two years ago have spent days tracing all the possible witnesses, talking to them, trying to persuade them to give evidence, dealing with their concern that if they give evidence they will be at risk themselves, protecting witnesses, and negotiating to ensure that people will be moved if they give evidence. Such an effort cannot produce efficiency savings in simple mathematical or formulaic terms, because the job must be done and more than one officer is needed to do it. A murder inquiry requires many officers, or a few officers dedicated to the task for the vast majority of their time.
  Many of those officers work overtime and weekends, or come back from their holidays, to get the job done; they are willing to serve far beyond the hours for which they are paid, and far beyond the pay that they receive. Anyone who thinks that the police are slack and that officers often have idle time in which they sit and do nothing should realise that many officers work many hours more than the time for which they are paid and that they are never recompensed for that. There is very little slack in the service as a whole, and in some areas there is none.
  In all the time that I have been a Member of Parliament, no Londoner or constituent has ever said to me that he or she wants the precept for the Metropolitan police to be reduced because it is too high. That has never once happened. Londoners say funding should be reduced for some public services, but not for the police. They know that the force may not be entirely brilliant, that not every police officer is wonderful, and that sometimes things go wrong. Londoners know that there may be some rotten eggs in the basket, but we need a decent police service and we are willing to pay for it.
  Mr. Greenway: I am extremely interested in the hon. Gentleman's speech; my remarks will be in a similar vein. However, does he agree that people want to be told the truth about why they are having to pay such a large increase in the police precept?
  Mr. Hughes: I agree. That is why I told the Standing Committee that reports such as those of the Audit Commission are extremely valuable, because they force comparisons between police services and make police services face up to which of their traditional, often conservative, practices need reform. In Committee, I gave the example of the nonsense that, for years—even until recently—police officers had to do clerical jobs, such as typing charge sheets, that took them hours to complete, which was frustrating for them and a waste of their time, because a competent audio-typist could have done the job in five minutes.
  342
  I know of estates off the Old Kent road that have experienced a lot of youth crime, violence and vandalism, where the presence of regular police patrols makes a difference. Initially they may only displace the crime, but, at the end of the day, such policing does make a difference. If gangs of kids hang around and no one stops them or says anything and the residents are afraid, it is sometimes only the police who can effectively intervene. Only they have the authority, the back-up and security in intervening. Residents cannot do it. Sometimes they will not do it because they are intimidated.
  Even though the front-line police officers on the beat are extremely important, we must not think that they are the only important people. There is also a need for back-up officers. We need police officers and those in the youth and community services to work with disturbed families and delinquent kids and to go into the schools. These are not front-line services, but if they do, not do the job, much of the other work will not be done effectively, with the result that we shall be fighting the fire rather than preventing the fire in the first place.
  We need to ensure that there are efficiencies made to reduce the time that the police spend in court or waiting to go into court. The situation is better than it was, and the Crown Prosecution Service is a great advance, but the police still spend a lot of time hanging around in seeing the process through. The police do not want to do that any more than anyone else.
  My hon. Friends and I have been briefed very clearly by senior Met officers about the recruitment crisis, and there is also the wastage of those recruited who fall away. That is a bad use of resources. We need to ensure that the police are valued.
  We also need to ensure that we increase the number of specials, which is a linked issue. The specials do not cost nothing, but they are relatively cheap. Many police officers have been nervous about specials, but they can do jobs that complement the regular police service.
  Lastly, in the context of the valid points of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton, we must ask Ministers, to consider the issue of pensions nationally but particularly as it applies to the Met. My hon. Friends and I know that that cannot be done for the coming financial year which starts in a week's time. If as my hon. Friend says, we are to continue funding 1 per cent. more every year for the pensions of an ever-increasing number of retired officers—we are told that a quarter of the Met's officers are likely to retire in the next five years, which means that there will be a hugely escalating and continuing bill—money will not be available for front-line policing or for any other police services.
  In common with all our constituents, we all value the police hugely. We are willing to work with them to ensure that they deliver their service more efficiently. However, there comes a time when the choice between having a service or not depends on whether there is sufficient cash in the budget. Our case is that however efficient we are and however much crime is reduced if we continue cutting the Met's budget in real terms, we shall cross the threshold between a city where policing is able to contain crime and disorder and a city where it is not. Once we have crossed that threshold, we shall be in severe trouble.
  11.53 am
  Mr. John Greenway: We always welcome the opportunity to debate police issues. I congratulate the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) on his success in securing the debate. I am always particularly pleased to debate Metropolitan police issues because the House will know that, like the hon. Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Mr. Fitzpatrick), I have some experience of active service, albeit a long time ago between 1965 and 1969. It is from that prospective that I join those who have again paid tribute to the excellent job done by the vast majority of serving police officers in London. As we are debating the Metropolitan police budget, we should not forget the policing that the force's officers undertake round and about this Palace.
  The subject of the debate is very narrow. As hon. Members have said, the Metropolitan police budget is a cause for concern. However, many other forces face similar problems. Indeed, the situation is worse in some forces than in the Met. That is why the Conservative party used part of a Supply day last Thursday to debate the problems of police funding throughout the country. It was extraordinary, especially given what we have heard during the past 50 minutes or so, that by my count at least 16 Liberal Democrat Members voted with the Government against the Conservative motion, which criticised the very cuts in police manpower and in police services that Liberal Democrat Members have complained about today.
  Last Tuesday, the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) made air excellent speech in the Committee that is considering the Greater London Authority Bill. I pay tribute to the excellent overview that he presented. I read his speech with great interest, particularly in preparation for the Bill's imminent return to the Floor of the House. The hon. Gentleman rightly drew attention to the problems that London police are facing because of Labour policies. It is astonishing that he voted with the Government against the Conservative motion only two days later.
  Mr. Edward Davey: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the Conservative motion praised the previous Government's record of investment in the police? Liberal Democrats were unable to support the Conservative party and voted with Labour in the Lobby because we could not endorse the Conservative party's record in government.
  Mr. Greenway: That is an extraordinary admission, given that the motion merely referred to 15,000 extra police officers being recruited during the 18 years of Conservative rule, which is a matter of record. Today, the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends have referred to what they consider was the situation between 1992 and 1997. However, I suggest that they revisit the issue of resources and get some of their facts right. Metropolitan police statistics show that from 1979–80 to 1996–97—the 18 years of the previous Conservative Government—expenditure on policing in London grew every year except in 1980–81 to an accumulated 70 per cent. The hon. Gentleman can check the figures.
  The statistics of the personnel department of the Metropolitan police show that in the five years after July 1992 the number of constables in the Metropolitan police increased from 20,999 to 21,541. Of course, the total number of officers fell slightly. If the hon. Gentleman
  344
  wants to find out why that happened—this is partly why I intervened on him—he should consult the Metropolitan police committee's annual reports. The report for 1995–96 shows that throughout the whole country, in the three years from 1994 to 1996, the number of chief inspectors and those in higher ranks reduced by 255. Liberal Democrat Members should examine carefully where things stood when the Conservative party left office. It may have been a useful device at the general election to criticise the Conservative Government's record—it must be acknowledged that it was employed with some success in London seats—but this debate is about criticising the present Government's record. As my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam) has said, over the next three years the situation will become progressively worse as a result of the Government's comprehensive spending review. That will apply not only in London but throughout the country and particularly in rural areas, including those represented by Liberal Democrat Members. If the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends want to succeed in making contrasts, they should be a little more accurate in what they say about the position that the present Government inherited.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, and if last week's motion about policing in the country had concerned what has happened since the election, we would have voted with him and his colleagues. However, the figures—which are the Audit Commission's, not mine—demonstrate that, for the last three years of the Conservative Administration, from 1994–95 to 1997–98, the Met experienced a real-terms budget reduction of about 2.5 per cent. As the hon. Gentleman said, the numbers of police were also considerably reduced in the last years of the Tory Administration.
  Mr. Greenway: If the hon. Gentleman reads the Audit Commission's reports and my remarks in the debate last Thursday, he will find that the Audit Commission refers to year-on-year real increases in expenditure. [Interruption.] I shall come on to the Met in a moment. In December 1997, when the Home Secretary announced the first Labour police grant settlement, for 1998–99, he said in his press release that the police were the only part of local government or public services to have had real increases in expenditure in each of the previous four years.
  Any meaningful and accurate study of the past two or three years will demonstrate that there is a debate, as the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) said, about how the national cake should be divided up and what proportion should be allocated to the Met. We must sympathise with Ministers on that point, whichever party is in government. For several years, rural forces campaigned for redistribution of money from the Met to the rest of the United Kingdom.
  The Association of Police Authorities, which is served by several Liberal Democrat councilors—including its vice chairman, Angela Harris, who is chair of the North Yorkshire police authority—has pressed for, and welcomed, the move towards a needs-based formula, which worked against the Metropolitan police in 1997–98. That is the reason for the budget reduction mentioned by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey.

  345
  It is right that hon. Members should be able to come to the House and argue their constituency corner, and I make no criticism of Liberal Democrat London Members for using this debate to argue for the Metropolitan police. However, the House must take a more considered and comprehensive view of the situation throughout the country. The Association of Police Authorities continues to campaign for further reform and has criticised the level of the Metropolitan police special payment, which increased by 16 per cent. this year. We have to accept that Ministers of whatever party have difficulty in apportioning the overall cake to different parts of the country, whichever public service they are dealing with.
  The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton, who initiated the debate, and his colleagues might have done better to concentrate on the fact that the overall cake for the country is being reduced, not only London's share. The country is experiencing the problem of reduced resources. For all those reasons, Conservative Members will keep up the pressure for a policy change.
  Several hon. Members referred to the problem of police pensions. The age profile of the Metropolitan police shows that 25 per cent. of officers have more than 25 years' service. I elicited that fact from a written answer to which the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey referred in the Standing Committee on the Greater London Authority Bill, and to which he has referred in this debate. When the Bill returns to the Floor of the House, we hope to tackle the issue of the cost of funding pensions in the Metropolitan police. It would be entirely wrong for the Government to shift on to a newly created Metropolitan police authority a serious burden that is entirely within the Home Secretary's purview.
  I must, however, point out to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey that the problem in London is by no means the worst. Staffordshire spends about 18 per cent. of its budget on pension costs, and in my force, North Yorkshire, that figure is 16 per cent.
  Other hon. Members referred to the implementation of the Macpherson report, which the House is due to debate on Monday. There are huge resource implications for implementing Sir William Macpherson's recommendations, and the Home Secretary has embraced those in his response to the report which was published and laid before the House yesterday.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Orpington and the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton referred to the closure of police stations and the problems that that creates for policing in their areas. Other hon. Members referred to the problems of recruitment. That growing problem will be made worse if the Government implement their proposed changes to police pension entitlements for new recruits. That is an extensive subject to which we need to return on another day.
  The central issue that the House ought to be concerned about in this debate is the effect on council tax payers of the Government's policy on the allocation of police grant to the Metropolitan police this year. The Government grant has increased by 1.7 per cent. The Metropolitan police budget and precept report, published in February, directly refers to the fact that the Home Secretary has informed the Commissioner and the receiver that he considers it reasonable for the service to raise additional funds from the precept to fund an increase in our spending limit of about 2.7 per cent. compared with last year.
  346
  I intervened on the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey because it would have been better if there had been a little more honesty about the fact that the Met police can spend 2.7 per cent. more, but 1 per cent. of it—almost half of the money—is to come from council tax payers through a 9.5 per cent. increase in their precept. London is already the highest precepting area for police budgets. The figure is about 50 per cent. higher than the national average, and it will now be higher still.
  The simple political message is that in the year ahead, Londoners will pay more for less in their police service. They will pay higher precepts for fewer police officers and for police stations that, such as the one in Orpington, are due to close. That is a scandalous state of affairs. It is typical of the Government's approach of increasing taxes by stealth, instead of being open and honest with the people.
  There is also concern that about £20 million has come from reserves to provide the 2.7 per cent. increase. One or two hon. Members referred to the likelihood of unforeseen demands on what is already a £2 billion budget. There is a need for adequate reserves, but they are being depleted.
  Throughout the debate, hon. Members have spoken about the effect of all that on falling police numbers. There are severe consequences for operational duties. Liberal Democrat Members and my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington referred to the problems of vandalism and rowdy behaviour. All that contributes to the fear of crime and lawlessness within our communities, which, whatever arguments one has about the most effective deployment of officers, can be tackled only by the public seeing the police on their streets.
  There is no better illustration of the problems facing the Metropolitan police than the policing of the forthcoming millennium celebrations, which will impose vast demands on the police service, particularly in London, where a large part of the celebrations will be concentrated. Can the Minister tell us where there is provision for all that in the budget? Where is the resource to ensure that, towards the end of the financial year, there will be adequate money to pay for adequate policing?
  Overall, we can conclude from the debate that Londoners are getting a good deal from the Metropolitan police service, but not from the Government. In our debate on Thursday, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) referred to what the Police Federation said when the budget for policing in the year ahead was first announced. Let me share with the House one or two other comments by the federation, which sum up what we feel about the budget for policing in this country.
  The Police Federation's press notice, under the signature of its chairman, Fred Broughton, stated:
  "The public deserve a police service which is properly maintained but, with this budget, they are being short changed."
  It continued:
  "Maintaining proper levels of police cover is not a luxury, it is a necessity, and the public have a right to be served better".
  We agree. Although that was said about the police service across the country, it is especially true of policing in London. Londoners will rightly feel let down. They will gleefully take the opportunity to show how they feel when the Greater London Assembly elections are held in just over a year.
  12.12 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kate Hoey): I congratulate the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) not just on winning the chance to hold the debate, but on winning it this week, which is an important week for the Metropolitan police.
  I am sure that the House will join me in sending our best wishes to the Commissioner who, as hon. Members probably know, is in hospital. We hope that he is recovering well.
  I congratulate the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton on the measured way in which he opened the debate. The subject sometimes raises emotions, but I hope that we can deal with it in a constructive and sensible way. We share the desire for our police service in London to operate effectively and to meet the needs of Londoners.
  Expenditure on the Metropolitan police is substantial public expenditure. It is important to all of us who live and work in London, because the money spent represents a huge investment in the safety of us all. As hon. Members have mentioned, London has unique capital city requirements which place special policing demands on the Met, who also have national functions that make them a special police service.
  It is worth reminding ourselves, as the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) did, of the size of the area for which the Metropolitan police are responsible, and their numbers: 20 per cent. of police officers in the whole of England and Wales are in London. The force is unique in the country, which brings further demands in terms of resources and the nature of policing.
  Yesterday, the Commissioner's annual policing plan was published, together with the efficiency plan. This is the first time that an efficiency plan has been produced. Ambitious targets are set out. It is important that the two plans are seen together, because efficiency gains will contribute to more effective policing.
  The Government are committed to providing the right level of financial support to ensure that the Metropolitan police can deliver their policing objectives. The House will recall that, in December 1998, the Home Secretary announced a £28.8 million cash boost for the force. That increase means that the funding available to the police for tackling crime and disorder across the capital will rise by 1.7 per cent, from £1.715 billion in 1998–99 to £1.744 billion in 1999–2000. I therefore do not accept that there is a budget shortfall.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: The Minister is, of course, right about the figures, but a 1.7 per cent. increase is clearly below the rate of inflation. To avoid further debate on matters of fact, can she put it on the record, first, that in the coming year there will be a real-terms cut in the budget of the Met, and secondly, as the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) correctly pointed out, that the proportion of the budget coming from the precepted London ratepayers is going up, at the same time as, in real terms, the subsidy from the Government is going down?
  Mr. Kate Hoey: I shall go on to deal with the precept, as hon. Members need some accurate information. I do not accept that there is a budget shortfall. As I said, the 1.7 per cent. increase for this year brings the total to £1.744 billion. In addition to that, there is the money
  348
  from the precept. If we deal with that, hon. Members will see that the overall increase for the Met is larger than for forces in some other parts of the country. There is not a cut, as the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey suggests. I shall develop the point further, and he can respond later.
  The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton spoke about the problems associated with the millennium. We recognise the special needs of London, and we allocate the special grant each year. As the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) said—he is, I think, the only Member present who is from outside London—some people outside London do not like that. The special payment was raised last year, and this year it has been raised again from £151 million to £176 million, specifically to deal with the Met's national and Londonwide functions.
  We must retain public confidence in policing. Even with the special payment, the overall spending increase for the Met is in line with the rest of the country. They have not received preferential treatment, but they have not been penalised, taking into account their extra tasks. The special payment is 100 per cent. Home Office grant. It is not charged to London taxpayers or the taxpayers of Kingston.
  The council tax payer in London is not paying for the extra services that the Metropolitan police must provide, such as anti-terrorist duties, protection for royalty, VIPs, and the policing of special events such as lobbies of Parliament, pickets and rallies. Within the special grant this year, there should be sufficient funding for the millennium celebrations to be adequately policed.
  The new funding that we have given the Met is the first instalment of the extra £1.24 billion pledged to the police over the next three years in the comprehensive spending review. It takes into account a 2 per cent. year-on-year efficiency improvement target, which we set as part of the CSR settlement.
  As has been said, funding for the Met is not just a matter of central Government funding. The receiver for the Metropolitan police has estimated that net revenue expenditure, which includes the precepted amount for 1999–2000, will be £1.88 billion. That produces an increase of about 3 per cent. in the Met's budget over 1998–99, and brings it broadly in line with the national increase. The budget balances the Commissioner's need for increased resources with the interests of council tax payers in containing their contributions.
  The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton mentioned the precept. It is important to consider what London council tax payers will pay for policing next year. For band D properties, the cost will be £77.44 for the year, which is an increase of less than 60p a month over 1998–99, and the total annual charge is less than the cost of a television licence or a road fund licence for a car.
  I appreciate that Opposition Members in particular usually point out figures to make things look disadvantageous to the Government, but the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey should ask people whether they are prepared to pay that extra 60p a month. He said that people never tell him that they want local

  349
  police stations to close and police numbers to be reduced. I am absolutely certain that, when those figures were spelt out, they would say that they would pay the extra money.
  Mr. Hughes: As I said in my speech, I am sure that the people of London are happy to make a contribution; I have never heard a protest.
  The Minister has helpfully given the figures. First, if she can, will she tell us how the 1.7 per cent. increase from the Government to the Met for the coming year compares with the percentages for other police services? Is the Met at the bottom of the league table, in the middle or at the top? Secondly, what percentage increase in the precept can Londoners expect and how does it compare with increases for other police service precept payers around England?
  Mr. Kate Hoey: I shall try to give those figures before the end of my speech, but I should add that, in the Metropolitan police district, the proportion of policing spending raised from estimated council tax in 1998–99 is 12.5 per cent. That is the ninth lowest proportion across all police authorities in England and well below the English average of 14.5 per cent. We are not being unreasonable by asking London council tax payers to contribute a little more for policing next year.
  To look at the Metropolitan police in a different context, according to the latest figures from the Audit Commission, expenditure on policing per head of population in the Met area is £218.30, which is double the national average of slightly more than £114. Clearly a great deal of money is going into the police per head of population. We have to be sure that it is being spent in the best possible way on reducing crime and the fear of crime, which is what the police are for and which makes people feel much safer.
  I want to answer a couple of points before I go on to discuss efficiency. The hon. Members for Orpington (Mr. Horam) and for Kingston and Surbiton raised the potential closure of police stations, which arouses great emotions, especially in the immediate vicinity of such stations. Police stations are a visible form of reassurance for the public, but last week's Audit Commission report on the police estate found that changes in crime patterns and the increasing use of problem-solving and intelligence-led policing methods, rather than random policing, mean that some police stations are unsuitable for policing in the 1990s. We must accept that. Police forces must review their estate, because, ultimately, better estate management can serve the public better.
  When police stations are being threatened with closure, it is essential that the reasons why such a step might be taken are discussed fully, not only with community policing consultative groups, but with the local people. The police must be able to justify a closure, not only for operational reasons, but for reasons that will reassure people that taking such a step will help to make policing better. I know that it is extremely difficult to make those arguments because I have had such cases in my constituency, but Members of Parliament sometimes have to face the fact that difficult steps must be taken in their own constituency and that it is right, although not easy, to argue for them to be taken.
  The hon. Members for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) and for Southwark, North and Bermondsey mentioned the national police funding formula. The hon. Member for
  350
  Twickenham, who has had to leave—to support the new deal in his constituency, I hope—said that he was not sure whether he understood the formula. It would be very dishonest of me to stand at the Dispatch Box and say that I understand it completely, but one or two people in the Home Office truly understand this difficult and complicated way of working out how much money police forces throughout the country receive.
  We inherited the formula from the previous Government. We have refined it, as did the previous Government, but it is not perfect. We have commissioned some independent research to examine whether there are additional costs in policing inner-city urban areas that are not reflected in the formula. All hon. Members who represent inner-city areas well know the particular difficulties with policing those areas. We hope that the research will come up with conclusions that we can use constructively. Although there will never be a formula that satisfies everyone, we have to try continually to make improvements.
  Recruitment and retention are clearly important because the Met are an ageing force—we must attract new, younger people. In 1998, for the first time in five years, the Met advertised nationally for recruits and Hendon is being used to capacity. I urge all London Members of Parliament to visit Hendon to see the enormous changes that are taking place in police training; a lot of what came out of the Macpherson report is being worked on at Hendon and such a visit would be useful.
  We are trying to do more about retention. We want to retain officers, because it is a pity to train them up only for them to leave the force early. Retention has a lot to do with morale and the police feeling that they have the support of the community, and we have to work on that quickly.
  Pensions are a problem which faced the previous Government and face this Government. No Government would want to face up to the huge long-term costs of the pensions shortfall, but a consultation document was published last March and firm proposals will be introduced soon. We are considering the costs and benefits of introducing a funded pensions scheme for new entrants, but that will not be a panacea. We need to get this right and look ahead, although Governments always tend to look at the present rather than the future. This year, however, we recognised the increased burden of police pensions and increased to 14.5 per cent. the proportion of police revenue funding allocated on the basis of police pension commitments.
  Setting budgets is not about consistently looking for increases in cash; it is also about achieving more and better with available resources, and 1999–2000 is the first year in which we have required forces to produce efficiency plans. I recommend that all hon. Members read the Met's efficiency plan. Hon. Members may have pressed for more cash to be injected into policing, but we have taken positive action to make sure that everything we invest in our police delivers more efficient and effective police services.
  Perhaps it is time to treat our police as a public service. In common with any other public service, policing is about service delivery. We are asking no more of the police than the previous Administration sought from other

  351
  public services, such as the health service. We intend to introduce best value and to ensure that everything that the Met do—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I must tell the Minister that time is up.

  Noise Levels (Work)
  12.30 pm
  Mr. Michael Clapham: I am pleased to have secured the debate because, although this may not be the sexiest of subjects, tens of thousands of workers are exposed to excessive noise levels every day. I am also pleased that the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield(Mr. Meale), is to respond. I know that before becoming a Member of Parliament he worked in industry, and that at one point he was a workers safety representative. He would have been appointed under the Safety Representatives and Safety Committees Regulations 1977, which were introduced by a Labour Government. In the ensuing years, the safety of British workers improved, but evidence suggests that in the late 1980s and 1990s the working environment deteriorated in many establishments.
  According to the current Health and Safety Executive estimates, 1.3 million workers are exposed to noise levels in excess of 85 decibels. That is the threshold—any increase will affect hearing. The connection between noise and hearing loss is well documented. According to an earlier HSE study of self-reported working conditions, 170,000 workers suffered from some form of deafness, such as dullness of hearing or tinnitus—ringing in the ears.
  I think that anyone would find those figures alarming, and they prompted the Royal National Institute for Deaf people and the Trades Union Congress to act. They concluded that there had been insufficient compliance with the regulations, and that the regulations had not been applied properly, perhaps because of a lack of awareness among employers. The guidance accompanying the Noise at Work Regulations 1989 makes it clear that all hearing loss caused by exposure to noise is preventable.
  When the all-party parliamentary occupational safety and health group, which I chair, met on 16 March, it heard evidence from manufacturers of personal protective equipment, and some interesting statistics were given. For instance, 300 million earplugs are used each year in the European Union. In Germany, the figure is 85 million, and in the UK it is 65 million. Interestingly, although Sweden has a much smaller population, it uses 2.5 times as many earplugs as the UK. The man who made the presentation said that he thought that that was due to an increasing awareness resulting from teaching in Swedish schools, which motivated young people to protect their hearing with earplugs and similar equipment rather than merely complying with the law.
  The RNID and the TUC decided to join forces and conduct a survey of UK industry. They issued 6,000 questionnaires, and the replies resulted in a report entitled "Indecent Exposure". The findings confirmed the worst fears of both bodies. Nearly a quarter of respondents reported listening to uncomfortably loud sounds for more than four hours a day. Nearly one in five construction workers, more than one in 10 manufacturing workers, and a number of oil rig workers said that they were exposed to such sounds for more than eight hours a day. A third of respondents said that their tasks left them with dull hearing, and 16 per cent. of those said that the dullness of

  353
  hearing continued after work. Twenty per cent. of respondents reported that their tasks left them with ringing or rushing noises in their ears or heads for at least five minutes. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will take those findings seriously.
  The survey also found that new workers, as well as those in the traditional industries, risked hearing loss. That confirmed earlier research—which my hon. Friend may well have seen—by the Labour Research Department, which found that workers in call centres, couriers and workers in restaurants were at risk. The police are also at risk, as they now use phonac devices that fit into the ear canal and pipe noise directly into the ear. The noise to which those newer workers are exposed comes from a different source: it is not the ambient noise with which the 1989 regulations were intended to deal.
  Alarmingly, the RNID and the TUC found that people working in call centres were given no advice about the risk to their hearing, and that none had been given any hearing tests—although, as things stand, tens of thousands of people are likely to become deaf in their 20s.
  "Indecent Exposure" is not just about statistics. Its aim was to show the impact that deafness has on people's lives, and, to that end, a number of case studies were conducted. I shall refer to a couple of those, but the Minister and his officials can examine them at their leisure. One is the case of a young woman working in a call centre. Most names are published in the studies, but this person wanted to remain anonymous. She does a 40-hour week at a centre, working eight hours per day.
  Every aspect of that lady's job was monitored, from her toilet breaks to the time it was taking to deal with calls coming in. The one thing that was not monitored was her hearing. She talked of being subjected to a high-pitched bleep through her headphones whenever new calls came in; it told her that someone was in the stack waiting to be put through. There was much background noise: 80 to 100 people were working in the call centre. Consequently, the sound coming through the headphones needed to be turned up, so that she could understand the message.
  After a while, that lady began to notice that she had hearing loss. She went for a hearing test and it was diagnosed that she had a 10 decibel hearing loss. She went back to work and, within five years, she found that her hearing was deteriorating further and that she was having trouble understanding some of the messages, so she went to her medical adviser for further diagnosis and was found to have a 20 decibel hearing loss. That young lady is 29 years old and has been told that she will have to wear a hearing aid.
  The name of the person involved in the other case is in the study "Indecent Exposure". She is a 48-year-old retired police officer. She had to retire because of hearing loss that was later ascertained to have been caused by the phonac device that she used in her ear. Although it was agreed that she was incapacitated to work in the police force, she had to fight in the courts to establish that her incapacity was the result of an injury at work. When the phonac device was tested for the court case, it was found to emit noise levels of 100 decibels.
  One theme runs throughout all the case studies: people were afraid to raise the matter with their employer. That says a lot about the need for robust fairness at work
  354
  legislation. People were afraid for their jobs and afraid to raise the fact that they were working in conditions that were endangering their hearing.
  What can be done? I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to bear in mind five points. First, the 1989 regulations, which deal with ambient noise, but are nevertheless important, need to be enforced. We need to ensure that the Health and Safety Executive takes on board the need to enforce them. Secondly, will my hon. Friend request that the Health and Safety Executive provides guidance on the use of earphones and other devices that pipe noise directly into the ear?
  Thirdly, will the Minister call for more research to find out the ways in which noise that is piped directly into the ear affects hearing loss? I think that if noise is piped directly into the ear, hearing loss occurs more quickly. Fourthly, such research could uncover an engineering solution to the problem. It is an issue which needs to be looked at. If he asks the Health and Safety Executive to undertake research, will he ask it to look particularly for an engineering solution to the problem?
  Finally, the disease is prescribed, but the prescription is not wide enough to cover new industries. It needs widening. We need to involve the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council. I realise that that is not within the Minister's remit, but I hope that he will bring the matter to the attention of his colleagues in the Department of Social Security because there is a need to look at that aspect.
  Although much of traditional industry has disappeared or radically changed, as was shown by the figures that were produced by the Health and Safety Executive, and particularly by the findings of the report "Indecent Exposure", noise at work is still a big problem. Thousands of call centre workers in their 20s could lose their hearing, as could many police officers and couriers, another group of workers who use earphones. They were also referred to in the report.
  The message that needs to go from the debate is that employers should comply with their duties to protect their staff, that the Health and Safety Executive needs to enforce the Noise at Work Regulations 1989 and that it needs to undertake more research into the matter.
  12.45 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Alan Meale): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) on securing the debate, which is aimed at raising awareness of the risks associated with exposure to loud noise at work. He has campaigned on health and safety matters since the first day he was in this place. It is always a pleasure to listen to him. Before coming here, he spent most of his working life doing exactly the same. His is a voice worth listening to in every respect.
  It is timely to discuss health and safety issues such as noise at work, particularly as we approach the 25th anniversary of the Health and Safety Executive, which was established following the Robens report. I am familiar with the RNID-TUC report entitled "Indecent Exposure". It contains much with which I agree, so I add my support to the report and to the RNID campaign on noise at work. I am sure that many other hon. Members will support the report, including my hon. Friend the

  355
  Member for Peterborough (Mrs. Brinton), who is also deeply involved in investigating noise issues. I apologise sincerely for not being able to attend a recent event—I think that it was last week—to highlight all the problems concerning deafness and to launch the report. That was because of a prior engagement.
  Hearing loss is a terrible thing. Deafness or partial hearing has a major effect on the quality of life of those affected by it. Some people lose their hearing as they grow older, but the hearing of far too many people becomes impaired due to a working environment that is plainly too noisy.
  Many people do not understand how big the problem is, but last night, yet again, I experienced the problems that are caused by deafness. Not many people in this place know that my hearing is below 50 per cent. in both ears. I go through life with people around me becoming slightly amused because I do not seem to have heard, or noted something that they have said. That is a dilemma. It is a problem which many people experience. Having said that, in my profession such an ailment can sometimes be an advantage. It is probably the only profession where that is so.
  Noise-induced hearing loss that is caused at work is a serious and significant occupational health problem. Although many cases result from exposure before current legal controls were in place, too many people at work are still potentially at risk. Exposure levels for many workers remain considerable. Research by the Health and Safety Executive in "Self-reported work-related illness in 1995: results of a household survey", which was published in 1998, suggests that as many as 170,000 people in Great Britain consider that they suffer from a hearing or ear problem that is caused or made worse by their work.
  The Health and Safety Executive estimates that about 1.3 million people, in 88,000 workplaces, continue to be exposed to damaging noise levels. The "2 m rule" is simple—if people less than 2 m away find it difficult to hear one speaking, there may be a noise problem. Exposure to loud noise at work is covered by legal controls and guidance. I believe that there is no excuse for anyone's hearing to be impaired because of loud noise at work. A range of legislation deals with noise at work and with making noisy machinery quieter.
  As my hon. Friend said, the Noise at Work Regulations 1989 are the mainstay in tackling noise problems at work. The regulations implement a European Union directive, so that legal controls on noise are common across the European Union. The regulations require employers to reduce noise risk to the lowest reasonable and practical level, and to take specific actions at certain noise levels. The actions include reducing noise, conducting noise assessments, providing information and training for employees, and providing personal ear protection when appropriate. The action levels have been determined on the basis of dealing with practical risk and cost.
  The regulations apply also to all people at work in Great Britain who are exposed to loud noise, except on ships at sea and on aircraft that are taxiing or in flight. Last year, the regulations were extended to cover the offshore industry. Therefore, the regulations cover all the industries that we associate with noise, such as foundries
  356
  or engineering businesses. Unfortunately, as yet they do not cover this place or places like it, although such places are covered by other protection.
  The regulations also cover the noisiest workplaces, such as call centres and those in the leisure industry. All employees in those industries are protected by the legislation, and it is the job of employers in those industries to ensure that the legislation is properly applied. There are legal duties also on manufacturers and suppliers of noisy equipment to reduce noise levels and to provide the information to buyers.
  The Supply of Machinery (Safety) Regulations 1992 specifically require manufacturers to reduce noise from new machinery and to provide noise data. Such action is important, as one of the main ways—undoubtedly the best way—of reducing exposure to noise is to reduce the noise at source. As one might expect, design safety is good safety. I note my hon. Friend's point that engineering solutions to noise are the best way forward. I shall inquire into whether work should be done on the matters that he mentioned.
  Rest breaks from noisy areas are, as my hon. Friend said, an important part of dealing with noise. The Health and Safety Executive recommends rest breaks, which can be good in helping employees to recuperate and in providing a rest from wearing ear protection.
  Noise levels have to be averaged over an eight-hour period. The longer people have to work, the lower are the levels of noise to which they are allowed to be exposed. The legal requirements, if followed, would substantially reduce the risk of hearing loss. I reiterate that it is for employers to apply the regulations, and that the Health and Safety Executive will take appropriate action to ensure that they do just that.
  We all, however, have a responsibility to recognise noisy workplaces and to work together to protect people's hearing. We have to be aware particularly of people with hearing difficulties, who may be more vulnerable in the workplace and have to be managed with additional care.
  My hon. Friend will know that, shortly after the Government took office, we asked the Health and Safety Commission to re-examine the issue of occupational deafness and to devise new ways of minimising the incidence of hearing loss. I tell my hon. Friend that the Health and Safety Executive will continue to target noise at work as one of its priorities, and that it has developed a long-term strategy to tackle the problem. The Government support that strategy—which is to increase awareness of the risks to health; to ensure compliance with current requirements, and to prosecute when appropriate; to offer practical advice on ways of reducing noise levels; and to control exposure at the place of work.
  The Health and Safety Executive has been pursuing that strategy since 1995, as part of its "Good Health is Good Business" campaign. The campaign now has renewed impetus, aided by the significant new resources that the Government have invested in the Health and Safety Executive. I assure my hon. Friend that noise will continue to be highlighted in the planned next phase of the campaign.
  My hon. Friend also mentioned health and safety guidance. HSE guidance on noise includes revised guidance on legislation, entitled "Reducing Noise at Work", which was published last year. A Health and Safety Executive book, entitled "Sound Solutions",

  357
  includes 60 case studies of real examples from industry of how successful noise-reduction methods have been introduced. A range of free leaflets on noise, for both employers and employees, is available.
  Securing compliance with the law is crucial. The HSE's long-term strategy aims to improve the quality of risk assessment of noise by employers. Risk assessment will be stressed by inspectors. As my hon. Friend will know, the Government have made more resources available to the Health and Safety Executive—so that there will be more inspectors to enforce health and safety law, such as that on noise, and so that inspectors promote more effective control of exposure to noise by encouraging the introduction of quieter machines or processes and by improving compliance with the supply-side legislation. Inspectors will also promote the effective use of purchasing policies and application of control measures. The correct use of ear protection is vital. Employees, too, have responsibilities to protect themselves by complying with notices and wearing ear protectors.
  The aim of my reply to the debate has been to reassure the House of the Government's commitment to tackle noise at work. I hope that I have given my hon. Friend some comfort on the concerns that he expressed. Three specific matters seemed to trouble him—in what he has described as the new sectors of the economy—and I should like to say a little about each of them.
  First, the "Indecent Exposure" report, which my hon. Friend mentioned, rightly emphasises the worries of those who are employed in call centres about the risk to their hearing. A study is in hand to identify the health and safety aspects, including noise hazards, of working in call centres. The results of the study will inform decisions by the Health and Safety Executive on what action has to be taken.
  358
  Secondly, the problems encountered by motorcycle couriers are similar to those of people working in call centres, as both jobs involve using communication headsets or ear pieces. Previous Health and Safety Executive research has drawn attention to the problem, and, in its "Reducing Noise at Work" guidance, there is general advice on measuring noise exposure to workers wearing headsets or ear pieces. There is also the prospect of a new international standard on such exposure.
  My hon. Friend's third concern was the effect of excessive noise on employees working in pubs and clubs. He will be aware that I take a personal interest in the issue, particularly as it affects those working in areas in which large numbers of people gather. The Health and Safety Executive has completed some research on the matter, and plans are well advanced for a study of the leisure industry to discover more about real noise levels for those working in pubs and clubs. That research, too, will inform the HSE on what action has to be taken to combat the problem. Such initiatives are important.
  I make it clear that the Government are not complacent about noisy workplaces. There is legislation to tackle the problem of noise at work, and there will be more inspectors to enforce health and safety law. The Government and the Health and Safety Executive will do all that we can to reduce noise-induced hearing loss, and we intend to work closely with the RNID and the TUC to that end.
  I give my hon. Friend the assurance that he asked for on the three or four matters on which he asked for further information and research. I should like again to pay tribute to him. His history of dealing with an important subject should be a lesson to us all—and one which hon. Members, both old and new, should follow if they can.

  Teenage Pregnancy
  1 pm
  Dr. Jenny Tonge: I want to address a problem that I consider to be a national scandal—teenage pregnancy. Many hon. Members will have heard on Radio 4 this morning about the Childline report which states that more 14 and 15-year-old girls call in about pregnancy and the fear of pregnancy than about any other issue. I am well aware that the Government have promised a review on the subject. It was promised last October, but it has not yet been produced. I am sure that we shall now be told that it will be published very soon, but I applied for today's debate none the less because I am sick of promises. I want some firm commitments. Twelve or 18 months is long enough to wait. How much longer will it be?
  In 1997—the last year for which I have figures—95,000 teenagers became pregnant. Of those, 8,300 were under 16. A total of 33,381 of those girls had abortions. It is a huge tragedy that 95,000 young lives were ruined in some way and 62,000 babies were born to mothers most of whom were still at school and unable to support them.
  It is even more shaming that the United Kingdom is top of the league in Europe for teenage pregnancies. In the most recent population trends published by the Office for National Statistics, the United Kingdom was top in respect of births per 1,000 women aged between 15 and 19. Our current rate is 30 per 1,000 girls. In Denmark, the figure is only eight per 1,000 girls and in the Netherlands only four girls in 1,000 become pregnant.
  Thirty years ago, there were 50 pregnancies per 1,000 girls, so the figure has fallen. But in Denmark 30 years ago the figure was also 50 per 1,000, and that country has managed to reduce teenage pregnancies to eight per 1,000 girls. As I said, the incidence of teenage pregnancy is a national scandal and I am ashamed that it is happening in my country.
  Let us look at the reasons. There is no doubt that we live in a society that flaunts sex at every available opportunity. Cars, chocolate bars, deodorants—you name it—are frequently sold using sexual images. Newspapers, magazines and television programmes are full of the antics of Presidents, royalty, pop stars and, dare I say it, some hon. Members. Films, plays and television shows all contain sexual activity. It is everywhere. Even Cardinal Hume has noticed. At the weekend he declared that
  "society is obsessed with sex and falling apart because of it."
  I am inclined to agree with him, but there is no turning the clock back. We are approaching the 21st century. Society has changed. The genie is out of the bottle and cannot be put back.
  Is it any wonder that, surrounded by sexual images, young people join in? They do not want to be left out of the excitement. Nobody on television is worried about contraception, sexually transmitted diseases or AIDS, so why should they worry? When they add to the brew copious amounts of alcohol on Friday and Saturday nights, they are away.
  All that is common to other European countries. So why do so many more teenagers get pregnant in the United Kingdom? Are parental attitudes or education to
  360
  blame? Unless we provide proper sex education and services that give teenagers a balanced message and counteract the excitement factor, things will never change.
  Let us get rid of one myth before we progress any further. I have heard it said so often—it was said again on the radio this morning—that young girls get pregnant so that they can claim benefit and get council flats. In fact, the majority of teenage mothers have no idea about housing or benefits before they get pregnant. There is no need to take my word for it; the Policy Studies Institute has conducted several studies on the subject. Once a teenage mother has a baby or two, however, we have to do something about her housing, looking after her babies and giving her benefit.
  Let us dispel another myth—that teenagers get pregnant because of sex education, contraception and abortion advice. The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), who I hoped would be here today said during last Sunday's "On the Record" that
  "the rise in teenage pregnancies in this country has gone hand-in-hand with increased sex education and family planning advice."
  I respect the right hon. Lady. She is honest and resolute in her views, but she is wrong on this issue.
  Despite the best efforts of me and my colleagues in the national health service, the Conservatives cut family planning clinics by half countrywide. We all know that general practitioners became overburdened and the number of school nurses was severely reduced. I cannot find the national figure, but in Cambridge, for example, not only are there no school nurses, but there are no health visitors either. What does the Minister intend to do about Cambridge?
  According to Childline, the majority of the 7,000 youngsters who had rung in about pregnancy-related issues said that they were not aware of having received any sex education at school.
  Sex education still remains at the whim of school governors. Some education authorities and schools do their best, but, countrywide, sex education is scanty, rarely repeated and hardly ever linked to the essential advice to teenagers about where to go for advice on sexual matters, contraception, abortion and sexually transmitted diseases. The link between education and advice on where to find services has been highlighted in many studies on the issue.
  Mrs. Teresa Gorman: I agree with the hon. Lady that family planning units are a vital part of our services to the community and I deplore the fact that they were run down. Does she agree that the Government should encourage initiatives such as that between Boots the chemist and the local health authority in Glasgow, whereby youngsters can go into Boots and get advice?
  Dr. Tonge: I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention and I entirely agree. In fact, I was about to mention the experiment that Boots conducted in Glasgow. Incidentally, it has been very successful and many young people have used the service. We need more such projects.
  Other European countries provide more than adequate family planning and sexual health services and take a refreshingly frank and objective approach to the issue. Rates of teenage pregnancy in the Netherlands and

  361
  Denmark are a fraction of ours. Proper sex education and services are provided free of charge and advertised. People discuss matters more frankly.
  In the United Kingdom, we are still bound by Victorian values such as, "Do as I say, not as I do" and, "These things must not be discussed with young people." We must educate ourselves to talk to children and encourage peer group speak-easy projects—a concept of which the Minister is aware—for children and for parents who find it difficult to talk to their children about such matters.
  Today, I am calling on the Government to include several measures in their review, whenever it is published. First, there should be a compulsion on schools to deliver sex education from the beginning of primary school to school leaving age as part of the national curriculum. Sex education needs to be repeated. It is no good having a one-off lesson from the shy biology mistress or the local doctor; the message must be repeated and changed appropriately as children get older. It must be regularly assessed by the Department of Health or the Department for Education and Employment. That must be linked with proper provision of family planning, abortion and STD services for young people, via local family planning services and perhaps school nurses.
  The irony is that when we need those services the most, they have been cut. Responsibility for them will lie with primary care groups. That is another concern. Who will ensure the provision of adequate family planning and youth counselling services if the primary care groups are to be so overstretched? In the absence of such services, trained pharmacists and the high street outlets that the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) mentioned need to come into the equation.
  To improve accessibility, we must deregulate some methods of contraception. Emergency contraception, which I spoke about in the House some months ago, must be made available when it is needed. It is needed in emergencies and should be as readily available as condoms. It should not be necessary to make an appointment to see a general practitioner to get emergency contraception.
  Will the Minister assure us that she will support people such as Viv Crouch, the school nurse in Bath who has set up an advisory service in her school and directs young people to the right provision of services? The Minister should also support the Boots clinic in Glasgow. Those are examples of people and businesses taking the initiative. That must become more widespread. Such initiatives are needed in every city.
  Young people need readily available, confidential, anonymous and non-judgmental advice from the time of their first sexual experiences. Let us stop pretending that young people do not or should not have sex. They do. As I have said, times have changed. I am sorry about that in many ways, but that is the way it is. People do not have to start so young, however. In the Netherlands, the average age at which young people start having sex is much older than in the United Kingdom and the provision of services there is much better. From 30 years' experience, I know that the more education—general and sexual—and the more advice and medical help teenagers can get, the more likely they are to delay their first sexual intercourse and the less likely they are to become pregnant.
  362
  Education is probably the main reason why the UK compares so badly with its European counterparts. We have a higher proportion of badly educated young people from unstable backgrounds. That situation is repeated from generation to generation. Putting teenage mothers into hostels and preaching at them will not help, but if we give them opportunities to return to education by providing creche facilities—incidentally, when are we going to get creche facilities for all the mothers in the House of Commons?—and proper support for their babies, we may prevent those babies from making the same mistakes when they grow up and stop them repeating the cycle.
  Let us use the media to sell the messages that we want young people to hear. We see and hear about sex every day on our televisions, but when did any of us last see an advertisement on the box for emergency contraception, condoms or an abortion service? They never appear. It happens elsewhere in Europe; why not here?
  Finally, will the Government tackle the anti lobby head-on, for the sake of our young people? Will they refuse to let uninformed media headlines and organisations such as the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, and Life, preach, dictate and utter their hypocrisies? Will the Government spin for the benefit of young people?
  Mrs. Maria Fyfe: Is the hon. Lady aware that SPUC campaigns outside Boots in Glasgow every week, giving out grossly misleading leaflets that accuse Boots of breaking the law? That is true neither of Boots nor of the community and mental health service, which has been co-operating with it.
  Dr. Tonge: I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. I am well aware of what is happening at Boots in Glasgow. I hope to go there in April to see for myself. Organisations such as SPUC are disgraceful. They produce inaccurate and misleading information, and I have been the target of some of their campaigns.
  The Government must tackle that lobby head-on and spin on behalf of our young people. Better, more honest sex education and contraception provision will bring down the teenage pregnancy rate, as it has in other European countries. While the Government have been thinking about the issue, tens of thousands of teenagers have had unwanted pregnancies. About 100,000 pregnancies have occurred, with perhaps 60,000 or 70,000 babies being born as a result. That represents a huge number of broken lives and an awful lot of misery, unhappiness and potential trouble for the future.
  When will we have the review? Can the Minister assure us that it will contain the action for which so many agencies are calling? We have heard in recent months from the Family Planning Association, the Brooke Advisory Centre, the Health Education Authority and the Sex Education Forum. This morning, Childline produced a report that has aptly highlighted the issue for us. Those organisations have the experience. Have the Government listened? They know what must be done.
  1.16 pm
  The Minister for Public Health (Ms Tessa Jowell): I congratulate the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) on securing the debate, on her speech and on her record as a campaigner for what is right on this issue.

  363
  We do not do well by our teenage parents. As the hon. Lady has said, our rates are four times higher than in France, twice as high as in Germany and seven times as high as in the Netherlands. More teenagers become pregnant in this country than anywhere else in western Europe. That is why the Prime Minister asked the social exclusion unit to report to him on ways to reduce teenage conceptions and support vulnerable teenage parents to break the cycle of exclusion that the situation almost inevitably brings for them and their babies.
  I assure the hon. Lady that the report of the social exclusion unit will be submitted to the Prime Minister shortly and will be published within the next two months or so. The exercise has been exhaustive, involving wide consultation, with the clear purpose of seeking practical solutions and building a consensus for the action that the Government must lead. Action must be guided not by myth or prejudice, but by fact and the best available evidence of what works.
  Let us look briefly at what happens to young women who become teenage mothers. Half the under-16s who become pregnant will have an abortion. Teenage mothers are more likely to suffer trouble with their pregnancy and birth and are much more likely to experience post-natal depression than older mothers. The infant mortality rate for babies of teenage mothers is more than 50 per cent. higher than the national average. The prospects in later life are poor, too. Teenage mothers and their children are more likely to live on benefits and to live on them for longer than their peers. As the hon. Lady made clear, there is no evidence beyond anecdote—which is easily deployed—that the benefit system acts as a direct incentive to any young woman to become pregnant.
  The social exclusion unit's forthcoming report will look at the prevention of teenage pregnancy and the support necessary for teenage parents and their children. We already have a good idea of which young women are most at risk of becoming pregnant too early. Often, they have low educational attainment; their families have had financial problems; they have had emotional problems; their mothers were probably teenage mothers; and they wanted to be a young mother. Young women with those characteristics are 19 times more likely to become teenage mothers than young women with none of them.
  Mr. Alan Johnson: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the city of Hull has the highest rate of pregnancies among 13 to 15-year-olds in the country, and one of the highest rates in western Europe. However, we managed to get a multi-agency approach to the problem only when we were allocated a health action zone. Will she ensure that the lessons learned in Hull are looked at closely and spread to other areas?
  Ms Jowell: We will be delighted to learn from my hon. Friend's experience of tackling the problem in Hull. I hope that the implementing action following the social exclusion unit report will build on best practice and will make sure that that is spread as widely as possible.
  Dr. Tonge: So far, the Minister has dealt with teenage mothers and their babies, and with what the Government
  364
  plan to do in future. I respect that, but will she refer to the measures that are necessary to prevent teenagers from getting pregnant in the first place?
  Ms Jowell: I will deal with those points in the short time remaining.
  Social exclusion is not only associated with teenage parenthood for young women: like teenage mothers, teenage fathers are likely to share characteristics such as low educational achievement, lack of qualifications and a family background of financial problems. Teenage boys and girls who have been in trouble with the police are more likely than their peers to become teenage parents. It was recently estimated that 25 per cent. of young offenders were also fathers.
  Teenage pregnancy is a problem simply because teenage parents have to look after a baby when they are little more than children themselves. They are expected to cope with one of the most difficult things that any adult is asked to do—to raise and nurture a child—without the emotional and financial stability that come as part of adulthood. In many cases, teenage mothers are also lone mothers. That puts extra pressure on them in terms of child care, returning to education and future employment prospects—all issues which I hope that the social exclusion unit report will address.
  Mrs. Gorman: Is the Minister aware that the Childline report said that more than half of the 7,800 young girls who called over the past two years were worried and wanted emergency help? Is she aware that it is difficult for them to find that help, and that many accident and emergency units refuse to give emergency contraception? Does she agree that the Government should do more to examine the opportunities so that young, terrified girls can get a friendly helping hand and emergency contraception?
  Ms Jowell: Clearly, in an ideal world, young girls who are little more than children would not be having sexual relations. They have sexual relations for some of the reasons that I have outlined. Given that about one in five girls under 16 are sexually active, it is important that they have access to advice and information. Where that does not come from their parents at home, it is important to have accessible agencies for young people to turn to for help—often in the kind of crisis identified by the Childline research.
  Teenage pregnancy is both a cause and a consequence of social exclusion. Many teenage mothers are care leavers, or have been excluded from school. For them, life was never going to be easy, and having a child too young makes it all the more difficult.
  To have a long-term answer to the problem—and long-term success in reducing our rates of teenage pregnancy—we have to understand why the rates are so high in the first place. The short answer is that too many teenagers are having sex too young, and too many are having sex that is unprotected. That is one of the key reasons for our much higher rate of teenage pregnancy, and that marks us out from many European countries where the rate is lower.

  365
  Contraception rates for young people here are half the rates in the United States or in a number of European countries. The Childline research may shed some light on precisely the kind of problems that we must address.
  Mrs. Gorman: Will the Minister give way?
  Ms Jowell: No, I will not. If I do, I will not have a chance to finish dealing with the points that have been raised.
  We know that young people believe that they are immortal, and that is why there is such a clear link between the risks that young people take in terms of unprotected sex, smoking, alcohol, drugs and even dangerous driving. More than 90,000 teenagers become pregnant every year, and nearly 500,000 sexually transmitted infections in teenagers are diagnosed every year.
  The bottom line for our approach to teenage sex must be to ensure that teenagers are more aware of the risks attached to sex too early, and that they have the tools necessary to wait until they are adult and ready. It is important that those who do have sex have access to reliable contraception and advice to prevent pregnancy and sexually transmitted infection.
  The Childline survey clearly revealed the pitiful ignorance among young people. No young person ever got pregnant just by knowing about sex, but young people are calling for the opportunity to be told not just about the biology of sex, but about relationships, responsibility and feelings. Young people have sex because of peer-group pressure; because they cannot think of a reason not to; because the future seems irrelevant. These are the real reasons that young people give for having under-age sex, with pregnancy as a consequence.
  That is why looking at personal, social and health education in schools is important. School nurses have an important part to play, and we have seen a substantial increase in school nursing over the past three years.
  Mrs. Gorman: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Are not these debates designed so that Back Benchers can put their points of view across? Is it right for the Minister to take up so much time—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I understand the hon. Lady's point, but these are half-hour Adjournment debates, initiated by one hon. Member exclusively for the benefit of that Member to gain a ministerial reply. It is only by convention that anyone else can intervene in them. These debates are quite different from the one-and-a-half hour debates.
  Ms Jowell: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  I have sought to answer the points raised in the debate, and I am trying to convey some of the complexity of tackling the problem so as to reduce not only rates of teenage pregnancy but the accompanying social exclusion. We are determined to put in place a practical programme, based on the evidence of what works, to build a consensus of support. We will lead that support from the House, engaging parents, teachers and young people up and down the country. That is where the solution lies.

  Al Shifa Factory
  1.29 pm
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: On 20 August 1998, the United States launched a cruise missile attack on the Al Shifa plant in Khartoum. If what the factory made was so awful, why were there no air-locked doors, no guards and no night watchman? Why not accept the Sudanese request for an inspection team? After all, we are bombing Iraq in the cause of establishing inspection teams. Why no inspection for Sudan, which has asked for it?
  The Americans, endorsed by Britain, made a serious error when they bombed and destroyed the factory. Chemical and Engineering News of 15 February said:
  "No trace of nerve gas precursor found at bombed Sudan plant".
  The International Herald Tribune of 10 February gives details of negative tests by American scientists on soil and effluent at the factory site, and the Boston university soil analysis, under the direction of Thomas Tullius, one of the most distinguished men in the field, found nothing.
  The New Yorker of October 1998 revealed that the Defence Intelligence Agency, the American joint chiefs of staff and even the Federal Bureau of Investigation were kept out of the picture by the Clinton White House on what was essentially a political decision to bomb Sudan.
  As soon as I secured this debate, I drew the attention of the Foreign Office to the report of the Monterey institute of international studies. It says:
  "On August 14, CIA Director George Tenet reported that there was conclusive evidence justifying retaliatory attack against bin Laden. Cohen and Shelton briefed Clinton on a general plan for attacks and the President reportedly approved their plans that same day, including the strike on al Shifa. The four chiefs of staff of the armed forces, Attorney General Janet Reno and Federal Bureau of Investigation Director Louis J. Freeh were not informed of the plan until one day prior to the scheduled attack."
  Crucially, the report continues:
  "Reno reportedly urged delay to enable the FBI to compile more convincing evidence linking bin Laden both to the embassy bombings and to the facilities targeted for attack. Reno was apparently concerned that the available evidence was insufficient to meet standards of international law, but she was overruled."
  To overrule one's own Attorney-General is a serious matter. The report continues:
  "Neither the Defence Intelligence Agency nor the FBI was involved in evaluating the data that led US officials to attack Shifa."
  Sir Harold Kroto of the Royal Society of Chemistry, who has been rightly lauded by the Prime Minister, said to me that Bob Williams knows more about Empta—o-ethyl-methyl phosphoric acid—than anyone else in Europe, and Professor R. J. P. Williams, of Oxford university, has been my friend in this matter from the very beginning.
  Professor Williams said:
  "In view of the fact that there is to be a debate in the House of Commons next Wednesday I wish to impress upon all Members of the House that there is now an opportunity for them to make sure that the government is open with us all concerning the attack on the pharmaceutical factory in the Sudan by U. S. missiles. While it was excusable for the Prime Minister to respond last August by supporting U. S. officials, accepting claims from them which have never been made public, all subsequent and very detailed investigations of these claims have shown that none of them stand up to inspection."
  I quoted earlier from the serious American press and from an American institute.

  367
  Professor Williams continued:
  "No chemicals of any kind which can be linked to nerve gas production have been found by new analyses of the soil around the factory. The factory was incapable of producing any such chemicals. The factory is owned by an innocent man, a Mr Idris. There are no links between the factory and ' any terrorist activities. All this evidence is readily available to Members of the House in leading American and British publications. While we all regret the deaths of over one hundred people in terrorist attacks on U. S. property in Africa it is not for the U. S. or us to take revenge by bombing a source of medical supplies for the sick in the Sudan. How many Sudanese have died as a consequence? Every time questions are asked in Parliament on these points the Prime Minister has replied evasively by reference to the early remarks of U. S. officials which everyone I know believes to have been mistaken. Now he is aware of the facts can not the Prime Minister apologise and attempt to persuade the U. S. government to do the same? Surely even politicians must be wise enough to realise that repeated dodging at Question Time in Parliament only reduces their stature while an apology for a mistake will be greeted as an act of statesmanship. Would it not be even better to send to the Sudan replacement medical supplies?"
  I, too, believe that people should apologise for mistakes when they know that they are mistakes.
  Tom Carnaffin, the British engineer involved, wrote to the Prime Minister. He said:
  "I was the Technical Manager for Baaboud Trading and Shipping the main funders and builders of the … factory.
  I am very distressed and angry at the persistent untruths and innuendoes levelled at the past and present owners of the factory and the true function and purpose of the said facility.
  At my age and with my background as an engineer having worked in many countries throughout the world, I only believe what I can see with my own eyes, touch, measure or do the calculations for myself. Having worked on the Al Shifa factory from the digging of the foundations to the commissioning, living with the Baaboud family and being very closely associated with them even till now, I can say with my hand on my heart you do not know what you are talking about when you speak about this factory."
  The capability of Sudan to provide simple medicines for its people has been damaged by this act of war. It is not sufficient for me to say please apologise. We must be constructive, and the Government should consider all the following moves.
  The Government should apologise to the Government and people of Sudan for their endorsement of the destruction of a factory so vital to humanitarian development in Sudan. They should provide the affected communities in Sudan with emergency humanitarian relief in the form of drugs and medicines until the factory is rebuilt and recommences the manufacture of affordable pharmaceuticals.
  The Government should support a United Nations weapons inspection of the Al Shifa factory and must take a prominent role in pushing for it at the United Nations Security Council. Should the United States Government continue to block international calls for a UN inspection of the site, the British Government should send a team from the Porton Down chemical and biological weapons establishment to conduct British tests.
  The Government must rethink and reassess their attitude towards Sudan in the light of this and other American intelligence failures regarding Sudan. If the most powerful country in the world, with all the intelligence assets and technology at its disposal, cannot
  368
  get it right on this vital issue, how many other American claims, similarly echoed and supported, I fear, by the British Government, are flawed if not totally inaccurate?
  The Government must bring pressure to bear on President Clinton to compensate the families of the dead and injured workers, to rebuild the factory and, in the meantime, to provide Sudan with humanitarian relief by replacing the vital drugs and medicines that were destroyed in the attack or whose supply has been interrupted by it. The Government should press the Clinton Administration to adopt a more constructive and less confrontational role in Sudan.
  I am glad that my hon. Friend the Minister is here to reply to this debate, because he has a record of being deeply concerned about and doing good work towards improving relations with Sudan. I hope that those relations can be mended.
  1.39 pm
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Derek Fatchett): I know of the long interest that my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) has in this matter, and I also appreciate his final comments and the way in which he has addressed the issues. The context of the attack on Al Shifa is important to the House and it is right that we are reminded of it. It is important that we take every opportunity in the House unanimously to express our strong opposition to all acts of terrorism, wherever they occur. While my hon. Friend did not do that in his speech, I take it as read that he is a keen and active opponent of all terrorism and all sources of terrorism.
  It is worth while reminding ourselves of the newspaper reports on the day after the attack on the Nairobi office block, which was the act of terrorism that led to the Al Shifa reaction. Those reports remind us of the horror of terrorism and the way in which it picks out wholly innocent individuals. More than 250 people were killed in Kenya on that occasion and not one of them had a political manifesto or grievance. They were innocent individuals, going about their business, leaving their homes in the morning and expecting to return in the evening. They were victims of a senseless, evil terrorist attack.
  The Daily Telegraph, for example, carried a report on the office block next door to the building in which the bomb exploded. It said that it
  "took the brunt of the blast. It was reduced to rubble."
  It continues by describing the victims:
  "Most of the victims were Kenyan office workers or passers-by, including the passengers of a bus, some of whom were decapitated by flying debris."
  That was the nature of the attack, which was designed to injure, maim and kill innocent people. That was its sole purpose. The victims were people going about their everyday business, and there can be no possible political explanation to support such an attack. I know that every hon. Member would wish to condemn that act of terrorism, as is the case with every other act of terrorism. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow makes a

  369
  particular point about Al Shifa, but it is important to see that event in the context of our condemnation of terrorism, of bin Laden and all such activities.
  Mr. Harry Cohen: I agree with the condemnation of terrorism that my right hon. Friend the Minister makes, but did Al Shifa have anything to do with the attack?
  Mr. Fatchett: I am delighted that I took that intervention. I agree with my hon. Friend's condemnation of terrorism and I shall come on to his other point. He has a very good record on human rights and of opposition to terrorism, and it is right that should go on record. In the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland, we know about the evil of terrorism and it is right that the House should take every opportunity to remind others throughout the world that we condemn terrorism, and will take action to ensure that we can stand up against terrorists and those who organise and finance terrorism.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow has raised questions about Al Shifa on many occasions. He had an exchange with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister only a week or so ago. I shall take this opportunity to remind my hon. Friend what the Prime Minister said on that occasion, because he repeated answers that he has given since August last year. He said:
  "Last August, I gave my support to the United States action. It was action against international terrorists. The US told us at the time of the strike on Al Shifa that it had compelling evidence that the plant was being used for the production of chemical weapons materials."
  My hon. Friend then asked the Prime Minister whether there was any hard evidence that VX precursors or any other chemical weapons-related compounds were manufactured at the Al Shifa plant. I shall remind the House of my right hon. Friend's reply:
  "The US was quite clear: it had compelling evidence that Al Shifa was involved in chemical weapons production. Terrorist organisations operating out of those places caused the death of more than 100 totally innocent people by acts of terrorism in Africa. The assault on Al Shifa was retaliation for that; no one was killed in it, but we gave a very clear signal—and I think the right one—to those who engage in international terrorism that we are prepared if necessary to take action in retaliation."—[Official Report, 10 March 1999; Vol. 327, c. 364–5.]
  Mr. Dalyell: If the Americans said that they had compelling evidence, why did their Attorney-General, Janet Reno, ask for a delay because she was not convinced? A country whose Attorney-General is not convinced would not appear to have compelling evidence. The truth is that there was deception by the Americans.
  Mr. Fatchett: My hon. Friend's final accusation is a very strong one. The point he made about the Attorney-General comes, of course, from newspaper stories that are not founded on any evidence. The American Administration's position is that there was compelling evidence. If my hon. Friend reads the newspapers assiduously, he will recognise that the reporting is not always wholly accurate, especially in contexts in which it might be useful to establish differences between individual personalities within a Government. The American Administration's view is that they had compelling evidence.
  Mr. Dalyell: That point did not come from newspaper reports. It is contained in the detailed report by the
  370
  Monterey institute of international studies, to which I referred the Foreign and Commonwealth Office at the very moment that I knew that I had secured this Adjournment debate. That report is a serious document.
  Mr. Fatchett: I will, almost on cue, refer to my hon. Friend's remarks about that document. It makes a number of telling comments that point in the contrary direction to those that my hon. Friend has used as evidence. For example, the document concludes that the eye witnesses are not chemical weapons specialists and
  "it is possible that their knowledge is incomplete."
  My hon. Friend relied on a number of eye witnesses, including the British engineer who was involved in the construction of the plant, but that balanced report states that we cannot rely on the eye witnesses for evidence on technical details, because they are not chemical weapons specialists. The engineer has knowledge of engineering, but he does not necessarily have any knowledge of chemical weapons systems.
  The report also mentions EMPTA and states:
  "There are several possible reasons why such a soil sample might test positive for EMPTA."
  We should not forget that a positive test result was obtained. The Monterey report offers three possible reasons for that, although my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow did not refer to them during his comments. The report states:
  "U. S. officials may be correct in their allegation that the VX precursor was produced at Shifa."
  My hon. Friend has said that it is incumbent on the American Government to produce evidence for its conclusions, but he should be careful in putting his evidence together, because the report accepts that it is possible that US officials were right in thinking that the allegations that the VX precursor was produced at Al Shifa were well based. That could be one of the scientific conclusions from the soil samples and—although one has to be careful when reading a balanced report to recognise that it puts arguments in both directions—that is a telling counter allegation to the one that my hon. Friend makes.
  Mr. Dalyell: As the engineer involved is sitting in the Strangers Gallery—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The hon. Gentleman should know by now that no reference can be made to anyone who is not in the Chamber.
  Mr. Dalyell: Would my hon. Friend or the science advisers to the Foreign Office be prepared to see the engineer, who set up the factory, in order to gain some idea of its capability, chemical or otherwise?
  Mr. Fatchett: We should be happy to meet that individual. However, I return to the document's remarks on eyewitnesses to which I have just referred. With the best will in the world, I do not expect that the engineer would set himself up as a chemical weapons expert. However, we should be willing to talk to him about the engineering involved in the factory.

  371
  I refer my hon. Friend to the report's conclusion, on page 26, which says:
  "It remains possible that Al-Shifa Pharmaceutical Factory may have been involved in some way in producing or storing the chemical compound EMPTA, which can be used in the production of VX nerve gas."
  The evidence produced by my hon. Friend is, at best, chequered. It is certainly partial, and it is worth pausing to think about the conclusion drawn by the eminent people who wrote the report.
  I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing the matter before the House, but the three crucial conclusions that I have outlined—the nature of eyewitness expertise, the fact that EMPTA was found there, meaning the American evidence and conclusions could be correct, and the fact that the report cannot conclude that Al Shifa was not used for storing or producing chemical weapons—seem to undermine his allegations.
  Mr. Michael Trend: The Minister has outlined several qualifications from academic papers with which we are familiar. However, the essence of the question is a single soil sample that the Americans claim to have analysed, although some people have cast doubt on both the chemical analysis and the origin of the sample. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) asked whether the British Government were satisfied that sample was genuine, and that the work done on it was properly conducted. Are the British Government simply taking the word of the American Administration? The Opposition believe that the action was almost certainly right, but that the factory was almost certainly the wrong one. It would be shameful if the Government have been led down a cul-de-sac by the American Government.
  Mr. Fatchett: I am intrigued by the line that the hon. Gentleman is taking. The shadow Foreign Secretary supported the action taken by the United States. Does the hon. Gentleman dissociate himself from the position taken by the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard)? If he is announcing a new departure in Conservative policy, he would be wiser not to do so during an Adjournment debate, and it would have been sensible of him to tell his right hon. and learned Friend. I know that the shadow Foreign Secretary is shortly to leave the Conservative Front Bench, and that the hon. Gentleman may be making a bid for the job, but he would be wiser not to announce his candidacy this way.
  Mr. Trend: Rather than continuing the badinage, I shall repeat my important question. Are the British Government satisfied that the chemical analysis of the soil sample—the only bit of genuine evidence that justifies the bombing—adds up?
  Mr. Fatchett: We are satisfied that the United States had conclusive evidence, and we have said so many times. I need to know whether the hon. Gentleman is dissociating the Conservative party from an attack on the causes of terrorism. Our debate is telling us a great deal about the Conservative party, whose spokesman is showing himself to be soft on terrorism. I am sure that the shadow Foreign Secretary will read the debate with great interest. It is about time that the Conservative party
  372
  offered support rather than reneging on its traditional position. I should be happy to give the hon. Gentleman another opportunity to clarify his position if he wishes one.
  Mr. Dalyell rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), but I wanted to remind the House that this is his Adjournment debate. Interventions by Front-Bench Members are not customary in such a debate.
  Mr. Dalyell: The obvious next step would be for the engineer to meet the Minister's advisers. On the question of what will be done about the Sudan, I meant what I said about the Minister's good record in trying to improve relations with that country. Whatever the arguments about Al Shifa, is there any way in which to give help to the Sudan, which has the most appalling malnutrition problems?
  Mr. Fatchett: My points about the Monterey institute report have been fully made. I shall go on to the two further points that my hon. Friend has raised.
  The next step is for Sudan to sign up to the chemical weapons convention, the verification regime of which would allow us to find out what is going on in Sudan and whether there is any truth in the allegation that there has been, and continues to be, production of chemical weapons. If Sudan has nothing to hide, it should sign in its own interests, in the interests of its neighbours and in the interests of the international community. We should all urge Sudan to take that step.
  My hon. Friend referred kindly to my role in Sudan. During 1998, the UK Government was the second largest contributor to Sudan, with more than $40 million. There is absolutely no evidence that the attack on the Al Shifa factory or the fact that it is no longer able to produce have made any difference to the supply of medicines and pharmaceuticals. On the contrary, we can say with confidence that our work through the United Nations and through bilateral aid has had a substantial impact on the well-being of people in Sudan.
  Mr. Crispin Blunt: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Fatchett: I had better not give way again.
  My hon. Friend is right to say that there is more to be done. I have tried to move the peace process forward and have engaged with the partners of the intergovernmental authority on development to see whether we can give greater momentum to that process. The United States is very much signed up to a new approach that will help us to move the process forward.
  I was closely involved in a UK initiative that allowed us to negotiate, with both the Government of Sudan and the Sudanese People's Liberation Army, corridors of tranquillity in Bahr el Ghazal that have enabled international aid relief to go to poor people in that area. The UK's record in helping the people of Sudan both with resources and politically is substantial, and I am proud of it.

  373
  We have also sought ways in which to rebuild and restore our relations with Sudan. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary was keen to meet the Sudanese Foreign Minister last September. I hope that issues relating to restoration of our ambassador to Khartoum may be resolved in the near future. That is in our interest, and in Sudan's interest. We are keen that it should happen.
  My hon. Friend produced evidence that was not the soundest that I have heard him use. The report used as his main piece of evidence contains contradictory evidence. The Government will continue to rely on the statements of
  374
  the United States Administration that they had compelling evidence for their action. We are united in the fight against terrorism—at least I thought we were before the debate. Labour Members speak with one voice against terrorism. We shall continue to act against it, and we shall stand up against it every time we can. That is the only way in which the voices of democracy and free will can continue to be heard in the world.
  It being Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
  Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions
  NORTHERN IRELAND
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  NORTHERN IRELAND

    Enterprise Support
    Mr. Lawrie Quinn: What measures she is taking to support enterprise in Northern Ireland. [76679]
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Ingram): Government support for promoting enterprise in Northern Ireland was enhanced by the innovative measures worth £100 million announced in my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's initiative of last May. The Budget provided a further boost for enterprise, with a reduction in corporation tax for small businesses, tax credit for research and development, and new corporate venturing measures. All that is good news for Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Quinn: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the opportunities provided for business in Northern Ireland by the Chancellor's Budget can be built upon so that we build not only peace in Northern Ireland but lasting prosperity for that community, and so that we get the correct frameworks across the community in which everyone can prosper?
    Mr. Ingram: I agree wholeheartedly with those sentiments. Yesterday, I launched a major economic strategy review document entitled "Strategy 2010", which was part of the Good Friday agreement requirements placed on the Government. It is a comprehensive study on how we can ensure that peace and prosperity can go hand in hand into the new millennium.
    Mr. Peter Brooke: Why have no Northern Ireland Ministers or any relevant Treasury Ministers been prepared to see the Petrol Retailers Association to discuss the widely acknowledged fuel smuggling across the border with the Republic?
    Mr. Ingram: I cannot answer for Treasury Ministers. I do not know what applications have been made to them. The matter falls within my remit in one sense, but excise duties are a matter for the Treasury, not for the Northern Ireland Office. My understanding is that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has met representatives on the issue, and we continue to meet at official level. It is not that we are unconcerned about what has happened, but we want to ensure that any measures that we take to stop the illegal activity have maximum impact. We also want to examine the disparities between the pricing structures north and south of the border.
    Mr. Roger Stott: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his efforts to promote business and employment opportunities in Northern Ireland? Can he
    376
    give any figures on the number of young people in Northern Ireland who are taking advantage of Labour's new deal?
    Mr. Ingram: That responsibility does not rest directly with me. It rests with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary. I understand that about 10,000 young people have taken advantage of the new deal initiative. It is an important initiative in Northern Ireland, as it is for the rest of the country. It has given an opportunity to young people, and it has now been extended into other age groups. It ensures that everyone can make a valuable contribution to the economic health and wealth of their community.
    Mr. Jeffrey Donaldson: The Minister will be aware of the problems facing the road haulage industry in Northern Ireland, and of the importance of that industry to our economy. Is he aware that a number of Northern Ireland road haulage companies have relocated their headquarters in the Republic of Ireland? One company calculates that it could save more than £250,000 a year by doing so. What measures does the Minister intend to take to assist the Northern Ireland road haulage industry which faces very high costs indeed?
    Mr. Ingram: I have not received any direct representations on the issue, although I have asked my officials to keep a watching brief over the direct impact in view of recent comments made by road hauliers. I ask the hon. Gentleman to suggest to those with whom he is in contact to write to me. I will pass on their concerns to the Minister responsible, who has already taken initiatives to deal with some of the concerns that have been raised.

    Equality Commission
    Mrs. Maria Fyfe: When the Equality Commission in Northern Ireland will be established. [76680]
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Marjorie Mowlam): The Northern Ireland Equality Commission will be established as early in April as possible. The posts have been advertised and at present we are considering applications.
    Mrs. Fyfe: My right hon. Friend's answer will be most welcome in Northern Ireland. Will she join me in welcoming the commitment expressed earlier this month by both the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to the equality agenda in Northern Ireland, especially in relation to jobs? Does she share my hope that the commission will get off to the best possible start?
    Marjorie Mowlam: I join my hon. Friend in wishing the Equality Commission the best of luck during the process of devolution when that takes place. I am sure that the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister are as committed as anyone to making it work.
    Mr. Roy Beggs: When those in the Northern Ireland community look at the composition and membership of public bodies in Northern Ireland, they find it almost impossible to identify a Unionist, or someone who at least has an acceptable Unionist pedigree. Does the Secretary of State agree that all future

    377
    appointments to public bodies in Northern Ireland should enjoy the confidence of the whole community? Will she ensure that, when the Equality Commission is established, Unionists will at least have equal preferment on that body, given the perceived evidence in the past of preferential treatment being given to nationalists and to the do-gooder brigade?
    Marjorie Mowlam: I assure the hon. Gentleman that, in terms of the make-up of bodies such as the commission and others, the Peach criteria for public appointments are applied rigorously by the Government. Such appointments are all advertised in the newspapers, on the internet and in Braille. That was done for the Equality Commission and, where needed, there is an independent element in the interviewing process. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that, in my view, the representation of communities required by the legislation has taken place.
    Mr. Kevin McNamara: Will the Equality Commission also deal with such matters as equality before the law? Given the report by the Independent Commission for Police Complaints for Northern Ireland on harassment of the late Rosemary Nelson by the Royal Ulster Constabulary, can we have confidence in the RUC continuing the investigation into the causes of her death? In the first place, the Metropolitan police had to be brought in, to achieve a degree of impartiality. How can we be certain that that will be the case in the inquiry into her death, when there is only one outside officer and only one with any sort of supervisory duty?
    Marjorie Mowlam: In terms of the role of the Equality Commission, I assure my hon. Friend that there is an equality of opportunity duty, which I hope will be in force as a statutory duty by the summer. That equality of opportunity obligation on the public sector will be an important element in the working of the Equality Commission.
    In relation to the sad death of Rosemary Nelson, the ICPC has just received back from the independent Metropolitan police commander, Commander Mulvihill, the accusations raised by Rosemary Nelson that it had passed to him. I understand that those matters will be passed to the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland. I can assure my hon. Friend that all efforts are being made on that front and when the evidence comes back to me, I shall examine it very carefully and in detail. I assure him of my on-going attention to the outcome of the Mulvihill investigation.
    In respect of my hon. Friend's final point about the murder of Rosemary Nelson, the Chief Constable reacted speedily by calling in outside supervision of the investigation, as well as external assistance from the Federal Bureau of Investigation. I believe that that will give us a solid investigation, but I shall keep the matter under review.

    Accident and Emergency Services
    Mr. Tony McWalter: If each hospital providing accident and emergency services in Northern Ireland will receive accident and emergency
    378
    targeted funding as announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his budget; and if she will make a statement. [76681]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. John McFall): All accident and emergency departments will be eligible to benefit from the funding announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. Details of how that additional money will be used are still being finalised. I would expect developments to be consistent with the Government's vision for the future development of Northern Ireland's hospital service set out in the document, "Putting it Right", which I published in November last year.
    Mr. McWalter: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, but there is fear in Northern Ireland that the benefits of the additional funding will be somewhat selectively applied and that some A and E departments might be closed. Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that the extra pressures on the ambulance service resulting from the changes will be met by additional resources, so that the new swish A and E departments will be accessible from all parts of the Province?
    Mr. McFall: My hon. Friend can be assured that the £3 million available next year for upgrading A and E departments will be channelled to those who put a good case for upgrading. He makes an important point about the ambulance services; in "Putting it Right", I stated that an extra £15 million would be invested in the ambulance service to ensure that there is coverage throughout Northern Ireland and that people living in rural areas are not disadvantaged. It is important that there is a good ambulance service—one that is ready and fit for the 21st century—and the Government have addressed that in "Putting it Right".
    Rev. Martin Smyth: The Minister will agree that there have been some decided improvements in the ambulance service, which we welcome. However, do his plans envisage the retention of the casualty and emergency department at Belfast City hospital, bearing in mind the fact that the golden mile and the student population in the area pose a tremendous challenge these days? Will Shaftesbury Square hospital continue regularly to be retained for weekend use for emergency purposes?
    Mr. McFall: The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the document I published a month ago, "Fit for the Future", in which I set out the position on acute services provision by hospitals in Belfast, including Belfast City hospital. I recognise the need for good-quality and efficient services in Belfast. The hon. Gentleman will also be aware of the £4 million I gave for the fractures unit only a few months ago. We recognise the current deficiencies, but, together, we are building a modern accident and emergency service that is fit for the population of Belfast and its environs.
    Mr. Eddie McGrady: I am sure that the Minister is aware of the concern about accident and emergency provision; indeed, there is fear in many of the outlying areas of Northern Ireland—especially in my own constituency about Downe hospital, Downpatrick—as the district hospitals fear a downturn in the emergency

    379
    services that they can provide. What progress is being made on the implementation of the new accident and emergency regime required by the royal colleges in places such as Downed hospital? The £15 million the Minister mentioned will not be spent until April 2000, so will he tell me what progress has been made in respect of the provision in Down of a new hospital that can offer an appropriate level of services to the entire community of Down and Mourne?
    Mr. McFall: The hon. Gentleman and I have been in regular communication and often hold opposing views, but I acknowledge the fight that he has put up on behalf of his constituency, especially in respect of Downe hospital. He and I are as one on that issue, because we recognise the need to get services provided in the right place, at the right time, by the right person, irrespective of where people live. He knows that a business case for a new hospital in Down is currently being devised; it should arrive on my desk shortly. If the case is soundly made and the proposals have broad community support, I shall be willing to give the plan consideration in the near future.
    Regarding accident and emergency services, I pointed out in one of the documents that I published that 75 per cent. of people referred to accident and emergency departments should not be there. That means that three out of four people admitted are blocking the best treatment being given in the quickest possible time to the one in four people who should be there. That needs to change. We need to upgrade accident and emergency units' diagnostic equipment, ensure that they have telemedicine facilities and consider the best way of linking ambulances and A and E units to serve people in rural areas such as the hon. Gentleman's constituency.

    Peace Process
    Mr. Michael Connarty: What progress is being made with the Northern Ireland political parties to implement the Good Friday agreement. [76684]
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Marjorie Mowlam): We have come a long way in implementing the Good Friday agreement. We must now move quickly to overcome the remaining difficulties if the transfer of powers is to happen next week. All of us have a collective responsibility to do all that we can to achieve this. Intensive discussions with the political parties have been taking place and will continue. In fact, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Northern Ireland is in discussions at this very moment.
    Mr. Connarty: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Can she give the House an assurance that this Government will not become like the previous Government, who were transfixed and immobilised, on the question of decommissioning in the peace process? Surely the deaths of Rosemary Nelson and Frank Curry underline the fact that 1,000 silent guns and 1 tonne of Semtex buried and not used are not a problem when there are people who are willing to use one gunshot and 1 lb of explosive, which can derail us unless we face the issue.
    Can my right hon. Friend give the House an assurance that, having missed the deadline of 10 March, she will call a meeting of the Assembly on 29 March and will set up the Executive in Northern Ireland?
    Marjorie Mowlam: The deaths of Rosemary Nelson and Mr. Curry are sad and difficult occasions for their
    380
    families but a stark reminder to everybody else involved in this process of what can happen if we do not make progress and instead go back down the road to the violence of the past.
    On decommissioning and the formation of the Executive, I have made it clear on many occasions, as has my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, that we expect both things to happen. Both are crucial for the Good Friday agreement to work.
    Finally, my hon. Friend asked about the deadline of 29 March. I have said on numerous occasions that we missed the target of 10 March. We set that as a goal because that is when we would have got all the necessary legislation through the House to make it possible for the transfer or devolution of powers to take place. I think that we are now looking at next week for the simple reason that it is a natural target a year after the agreement. I have said that I will call a meeting of the Assembly, which will automatically trigger the d'Hondt process. It is essential that that happens if progress is to be made.
    I have made it clear that I will do that. Therefore, it is up to all the parties collectively, including us and the Irish Government, to do everything that we can to ensure that differences are resolved in the next week.
    Mr. David Trimble: As the Secretary of State knows, we have now done all that we can in terms of the implementation of the agreement and that the obstacle to further progress now remains the sort of intransigence that I encountered yesterday afternoon when I met the gentlemen who should be serving as Members for Belfast, West and Mid-Ulster but refuse to do so.
    Does the Secretary of State agree, dealing with the decommissioning issue, that the loyalist who planted the hand grenade in Castlewellan that went off yesterday, the loyalist responsible for the death of Rosemary Nelson and the loyalist who earlier this week declared that he would never decommission are all, objectively speaking, supporting the IRA in its refusal to decommission, and that the best thing that all three of those gentlemen could do to ensure that we have progress and achieve the success of peace would be to follow the example given by the leadership of the Loyalist Volunteer Force when it began the process of decommissioning?
    Marjorie Mowlam: I certainly agree with the right hon. Gentleman that decommissioning—[Interruption.] I have to agree with the right hon. Gentleman that decommissioning is a crucial part of the agreement. Like me, he would like to see the weapons discovered, taken care of and out of politics. We agree with that and the position that he has just set out.
    As everybody knows, however, all parts of the agreement have to be implemented. We must find a way of getting the Executive in place so that other parts of the agreement can be implemented in full. We have both those things to focus on in the next week. The important aspect of what the right hon. Gentleman has just said is that which everybody in the process needs to do, which is to focus on the big picture and make sure that progress is made.
    Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: My right hon. Friend says that decommissioning is a crucial part of the agreement. If that is so, why cannot the Government

    381
    purchase arms held by the paramilitary groups as part of an attempt to oil the wheels of the decommissioning process? I remind her that I have asked that question before, and I did not get a knock back, so I understand that the option remains open.
    Marjorie Mowlam: Every option is open to make progress and every one will be considered. To reassure my hon. Friend that his point has been heard, I can tell him that the decommissioning body, under General de Chastelain, will be well aware of my hon. Friend's suggestion by teatime today, and I am sure that the General, whose duty it is to consider decommissioning schemes, will take it into account.
    Mr. Lembit Öpik: If progress is not made on setting up the Executive by Good Friday, what will happen next?
    Marjorie Mowlam: As I said in answer to an earlier question, the position is that some time during the week beginning 29 March—the earlier, the better—I shall ensure that I call a meeting of the Assembly so that the d'Hondt process will operate. Everybody knows that an inexorable course will then be followed. I want to ensure that the parties understand that if d'Hondt operates and an Executive of only one party is formed, rather than a cross-community Executive, powers cannot be devolved or transferred. Without those communities being included, the Executive would be dysfunctional and could not make decisions.
    I make it clear, as I have done on other occasions, that we are meeting the Irish, the parties are talking and everybody is doing their best to make progress in a difficult, serious situation.
    Mr. Andrew MacKay: May I take the Secretary of State back to last Friday and the disgraceful scenes in a Belfast courtroom when Bernard Maginn, the evil IRA murderer of Lance Bombardier Stephen Restorick, who was sentenced to more than 400 years in prison for his evil murders, laughed at the judge and said, "I'll be out in 16 months." Will the right hon. Lady take this opportunity to state clearly to the House that, if the IRA has not completed all its decommissioning of illegally held arms and explosives by next July, that evil man and his colleagues will not be released back on to the streets?
    Marjorie Mowlam: I have communicated with Mrs. Restorick on numerous occasions, and I want to put on record yet again my sympathy and understanding for the pain that she and many others have gone through. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I shall answer the question, but I have the right to put on record my concern, which I am sure is shared by the Conservative Members who are shouting at me.
    I say to the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) that all parts of the Good Friday agreement have to operate if it is to succeed. One cannot cherry-pick or start rewriting part of the agreement because it suits at a particular time. We shall implement the agreement along with the parties as far as that is possible. It is up to us, as a Government, to implement the agreement that the parties and the people voted on.
    382
    That is what we are doing and that is what 29 March is about. If anything needs to be changed after that, it will be done in consultation with the parties.
    Mr. MacKay: I do not wish the Secretary of State to cherry-pick parts of the Belfast agreement. She will be aware, as the House is aware, that, under the agreement, decommissioning must be completed by next May and she must release all terrorist prisoners by next July. At that time, three months will have passed since the date when all decommissioning should have taken place. I am asking the right hon. Lady a simple, straightforward question, to which Mrs. Restorick and everybody else would like an answer: will she promise me and the House that if there is not complete decommissioning by the IRA of illegally held arms and explosives by the due date in May, those evil murderers will not be released back on to the streets in July?
    Marjorie Mowlam: As the right hon. Gentleman well knows, I have the power to vary that end date. However, I have made it clear to him on many occasions that speaking as he does and answering such questions now, when we are desperately trying to make progress in the last week that we have, does not help anybody. We have made it clear that decommissioning must happen. That is a crucial part of the agreement. To use the language of defeat and to ask for statements now about events a year down the road is not helpful. Of course those questions must be answered in the future, but, for goodness' sake, in a week such as this, when we are building up to 29 March, cannot the Opposition try to look on the positive side, rather than create problems?

    Crime
    7. Ms Joan Ryan: What measures she is taking to tackle crime in Northern Ireland. [76685]
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Ingram): Apart from doing everything possible to tackle and deter terrorist and paramilitary-related criminal acts, the Government are promoting a range of crime prevention measures in conjunction with the Royal Ulster Constabulary and other statutory and voluntary agencies. Those measures include funding for the community safety centre, promoting public awareness campaigns and supporting projects to help reduce the incidence and fear of crime. A contribution from the modernisation fund will be used to boost crime prevention initiatives in Northern Ireland. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State today laid in Parliament the policing objectives for the RUC in Northern Ireland for the year ahead.
    Ms Ryan: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. We are all aware that the police in Northern Ireland have been in the front line in dealing with terrorism and the appalling atrocities that have occurred. What steps are being taken to ensure that the RUC is prepared and able to cope effectively with the rest of its policing role and activities—what we might call a more usual policing role, serving the community in Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Ingram: I thank my hon. Friend for her comments about the role performed by the RUC on behalf of

    383
    everyone in defending our freedoms in Northern Ireland and elsewhere. On the RUC's role in relation to other types of criminal activity, I pointed out in my earlier response some of the initiatives that have been taken. The allocation from the modernisation fund will be used for the introduction of closed circuit television schemes throughout Northern Ireland. I announced an early CCTV initiative for Portadown. It is hoped that that will assist the RUC to tackle the difficult problems that it faces in Portadown and elsewhere.
    Mr. William Ross: Does the Minister recognise that, although we welcome the measures that have been taken to combat ordinary crime in Northern Ireland, the main concern of the people of Northern Ireland is still the large hoard of illegal weapons held by terrorist organisations? Does the Minister therefore recall that the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) has consistently said that terrorist hoards of weapons should be given up? Does he welcome the statement that the hon. Gentleman made yesterday, to the effect that semtex should be dumped for General de Chastelain to pick up?
    Does the Minister accept that my right hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) has made endless concessions in an effort to get the IRA to live up to the obligations that it took upon itself last year, and that the Unionist people have nothing left to give? Does he agree that it is long past time for the IRA to live up to its obligations to surrender the weapons? When the Government consider the matter of crime, will they ensure that the punishment fits the crime?
    Mr. Ingram: Of course I recognise the contribution made by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume). He has made a significant contribution to efforts to move the process forward, as indeed has the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble). That is why they were recognised internationally and awarded the Nobel peace prize for their efforts. In her earlier comments, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State dealt with the main thrust of the hon. Gentleman's question about the need for decommissioning. All our attention is on that and on ensuring that all parts of the Good Friday agreement are implemented in full. That is the only way in which we can achieve genuine peace in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Malcolm Moss: After the Home Secretary's embarrassing, incompetent and bungled intervention earlier this week over the release of prisoners under the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998, will the Minister tell the House whether the Secretary of State knew about that intervention beforehand? If she did, was she in full agreement?
    Mr. Ingram: It is a bit rich for the hon. Gentleman to accuse the Government of bungling. I remind the House that he was a Northern Ireland Minister before the election and we inherited a blank sheet in whole range of areas over which he had responsibility, such as victims and economic development.
    Of course there were discussions on that particular issue within the Government, and a detailed answer has been given in relation to the way in which it has been handled by the Home Office and the way in which the Northern Ireland Office deals with matters of law relating to the release of prisoners.

  The Prime Minister was asked—
  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Andrew George: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 24 March.
    The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. John Prescott): I have been asked to reply. As the House knows, the Prime Minister is in Berlin today, attending the special European Council. I have spoken to him this morning about the situation in Kosovo. We agreed that we should take this military action with total resolve. This is a difficult decision and we have to see it through all the way.
    Mr. George: Constituents are anxious that the Prime Minister should be successful in securing objective 1 status for Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly in Berlin this week. Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that if the Prime Minister returns victorious, that will also be a personal triumph for Cornwall's MEP, Robin Teverson, who has fought so long and hard for such an outcome? Does he also accept that local partners in Cornwall should be given every encouragement to get on with the important tasks in hand, without unnecessary European or United Kingdom Government interference?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: The actions of everyone involved will bring about the achievement of objective 1 status and recognition of the special problems of Cornwall, and my right hon. Friend is dealing with those matters in Berlin. The establishment of development agencies, introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn), has also played an important part. We all look forward to developments in Cornwall and to the improvement of prosperity there, brought about by a Labour Government.
    Mr. Jim Cousins: As you know, Madam Speaker, many hon. Members, not least those from the north-east of England, give a high priority to regional issues, but this morning our Prime Minister asked the British people to be ready to make sacrifices so that the Albanian Muslims of Kosovo can take their proper and rightful place in our common European home. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that, at the first indication that the Government of the Yugoslav Federation are willing to accept the deal accepted by the representatives of the Albanian Muslim majority in Kosovo, the hostilities that are about to commence will be instantly terminated?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend made it absolutely clear yesterday that NATO is united and stands ready to take military action if Milosevic does not change his position and the repression continues. If, in those circumstances, he does not stop creating terror among the people in Kosovo—whole villages continue to be burnt no fewer than 25,000 people have been displaced in the four days since the peace talks broke

    385
    down—President Milosevic should be in no doubt that we will take whatever action is necessary to avert a humanitarian tragedy. He has his part to play.
    Mr. Peter Lilley: The Deputy Prime Minister will know from our joint visit to Omagh after the tragic bombing there that I recognise his abhorrence of terrorism and share his determination to make the Good Friday agreement work. I know that he will share my disgust at the sight of the murderer of Lance Bombardier Stephen Restorick laughing in court after he received three life sentences and boasting to his friends that he would be out in 16 months. Will the Deputy Prime Minister convey to the Prime Minister the strong feeling registered earlier in this House that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland should give an assurance that that evil man will not be released until Sinn Fein/IRA have given in their arsenal of weapons?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland made clear a few moments ago, we will observe the Good Friday agreement. The exchange of prisoners, and the freeing of prisoners, is in line—[HON. MEMBERS: "Exchange?"] I withdraw the word "exchange". I apologise; I made a slip.
    The freeing of prisoners is part of the Good Friday agreement, and we will observe it. Notwithstanding all the difficulties, and all the disgust that may be felt at the time, that is what we agreed to and what we intend to implement.
    Mr. Lilley: I had hoped that the Government would be clearer than they have been about the obligation of Sinn Fein/IRA to hand in weapons. This week, the Home Secretary has sent unclear and confused signals about the Government's willingness to delay the release of prisoners. Is it not time that the Government sent the clear signal that the Good Friday agreement must be implemented in full? That means not releasing any more murderers while the terrorists on both sides refuse to give up their guns and bombs. Why do the terrorists want to keep their weapons, other than to use them or threaten to use them?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I find it difficult to accept that the right hon. Gentleman's aim is to secure agreement in Northern Ireland, given the language that he uses. We all know that the next few days will be critical to establishing a settlement on the Good Friday agreement. Assent to certain actions will have to be secured, and my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland are very much involved in that.
    The whole House has made it clear that we want agreement in Northern Ireland, and we are nearer to achieving that agreement than we have ever been. There are fewer murders, and there is more eagerness to secure agreement. We should place more emphasis on the words that encourage people to come together in agreement and dialogue, rather than using the language used by the right hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Alan Johnson: I agree very much with what my right hon. Friend has said, but may I change the subject? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the introduction of a national
    386
    minimum wage next week will be supported around kitchen tables throughout the United Kingdom—not least in the magnificent and historic city of Kingston upon Hull?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: As a former commis chef who once spent most of his time around a kitchen table, let me say that I was protected by the wages councils that the previous Administration abolished, driving millions into poverty pay. I am particularly proud to be a member of a Labour Government who are introducing a statutory minimum wage from which millions will benefit from next week.
    Let me be helpful to the Opposition. We intend to advertise to the people of this country, informing them of their rights in relation to the statutory minimum wage. In the interests of impartial advertising, I invite Opposition Members to suggest a form of words making it clear that the Tories fought the minimum wage tooth and nail, and would still abolish it if they ever got the chance to do so.
    Mr. Paddy Ashdown: As the Deputy Prime Minister well knows, there is widespread support on all sides for the action that, regrettably, now appears to be imminent in Kosovo. Does he agree that, precisely because British troops are going to be committed, it is necessary to have a clear, definable, achievable political end that will show what we are trying to secure, and will tell us when we should stop? Will the right hon. Gentleman take this opportunity to define explicitly the aims that we seek to achieve through the actions that we shall take in Kosovo during the next hours and days?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: The Prime Minister told the House yesterday that the minimum objective of NATO action would be to curb continued Serbian repression in Kosovo, in order to avert a continuation of the humanitarian disaster that we all agree is taking place. NATO action would therefore target the military capability of the Serb dictatorship.
    Mr. Ashdown: With great respect to the Deputy Prime Minister, what he has told us is the legal justification, not the political aim. A political aim gives an outcome which is stable and durable. While it might be desirable that we reduce President Milosevic's capacity to kill Albanians, that will not produce a stable Kosovo. May I suggest that the aims of the action should be these: in the first instance, to persuade President Milosevic to sign up to the Rambouillet agreement; and if, as I anticipate, that fails, to ensure that this is seen as the first step in the establishment of an international protectorate in Kosovo?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: With the greatest respect, if the right hon. Gentleman had been here yesterday, he would have heard the Prime Minister address himself to that matter. As he made clear yesterday, Milosevic must do what he promised to do last October, and these are the objectives of the action: end the repression, as the House has been calling for; withdraw his troops to barracks; get them down to the levels that he agreed in that agreement; and withdraw from Kosovo the tanks, the heavy artillery and other weapons that he brought to Kosovo last January. That is the minimum condition to end the repression in Kosovo.
    Mr. Derek Foster: Will my right hon. Friend please urgently inquire into the disastrous

    387
    developments in Vaux Breweries, which has its headquarters in Sunderland, my home town? Is he aware that some of the shareholders have pulled the plug on a management buy-out, against the wishes of the chairman, Sir Paul Nicholson? Is he aware that those shareholders are Mercury Asset Management Ltd., led by Carol Galley, who was born in Newcastle upon Tyne, the Bankers Trust and Hermes Pensions Management Ltd., which was the former Post Office pension fund and is led by Alastair Ross Goobey? Will he call those shareholders in to explain why they are prepared to sacrifice 700 jobs in Sunderland and Sheffield for the sake of only £2.5 million of extra shareholder value?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I am aware of that concern. It has also been expressed to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins). I believe that Members have made it clear to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. We are concerned about the matter. The Secretary of State and his Ministers are prepared to discuss the issue and will make the necessary arrangements.
    Mr. Crispin Blunt: If NATO air strikes indirectly cause the situation of innocent people in Kosovo to get worse, rather than better, what then?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: We are confident, of course, that the strategy that we are embarked on now will have the effect of reducing the Serbians' capability of continuing to repress the people in Kosovo. I believe that that will happen and that the strategy will achieve the ends that we have set out.
    Angela Smith: Many of us find it very difficult to understand the mentality of those who abuse and inflict cruelty on children. The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children has estimated that one child a week dies from cruelty. Will the Deputy Prime Minister give his support, as many hon. Members on both sides of the House already have, to the NSPCC's full stop campaign to end cruelty to children within a generation? Will he give his personal support to the pledge, sign it and do what he can to stop such cruelty?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: The Government welcome the NSPCC's initiative of this week. Indeed, many of the plans that the NSPCC is proposing are in line with the Government's strategy to help more children to be protected from harm and to be given the best possible start in life. I am sure that every hon. Member feels exactly the same about that and that there is common agreement between us.
    As for my personal support, I am pleased to say that, at the end of January, I helped to launch the NSPCC's vision for children campaign and signed the petition that my hon. Friend talked of. I did it with the director of the society. I am sure that all hon. Members would like to express full support for all the society does.
    Mr. Lilley: This week saw a mass demonstration by lorry drivers who face ruin after the Budget. The Confederation of British Industry, the chambers of commerce and road transport unions all say that 50,000 jobs will go. Was the Deputy Prime Minister consulted
    388
    by the Chancellor of the Exchequer about the job-destroying fuel tax increases; if so, did he argue against them?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: Yes, I did hold discussions with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. We are agreed that we desire to achieve a better environment in the United Kingdom, with increasing economic prosperity. In our debates on the lorry industry, it has become clear that—although there is much talk of travelling and transferring abroad—operating costs for the United Kingdom industry are about £600,000 less than in places such as France, Germany or Belgium. Costs for UK operators are therefore considerably different from those of their competitors abroad. That has been confirmed by an international consultant's report stating that costs for UK operators are two thirds those of some of their major competitors.
    If there is concern about jobs, I should say that the boom-and-bust cycle under the previous Administration—of whom the right hon. Gentleman was a member, helping to develop the Treasury's boom-and-bust policy—directly caused hundreds of thousands of hauliers to go to the wall. So we have no reason whatsoever to be apologetic for ensuring that the road industry has a proper part to play—and that the haulage industry has an essential part to play—in an integrated transport policy, which we are now developing.
    Mr. Lilley: So the right hon. Gentleman was consulted, he did agree—and he apparently believes that all those truckers came to London to thank him for the benign regime that he has put in place for them! Is he aware of the case of Shaun Neal, of Harwich, who says in today's newspapers:
    "We were struggling before the Budget … Now we haven't got a chance. … Every corner we turn we have been hit by another"—
    Government—"tax"?
    The bogus figures that the Deputy Prime Minister mentioned will not convince Shaun Neal or hauliers in Labour Members' constituencies. Since the Government have now been forced into crisis talks with the road haulage industry, will the Deputy Prime Minister tell the House whether he is prepared to discuss withdrawing the Budget fuel tax rise?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I think it is a bit much when someone from the previous Administration, who introduced the fuel tax escalator—which has created much of the cost that the right hon. Gentleman is talking about—asks us to remove it. We will not. The Budget is set. We believe that it is a fair Budget, and that it deals with the type of economic problems that we inherited from the previous Administration. All the signs show that it is successful: lower interest rates, increasing growth—those facts show a successful economy.
    Perhaps I should give the right hon. Gentleman a quote from the previous Chancellor, who—when talking of those who are critical of the fuel escalator—said:
    "Any critic of the Government's"—
    the previous Government's—
    "tax plans who claims also to support the international agreement to curb carbon dioxide emissions will be sailing dangerously near to hypocrisy".—[Official Report, 30 November 1993; Vol. 233, c. 939.]

    389
    That is precisely what the right hon. Gentleman is doing.
    Mr. Lilley: Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware that his refusal to give a clear promise to discuss the withdrawal or reduction of those tax rises will come as a bitter blow to the Road Haulage Association—which has said that without those issues on the table, the talks are worthless? Is it not typical of the Government that they offer no real help? Is it not shameful that he, as Secretary of State for Transport, was off playing Jacques Cousteau when the Government decided to introduce the measures? Is not his refusal today the final proof that they are a tax-raising Government who do not care about British truckers, British business and British jobs?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: It is quite clear from what the right hon. Gentleman says that he does not concern himself with the British environment. Ours is a balanced judgment between economic prosperity and the best environmental solution. We think that we have achieved that balance in the Budget. I tell him that, yes, we are holding discussions with the industry—more than were held by the previous Administration—in a forum that my right hon. Friend has convened. Of course we shall discuss in that forum the concerns of the road haulage industry.
    As for the cheap jibe on diving, the people of the United Kingdom can make a judgment on whether—[Interruption.] They can. Whether it is on saving the tiger or on diving among the reefs, we have to make a judgment. I shall, as Secretary of State for the Environment, try to do that. I can however tell the right hon. Gentleman that although I dived to 80 ft, I did not dive deep enough to reach the low Tory poll rating.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating most warmly those Brits who received magnificent awards at the Oscars this year? Does he accept that, from day one, the Government were determined to build the foundations for even greater success in future? When the film action report is published next month, will it ensure that at least 20 per cent. of the films projected in British cinemas will be British, thereby illuminating the British genius to which Richard Attenborough frequently refers?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: The whole House would want to join my right hon. Friend in congratulating the British film industry on its tremendous achievements. However, it was sad that some of them were based on American rather than British money. We feel that that could be improved and the proposals by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in the Budget are a step towards making it a totally British operation.
    Mr. Peter Luff: On the subject of stealth taxes, who does the Deputy Prime Minister think is to blame for the fact that the Labour and Liberal Democrat councillors who run Worcestershire county council have raised the council tax by more than four times the rate of inflation? Is it them, is it him or is it all of them?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: It has become clear since various authorities have announced their proposed council taxes that the average council tax increase under Tory
    390
    councils is something like 9.8 per cent. whereas under Labour councils it is something like 6.7 per cent. So we are witnessing better value under Labour councils than under Tory councils.
    Mr. Robin Corbett: May I tell the Deputy Prime Minister of the concern of a large number of car component manufacturers in my constituency and in the rest of Birmingham and the west midlands about the time that the Government are taking to decide how much investment they want to make in the future success of Rover? Will he contact his ministerial colleagues today and ask them to reach a quick decision, to allow Rover to build on the success that its management and work force have achieved over the past few years?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: The House will understand the concerns that have just been expressed. Indeed, the Government are actively involved in the matter. I shall certainly pass on my hon. Friend's views to my ministerial colleagues, particularly the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
    Mr. Desmond Swayne: Is the House Library's arithmetic accurate when it reveals that next year taxation will rise by £7.1 billion as a result of the Chancellor's three Budgets? How does the Deputy Prime Minister explain the contrast between those figures and the spin that the Chancellor placed on the Budget?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman can refer to page 14 of the Red Book. I am not aware that the actual figures are disputed. The total amounts are disputed and how they are allocated has been a matter of argument, but there is no doubt about the overall tax benefits to many thousands of people. If the hon. Gentleman is so concerned about tax, is he not also concerned about Hampshire county council, which has increased council tax by 9.4 per cent. despite receiving one of the highest settlements?
    Mr. Ivan Henderson: One of the main reasons for long-term unemployment in my constituency is the previous Government's lack of interest in the British shipping industry. At one time there were 1,800 shipworkers in my constituency; now there are 58. Will my hon. Friend assure me that the Government will take measures to halt any further decline in the industry?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I agree very much with what my hon. Friend says. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has made it clear that he is concerned about the decline of the shipping industry. He has appointed Lord Alexander to look into financial policies that could reverse that decline. We have heard a lot from the Conservatives about lorry companies flagging out abroad to a flag of convenience. They presided over a fall in the British merchant fleet from 1,400 ships to fewer than 200 under flags of convenience. Whenever I protested,

    391
    I was told that it was all about competition. What a different attitude they have to the lorry hauliers' flag of convenience argument.
    Mr. Christopher Fraser: Is the Deputy Prime Minister in favour of parental choice and selection in education? [Interruption.]
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I am sorry, I did not hear that.
    Madam Speaker: If hon. Members were less noisy, we would hear the questions.
    Mr. Fraser: I am prepared to give the Deputy Prime Minister enough time to try to answer the question. Is he in favour of parental choice and selection in education?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I am sorry that I did not hear the question. The selection system, and the 11-plus particularly, worked against me. I believe in a comprehensive education system. We should be able to meet the demands of all children, however gifted, in a comprehensive system. That is what we are trying to do with our "education, education, education" policies.
    Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Did my right hon. Friend share my satisfaction when he read page 16 of our White Paper setting out our proposals for freedom of information legislation, which makes it clear that we intend to set a test for those who wish to stop disclosure of information? They will have to demonstrate that substantial harm would ensue. Has my right hon. Friend also noted that recommendation 9 of Sir William Macpherson's report says that the police should be brought under freedom of information legislation and that the substantial harm test should apply? Will he tell the House that we stand by our commitment set out in our White Paper and that we accept the unambiguous recommendation of Sir William Macpherson?
    The Deputy Prime Minister rose—
    Mr. Mackinlay: And if not, why not?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I am pleased to answer my hon. Friend the Member for Sketch Writer, East. We have made clear the important principle in the White Paper. We hope that the Bill will be published in early May and it will address that point.
    Mr. Eric Forth: In view of the ruling of the Law Lords a short time ago and their comments on the substantial reduction in the number of extraditable charges, when will we get a decision from the Home Secretary on the Pinochet case?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: The legal arguments on the state of immunity have been given the most careful
    392
    and thorough consideration. Our highest court, sitting with seven Law Lords, has today given its judgment. The case remains sub judice and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will consider the judgment.
    Mr. Jim Fitzpatrick: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the importance of transport infrastructure to the regeneration of east London. His commitment to the channel tunnel rail link and its benefits not only to east London but to the whole country are well documented. Will he advise us of the progress that is being made on the Jubilee line extension, which, with the docklands light railway, is a key element to drive forward the regeneration of east London? What success is he achieving in rescuing the scheme from the chaos left by the Conservatives?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: We are confident that London Transport will open the Jubilee line extension in time for the millennium. We are in regular contact with London Transport and we are monitoring the situation closely. The House will be aware that I had to renegotiate the channel tunnel rail link agreement. The original agreement was disastrous for the taxpayer. The project was bankrupt, and we had to regenerate it. By a new form of financing, we were able to rebuild the channel tunnel rail link, which has now been started. The investment of more than £5 billion has been very important in the rebuilding of the Thames gateway area.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: Will the Deputy Prime Minister confine his remarks to the Ribble valley? The council tax in the Ribble valley is rising by 7.5 per cent.—more than three times the rate of inflation. We have a Liberal Democrat borough council and a Labour-run county council. Many of my constituents have had wage increases at the rate of inflation, and many are farmers whose wages have actually decreased. What does the right hon. Gentleman consider an excessive rise in the council tax? What protection can he give to the people of the Ribble valley from being clobbered by an increase of three times the rate of inflation?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: The House will expect me to give my considered judgment on the council tax increases in all local authorities shortly. I have to report my judgment to the House. That is the normal practice, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will await that statement.
    As for the hon. Gentleman's constituents being clobbered by the Budget, let me tell him that 11,400 families, 17,000 pensioners and 1,700 small and large businesses in Ribble Valley benefited from the Budget. More than £25 million extra was provided for education in his constituency, and £222 million for health. How can he talk about his constituents being clobbered? It is about time he talked to them about a successful Labour Government beginning to repair the damage done by the previous Administration.

    Points of Order
    3.32 pm
    Sir Norman Fowler: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. At 2 o'clock this afternoon, the House of Lords announced its decision in the case of Senator Pinochet. According to Lord Browne-Wilkinson:
    "The result of this decision is to eliminate the majority of the charges levelled against Senator Pinochet by the Government of Spain and relied upon as the basis for extraditing him."
    The charges have been drastically reduced, and only very limited charges remain. In giving judgment, their lordships said that the whole matter should be reconsidered by the Home Secretary.
    As you know, Madam Speaker, it has been the consistent view of the Opposition that this matter should be settled in Chile, and not here. What I would like to ask for goes further than what the Deputy Prime Minister has just said. I would like to ask the Home Secretary to review the case with the utmost urgency, and to make a statement to the House as soon as possible—preferably in the next few days.
    Madam Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman and the House will have heard what the Deputy Prime Minister has had to say. I am sure that most Members will know that the House of Lords has decided that Senator Pinochet does not have immunity from prosecution in respect of some charges in the warrants against him. Extradition proceedings against the senator are still pending. The courts will have to decide whether the evidence against the senator is sufficient to warrant his trial in Spain.
    The remaining charges relate to events that have occurred since 1988 and I cannot, under our sub judice rule, allow a reference to them. Following what I have said, it will be obvious to hon. Members that I have not had an application from the Home Secretary to make a statement on those matters. The Home Secretary is on the Front Bench and will have heard the exchanges.
    Mr. David Wilshire: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. At the beginning of this month, I asked you what a Government Minister should do with a leaked document. Subsequently, you kindly wrote to me to explain that you were referring the matter to the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges. Are you now in a position to report any progress?
    Madam Speaker: Yes, I am. When the hon. Gentleman raised the matter with me—quite rightly—I undertook to look into it and to reflect on it. I am sorry that he has not been able to follow what has happened since then. Subsequently, I asked the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges to take the issue under consideration. Its views were communicated to me in a letter, which was placed in the Library.
    In essence, the Committee's view is that the fundamental responsibility of Members who receive leaked copies of Select Committee reports before publication must be to act in a way that does not impede the Select Committee in the discharge of its responsibilities to the House. In the judgment of the Standards and Privileges Committee, the Member should not make use of leaked Select Committee papers and should return them without delay to the Clerk of the Select Committee.
    394
    The Standards and Privileges Committee may have more to say on the subject once it has completed its inquiry into the leak from the Foreign Affairs Committee.
    Mr. Tony Benn: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Yesterday, the Leader of the House made it plain that it would be possible for tomorrow's debate to relate to the situation in Kosovo, which the House would otherwise have no opportunity to discuss. On an Adjournment debate, there is not normally a vote, although it is possible to register an opinion on the Adjournment. That has been done; I have done it myself. Ought not the Government, in view of the, gravity of the decision announced yesterday, to replace the Adjournment debate with a debate inviting the House to endorse a motion, so that those who agree with it can support it and those with a contrary view can register that view in the Lobby?
    The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. It may be of assistance to the House if I make two brief observations. First, the Government are conscious of the fact that the debate announced for tomorrow is likely to be dominated by Kosovo and recognise that the House will not want to lose the time for a general debate on defence. Secondly, there are hardly any precedents for a debate on such a matter, at a time of conflict, other than on the Adjournment. That was true throughout the Falklands war and almost throughout the Gulf war.
    Mr. Benn rose—
    Madam Speaker: Order. I cannot allow a debate on a point of order. I think that the Leader of the House has made the Government's position absolutely clear. I understand the wide range of views on the issue, and I shall certainly see that there is an opportunity for that wide rainbow spectrum of views to be heard in tomorrow's debate.
    Mr. Benn: Further to that point of order. I am not debating your ruling, Madam Speaker, merely clarifying the point that, in view of what the Leader of the House has just said, there is a precedent, when no motion is tabled, for the House to register its opinion on a vote on the Adjournment, and I want to be sure that my recollection of that is correct.
    Mr. Michael Jack: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Item 4 of our business today, "Reform of the Structural and Cohesion Funds", was referred to in Prime Minister's questions by the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George), who drew our attention to his wish for Cornwall to have objective 1 status. The matter was discussed at length yesterday in European Standing Committee C. May I seek your assurance that the Hansard report of those proceedings will properly reflect the fact that no Liberal Democrat Member attended that Committee to raise the matter?
    Madam Speaker: That is a good try, but not a matter for me, I fear.

  BILL PRESENTED
    WILDLIFE AND COUNTRYSIDE (AMENDMENT)
    Mr. James Wallace, supported by Mr. Roy Beggs, Mr. Norman Baker, Mr. Peter Bottomley, Mr. Lindsay Hoyle and Mr. Alasdair Morgan, presented a Bill to amend the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 with respect to acts of recklessness, time limits for bringing proceedings and penalties: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 21 May, and to be printed [Bill 71].

    Pensions (Amendment)
    3.39 pm
    Mr. Andrew Mackinlay rose—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. I cannot hear the hon. Gentleman for all the hon. Members chatting around him. He is so popular that I can hardly see him.
    Mr. Mackinlay: I beg to move,
    That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the Secretary of State to report annually on service pensions, war pensions and war widows' pensions.
    The Bill would require the Government to present an annual report to Parliament on the value of service pensions, war pensions and war widows pensions, and related issues. It would also require the disclosure of details on the number of pensioners and the degree of sufficiency afforded by the various benefits, allowances and pensions, as well as details of the Government's plans to improve such benefits and pensions. The Secretary of State would be obliged to consider representations from both individuals and organisations involved with ex-service people and to consult them before presenting such a report to Parliament.
    Such legislation is timely, because there is a growing body of opinion among all our constituents that the voice of those who made considerable sacrifices on behalf of the United Kingdom in the armed forces is not sufficiently reflected in our deliberations. I remind the House that the last time that we had a debate on veterans' issues was on 1 July 1996, when I won the ballot for a Friday morning debate—an opportunity now denied to Back Benchers. It is many years since a Prime Minister met in summit with the representatives of ex-service organisations. In other countries, such a situation would not endure. In the United States of America, all ex-service organisation have regular access to the highest levels of the Administration and to the President himself.
    We need to create a culture whereby Government is much more sensitive to the needs of ex-service people. An identical Bill to my measure passed through all its stages after it was introduced in the House of Lords by Lord Morris of Manchester. If this Bill had been on the statute book and placed its duties on Government, the interests of those suffering from what we know as Gulf war syndrome, and related illnesses, might be substantially more advanced than they are. The indefensible anomaly whereby war widows pensions and war disablement pensions have different values in different local authority areas, would probably also have been resolved.
    There is also the scandal of the "pensions trough". Often, the recommendations of the armed forces pay review body are implemented in stages and that disadvantages those retiring at certain times of the year, compared to their colleagues with identical service who retire at a different stage of the calendar year. If the Government were forced to make an annual report to the House, followed by a debate, on the state of war pensions, it would force us to address that issue.
    I also wish to flag up the continuing disagreement between the ex-service organisations and the Government on the issue of noise-induced hearing loss. I believe that it

    397
    is proven that many ex-service men and, I suppose, some women have suffered a loss of hearing because of their war service. However, that is not sufficiently recognised by the Ministry of Defence and the Department of Social Security.
    Before 1973, war widows campaigned for an improvement in their pensions. They achieved something for their successors in that the spouses of ex-service men and women retiring after 1973 were entitled to receive half the "spouses" pension on being widowed. Those who were widowed before 1973 still receive only one third of their spouses' retirement pension. I remind the House that that group includes the second world war generation and we are the beneficiaries of their sacrifice. Their number is diminishing and they are growing more frail. We have a duty and obligation to discriminate in their favour.
    The Royal British Legion, the Officers Pension Society—which, despite its name, represents the interests of all ranks—and all the other ex-service organisations feel strongly that the Bill should be placed on the statute book as a discipline on Governments, of whatever political complexion, so that those issues are automatically addressed every year by the House of Commons. Another illustration of my case is the position of the spouses of ex-service men—and some women—who married their spouses after they had retired from the armed forces. There is appalling discrimination against them. Those who fall into that category, after 1978, may receive a war widows pension, but those who were in that category before 1978 do not. That discriminates badly against the older generation.
    I do not want to detain the House, which has much to address itself to this afternoon. However, I did not realise a couple of weeks ago, when I decided to introduce the Bill, that I would do so on such a poignant day. In a few hours, the men and women of our armed forces may be required by Her Majesty's Government to put themselves in peril. Whenever forces are deployed, particularly in a war, accidents happen and there are injuries under enemy fire.
    398
    We hope and pray that casualties will be kept to a minimum if engagement in Kosovo proves inevitable. Throughout history, the House of Commons has rather glibly expected the men and women of our armed forces to put themselves in danger. We owe them a great debt, and I do not think that we repay it sufficiently. I hope that the men and women who will be deployed today and the men and women who have given service in the past will find favour with the Bill. I ask the House to endorse it.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Andrew Mackinlay, Mr. Syd Rapson, Mr. Ronnie Campbell, Mr. Michael Fabricant, Mr. Martin Bell, Mr. Roy Beggs, Mr. Paul Flynn, Mr. Jim Dobbin, Dr. David Clark, Mr. Rhodri Morgan, Mr. Bob Russell and Mr. David Crausby.

    PENSIONS (AMENDMENT)
    Mr. Andrew Mackinlay accordingly presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to report annually on service pensions, war pensions and war widows' pensions: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 26 March, and to be printed [Bill 72].

    REFORM OF THE STRUCTURAL AND COHESION FUNDS
    Resolved,
    That this House takes note of the unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Department of Trade and Industry on 17th April 1998 relating to reform of the Structural Funds, the unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Department of Trade and Industry on 17th April 1998 relating to Agenda 2000, reform of the Cohesion Fund, and European Union Document No. 5480/99, an amended draft Council Regulation on the European Regional Fund; and supports the Government's view that reform of the European Structural and Cohesion Funds is essential in preparation for enlargement and should be concluded by a fair, affordable and durable outcome for all Member States; agrees that the Cohesion Fund is no longer justified where Member States have been admitted to Stage 3 of EMU, and should be phased out as soon as possible, and that the European Development Fund Regulation provides a suitable basis for the use of that Fund.—[Mr. Dowd.]

Orders of the Day

  Local Government Bill (Allocation of Time)
  3.47 pm
  The Minister for Local Government and Housing (Ms Hilary Armstrong): I beg to move,
  That the following provisions shall apply to remaining proceedings on the Local Government Bill:

  Timetable
  1. Proceedings on Consideration and on Third Reading shall be completed at the sitting this day and shall be brought to a conclusion, if not previously concluded, five hours after the commencement of proceedings on this Motion.

  Questions to be put
  2. For the purpose of bringing proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1 the Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

  (a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;

  (b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;

  (c) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown;

  (d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded.

  3. On a Motion made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

  Miscellaneous
  4. Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on the Bill at the sitting this day; and the proceedings shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
  5. The proceedings on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after commencement; and Standing Order No. 15(1) shall apply to those proceedings.
  6. Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply in relation to proceedings on the Bill.
  7. No Motion shall be made, except by a Minister of the Crown, to alter the order in which proceedings on the Bill are taken or to recommit the Bill; and if a Minister makes a Motion to alter the order of proceedings or to recommit the Bill, the Question shall be put forthwith.
  8. No dilatory Motion shall be made in relation to the Bill except by a Minister of the Crown.
  9. If at the sitting this day a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 24 stands over to Seven o'clock and proceedings on this Motion have begun before that time, the Motion for the Adjournment shall stand over until the conclusion of proceedings on the Bill.
  10. If the House is adjourned at the sitting this day, or the sitting is suspended, before the conclusion of proceedings on the Bill, no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.
  The Local Government Bill was in Committee for more than 36 hours, over 15 sittings. Detailed scrutiny of more than 200 amendments and nine new clauses took place. Debate was conducted in good spirit: it was overwhelmingly constructive, and there was a general intention to improve the Bill, not to wreck it. An informal timetable was agreed, and it was used effectively and
  400
  without curtailment of debate on any point raised by the Opposition. There was no complaint, from either side of the House, about insufficient time having been allocated for debate. In fact, the Bill finished earlier than the timetable allowed. We spent an average of 37.5 minutes on each group of amendments. Last night, in five hours—six if we include the money resolution—we managed to consider just two groups of amendments.
  Today, we will complete Report stage and Third Reading of the Bill. It has received widespread support from local government, the public and private sectors as well as the Trades Union Congress and the Confederation of British Industry. It is a measure of the isolation of the official Opposition that, despite widespread support urging us to enact the Bill, they sought last night to make a mockery of debate on the Bill. We saw their tactics in the Chamber last night. More importantly, we know that they had briefed journalists that they intended to use those tactics. I was told that they intended to disrupt proceedings.
  All the huffing and puffing of Opposition Members—we saw much of it last night—is only so much hot air when we recall their enthusiasm for guillotining debate on the poll tax and the abolition of the Greater London council. That legislation was passed in the face of bitter opposition from local government, let alone the people of this country, in contrast to the support that this Bill has received. Their protests are exposed for the sham that they really are when we recall the use of 12 guillotine motions in one Session of Parliament when the Conservative party was in government.
  Let us now stop the childish bickering and get on with debating the Bill. It is a serious matter and it deserves serious consideration. So far, it has not been treated seriously on the Floor of the House on Report by the Conservative party. We look forward to a constructive debate today.
  3.51 pm
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I detect a marked change of tone between the Minister today and the Leader of the House last night. The Minister expresses some regret at having to move the guillotine motion. There was no sense of regret from the Government last night. The guillotine was announced with glee and joy by the Government. They exulted in curbing discussion and debate in the House last night.
  We are constantly reminded that the Labour party claims to be a people's party, but the Government behave more like the only party that rules the People's Republic of China than a party in a democratic state. I am sure that the Minister agrees that there must be a better way of conducting these affairs. Why, then, was no approach made to any Conservative Member about the slow progress made yesterday afternoon? No formal approach was made. If concerns had been raised, they would no doubt have been heeded.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Alan Meale): I beg to differ with the hon. Gentleman. I had contact with his Whip on the Bill. I said that progress was slow and asked whether we were expected to go through the night and whether that was sensible.
  Mr. Jenkin: At no point did the Minister suggest that his patience was as short as it was or that he was so

  401
  looking forward to his early bed. It would have been better if the Government had engaged in some proper discussion rather than acting precipitately and with triumph in their eyes to crush discussion and debate.
  There remain many substantive issues to discuss. Many of the issues will have to be raised in the other place. However, we know what will happen if the other place takes a different view from that of the Government—it will be treated with scorn and derision too, and set aside as though it had no right to any discussion. It has become characteristic of the Government that proper discussion and debate are stifled. I want to take only a little time on the motion, because we want to devote the time available to the substantive issues raised by the amendments rather than to the motion.
  The motion is the worst kind of guillotine. At no point was there any discussion about how the time might be allocated to different parts of the Bill. Worse than that, the motion sets a limit of five hours on the conclusion of all the proceedings on the Bill, including on the guillotine. So this discussion on the guillotine comes out of the time available for discussion on the Bill.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: It has happened before.
  Mr. Jenkin: I give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Skinner: Not only has it happened before, but when the Tory Government were in power it happened quite regularly. Many of us on the Opposition Benches then used to curb whatever we had to say on the guillotine motion in order to spend more time on the principle of the debate. It is a bit rich for the hon. Gentleman to talk about autocratic regimes and all the rest of it. I was in the House when the Tory Government, who had 18 years, introduced guillotines on most of the privatisation legislation. They introduced a guillotine on the Single European Act. They introduced guillotines every single year. We had them coming out of our earholes. We have had only one guillotine since 1 May 1997. Who are the autocrats now?
  Mr. Jenkin: It might be necessary to put guillotines on the hon. Gentleman's interventions; they are becoming so long now that he is in his dotage. On the substantial point he made, the Conservative party's attitude is changing. [Interruption.] Goodness me, the Labour party has changed its attitude on a large number of matters and have adopted Conservative views. It seems strange for the hon. Gentleman to justify joining in with what happened last night on the basis that he loathed it when we were doing it to him. We should all agree that there is a better way.
  One of the ideas that the Select Committee on Procedure came up with was the timetabling of Bills. At no point did the Government ask us to consider a more constructive timetable for the Bill. We ended up with the least satisfactory kind of guillotine, which may suit the despots in the Whips Office, but does not suit democratic discussion in this country.
  3.56 pm
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: I rise to express my concern at the decision to move a timetable motion. It is typical of the Government that, on
  402
  the day when British service men might be going into action in Kosovo, the Government should be doing two things: first, they are truncating the vote on an important local government measure; and secondly, they are denying hon. Members an opportunity—even though pressure was exerted last night—to discuss Kosovo today on the rearranged business. It is typical of the Labour Government that they have done both those things.
  The Bill is important, but we have been granted only five hours to discuss the remaining parts of it. We should remember that the Report stage is when hon. Members who were not members of the Committee have an opportunity to influence thinking. We have a substantial number of amendments and new clauses to discuss—there are 10 groups, containing more than 70 amendments. We know full well that if we divide on any one of those amendments, that time will come out of the allocated timetable.
  Ms Armstrong rose—
  Mr. Hogg: I shall give way in a moment.
  The time for this debate will also come out of that timetable, as, no doubt, will the right hon. Lady's intervention.
  Ms Armstrong: I welcome the right hon. and learned Member to local government debates. It is a pity that he did not show his face yesterday.
  Mr. Hogg: I was here yesterday, listening in a despairing frame of mind because Labour Back Benchers did not participate at all. That was one of the points to which I wanted to draw your attention, Madam Speaker. The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) made the point that the Government will get their way in any case. That is true, but participation in debate is an opportunity to highlight, and focus on, errors in a Bill. The Bill is important and its errors are not going to be addressed. When the Bill goes to another place, I hope that it will be debated extensively, as it should be, because their lordships will know that it has not been properly debated in this place.
  One or two provisions in the Bill raise issues of fundamental importance. The Henry VIII clause—clause 15—is a scandal; it enables the Government to disapply legislation and to give powers to local authorities as they think fit. The only statutory mechanism that the Government are obliged to employ is the affirmative resolution procedure. However, as you will know better than most people, Madam Speaker, that procedure is unamendable. The Government are giving themselves powers to disapply legislation or to create new powers and obligations, subject only to the affirmative resolution procedure. I regard that as an absolute scandal. That matter, along with many others, should be the subject of extensive debate. To allow only five hours in which to debate 10 groups of amendments and the timetable motion, and to have such Divisions as the House might think appropriate, is in no sense an appropriate way to treat a democratic assembly.
  4 pm
  Mr. Adrian Sanders: I do not want to take too much time, as I think that we should be spending our time debating the Bill. However, I hope that when the

  403
  Minister replies she dissociates the Liberal Democrats from her remarks about Opposition Members wasting time. Yesterday evening, only one Liberal Democrat Member spoke, and that for only about 10 minutes.
  4.1 pm
  Mr. Richard Shepherd: I congratulate the Minister for Local Government and Housing on the way in which she moved the guillotine motion. The right hon. Lady addressed one of the issues that the House traditionally has to weigh, which is whether there is any question of delay in the conduct of the Report stage. However, she addressed little else: for example, she did not tell us that an unconscionable length of time had originally been spent on the Bill. Library notes used to advise us on guillotines, telling us how many hours had been spent on each stage of a Bill before a guillotine had been judged to be appropriate.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) pointed out the historic reasons as to why it is appropriate that, on Report, the full range of Members of the House can bring to bear their views and judgment on the individual clauses and parts of a Bill. Following on from that, I wish to support the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin). It is intolerable to place before the House a guillotine motion that is constructed in such a way that it incorporates the Standing Order that allows three hours to debate it into the total time allowed for debate on the Bill, including Third Reading.
  Given that the Government have clearly weighed that matter, let us suppose that the debate on the guillotine motion runs for three hours and that, quite appropriately, the House decides to divide on it. If that happens, the Government are telling the House and the country at large that consideration of all the clauses of the Bill and Third Reading is to be completed in only about one hour and 40 minutes. I do not believe that that can be the Government's intention.
  I should like to think that this is an example of the mindless imposition of a poorly drafted guillotine. The two acts are quite separate. First, there is the question of why the Government think it appropriate and necessary to impose a guillotine; I am opposed to the use of guillotines, but the Government nevertheless make out a case. Secondly, there is the appropriate and proper consideration of the issues relating to the Bill.
  The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) was unerringly inaccurate in his assertion that today's guillotine is the first of this Parliament. The Labour Government have taken it into their head that it is wholly appropriate to guillotine even constitutional measures that are taken on the Floor of the House, and we have already had two guillotines on such measures. The Government should reflect on their action, despite the fact that the majority that is assembled will be sufficiently formidable to carry the guillotine motion. The Bill commands considerable support, both on the Government Benches and throughout the country, so there is no point in conducting such a major piece of legislation in this way. However, as on every great issue that faces the House, there is always another side to the argument. Surely it is not inappropriate that the other side should be able to have its say?
  404
  The intervention of the hon. Member for Bolsover encapsulated what has become the defence of a Government who turn to guillotines to an increasing extent—that two wrongs make a right. Criticism was rightly expressed at the time of the conduct of the three Governments between 1979 and 1997 who, to an increasing extent, imposed guillotines as a measure of the management of the House. The Minister, then in Opposition, opposed those measures at the time, but now, when she has the honour to serve the Government and therefore the interests of the people, she is prepared to bring forth this most onerous and hideous guillotine.
  Reflect on it: that is all that I say to the Government. If the House decided to take its time on this issue, the way in which the Government have constructed the guillotine would reduce the entirety of the rest of the debate, including Third Reading, to one hour and 40 minutes. It is therefore not good enough to say that two wrongs make a right.
  Mr. Hogg: Does my hon. Friend agree that, if we were to have a substantial number of Divisions on any of the amendments, we would not have time to debate Third Reading?
  Mr. Shepherd: My right hon. and learned Friend made that point eloquently. It is one which has haunted debates on guillotines. The right hon. Lady and the other occupants of the Government Front Bench are fully aware of that. It is the very onerousness of the guillotine that suggests that there is a determination to restrict proper and appropriate debate.
  I started by praising the right hon. Lady—
  Mr. Eric Forth: Does my hon. Friend think that, in spite of everything that he has said, the Government may well have an opportunity, or may be forced, to take a different view from the one that they are now taking when the Bill returns from another place? If their lordships decide that it is their duty to examine carefully the parts of the Bill that we shall not be able to consider as a result of the guillotine, the result may be a large number of amendments coming back to us. I would hope that we shall then have an opportunity properly to consider those amendments, however an inadequate substitute that might be.
  Mr. Shepherd: Indeed, one of the duties of any second Chamber is to try to take up those areas of great pieces of legislation that have not been properly scrutinised, or which that Chamber judges the House of Commons has not had the opportunity to examine. Every guillotine is an argument to the House of Lords that the work has not been done properly in this place.
  That is the crux of new Labour and the signal to the world, which is almost a cant. New Labour believes in a people's Government. It says that it believes in people, people, people. Yet when it comes to the traditional processes of advising, arguing and informing the House, the Government seek a guillotine.
  That charge was made against other Governments whom I served. I thought that the guillotine was wrong then, as I tried to tell the right hon. Lady. The business managers should consider the way in which the guillotine has been constructed. Her argument may be fair, and the

  405
  House will judge that and, in turn, whether there was unnecessary, imprudent and improper delay yesterday. Nevertheless, the business managers could have constructed a guillotine that allowed reasonable discussion of the parts of the Bill that the Government acknowledge are of importance to the country and to the structure of the Bill. This guillotine is bad and it should be rejected.
  4.8 pm
  Mr. Paul Burstow: Last night, the usual channels effectively failed to provide us with an orderly conduct of business that would have enabled us to debate all the groups of amendments that were before us. I regret that and the fact that we are having to have a debate today on a blunt instrument, the guillotine. I think that it will deny us the opportunity properly to scrutinise the Bill during the five hours that are available to us.
  Right hon. and hon. Members have referred to the more serious clauses in the Bill that will arise later in our consideration of it. They are right to be concerned. Given the guillotine and the absence of any structure in terms of the time that we might take on each group of amendments, we might find that some of the more serious powers—not least the Henry VIII clause, which will give sweeping powers to Ministers—will go undebated on the Floor of the House. We might not have a chance to debate—let alone divide the House on—various aspects of that clause.
  Five hours is not enough to do justice to an important Bill to which the Minister rightly attaches great store. Those outside, while rightly welcoming the Bill because it will remove compulsory competitive tendering from the statute book, have anxieties that we should be addressing. They extend to the introduction of the council tax benefit subsidy clawback and to the basis upon which the Government intend to take to themselves powers to cap local authorities. Those are serious matters and the amendments that relate to them should be debated and tested. We will not have the opportunity to do that.
  I urge the Government to think again and to take the opportunity during today's business to try to reopen channels so that we can have a serious debate, even if it is, sadly, to be time limited. A guillotine as blunt as this one will do our democracy no good and will do no favours to those who will have to live with the effect of these local government proposals.
  Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 332, Noes 162.

  Division No. 129]

  [4.10 pm

  AYES

  Ainger, Nick

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Ainsworth, Robert ((Dov'try NE)

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Allen, Graham

  Benton, Joe

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Best, Harold

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Betts, Clive

  Austin, John

  Blackman, Liz

  Barnes, Harry

  Blizzard, Bob

  Barron, Kevin

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Battle, John

  Boateng, Paul

  Bayley, Hugh

  Borrow, David

  Beard, Nigel

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  406

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Fyfe, Maria

  Browne, Desmond

  Galloway, George

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Gapes, Mike

  Burden, Richard

  Gardiner, Barry

  Burgon, Colin

  Gerrard, Neil

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Caborn, Richard

  Goggins, Paul

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Caplin, Ivor

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Casale, Roger

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Chaytor, David

  Grogan, John

  Church, Ms Judith

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Clapham, Michael

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Healey, John

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Heppell, John

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Hesford, Stephen

  Clelland, David

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Clwyd, Ann

  Hill, Keith

  Coaker, Vernon

  Hinchliffe, David

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Coleman, Iain

  Hoey, Kate

  Colman, Tony

  Hood, Jimmy

  Connarty, Michael

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hope, Phil

  Cooper, Yvette

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Corbett, Robin

  Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Cousins, Jim

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Cranston, Ross

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Crausby, David

  Hurst, Alan

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Hutton, John

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Cummings, John

  Illsley, Eric

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Jenkins, Brian

  Darvill, Keith

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W& Hessle)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Davidson, Ian

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Denham, John

  Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Dismore, Andrew

  Dobbin, Jim

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Doran, Frank

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Dowd, Jim

  Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

  Drew, David

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Edwards, Huw

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Efford, Clive

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Kemp, Fraser

  Ennis, Jeff

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Khabra, Piara S

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Kidney, David

  Fisher, Mark

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Flint, Caroline

  Kingham, Ms Tess

  Follett, Barbara

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Lawrence, Ms Jackie

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Lepper, David

  407

  Leslie, Christopher

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Levitt, Tom

  Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Linton, Martin

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Livingstone, Ken

  Rogers, Allan

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Rooker, Jeff

  Lock, David

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Love, Andrew

  Rowlands, Ted

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Roy, Frank

  McCabe, Steve

  Ruane, Chris

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Ruddock, Joan

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  McDonnell, John

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  McGrady, Eddie

  Savidge, Malcolm

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McIsaac, Shona

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  McNulty, Tony

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  MacShane, Denis

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Singh, Marsha

  McWalter, Tony

  Skinner, Dennis

  McWilliam, John

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Martlew, Eric

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Maxton, John

  Snape, Peter

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Soley, Clive

  Meale, Alan

  Spellar, John

  Merron, Gillian

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Michie, Bill (Shefld Heeley)

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Miller, Andrew

  Stevenson, George

  Mitchell, Austin

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Morley, Elliot

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Stringer, Graham

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Mountford, Kali

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Mudie, George

  Swinney, John

  Mullin, Chris

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Olner, Bill

  Tipping, Paddy

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Todd, Mark

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Touhig, Don

  Pearson, Ian

  Trickett, Jon

  Pendry, Tom

  Truswell, Paul

  Pike, Peter L

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Plaskitt, James

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Pond, Chris

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Pope, Greg

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Pound, Stephen

  Vaz, Keith

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Watts, David

  Primarolo, Dawn

  White, Brian

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Purchase, Ken

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Radice, Giles

  Wills, Michael

  Rammell, Bill

  Winnick, David

  Rapson, Syd

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Wise, Audrey

  408

  Woolas, Phil

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Mr. David Hanson and

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Mr. David Jamieson.

  Wyatt, Derek

  NOES

  Allan, Richard

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Hawkins, Nick

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Hayes, John

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Heald, Oliver

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Baker, Norman

  Horam, John

  Baldry, Tony

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Ballard, Jackie

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Beggs, Roy

  Hunter, Andrew

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Body, Sir Richard

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Boswell, Tim

  Key, Robert

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Brady, Graham

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Brake, Tom

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Brazier, Julian

  Lansley, Andrew

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Leigh, Edward

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Letwin, Oliver

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Lidington, David

  Burnett, John

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Burns, Simon

  Livsey, Richard

  Burstow, Paul

  Loughton, Tim

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Luff, Peter

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Cash, William

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Malins, Humfrey

  Chope, Christopher

  Maples, John

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Mates, Michael

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Collins, Tim

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Corrnack, Sir Patrick

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Cotter, Brian

  Moore, Michael

  Cran, James

  Moss, Malcolm

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Norman, Archie

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Oaten, Mark

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice & Howden)

  Öpik, Lembit

  Page, Richard

  Day, Stephen

  Paterson, Owen

  Donaldson, Jeffrey

  Pickles, Eric

  Duncan, Alan

  Prior, David

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Randall, John

  Evans, Nigel

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Faber, David

  Rendel, David

  Fabricant, Michael

  Robathan, Andrew

  Fallon, Michael

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Flight, Howard

  Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

  Forsythe, Clifford

  Ruffley, David

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Sanders, Adrian

  Fraser, Christopher

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Garnier, Edward

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Shepherd, Richard

  Gibb, Nick

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Gill, Christopher

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

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Soames, Nicholas

  Gray, James

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Green, Damian

  Spring, Richard

  Greenway, John

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Grieve, Dominic

  Steen, Anthony

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Streeter, Gary

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Stunell, Andrew

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Swayne, Desmond

  Hammond, Philip

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  409

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Webb, Steve

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Wells, Bowen

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Whittingdale, John

  Thompson, William

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Wilkinson, John

  Townend, John

  Willetts, David

  Tredinnick, David

  Wilshire, David

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Trend, Michael

  Woodward Shaun

  Tyler, Paul

  Yeo Tim

  Viggers, Peter

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Wallace, James

  Walter, Robert

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Wardle, Charles

  Sir David Madel and

  Waterson, Nigel

  Mrs. Caroline Spelman.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the following provisions shall apply to remaining proceedings on the Local Government Bill:

  Timetable
  1. Proceedings on Consideration and on Third Reading shall be completed at the sitting this day and shall be brought to a conclusion, if not previously concluded, five hours after the commencement of proceedings on this Motion.

  Questions to be put
  2. For the purpose of bringing proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1 the Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

  (a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;

  (b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;

  (c) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown;

  410

  (d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded.

  3. On a Motion made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

  Miscellaneous
  4. Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on the Bill at the sitting this day; and the proceedings shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
  5. The proceedings on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after commencement; and Standing Order No. 15(1) shall apply to those proceedings.
  6. Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply in relation to proceedings on the Bill.
  7. No Motion shall be made, except by a Minister of the Crown, to alter the order in which proceedings on the Bill are taken or to recommit the Bill; and if a Minister makes a Motion to alter the order of proceedings or to recommit the Bill, the Question shall be put forthwith.
  8. No dilatory Motion shall be made in relation to the Bill except by a Minister of the Crown.
  9. If at the sitting this day a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 24 stands over to Seven o'clock and proceedings on this Motion have begun before that time, the Motion for the Adjournment shall stand over until the conclusion of proceedings on the Bill.
  10. If the House is adjourned at the sitting this day, or the sitting is suspended, before the conclusion of proceedings on the Bill, no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

Local Government Bill
As amended in the Standing Committee, further considered.
Local Government Bill
  New Clause 6

    >ENDORSEMENT OF COUNCIL TAX BY REFERENDUM
    `.—(1) Schedule 1 shall not apply when the council tax proposals of a relevant local authority have been endorsed in a referendum of electors registered within the local authority area.
    (2) A proposal shall be deemed to have been endorsed if it is supported by a simple majority of voters where at least 50 per cent. of the electorate have voted.'—[Sir Paul Beresford.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    4.23 pm
    Sir Paul Beresford: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
    Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 98, in clause 28, page 15, line 37, after 'regulation', insert 'and limitation (capping)'.
    No. 1, in page 15, line 38, at end add
    'but shall cease to apply on 1st April 2005.'.
    No. 101, in clause 29, page 16, line 14, leave out `authorities or'.
    No. 102, in page 16, line 15, after 'authority', insert
    `and the Greater London Authority'.
    No. 103, in page 16, line 17, at end add
    `provided that any criterion referring to an authority's budget requirement for the financial year beginning on 1st April 1998 shall be deemed to refer to the greater of the budget requirement and the amount of the authority's Standard Spending Assessment for that financial year.'.
    No. 105, in page 16, line 37, leave out 'authorities or'.
    No. 106, in page 16, line 37, after 'authority', insert
    `and the Greater London Authority.'.
    No. 84, in page 16, line 39, leave out subsection (7).
    No. 85, in page 17, line 8, leave out subsection (11).
    No. 42, in schedule 1, page 19, line 26, at end insert—
    `() must include the principle that if the budget requirement is set below the total Standard Spending Assessment for an authority, it shall not be regarded as excessive.'.
    No. 43, in page 19, line 26, at end insert—
    `() must include the principle that if the budget requirement is set within twelve and one half per cent. in excess of an authority's total Standard Spending Assessment, it shall not be regarded as excessive.'.
    No. 108, in page 19, line 33, at end insert—
    '(c) it is between the Council Tax Band D for the authority and for the other authorities in its category of authority'.
    No. 113, in page 19, line 34, leave out subsection 5.
    No. 109, in page 19, line 34, leave out 'If'.
    No. 111, in page 19, line 34, after 'State', insert 'will determine'.
    No. 110, in page 19, line 34, leave out 'determines'.
    No. 114, in page 19, line 43, leave out
    `If he does not determine such categories,'.
    No. 115, in page 20, line 2, after 'relevant', insert 'and is reasonable'.'
    412
    No. 117, in title, title, line 3, after 'regulation', insert `and limitation (capping)'.
    Sir Paul Beresford: Unusually perhaps, I shall start by speaking to the amendments, because they set the scene for the new clause. They all relate to two different forms of capping in the Bill—the crude and universal council tax benefit subsidy capping and the subjective, or selective, capping that was so proudly introduced by the Secretary of State earlier this year.
    On Second Reading, I pointed out that the Bill, as far as it has been decorated for Labour Back Benchers, has a sugar coating of best value and removal of compulsory competitive tendering, but its core is an extremely bitter and unpleasant pill. The capping rules and regulations in the Bill are more unpleasant, more manipulative and more vicious than anything ever proposed by a Conservative Secretary of State, but, as Liberal Democrat Members have pointed out, they may be in the hands of a Conservative Secretary of State post-election.
    I am tempted to suspect that the restriction of discussion on the Bill by the guillotine motion may be seen as a plus point for the Labour Whips because I am convinced that not only people in local government but many Labour Back Benchers are opposed to this double form of capping—or they would be, given half a chance. They recognise the measure as a manifesto about-turn—their manifesto, their about-turn.
    No amount of scurrying and huffing and puffing by the Minister for Local Government and Housing in Committee covered the fact that the council tax benefit subsidy limitation is a crude, universal form of capping. Worse than that is the capping of a number of local authorities at a point below the standard spending assessment level. The secondary capping is selective capping; the powers have been renamed reserve powers.
    The Department's own explanatory note makes clear just how extensive those powers are in comparison with the current arrangements. There are four such powers. First, the Secretary of State
    "may designate the authority in-year"—
    meaning the current financial year. Secondly—this is an additional power—the Secretary of State
    "may designate the authority for the following year".
    Thirdly—this is another additional power—he
    "may set a notional budget requirement to be used for the purposes of comparisons instead of the actual budget requirement to decide if budget requirements are excessive".
    Fourthly—another additional power—he
    "may designate the authority over a number of years, starting in-year or the following year."
    Those powers are more excessive than any that have ever been considered, which is why amendments Nos. 98 and 115 were tabled. The amendments make it clear that the Bill provides for a very heavy-handed form of double capping. No doubt, for spin-doctoring reasons, amendments Nos. 98 and 117 will be rejected, but I can see no reason for rejecting them other than the fear of losing face.
    Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Is there anything in the Bill to prevent a recurrence of what happened in Derbyshire this year? The county was capped

    413
    for £1 million on a budget of £470 million, and it cost £320,000 to change that. It was the tightest cap ever imposed on a local authority.
    Sir Paul Beresford: I thank my hon. Friend for reminding us of that ludicrous situation, which raised a smile, although it was expensive for the people to whom it applied. Under the Bill, however, they could experience three further versions.
    Amendment No. 103 refers to council tax benefit subsidy capping, but to only one aspect of it—perhaps the most insidious aspect. A number of local authorities will be capped at a level set below SSA. They are the authorities that set their budgets for 1998–99 below SSA. I realise that the SSA for 1999–2000 has come to mean what Ministers wish it to mean. The local government finance report states that
    "the calculation makes use of information reflecting demographic, physical and social characteristics of each area."
    That means whatever Ministers wish it to mean at the time. However, for the year 1998–99 the same report defined the SSA as
    "representing an appropriate level of budget requirements to provide a standard level".
    That means that, having set an SSA that indicates the level of services that they expect and by setting a capping level for council tax benefit subsidy below the SSA, the Government are forcing local authorities to provide substandard services.
    For many years the SSA has been accepted as a floor below which various Secretaries of State have sought not to push local government. Now this Labour Government have done precisely that in the case of a number of authorities, including some quite poor ones, such as Brent, Newham and Ealing.
    As I made clear in Committee, I oppose the regulations, but I am particularly opposed to the Government's outrageous attempt to hit local authorities by fixing their benefit subsidy level below SSA. Not only will the subsidy limitation mean that the nearly poor are paying for the poor; in the case of some local authorities, the setting of the level below SSA may well impinge to a small degree on the financing of the services that people require and expect. The amendment is designed to bring back the floor below which the Government cannot go—the floor that has always been there, and ought to be there.
    4.30 pm
    I now refer to amendments Nos. 102, 101, 105, 106, 109, 110, 111 and 114. As I have said, perhaps the most dubious aspect of the capping under schedule 1 is that it allows the Secretary of State to be extensively selective. By that, I mean that the Secretary of State may, if he or she wishes, choose every local authority for capping, or just one.
    Careful perusal of the schedule will reveal that the justification for the selection could be genuine, arbitrary or even political. It is also possible for the Secretary of State to pick addictively on a particular authority, or a number of particular authorities, over one or a number of years.
    The intention of the amendments, which may be technically flawed, is to impress on the Secretary of State and the House the subjectivity of the schedule. I suspect
    414
    that the Minister will tear the amendments apart on technical grounds, but, if the House is aware of the subjectivity, it is possible for changes or amendments at a later stage—in another place, presumably—to return some reasonableness to these exceptionally heavy-handed and subjective capping rules.
    Amendment No. 108 would require the Secretary of State, when considering whether to impose capping on a local authority, to compare that authority with other authorities in the same category. The intention is to bring some sense to a potentially unfair approach to specific local authorities.
    The response of the Minister of State to the Liberal Democrat-inspired debate on council tax increases on Monday added to my concern. The right hon. Lady was on full bellowing form—her voice was raised and she thumped the Table to emphasise her points.
    I specifically refer to column 45 of the Official Report of 22 March. The Minister of State selectively attacked three Conservative councils in London. She explained that the top three increases, in percentage terms, in council tax in London were in Conservative Kensington and Chelsea, Conservative Westminster and Conservative Wandsworth. In percentage terms, she was right. She went on to contrast them with other councils, specifically naming Labour Islington, Greenwich, Hackney and Lambeth, and to say that they were cutting council tax.
    If that deceitful approach to the reality of council tax bills as they land on the doormats of London residents is an indication of the way in which the Minister of State proposes to select councils for capping, we will definitely need some realistic changes in the Bill.
    It is worth putting the matter into perspective. In mentioning the council tax increases of those three Conservative authorities in percentage terms, the Minister of State paid no regard to the reality of the bills as they were handed out. In pure money terms, at band D, the increases in those three authorities' council tax were average or below average in London, but if one lists the actual council taxes at band D, the four lowest in London are in those three Conservative authorities, plus the City of London.
    What is more, in terms of the average council tax paid by residents, Wandsworth council continues the trend of the past 20 years—for two decades, it has had the lowest average council tax not only in London in the country—and that despite the manipulation of the SSA, which has meant that the council has had its centrally distributed funds for the financial year cut by £3 million.
    I am bearing in mind the best value aspects of the Bill when I say that Wandsworth council has a reputation for quality services, as shown by the fact that, between 1996 and 1998, it collected the greatest number of charter marks. The council always does well in the Audit Commission performance indicator charts, which will be used for best value.
    Perhaps the final accolade is the fact that Wandsworth is a Conservative council in an inner-city area and has a strong majority. It has been backed year after year by popular vote—a popular vote that is given to it because of the combination of its ability to produce quality services, best value services and value for money.
    In Monday's debate, the Minister added to her iniquitous attacks by singling out for praise Islington, Greenwich and Hackney. Curiously, she praised them

    415
    because they had reduced council tax. The reality is that, using her—percentage—terms, they reduced council tax by less than 1 per cent. The situation is even more appalling when one realises that band D council tax for Conservative Westminster and Wandsworth is £230 and £250 respectively, whereas it is £670 for Hackney, £763 for Greenwich and a staggering £792 for Islington. All that those councils could manage was a tax reduction of less than 1 per cent. on taxes that are three times higher than those of the councils that the right hon. Lady chose to criticise.
    The point of amendment No. 108 is quite clear. If a Labour Secretary of State decides to pick on Westminster or Wandsworth—as the Minister did on Monday—or on any other local authority, he or she will be required to compare the bills on the doorsteps of residents of that authority with those of other similar authorities. Specifically, Westminster and Wandsworth compare well with other authorities on quality of services, and on the fact that they managed to produce those services at low cost to their residents.
    Amendment No. 115 would add the words "and is reasonable" to subsection 52B(7)—which, currently and quite astoundingly, states:
    "In determining categories of authorities for the year under consideration the Secretary of State shall take into account any information he thinks is relevant."
    The subsection must be brought back within reason; hence, the amendment to add the words "and is reasonable".
    Hon. Members will see that that catch-all subsection would enable the Secretary of State to be selective, if he or she wishes, in an extreme and unreasonable manner. It would be quite possible, for example—to develop the point that I was making on the previous amendment—for the Secretary of State to select any authority whose name began with "D" and ended in "ty", or began with "W" and ended in "th".
    Amendments Nos. 108 and 103 were tabled specifically to be helpful amendments, and are intended to bring a little fairness and a tiny bit of reasonableness to a Bill which currently would enable the Secretary of State unreasonably to savage individual local authorities as he or she saw fit.
    In Committee, the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. White) described an interesting situation in which his local authority decided to set council tax by reference to a referendum of local people. I realise that such an approach could be heavily flawed, according to the nature of the question and the composition of the electorate—whether it comprises those who pay and receive, only those who pay, or only those who receive.
    Such referendums, however, offer an interesting prospect. If the Secretary of State came blundering in, treading on the sensibilities of local people—who might want and could then vote for specific services, at a specific price, performed in a specific manner, and, therefore, at a specific cost—the Secretary of State would have to leave that local authority alone. In essence, assuming that it was a fair and above-board referendum in which the cases for and against were quite clearly put and more than 50 per cent. of the potential electorate voted, the electorate's wishes would have to be heeded,
    416
    over and above the Secretary of State's desire to step in and apply capping. I am sure that most hon. Members would think that such a suggestion is not unreasonable, subject to the establishment of various standards.
    Mr. James Gray: Has my hon. Friend noticed that, such is the Labour party's commitment to local government and interest in the Bill, that there is not one Labour Back Bencher in the Chamber?
    Sir Paul Beresford: Yes, I had noticed that. I hope that they are watching the debate on television. Much of what we are saying today hurts them. It relates to the very substance of the belief of most Labour Back Benchers. I hope that they are watching so that they can ponder on that when they come to vote.
    In summary, this group of proposals, including new clause 6, seeks, in a generally helpful way, to bring some reasonableness and reality to the vicious and bitter core of the Bill.
    Mr. Adrian Sanders: I shall speak to amendments Nos. 1, 84 and 85. I shall also deal briefly with amendments Nos. 84 and 85.
    Amendment No. 84 removes the subsection on commencement. It appears to have the same effect as our amendment No. 39, tabled in Committee, in that it delays for a year the implementation of council tax benefit subsidy limitation. Amendment No. 85 seeks to remove the Government's amendment, also tabled in Committee, introducing modifications for the financial year 1999–2000. Both amendments concern the iniquitous council tax benefit clawback proposals.
    The council tax benefit subsidy limitation scheme is designed to limit the amount of council tax benefit subsidy paid to local authorities if they levy a council tax increase that the Government regard as excessive, irrespective of whether the increase was due to the local authority or to adverse changes in Government grant. The penalty works on a sliding scale: a council that increases its bill by 5 per cent. will have to find one eighth of the additional benefit bill, while one that increases its bill by 8 per cent. will have to find the entire additional amount. As a result, bills will have to rise still further, bringing more people into the benefit system. Councils with a very low proportion of people on council tax benefit will experience minimal effects, but for those with a large number of people on council tax benefit the impact will be extensive, forcing them to impose high council tax increases or to cut services or both. It will result in the poorest areas being hit the hardest and in council tax payers meeting the cost of national welfare benefits.
    The scheme may result in an authority paying at or even below the standard spending assessment—which is what the Government consider it needs to spend to provide a standard level of service—and still losing council tax benefit subsidy. Although parish and town councils are not included in the scheme, the effects of their decisions may lead to districts losing council tax benefit subsidy. Another effect is that council tax collection and the collection of poll tax arrears in one year may affect an authority's council tax benefit subsidy limitation threshold in a subsequent year.
    Mr. Paul Burstow: My hon. Friend referred to the fact that the precepts that parishes

    417
    might set can affect district councils. Does he know whether the Government have made further progress in tracking down the parish councils, as I understand that in Committee they were unable to supply a list?
    Mr. Sanders: I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to the important question posed by my hon. Friend.
    The view of the Labour-dominated Local Government Association is that even if, despite the effects that I have mentioned, the Government still go ahead with the scheme, it should be postponed for a year. That is the purpose of amendments Nos. 84 and 85.
    Mr. Gray: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the chairman of the Local Government Association, the former Labour leader of Newcastle city council, Sir Jeremy Beecham, commented that the council tax benefit subsidy regime would
    "mean the nearly poor paying for the really poor"?
    Mr. Sanders: As I have already explained, that is precisely what will happen.
    Amendment No. 1 is identical to amendment No. 195, tabled in Committee, although it affects a different line in the Bill. The previous amendment was tabled by the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead), who is in his place. The arguments advanced were that local government had suffered under 18 years of Conservative Government; that the new Government were attempting to rebuild a relationship of trust between local government and central Government; and that although the Government still needed certain reserve powers, they would not need them indefinitely.
    4.45 pm
    The Liberal Democrats believe that local government suffered under the previous Government. Even some of those from the previous Government admit that. We happily concede that the new Government genuinely believe that they are attempting to rebuild a relationship of trust with local government, but they need to give a date for the phasing-out of capping if they want to establish such a reputation.
    Capping should have ended the day after the general election. That is what local councillors expected. Labour councillors thought that it was going to happen, but it has not. We believe that capping should end as soon as possible. Amendment No. 1 would end capping by 2005. Many would say that that is too late. I hope that those who choose to vote against the amendment will do so because they believe that capping should be phased out earlier. Sadly for Labour Members, I do not think that the Government Whips will allow them to put that spin on their vote.
    We know what the Minister is likely to say. The Government view has been that capping is needed to defend the national interest. Ministers have argued that they have a responsibility to retain reserve powers to protect local council tax payers. That is a strange argument, because it contradicts what Labour Members said in the House and outside before the election. Labour won many friends in local government for defending local democracy against the Conservative Government's capping rules.
    418
    That leads to the second argument for the claimed central Government responsibility to protect local council tax payers. We elect local councillors to run local councils, but, like the previous Government, this Government do not trust the voters to make the right choices—and nor do they trust their councillors to protect council tax payers. Of course, they are right not to trust the electoral system to facilitate a truly democratic result, but the lack of a proportional electoral system is not a good enough argument for retaining the reserve power to cap.
    The amendments go to the heart of the relationship between central and local government. Is it to be based on trust in local people and local democracy, or on suspicion and fear of the cap? If the Government are sure that their best value policies for local government will be so successful that capping will fall by the wayside naturally, why not set a date for phasing it out? Even the Conservatives have seen the light on capping. Their leader sees the restoration of the power and independence of local government as an important part of the platform for renewing his party's popularity. I hope that Conservative Members will support our amendments.
    Amendment No. 1 would set a deadline of 2005 for the end of capping. It is a sunset clause first proposed by a Labour Member. By accepting the amendment, the Government could demonstrate that they are genuine when they claim to be rebuilding trust between central and local government. It would show that they were confident that best value and other proposals were likely to work as they have claimed. To do otherwise would be to admit that the previous Government were right, even though the Conservatives have changed their views on capping since the election. The politics may be topsy-turvy, but the principle of local people using the ballot box to determine local needs is important, and I urge hon. Members to support it.
    Mr. Nigel Waterson: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders). I was grateful for his interest in the renewal of my party during this brief period of opposition. He was right to draw attention to capping. He referred to the recent comments of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition to the effect that our policy is to move away from capping. The hon. Gentleman said that the situation was topsy-turvy. It is ironic that while my party is moving away from capping, the Labour party in government is moving to embrace it.
    I pay tribute to the excellent and authoritative manner in which my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir P. Beresford) dealt with the amendments, and particularly new clause 6. He was right to talk about a heavy-handed and subjective set of capping rules. From his vast experience, he was able to demonstrate the perverse results of the proposals in relation to individual authorities. He put up a spirited and effective defence of those Conservative-controlled councils which, year after year, have delivered good services at reasonable prices, and are continuing to do so—despite suffering under the new regime.
    New clause 6 is a novel and exciting concept; I suppose we must call it the Milton Keynes clause. I am not saying that I necessarily endorse the Milton Keynes experiment, but it has attractive features that should make all of us take stock of how we approach council tax,

    419
    local government spending and finance and—above all—capping. From that point of view, it has some attractive features.
    We cannot allow local councillors or any elected people to abdicate responsibility entirely. Why elect local councillors at all if they are not there to make the big decisions? Surely local people should have a voice; whether through their elected representatives every year—as tends to be the case in local authorities such as mine—or slightly less often, or possibly through the limited use of local referendums, as happens in Milton Keynes.
    Mr. Gray: Does my hon. Friend agree that the point about the Milton Keynes experiment was that it was a matter not of the council and the people, but of the Secretary of State and the people? The people of Milton Keynes decided to allow their council tax to rise by more than the Secretary of State would have allowed it to rise under the capping regulations—thereby fundamentally undermining the capping regulations.
    Mr. Waterson: My hon. Friend is correct. The hon. Member for Torbay said that if the measure is not to have a sunset provision, it is equally valid to argue for another way of ameliorating the effect—in this case, by letting local people have a voice. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) will have the chance to develop that point in the debate.
    There are wider issues—not least the promises made not just to local government, but to the British people before the election. In its 1997 manifesto, Labour promised the abolition of "crude and universal capping". It is fair to say that that was met with almost universal approbation throughout local government. When the Government announced their provisional caps for 1998–99 in December 1997—and subsequently capped Derbyshire county council—they confirmed that 1998–99 would be the last year of universal capping.
    It is a feature of the Government that not everything in the manifesto comes to pass, and that not everything that comes to pass was in the manifesto. In Committee, the Minister conceded that the proposals were not in the manifesto.
    The Minister for Local Government and Housing (Ms Hilary Armstrong): Not true.
    Mr. Waterson: If the Minister wants to correct what I have said, I will happily give way.
    Ms Armstrong: It was clear in the manifesto that in abolishing crude and universal capping, a Labour Government, if elected, would retain reserve powers. We have done that. Council tax benefit subsidy limitation is not capping.
    Mr. Waterson: I do not necessarily disagree, save to say that to describe the powers as reserve capping powers is to stretch the word "reserve" significantly.
    In Committee, the hon. Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) put it to the Minister that the proposal to have council tax benefit subsidy limitation was not in the Labour manifesto. When my hon. Friend the Member for
    420
    North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) pressed the point, the Minister rightly—it is a subtly different point, and it is important to get it right—said:
    "No, it was not. However,"
    she continued, ever the mistress of understatement,
    "the Government are doing several things that go beyond manifesto commitments."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 23 February 1999; c. 465.]
    I think, however, that she has claimed public support for the measure in the run-up to the general election, which cannot be right.
    Sir Paul Beresford: The Minister is right about the reserve powers, which relate specifically to the provisions on subjective capping, but my hon. Friend is right when he talks about crude and universal capping, which applies to the council tax benefit subsidy limitation—or capping, by any other name.
    Mr. Waterson: I am sure that the Minister and I will both be relieved to be right, but on different subjects.
    It is worth repeating the powerful comment of the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien). It expresses in words that I could not find the extent of the sense of betrayal felt not only in local government but in Labour-controlled local government. He said:
    "If a council in the poorer group of local authorities tried to increase its council tax over its budget requirements to sustain services, the application of the council tax benefit subsidy limitation scheme would be devastating because of the clawback of the rate support grant."—[Official Report, 4 February 1999; Vol. 324, c. 1152.]
    That is absolutely right. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley said, the nearly poor would be subsidising the poor in some areas.
    Before, we had crude and universal capping, which was bad—there is an element of "Animal Farm" about this—and now we have what some of the boffins call refined capping, which is good. It is really a question of what one calls it. Capping is the policy that dare not speak its name. The word "capping" does not even appear in the title or in other parts of the Bill, as has been pointed out in an amendment.
    I did not have the pleasure and privilege of serving in Committee on the Bill, but I appeared for the official Opposition in the Second Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation when we considered the crucial statutory instrument that underpins the Bill. Any casual observer reading the title of the instrument would not immediately recognise it as an attempt to bring back a form of capping. It is the Local Authorities (Alteration of Requisite Calculations) (England) Regulations 1999. The title does not give much away.
    That measure, along with the part of the Bill that relates to it, does not have a friend in the world. I put it to the Minister in Committee that not one authority or organisation connected with local government had a good word to say about the proposals. At the last count—the Minister is welcome to correct me if the figure has gone up—129 councils and groups of councils had expressed their opposition to it.
    The point was well made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley and other right hon. and hon. Friends in Committee that the proposals act in a perverse fashion. Why? Because the highly geared local authorities

    421
    are those most affected. For example, Mole Valley would be affected 10 times less by the regulations than Liverpool, Hackney or Newham. Indeed, it is a pity that Labour Members who represent the areas that will be seriously affected cannot even be bothered to come to the Chamber to listen to the debate. I have given up hope of their seeking to participate, but they could make the effort, on behalf of those who send them here, to listen to the problems that they are likely to have to face.
    5 pm
    Mr. Bernard Jenkin: They have been sent away.
    Mr. Waterson: My hon. Friend may be right. It was pointed out in the Committee considering the regulations that 19 of the 22 poorest councils would be hit the hardest and the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) said that the main burden will fall on people in property bands A and B.
    I will not detain the House today with a detailed discussion of the formulae and the calculations—
    Mr. Burstow: Shame.
    Mr. Waterson: I am open to persuasion. Suffice it to say that the Local Government Association got it right when it said:
    "The scheme will impact unfairly on different parts of the country … the worst hit being those with the highest proportion of low value property and the highest percentage of benefit recipients … It will be felt hardly at all in prosperous areas of the South East. It will have much more of an impact in inner London and on Merseyside."
    In that sense, I am not speaking on behalf of my constituents in Eastbourne or for my hon. Friends' constituents in other parts of the south-east: we are speaking for the constituents of hon. Members who represent the worst affected areas. It is worth listing them because they include Liverpool, Hackney, Tower Hamlets, Manchester, Newham, Islington, Lambeth, Waltham Forest, Knowsley and Southwark.
    Mr. Oliver Heald: All Labour.
    Mr. Waterson: As my hon. Friend says, those authorities have one thing in common: they are controlled by the Labour party or return Labour Members of Parliament. Where are their representatives during this debate?
    Ms Armstrong: What about being non-partisan?
    Mr. Waterson: If the Minister wishes to intervene, she knows that I am generous about giving way, but she must not keep up a running commentary during my speech.
    As I said in the Committee considering the regulations, the disparities will get worse in future. The LGA put it graphically:
    "the scheme could become the thin end of a very unpleasant wedge."
    422
    A well-behaved authority that tries to do well under the regulations will not get any benefit. From the Government's point of view, it is a win-win situation. An authority cannot prise more money out of the Government by doing better than expected under the regulations.
    Mr. Sanders: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this is another example of a stealth tax that will shift the burden of taxation on to council tax payers?
    Mr. Waterson: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has caught up with the fact that this Government like to do things by stealth. Perhaps one of his more elevated colleagues would care to raise that in one of the Cabinet Committees in which they are involved.
    An article in the Local Government Chronicle stated:
    "One of the starkest examples of how the scheme has a different impact across the country, despite built-in safeguards, is that of Liverpool City Council and Wokingham DC."
    It goes on:
    "Based on each council exceeding the guideline amount for subsidy limitation by 1 per cent. of their Standard Spending Assessments, Liverpool would lose £926,000 and Wokingham would lose just £29,000."
    That is incredible.
    Mr. Burstow: The hon. Gentleman is right to raise council tax benefit subsidy limitation. However, does he accept that the regulations that the Government used to introduce it were based on powers established in the Local Government Finance Act 1992, which was enacted by a Conservative Administration? They also built on the principle of council housing benefit clawback established by the previous Government.
    Mr. Waterson: The hon. Gentleman demonstrates the enormous benefit of never having been in power and of having no hope of it. It is always someone else's fault. It would perhaps be kinder to say that the hon. Gentleman implies the benefit of sunset provisions in regulations. If there had been such a provision in 1992, we would not be here today. Of course, we would not be here today, either, if the Government had not pulled stumps last night.
    The Bill has the effect of reintroducing capping, although we may not breathe that word. The handful of Labour Members who are here, and any watching on television, must realise that it introduces capping in all but name. I hope that those whose constituencies are most seriously affected will say something, if not to the House, at least to their constituents, to justify their support for the Bill. I hope that some of them will—despite the pressure of the Whips—think twice about supporting the Bill.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley gave a good summary of the intent and purport of several amendments. Amendments Nos. 98 and 117 would insert the true name of the Bill and its real effects by referring to limitation and capping. The statutory instrument intimately associated with the Bill could not, as I have said, have had a more misleading title. One has to search for clues as to what the regulations mean.
    Amendment No. 1 was tabled by the Liberal Democrats. Bizarrely, though this is not untypical of that party, it suggests that it is all right to have the regulations

    423
    for a period—say, five years—but equally all right not to have them afterwards. I cannot see the logic of that. Either the system is fair and useful, or it is not.
    Mr. Sanders: Amendment No. 1 is identical to one tabled by the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) in Committee.
    Mr. Waterson: I have not said that we would not vote with the Liberal Democrats on that amendment. Anything, however strange, that waters down the effects or the time scale of the regulations must be worth supporting.
    Amendments Nos. 101 to 103 would remove the power to distinguish between individual authorities rather than categories of authority. My hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley was right to say that it is invidious to pick on individual authorities. Perhaps that will happen if their names begin with W and they are successfully run by Conservatives in London. Amendment No. 105 is the same.
    Adding the Greater London authority to the provisions was debated, if not in the Standing Committee on the Bill, then in another Standing Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley dealt extremely well with a bizarre result of the regulations, which is that authorities that set budgets below SSA can be caught in the net. We have said before that that is something that Ministers should look at again.
    We feel sufficiently strongly about amendment No. 84 wish to press it to a Division at a convenient moment. Amendments Nos. 84 and 85 would take out of clause 29 subsections (7) and (11). That would remove the commencement provision affecting the financial year 1999–2000. In other words, it postpones the provisions, which is entirely right. I agree with what the Liberal Democrat spokesman had to say on that. Apart from anything else, the Local Government Association has been strong and persuasive from the start on the point that these measures are not only wrong and ill thought out but are being introduced far too quickly. It believes that time should be set aside to consult further and consider whether there are other, more sensible ways of achieving the same results in a fairer and more effective way.
    Amendments Nos. 42 and 43 seek to limit the scope of the Secretary of State's powers, as so many of the amendments do. The Bill allows him to cap authorities even if they are spending below the SSA set by the Government. That goes beyond what is fair: it is nonsensical. Our amendments seek to restore the more sensible principles that have hitherto underpinned capping. Councils would be allowed to spend up to one eighth more than SSA before being capped. While local taxpayers would be afforded protection, councils would be allowed to increase spending year on year, but would not be given an incentive to do so in order to protect their base for future increases. Again, that is a sensible attempt to amend the Bill.
    Amendment No. 108 would oblige the Secretary of State to take into account the council tax levels of authorities in the same category, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley explained. Thus London boroughs would be compared with London boroughs shire districts with shire districts, and so on.
    424
    Amendments Nos. 113, 109, 111, 110, 114, 115 and 117 would ensure that local authorities were treated equally by the capping system. They would require the Secretary of State to determine categories of authority to which various capping criteria would apply and oblige him to announce those criteria in advance. The amendments are intended to reduce the arbitrary nature of the Secretary of State's powers under the Bill, and to provide local authorities with greater certainty that they will not be singled out for special treatment by the Government.
    Nothing that the Government have done in their time in office or that Ministers have said during debates on the Bill gives us any confidence that they will be above singling out authorities whose record or complexion they disapprove of and penalising them under the provisions in the Bill. We think that it is too much of a temptation for Ministers in this or any Government to have such powers. The powers should therefore be reduced or watered down.
    The LGA speaks for all political complexions across local government. It argued long and hard for a time limit on the capping scheme, which was rejected by the Government. In its latest briefing, it has said that it remains opposed to the present council tax benefit limitation proposals for the reasons that it spells out. It says that the scheme will
    "hit the poorest areas hardest.
    It is Government's responsibility to meet the cost of welfare benefits.
    The public's understanding of council tax increases will be further diminished rather than enhanced."
    That must have a knock-on effect on local democracy. The LGA brief continues:
    "The guideline increases could be seen as a direct substitute for crude and universal capping.
    The scheme is not justified on grounds of administrative efficiency".
    So no one who knows anything about local government at any level has a kind word to say about the proposals. Not only that, but the Bill is being rushed through. The debate is being guillotined today, as we have discussed—it is not a proper matter to return to. How typical of the Government's attitude not only to the Bill but to Parliament in general.
    5.15 pm
    The LGA, optimistic to the last, is still talking about continuing discussions with the Government as to how the scheme will work, with a view to persuading the Government to drop or modify the scheme in future years. I wish it well, but on the basis of performance to date, I have to say, "Fat chance." It concludes by saying:
    "Although we recognise that they will most probably now pass into law … the Association will continue to oppose the provisions in clauses 28 and 29 to retain capping powers and to localise part of the cost of council tax benefit."
    In conclusion, it seems to me from reading the debates in Committee and in the statutory instrument Committee, and all the discussions inside and outside this place, that the Government have comprehensively lost the argument every single time. Why cannot they be big enough, with their vast majority and all the panoply of new Labour and spin doctors, to say, "Yes, we got it wrong. We want to do it differently. We have heard what people say. We have heard the united voice of local government. We are going to look at this again."
    Mr. Christopher Chope: It is a pleasure to participate in a debate opened by my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir P. Beresford), who followed me as leader of Wandsworth council. It is appropriate that we should both be able to point out to the Minister the absurd fallacy of the percentages argument in relation to the weightwatcher. If a weightwatcher weighs 10 stone and increases his weight by 10 per cent., that is an increase of 1 stone. Has he done better or worse than someone of 20 stone who increases his weight by 1 stone, an increase of only 5 per cent? The Minister suggests that someone who is already 20 stone and increases his weight by 1 stone is doing better than someone who is 10 stone and increases his weight by 1 stone. That is absolute nonsense.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley referred to Wandsworth's 20-year record of achievement. It is appropriate to remind the House of the catalyst that gave the Conservatives in Wandsworth the opportunity to control the council. In its last year in office, the Labour party in Wandsworth moved a guillotine motion to restrict debate in the council chamber. There was such outrage in the borough at the fact that, in an authority of 55 councillors and aldermen, the Labour party had chosen to use the guillotine against 15 Conservatives in opposition that, a few months later, the Conservatives were swept into office. The Labour party lost and, as we know, it is still in opposition in Wandsworth more than 21 years later. Those of my hon. Friends who are concerned about the way in which the Labour Government have promoted the guillotine motion today may take some consolation from the fact that a guillotine gave Conservatives in Wandsworth the opportunity to ensure 20 years or more of successful Conservative control.
    Wandsworth never had to resort to referendums because the councillors kept in touch with their electors. They listened and responded and provided quality core services at affordable prices.
    Schedule 1, tucked away at the back of the Bill, is a provision of 15 pages which enables the Secretary of State to introduce what is not described as crude and universal capping. In my submission, instead of being crude, it is complex. Instead of being universal, it is arbitrary. Complex and arbitrary capping is even worse than crude and universal capping.
    Mr. Desmond Swayne: Am I alone in thinking that crude capping was at least predictable? It was clear when the Secretary of State was going to cap, whereas I am mystified as to what the criteria will be under the schedule.
    Mr. Chope: My hon. Friend is right. The criteria seem to be that whatever the Minister decides goes. That is an arbitrary use of power; through the ages, dictators have always wanted to take such power to themselves and that is what the Government are taking to themselves in the Bill.
    The Government are obsessed with second-guessing councils on whether they are responding to the wishes of the electorate. An experiment being carried out in Dorset is relevant to the proposal in new clause 6 that would prevent Governments from imposing a cap on a council that had carried out a referendum on its council tax proposals and had won the endorsement of its electors.
    426
    This year, there are extremely large council tax increases in Dorset. Dorset county council has chosen to increase the council tax by 7.9 per cent and the Dorset police authority is increasing its precept by 9.2 per cent.—the third highest amount among county police authorities. In part of my constituency—the East Dorset district council area—the consequence of those two decisions and the council tax imposed by the district council is that the average council tax payer in East Dorset will pay a massive £858 in the coming year. That will be the 11th highest council tax bill for householders anywhere in the country.
    That is the consequence of having a county council, district council and police authority that are all Liberal controlled. The sad thing is that the county council had the idea of seeking the endorsement of the electorate for the 7.9 per cent. increase in council tax. One cannot criticise the council for holding consultations but, when it did so, it did not get the answer that it wanted; it ignored the result and went ahead with the 7.9 per cent. increase that it had intended to impose on the people of Dorset all along. Fortunately, new clause 6 does not introduce such a system. It would make it incumbent on an authority to accept the verdict of any referendum, if it wanted to impose a substantial council tax increase.
    In Dorset, the council decided to consult a few focus groups, comprising individuals who had been carefully selected—mainly, but not exclusively, by Liberal Democrats. The groups included many people who worked for the council, but who did not live in the area that was to be affected by the increases. It was only after pressure from Conservatives in local government in Dorset that the county council expanded the consultation process to include people who were readers of local newspapers. It was even accepted that people who wrote to county hall would have their views taken into account.
    Having gathered all that information, the council then had the gall to reject the verdict on the basis that a large number of those who responded were pensioners. Those people are on fixed incomes and resented the fact that they would have to pay an increase in their council tax that was substantially above the rate of inflation, as a result of which they would have to cut back on other items of household expenditure. At its meeting, the Liberal-controlled county council dismissed those representations from pensioners on the grounds that they did not really count. That was the most appalling snub and insult to a key group in Dorset; they are people who have worked hard throughout their lives and have chosen to spend their twilight years in the county, where they make a major contribution to the community. Why should their views count for less than the views of others?
    New clause 6 commends itself to me because it makes it clear that referendums would have to be held on a universal basis, reinforcing democracy in those council areas where the local authority does not keep in regular contact with the wishes of the people. I support the new clause and condemn the way in which the Government are imposing a new capping regime on local authorities. Before the election, the Labour party suggested that it was in favour of expanding local democracy, but in practice the Government are doing the reverse.
    Mr. Oliver Letwin: I shall speak on new clause 6. If the doctrine espoused at a late stage of yesterday evening by probably the most impressive Member on the Labour Benches, the right hon. Member

    427
    for Birkenhead (Mr. Field)—that there is no point in sitting in the Chamber for a long time because the Government will get their business through anyway—were carried to its conclusion, it would be entirely footling to make speeches in this place. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman came to that conclusion and suggested that the Opposition should restrict themselves to engaging in what he called a five-year election campaign.
    Ms Armstrong: He did not say that at all.
    Mr. Letwin: Speaking from a sedentary position—as she has often done throughout these debates—the Minister said that the right hon. Gentleman did not say that. As a matter of fact, the record shows that he did, and, as he is a deep thinker, he may have expressed a view that is widely held by Labour Members. Nevertheless, I retain a touching faith in the parliamentary process. I hope that it is not naive and that it may become more important if the House comes to its senses and realises that it needs to adjust its proceedings, so that it has an impact on Bills rather than merely discussing them.
    New clause 6 is a vital clause and the whole House—indeed posterity—will owe a great debt to my hon. Friends who introduced it. I hope, too, that the Conservative party will realise that it owes them a debt, because I hope that the essence of the clause, if not the detail, will be accepted in due time as party policy. The reason lies in the origins of capping. I freely admitted last night, and continue to admit, that capping was a mistaken policy from the start. The then Prime Minister my right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Thatcher and others justified the policy on the grounds that it was impossible to leave to local democracy decisions about the level of expenditure, which could have a macro-economic impact, when most of the people in an area did not even bother to turn up at the polls, and when many people could be hugely disadvantaged by high rates of the then domestic rate because they were among the few people who paid it. My right hon. and noble Friend adduced examples of councils such as Hackney, which had relatively few inhabitants who actually paid any domestic rate after various subsidies were taken into account, and which could raise its domestic rate, more or less without limit, affecting only those voters who never voted for it anyway.
    It is important that the Government should realise that the initial argument for capping was a democratic deficit. The new clause would reverse that democratic deficit and ensure that there would not be capping if the majority of the population turned up at the polls and made it clear that they favoured the level of expenditure proposed by the council. In other words, new clause 6 undermines the only logic—although they have never expressed any—that the Government could be using.
    I hope that, even if it has no impact on the Government, who obviously do not intend to pay the slightest attention to the debate, the profound significance of the new clause will register on the minds of my hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench, because it might form the basis of a highly productive train of thought about local government policy and the relationship between local government and central Government. If the Conservatives became the party that reasserted the need to allow councils, where there is a genuine democratic desire on
    428
    the part of their population to raise taxes, to do so, we would be using democracy to overcome the inherent deficiencies that were in the system when we first introduced capping.
    5.30 pm
    Dr. Alan Whitehead: I am fascinated to see the new Conservative doctrine on local government unfolding before our eyes. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting—judging by his analysis so far, he is—that the referendum principle should apply to anything a council might want to do, regardless of the initial policy of central Government?
    Mr. Letwin: No. I shall not dwell on the matter in detail, save to say that there is a specific point that differs from that which applies in respect of anything else that local government does. We are talking about central Government interfering grossly with the actions of a democratically elected authority. Our view is that, where local democracy is shown on a wide scale to yield a certain result, such intervention should not occur.
    Ms ArmstrongI: am delighted to be able to respond to a debate on the Bill, and I welcome hon. Members who were not members of the Standing Committee to these deliberations. I was interested in the remarks of the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin). I welcome his conversion to democracy that is not limited to four-yearly elections, and his recognition of the ideas that the Government set out in our White Paper to encourage far more public consultation, which are at the centre of all our proposals. Indeed, the draft Bill presented today includes specific proposals on referendums on the form of governance used in localities.
    New clause 6 would impose limitations on the use of the reserve powers so that they could not be used following a referendum in which a simple majority had endorsed the council tax and at least 50 per cent. of the electorate had voted. The endorsement by local people of an authority's budget would be consistent with our modernising agenda and our drive to encourage local authorities to engage the local community more effectively; and such consultation or endorsement may influence any decision on whether to use our reserve power. However, a referendum is only one form of consultation that a local government body might choose to undertake, so we do not think it appropriate to put referendums into the Bill as the sole form of consultation to be used.
    This morning, I met members of a citizens panel that is used effectively by the local authority. They were adamant about the importance of their ability to debate issues and to form an understanding of the complexities with which councils frequently have to deal. They are considering ways of ensuring that other people in their area do the same. Although they welcomed our proposals on referendums, they wanted to maintain the use of other forms of consultation.
    The Bill already allows the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales to determine categories of authorities taking into account any information considered relevant. The extent to which a local authority has taken steps to consult and involve its local community may well be considered relevant information for that purpose, and I

    429
    hope that it will be. Conservative Members have referred to the referendum in Milton Keynes. I saw my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. White) in the Chamber a short while ago, but he has gone now. The Bill allows deliberations such as that to have an influence on the Government, whereas existing legislation passed under the Conservative Government, does not allow us to take into account such consultation, because it cuts out any such considerations. It is precisely because we want such considerations to be part of the process to decide whether or not capping takes place that we have introduced the Bill in its current form.
    Mr. Sanders: Does the Minister accept that an expensive full referendum of all of the people is not the only way in which a local authority could go about public consultation, and that focus groups might suffice to test the public's views on what was needed?
    Ms Armstrong: I have spent about five minutes saying that other forms of consultation are important and that central Government should not, in the Bill, restrict an authority's choice of the form of public consultation it wants to employ. Consultation should be thorough, but different methods or even a combination of methods may be appropriate at certain times.
    Over the next few years, wide-ranging reform and modernisation of local government will take place, so it is impossible to predict how central Government will use their reserve powers in future. We hope that we do not have to use them—indeed, we have constructed the powers with that hope in mind—but we need the flexibility to respond to changing circumstances in future years.
    Mr. Swayne: Will the Minister give way?
    Ms Armstrong: The hon. Gentleman was not a member of the Standing Committee, so it is right that he, as a Member of Parliament, should attend these debates on the Bill. As was spelled out clearly in the White Paper, we are trying to provide for a more flexible relationship between central and local government, so that local government has greater control. Only when a local authority is clearly out of step with local people's interests and flouting the national interest shall we intervene, but we need the flexibility provided by the Bill to do so. Having explained that, I am happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Swayne: Will the right hon. Lady acknowledge that, precisely because of the lack of predictability that she describes, it is proper to insert in the Bill the use of a referendum as a decision-making mechanism—not as a means of consultation, but as a proper means of making a decision and holding the Government to account?
    Ms Armstrong: The idea is to hold the council to account through a referendum, but I shall let that pass.
    Mr. Burstow: To return to the question of different forms of consultation, we welcome the Government's openness on the range of methods of consultation that could be used. However, in considering what is relevant, will the Secretary of State adopt different views on the various forms of consultation and give different weighting
    430
    to each? Will he give different weighting from one year to another? We need to know that, and so do local authorities. If the Secretary of State can accept as relevant one local authority having consulted a focus group or held a referendum, but completely disregard the same actions taken by another local authority, the system of consultation will fall into disrepute.
    Ms Armstrong: We have to make sure that the consultations carried out are those that have enabled the widest group of people to make representations, and that they have been carried out in a clear, straightforward and honest way. The hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) will know that I made it clear in Standing Committee that the Government would have to take into account, for example, the nature of the questions asked and the turnout in a referendum. Those are matters to which we would have regard in considering whether there had been a genuine attempt to engage with local people in coming to the decisions that were taken. We would want to see that there had been that full engagement and that the council had taken an honest approach to consultation and any more direct decision taking that it was offering to the public.
    Mr. Sanders: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
    Ms Armstrong: I want to facilitate debate, but I do not want to be accused of taking up too much time.
    Mr. Sanders: I appreciate the Minister giving way again. We are dealing with an important point. Is she saying that it is not the quantitative but the qualitative value of the consultation that will be taken into consideration?
    Ms Armstrong: I think that I have expressed our approach as fully as possible. I would not accept one focus group. Someone may tell me, "This is a very high-quality focus group," but I would not think that that was the basis for a high-quality consultation exercise. However, I do not want to be pushed into being so rigid as to say that, for example, a rural area that had developed a good devolved system of involving local people had to proceed in a certain way. Clearly, such an area would want to act in some respects in a different manner from an inner-city authority.
    I do not want to be pushed into a position where we in central Government determine the method and local government feels that it has to get through our hoops. I want local government itself to be serious about how it consults and engages the public on one of the most important decisions that it has to take, which is the level of council tax that it will be setting. That is inevitably closely linked to the best value aspects of the Bill.
    We want the flexibility to be able to respond to changing circumstances. We do not wish to restrict the principles that could be implemented. The hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin), who is also not in his place, pressed the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) on what would happen to Derbyshire. Had the Bill been in place, we could have brought in representatives of Derbyshire county council, talked to them and made it clear that in our view what they had done was excessive, but that we did not want to subject the authority to re-billing. We could have made it clear

    431
    that we were giving them notice that if they did not take account of our position in the following year, the council would be designated and that council tax capping would be implemented.
    That, to me, seems to be the right sort of flexibility between central and local government. Far from being more draconian, it involves engaging in mature debate with local government on the basis of clear criteria and recognising that local government is grown up. It would be giving local government the chance to amend what it is doing in future budget setting so that it can come within the national criteria of which it should be taking account.
    I move on to amendments No. 98 and No. 117, which seek to change the heading of clause 28 and the heading of part 2 of schedule 2 so that they read:
    "Regulation and Limitation (Capping) of Council Tax and Precepts".
    It is sometimes helpful for Opposition Members to suggest amendments to improve Parliamentary Counsel's drafting. However, we take the view that the regulation of council tax that is referred to in the heading includes the new reserve powers and the limitation of council tax benefit subsidy. As one word is to be preferred to four, we prefer to leave the drafting as it is.
    5.45 pm
    As I have said before, council tax benefit subsidy limitation is not capping through the back door. Authorities can set budgets above the guidelines if they wish, provided that they do not set budgets that are considered excessive and would require the use of the reserve power. In fact, four out of five councils in this budgetary round have set increases that are different from their guidelines. I believe that they should be able to continue to do that. The confusion of Opposition Members about capping and council tax benefit subsidy limitation is not helpful to councils when they are seeking to set their budgets. I believe that the restrictions that are identified in the amendments are unnecessary and I hope that the Opposition will not press them.
    Amendment No. 1 would put a time limit on the use of the new reserve powers to limit council tax increases, ending their use after 1 April 2005. Official Opposition Members made it clear in Committee that they would re-table their amendment so that it might be debated on the Floor of the House. Liberal Democrat Members made it clear in Committee that they opposed any capping of local authorities' budgets. The official Opposition are still somewhat unsure about where they are going in this instance. However, I welcome the confessional conservatism on the Opposition Benches. I often feel that we should be here as members of the cloth taking the real confessions of Conservative Members. I have a deep respect for confession.
    Sir Paul Beresford: On confessions, I would like the Minister to be selective and subjective.
    Ms Armstrong: I accept that the hon. Gentleman does not want to see the end of capping and is not one of the confessional Conservatives.
    The Liberal Democrats made it clear this week that they think the Government have no role to play in protecting local taxpayers from irresponsible increases in taxes.
    432
    I happen to disagree. The Government disagree, and we made that clear in the Labour party's manifesto. We are putting our money where our mouth is on the basis of that manifesto. The Government have a role to play and we cannot shirk our responsibilities. I made it clear in Committee—I think Opposition Members listened but did not agree—that these are reserve powers and we will hold them in reserve.
    As I have been at pains to emphasise, we are working in partnership with local government to improve and modernise it. We therefore hope and expect that we will use the reserve powers increasingly rarely, and not at all by the year 2005, if not earlier. However, we cannot rule out the possibility that some local authorities may decide to act irresponsibly. If they do, we need to be able to protect their local taxpayers. For that, we need to retain the reserve powers. I ask Opposition Members to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendments No. 101, 102, 105 and 106 would provide that the factors referred to by the criteria used to decide whether the budget requirement is excessive for the council tax benefit limitation scheme must apply to categories of authorities and not to different authorities. I acknowledge that the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir P. Beresford) is rather frightened that we would be partisan. I hope that that is not because of his experience of exercising powers in the past. I can assure him that we wish to be anything but partisan. Indeed, the list that was read out by the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) demonstrated clearly that we are not partisan. I would say to Opposition Members that the subsidy limitation kicks in only as a result of a local council's decision, not a Government decision. Many of the councils that the hon. Member for Eastbourne identified have taken decisions that bring them in well below the guideline. They have taken that decision and, therefore, their council tax payers will not suffer in the way that he mentioned because they have taken decisions that keep them outside the guideline.
    Mr. Waterson: The right hon. Lady correctly makes the point that councils can make individual decisions to try to protect themselves from those provisions, but that is a separate matter. Given that we are all in confessional mode, is she now admitting that the 10 councils whose names I read out, most of which are Labour controlled, are most likely to be affected on the basis of the calculations?
    Ms Armstrong: We are getting into difficult territory. I am not of the Catholic faith and confession is not part of my good Methodist tradition. I am trying to tell the truth, which is that it is up to the council to decide its council tax levels. If it exceeds a guideline level, we expect it to share with national taxpayers the burden of council tax benefit. The councils in the list that the hon. Gentleman read out have overwhelmingly decided not to exceed the guideline.
    Sir Paul Beresford: The Minister is carefully glossing over the fact that a council's decision on the level of its council tax for a particular year may be related to its SSA and revenue support grant, which are in the Government's hands.
    Ms Armstrong: Of course I acknowledge that. However, given that this year, all councils received at

    433
    least as much as they did last year, and that the increase in the overall Government grant to local authorities through RSG and the uniform business rate was higher than the hon. Gentleman was ever able to deliver, his point is a little bogus.
    We used the same criteria and factors for all authorities. However, some authorities thought that we should have used different criteria and factors for different authorities, and they made representations to us to that effect. Some district authorities, for example, thought that they should be treated differently from counties because districts are responsible for collecting arrears of community charge, and that affects the level of council tax set in districts but not in counties. Other authorities argued that particular individual circumstances applied to them and that those should be taken into account.
    It is possible that in future years there might be good reasons for differentiating. There may be an argument for treating an individual authority differently because of its particular circumstances. We discussed that in Committee. In accordance with normal principles, the Secretary of State would be required to act fairly, but fairness may require different treatment. That is one of the problems with the working of the current law. We need to have the ability to act accordingly and respond to particular needs in exceptional cases. We would not be able to do that if we accepted the amendments, so I ask hon. Members not to press them.
    Amendment No. 103 seeks to give local authorities that budget below SSA protection from the council tax benefit subsidy limitation scheme, where the criteria refer, as they do for 1999–2000, to the budget for the year beginning in 1998. Conservative Members seem to have forgotten the principle underlying that scheme. Perhaps I should remind them of it.
    When council tax rises, so do the costs of council tax benefit, and that cost is borne by the local taxpayer. Where there is a large increase in council tax, we do not believe that the national taxpayer should pay for the costs arising from those local decisions, and that is the aim of the scheme. The national taxpayer will continue to bear significant costs, but the scheme would limit them.
    Mr. Burstow: That provokes a significant question about the application of that principle. The Secretary of State for Education and Employment has been writing to local authorities, urging them fully to spend their education SSAs. In doing so, some authorities, at least in principle, could exceed the guideline and, as a consequence, face the Minister's wrath and have benefit clawed back. Surely that is wrong because it sends the wrong signal to councils that the Government want to spend on education.
    Ms Armstrong: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is wrong. This year's criteria allow an increase of either 4.5 per cent. or an amount commensurate with the increase in SSA. An increase in SSA that is higher than 4.5 per cent. is accounted for.
    Sir Paul Beresford: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
    Ms Armstrong: No. The hon. Gentleman is just enjoying himself again.
    434
    I assume that the purpose of amendments Nos. 84 and 85 is to prevent the scheme applying for 1999–2000. As I have already explained several times, the clause simply provides for regulations that will require major participating authorities exceeding the guideline to make payments to billing authorities. It does not affect the establishment of the scheme as a whole.
    We have already made regulations to change the tax-setting equation so that the local authority contribution to council tax benefit costs is raised from council tax. Councils took that into account when setting their council tax for 1999–2000. The amendments would therefore have little effect, and I ask that hon. Members not to press them.
    Amendment No. 42 seeks to exempt from capping councils that budget below their standard spending assessment. We made it clear in the White Paper that we would be taking reserve powers that allowed us to cap in those circumstances.
    The new reserve capping powers in the Bill are designed to enable the Government to step in and protect council tax payers if a local authority increases its council tax unreasonably. Standard spending assessments are a simple measure that the Government use as a basis for distributing the revenue support grant. They have no more significance than that. It follows that the relationship between a council's budget and its standard spending assessment has no bearing on whether a particular year's increase is deemed to be excessive.
    We need only consider some councils' behaviour in setting council tax rates for 1999–2000 to realise that. South Cambridgeshire has increased its council tax by 175 per cent.; Tewkesbury's increase is 49 per cent.; and Wandsworth, which Conservative Members have mentioned, has made a 21.5 per cent. increase. All those councils are budgeting below SSA, but making large increases in council tax.
    Sir Paul Beresford: The Minister has touched on a point on which I should like clarification. The significance of council tax increases must lie in the increase in money rather than the percentage increase. When the Minister considers her restrictions, will she examine percentages or money?
    Ms Armstrong: I am interested that the hon. Gentleman intervenes on that point. Perhaps he would have a word with the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), who was complaining that Dorset council did not take account of people on fixed incomes who are affected year on year by the percentage increase. That is why we seek to have the power to impose restrictions.
    I am not pre-empting any decisions that will be made this year, but it is reasonable that the Government should have the power to intervene if the level of increase makes it necessary. People would think that we were strange if we did not seek such a power. It is important that the Government take seriously their responsibility to local taxpayers, and we shall continue to do so. I hope, given those explanations, that hon. Members will withdraw that amendment.
    Amendment No. 43 is designed to exempt from capping any council that spends less than 12.5 per cent. above its standard spending assessment. The Conservatives seem to be trying to reintroduce their policy of capping councils

    435
    that budget at more than 12.5 per cent. over SSA. This is another amendment that demonstrates the schizophrenia of the official Opposition, with some Opposition Members being confessional and some not. However, there is a slightly different twist—no authority budgeting below that level will be capped. That is a change from the situation when the Conservatives were in power, but I suspect that that is where they got the figure of 12.5 per cent. Most of the authorities that they capped would have been exempt under this principle.
    6 pm
    Standard spending assessments are no more than a measure that the Government use to distribute revenue support grant. Our new reserve capping powers are designed to protect council tax payers. We are not prepared to shirk our responsibility. The amendment would remove from two thirds of councils the possibility of Government intervention. That is not what people want.
    I assume that amendment No. 108 is intended to make it difficult for the Secretary of State to apply the reserve powers to local authorities with a low band D council tax, and to limit him to using his reserve powers in relation to those authorities with the highest band D council tax within a category. We have had this debate before. I do not understand what Opposition Members are trying to achieve. Would they be happy for such authorities to make massive increases in their council tax, to the detriment of the council tax payers in their area? We are not prepared to accept that. Again, I ask hon. Members not to press the amendment.
    Amendments Nos. 113 and 114 would prevent the Secretary of State from determining categories of authorities, and thus from applying different sets of principles to each category. We have discussed this on several occasions. I used the basis of the argument in response to a previous amendment, so the House understands the Government's view. We want to make sure that we move at the pace of the best, and that we are not held back by the worst, which would have been the effect of the sunset clause that the Opposition moved yesterday. We want to give powers and opportunities to the best. We do not want to go down the rigid path towards which the Opposition are pushing us through these amendments.
    Amendments Nos. 109, 111 and 110 would require the Secretary of State to determine categories of authorities. That rather contradicts some of the arguments that we have heard. I do not believe that the amendments would be helpful. The Secretary of State may not need to determine categories. It may be appropriate to apply the same principle to all authorities. We have heard many examples today in which that would not be appropriate. That is why we need flexibility. I hope that hon. Members will not press the amendments.
    Amendment No. 115 would limit the information that the Secretary of State may take into account in determining categories of authorities—
    Mr. Gray: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I cannot help noticing that the Minister has been speaking longer—32 minutes—than any Back Bencher during last
    436
    night's debate, about which she complained so much. She said that that was a filibuster. Is she filibustering her own Bill?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): That is not a point of order for the Chair.
    Ms Armstrong: I am trying to get through the notes. This is a large group of amendments, and I have taken a substantial number of interventions. I have been responding to the debate. Opposition Members know that they were offered negotiations through the usual channels, but they refused to come and talk about what would be possible. They have created the problem.
    Amendment No. 115 is unnecessary. Every Secretary of State must consider the reasonableness of his use of powers granted by statute. 1 cannot think of circumstances in which information that was relevant would not also be reasonable. The amendment adds nothing of substance to the intention of the Bill. It is not needed, and I ask hon. Members not to press it.
    Sir Paul Beresford: The Government are adopting the same approach as in Committee—nice words, then comes the crunch. New clause 6 and the amendments were intended not to stop capping, but to ease the pain. I shall therefore press the motion to a Division.
    Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
    The House divided: Ayes 170, Noes 335.

    Division No. 130]

    [6.5 pm

    AYES

    Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

    Collins, Tim

    Allan, Richard

    Colvin, Michael

    Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

    Corrnack, Sir Patrick

    Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

    Cotter, Brian

    Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

    Cran, James

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

    Dafis, Cynog

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Davey, Edward (Kingston)

    Baker, Norman

    Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice & Howden)

    Baldry, Tony

    Ballard, Jackie

    Day, Stephen

    Beggs, Roy

    Donaldson, Jeffrey

    Beith, Rt Hon A J

    Duncan Smith, Iain

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Evans, Nigel

    Blunt, Crispin

    Faber, David

    Body, Sir Richard

    Fabricant, Michael

    Boswell, Tim

    Fearn, Ronnie

    Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

    Flight, Howard

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

    Forsythe, Clifford

    Brady, Graham

    Forth, Rt Hon Eric

    Brake, Tom

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Brand, Dr Peter

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    Brazier, Julian

    Fox, Dr Liam

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Fraser, Christopher

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Garnier, Edward

    Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

    George, Andrew (St Ives)

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Gibb, Nick

    Burnett, John

    Gill, Christopher

    Burns, Simon

    Gray, James

    Cable, Dr Vincent

    Greenway, John

    Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies

    Grieve, Dominic

    (NE Fife)

    Hague, Rt Hon William

    Chapman, Sir Sydney

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

    (Chipping Barnet)

    Hammond, Philip

    Chope, Christopher

    Hancock, Mike

    Clappison, James

    Harris, Dr Evan

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

    Hawkins, Nick

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Hayes, John

    437

    Heald, Oliver

    Robathan, Andrew

    Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

    Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

    Horam, John

    Ross, William (E Lond'y)

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

    Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

    Ruffley, David

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    Hunter, Andrew

    St Aubyn, Nick

    Jack, Rt Hon Michael

    Sanders, Adrian

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Johnson Smith,

    Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

    Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Shepherd, Richard

    Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys MÔn)

    Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

    Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

    Soames, Nicholas

    Key, Robert

    Spicer, Sir Michael

    Kirkbride, Miss Julie

    Spring, Richard

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Laing, Mrs Eleanor

    Steen, Anthony

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Streeter, Gary

    Lansley, Andrew

    Stunell, Andrew

    Leigh, Edward

    Swayne, Desmond

    Letwin, Oliver

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

    Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

    Lidington, David

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Livsey, Richard

    Tonge, Dr Jenny

    Loughton, Tim

    Townend, John

    Luff, Peter

    Trend, Michael

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Tyler, Paul

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Tyrie, Andrew

    MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

    Viggers, Peter

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Wallace, James

    Malins, Humfrey

    Walter, Robert

    Maples, John

    Wardle, Charles

    Mates, Michael

    Waterson, Nigel

    Maude, Rt Hon Francis

    Webb, Steve

    Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

    Wells, Bowen

    May, Mrs Theresa

    Whitney, Sir Raymond

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

    Whittingdale, John

    Moore, Michael

    Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

    Moss, Malcolm

    Wilkinson, John

    Norman, Archie

    Willis, Phil

    Oaten, Mark

    Wilshire, David

    Ottaway, Richard

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

    Page, Richard

    Woodward, Shaun

    Paterson, Owen

    Yen, Tim

    Pickles, Erin

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Prior, David

    Randall, John

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Mrs. Caroline Spelman and

    Rendel, David

    Sri David Madel.

    NOES

    Ainger, Nick

    Betts, Clive

    Ainsworth, Robert (Covtry NE)

    Blackman, Liz

    Allen, Graham

    Blizzard, Bob

    Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

    Blunkett, Rt Hon David

    Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

    Boateng, Paul

    Armstrong, Ms Hilary

    Borrow, David

    Atkins, Charlotte

    Bradley, Keith (Withington)

    Austin, John

    Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    Banks, Tony

    Bradshaw, Ben

    Barnes, Harry

    Brinton, Mrs Helen

    Barron, Kevin

    Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

    Battle, John

    Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

    Bayley, Hugh

    Browne, Desmond

    Beard, Nigel

    Buck, Ms Karen

    Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

    Burden, Richard

    Begg, Miss Anne

    Burgon, Colin

    Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

    Butler, Mrs Christine

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

    Bennett, Andrew F

    Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

    Benton, Joe

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Best, Harold

    Campbell-Savours, Dale

    438

    Cann, Jamie

    Gibson, Dr Ian

    Caplin, Ivor

    Gilroy, Mrs Linda

    Casale, Roger

    Goggins, Paul

    Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Chaytor, David

    Gordon, Mrs Eileen

    Church, Ms Judith

    Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

    Clapham, Michael

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

    Grocott, Bruce

    Grogan, John

    Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

    Hain, Peter

    Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

    Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

    Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

    Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

    Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

    Hanson, David

    Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

    Heal, Mrs Sylvia

    Clelland, David

    Healey, John

    Clwyd, Ann

    Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

    Coaker, Vernon

    Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Heppell, John

    Cohen, Harry

    Hesford, Stephen

    Coleman, Iain

    Hewitt, Ms Patricia

    Colman, Tony

    Hinchliffe, David

    Connarty, Michael

    Hodge, Ms Margaret

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Hoey, Kate

    Cooper, Yvette

    Hood, Jimmy

    Corbett, Robin

    Hoon, Geoffrey

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Hope, Phil

    Corston, Ms Jean

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    Cousins, Jim

    Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

    Cranston, Ross

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Crausby, David

    Howells, Dr Kim

    Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Cummings, John

    Hutton, John

    Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

    Iddon, Dr Brian

    Illsley, Eric

    Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

    Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

    Dalyell, Tam

    Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

    Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    Darvill, Keith

    Jamieson, David

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Jenkins, Brian

    Davidson, Ian

    Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

    Denham, John

    Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

    Dismore, Andrew

    Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

    Dobbin, Jim

    Donohoe, Brian H

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Doran, Frank

    Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

    Dowd, Jim

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

    Drew, David

    Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

    Drown, Ms Julia

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    Keeble, Ms Sally

    Edwards, Huw

    Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

    Efford, Clive

    Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Kelly, Ms Ruth

    Ennis, Jeff

    Kemp, Fraser

    Fatchett, Rt Hon Derek

    Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

    Field, Rt Hon Frank

    Khabra, Piara S

    Fisher, Mark

    Kidney, David

    Fitzpatrick, Jim

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Fitzsimons, Lorna

    King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

    Flint, Caroline

    King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

    Flynn, Paul

    Kingham, Ms Tess

    Follett, Barbara

    Kumar, Dr Ashok

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Ladyman, Dr Stephen

    Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

    Lawrence, Ms Jackie

    Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

    Lepper, David

    Foulkes, George

    Leslie, Christopher

    Fyfe, Maria

    Levitt, Tom

    Galloway, George

    Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

    Gapes, Mike

    Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

    Gardiner, Barry

    Linton, Martin

    George, Bruce (Walsall S)

    Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

    Gerrard, Neil

    Lock, David

    439

    Love, Andrew

    Rowlands, Ted

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Roy, Frank

    McCabe, Steve

    Ruane, Chris

    McCafferty, Ms Chris

    Ruddock, Joan

    McDonagh, Siobhain

    Russet, Ms Christine (Chester)

    McDonnell, John

    Ryan, Ms Joan

    McFall, John

    Savidge, Malcolm

    McGuire, Mrs Anne

    Sedgemore, Brian

    McIsaac, Shona

    Shaw, Jonathan

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    McNamara, Kevin

    Shipley, Ms Debra

    McNulty, Tony

    Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

    MacShane, Denis

    Singh, Marsha

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Skinner, Dennis

    McWalter, Tony

    Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

    McWilliam, John

    Smith, Angela (Basildon)

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

    Mallaber, Judy

    Smith, Miss Geraldine

    Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

    (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

    Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

    Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Smith, John (Glamorgan)

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Marshall-Andrews, Robert

    Snape, Peter

    Martlew, Eric

    Soley, Clive

    Maxton, John

    Spellar, John

    Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

    Squire, Ms Rachel

    Meale, Alan

    Starkey, Dr Phyllis

    Merron, Gillian

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Michie, Bill (Shefld Heeley)

    Stevenson, George

    Miller, Andrew

    Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

    Mitchell, Austin

    Stinchcombe, Paul

    Moffatt, Laura

    Stoate, Dr Howard

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Stott, Roger

    Moran, Ms Margaret

    Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

    Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

    Straw, Rt Hon Jack

    Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

    Stringer, Graham

    Morley, Elliot

    Stuart, Ms Gisela

    Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Mountford, Kali

    Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Mudie, George

    Mullin, Chris

    Taylor, Ms Dart (Stockton S)

    Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

    Taylor, David (NW Leics)

    Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Naysmith, Dr Doug

    Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

    O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

    Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

    O'Hara, Eddie

    Tipping, Paddy

    Olner, Bill

    Todd, Mark

    Osborne, Ms Sandra

    Touhig, Don

    Palmer: Dr Nick

    Trickett, Jon

    Pendry, Tom

    Truswell, Paul

    Pike, Peter L

    Turner, Dennis (Wolverh?ton SE)

    Plaskitt, James

    Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

    Pollard, Kerry

    Twigg, Derek (Halton)

    Pond, Chris

    Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

    Pope, Greg

    Vaz, Keith

    Pound, Stephen

    Walley, Ms Joan

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

    Wareing, Robert N

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Watts, David

    Prescott, R Hon John

    White, Brian

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Whitehead, Dr Alan

    Prosser, Gwyn

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Purchase, Ken

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan

    Quinn, Lawrie

    (Swansea W)

    Radice, Giles

    Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

    Rammell, Bill

    Winnick, David

    Rapson, Syd

    Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

    Raynsford, Nick

    Wise, Audrey

    Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

    Woolas, Phil

    Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)

    Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

    Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

    Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

    Wyatt, Derek

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    Rogers, Allan

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Rooker, Jeff

    Mr. Mike Hall and

    Ross, Emie (Dundee W)

    Mr. Keith Hill.

    Question accordingly negatived.

  Clause 1

    BEST VALUE AUTHORITIES
    Mr. John Hayes: I beg to move amendment No. 54, in page 1, line 8, at beginning insert
    ?Subject to subsection (4A) below'.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 26, in page 2, line 4, leave out from 'Authority' to end of line 5.
    No. 55, in page 2, line 12, at end insert—
    '(4A) This section shall not apply to police authorities in respect of their oversight of any of the following police functions:

    (a) any issues relating to national security;

    (b) any relating to any matter whose public disclosure might compromise current or future police operations;

    (c) any which is a statutory duty of police forces;

    (d) the provision of any support service that may be specified by order of the Secretary of State.'.

    No. 27, in clause 2, page 2, line 44, at end insert—
    '(5A) The Secretary of State shall consult with—

    (a) the authority or body concerned, and

    (b) all other relevant bodies

    before making an order within this provision.'.
    No. 58, in clause 3, page 3, line 6, at end insert—
    `(1)(A) In the case of police authorities, the general duty in this section shall be without prejudice to section 10 of the Police Act 1996 ("General functions of chief constables").'.
    No. 72, in clause 6, page 6, line 3, at end add—
    ?() In preparing a best value performance plan, a police authority must also have regard to section 8 of the Police Act 1996 ("local policing plans").'.
    No. 73, in page 6, line 3, at end insert—
    '(5) In the case of a police authority, a draft of the best value performance plan shall be prepared by the chief constable for the area and submitted by him to the police authority for it to consider.
    (6) Before issuing a best value performance plan which differs from the draft submitted by the chief constable under subsection (5), a police authority shall consult the chief constable.'.
    Mr. Hayes: I am delighted to speak to the amendments, but I have no wish to delay the House unduly. Far be it from me to lay myself open to the charge of filibustering, whether justified or not. I have never filibustered on this Bill—at least, not deliberately—and I have no intention of doing so this evening.
    The amendments address an issue which is at the heart of the Bill, and which was debated a number of times in Committee: the inappropriate application of the Bill to police authorities. The application is inappropriate not just because police authorities have been shoehorned into a Bill that was in essence designed to deal with local authorities, but because the premise of necessity on which the Bill rests simply does not apply to police authorities. The amendments go some way towards solving the problem, although we would prefer the Bill not to apply to police authorities at all.

    441
    I say that the premise of necessity does not apply partly because of existing statutes. Hon. Members will be familiar with the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994, which deals with issues of police management and efficiency, and with section 43 of the Police Act 1996, which gives the Home Secretary specific powers to require police authorities to report to him on matters connected with the discharge of their responsibilities. Moreover, section 106 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984—now section 96 of the Police Act 1996—makes specific arrangements for the obtaining of local people's views. Police forces also have a statutory responsibility to draw up local policing plans.
    Because of the existence of those Acts, there is no need for the Bill to apply to police authorities. The Home Secretary already has powers to scrutinise the drawing up of plans and the requirement to consult. If the Government are saying that the aim is simply to satisfy the requirements of existing legislation, and if the current arrangements are effective and efficient, why include police authorities?
    In addition, the Audit Commission publishes a series of performance indicators—measurements of police efficiency. I have a copy of the document relating to 1996–97, which all hon. Members doubtless regard as essential bedtime reading. [Interruption.] It appears that the Minister does not.
    The Audit Commission, however, acknowledges that
    "Police forces should be locally accountable"
    and
    "must respond to the needs and expectations of their local community."
    As those needs and expectations vary in different parts of the country, additional performance indicators—benchmarking—will be of limited use. The need for different approaches in different parts of the country is one reason why the Association of Police Authorities has expressed reservations about the Bill. It does not want a uniform set of targets to be applied nationally.
    Hon. Members will be familiar with the work of the Policy Studies Institute. In a report on local policing plans, it says:
    "Although policing plans must include national objectives, we found no evidence that plans were becoming dominated by central concerns."
    National objectives that are included in those plans already give us an opportunity to judge police authorities according to some standard criteria, while allowing enough flexibility for the necessary discretion to be exercised locally.
    The questions currently asked by the Audit Commission strike me—and, indeed, chief constables and the Association of Police Authorities—as satisfactory. We do not think that additional legislation is needed. The police also come within the ambit of Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary, and there are questions to be asked about the relationship between it and the Audit Commission. Those questions were dealt with to an extent by a memorandum that was circulated in Committee. We were told that discussions were in progress, and that an accord was developing between the two bodies. As with other aspects of local government, however, we have a vision of finding a different inspector from a different organisation around every corner and in every corridor of
    442
    police authorities. That, I think, is something of an insult to police authorities and chief constables, suggesting that they cannot manage their affairs properly.
    That brings me to the nub of the argument. As I have said, if the existing arrangements are satisfactory, it is surely unnecessary to include police authorities; but a more fundamental objection to the Bill is that it challenges the current governance of the police. The time-honoured tripartite arrangement is at least challenged, and arguably weakened, by the Bill. The Association of Police Authorities has made that point as well. The Bill, moreover, has three further weaknesses.
    First, there is the setting of additional national targets. We must assume that they are additional, because if they are not, they have no point. The setting of additional targets may endanger the independence of the constabularies, especially if the targets are uniform and based on the false goal of comparability. Comparability has some value, but it should not be worshipped like a god. Comparisons between a rural and an urban police force are of dubious merit: many aspects cannot be adequately or properly compared, and the comparison may be misleading rather than edifying.
    Secondly, if operational matters are to be included in the assessment of best value, the Bill will also impinge on the discretion of chief constables. Chief constables have always had discretion over operational matters, and police authorities have traditionally recognised that. Their relationship with chief constables has been founded on the division of responsibilities.
    Thirdly—and even worse—we must consider the Bill's possible impact on the style of policing and the character of police forces.
    That which is most measurable is not necessarily that which is most desirable, or even most desired. Of course the logistics involved in dealing with offences are important, and highly measurable. Many aspects of input are also measurable—questions such as "how many?", "how much?" and "how long?" On the contrary, the value of community policing—police visits to schools, for instance, and the preventive policies of local forces—is harder to measure, because its effects are less immediately tangible.
    Bobbies on the beat may not be particularly fashionable according to the accountants' view of policing that we seem to be adopting, but such non-adversarial policing is very popular in my constituency. Along with Gary Jenkins, editor of my local newspaper—I shall not waste this opportunity of naming it: it is the Spalding Post—I have been running a campaign to increase the number of bobbies on the beat. Some so-called experts have told us that is no longer seen as an important part of policing, because its value cannot be measured empirically, unlike other aspects of policing that relate easily to uniform targets and uniform methods of measurement.
    The amendments attempt to limit the excesses of the Bill—by exclusion, in the case of amendment No. 55; by clarification of the Bill's interface with existing statutes, in the case of amendments Nos. 58 and 72; and by defending the role of chief constables, in the case of amendment No. 73. Of course we want effective and efficient police forces, but we also want police forces that preserve the best traditions of impartiality, independence

    443
    and local accountability. We are justly proud of those things. They are a result of the current system of governance of police forces, which the Bill seriously jeopardises.
    6.30 pm
    Mr. Burstow: One of the amendments has been tabled by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), who is not in his place. It raises an issue that was touched on in the Committee that is considering the Greater London Authority Bill—the application of best value to the Greater London authority. Both the right hon. Gentleman and I have the pleasure—I think that that is the right word—of being members of that Committee, and have had the opportunity to explore a little further how best value will apply to the authority.
    In a number of written questions, I have sought to clarify—both for my benefit and, I hope, for the benefit of those who will have to operate the best value regime in the Greater London authority—how the duty of best value will apply. I want to go a little further and to seek further clarification.
    I have received a useful letter from the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford), which sets out the Government's thinking on the matter. There is still an issue around the order-making powers that the Bill provides. I seek some clarification from the hon. Gentleman's fellow Under-Secretary on the matter this evening.
    The letter, dated 16 March, says in respect of a duty of best value applied by order of the Secretary of State:
    "he could provide for the GLA to be a best value authority in relation to specified functions which are not functions of the Authority, but are functions of another best value authority."
    That sentence was hard to get to grips with. I hope that the Under-Secretary will be able to elucidate, because it is not explained later in the letter. Does it mean that the mayor can effectively act as the best value authority for a London borough? Does it mean that the mayor can act as the best value authority for other bodies from which he takes over functions? The Greater London Authority Bill provides for him to exercise other agencies' powers if they do not take them up themselves. We need to be clear what that means in respect of the application of best value.
    In Committee, the Minister of State expressed concern that an amendment that was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) on the application of best value corporately to the Greater London authority would blur the lines of accountability. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions will explain a little further how he thinks the lines of accountability will be blurred by applying corporately to the Greater London authority a duty to secure best value.
    Over time, that would be the better way to do it. If it is not possible to do that, it gives rise to the question whether the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, which is responsible for drafting both the Local Government Bill and the Greater London Authority Bill, failed to exercise joined-up thinking in producing both Bills. It would have been easy to apply best value corporately if the drafting of the Greater
    444
    London Authority Bill had allowed that to happen. However, it appears from the way in which the Bill has been put together that elaborate powers are needed, with the Secretary of State making things up as we go along.
    Therefore, I hope that the Under-Secretary will be able to give us some further explanation of how the best value regime will apply to the Greater London authority. I hope that it is clear, consistent and readily understandable to elected members, the mayor and officials who will have to operate the system.
    Other amendments deal with the police service. Again, I have had the opportunity to study the exchanges in the Standing Committee, which seemed to boil down to whether a police authority or the police force were responsible for discharging the duty of best value. Provided that the Bill applies a duty of best value on police authorities—from my reading of the Bill, that is what it does—Liberal Democrats do not have a problem in supporting the Government policy. However, the official Opposition are right to raise the concern that it might jeopardise operational matters. I should be grateful if the Under-Secretary could repeat the assurances that were given by the Minister of State during the deliberations in Committee.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Alan Meale): I welcome the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) on his first appearance at the Dispatch Box. I know how much he cares about the police force and policing methods. As a Nottinghamshire Member, I am aware of his activities in that regard over a long time in the east midlands.
    I shall deal first with the amendments that have implications for police functions: amendments Nos. 54, 55, 58, 72 and 73.
    Amendments Nos. 54 and 55 would exclude from the best value provisions certain functions over which police authorities have oversight. The amendments are similar to one which Conservative Members tabled in Committee. It may be helpful if I reiterate what was said then—that the amendments would not be consistent with our objectives for the police service under best value, which are to ensure that the police are delivering high-quality services across the range of their activities.
    Matters of national security and operational effectiveness will always be key priorities for police authorities and chief constables, as they are for the Government. I reassure the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings again that nothing in the best value provisions will affect the ability of the police to discharge those functions.
    The checks and balances that exist now to protect sensitive areas of police work, such as that of the special branch and the anti-terrorist branch, will continue to exist under best value. It will be the responsibility of Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary which, with the Audit Commission, will have a joint role in the inspection and audit of police authorities under best value, to ensure, as they do now, that details of such matters are exempt from publication. However, we do not believe that the provision of those services where expenditure can be high should be exempt from best value rigours. any more than should the other services provided by the police.

    445
    New subsection (4A)(c) would exclude from best value any function that is the statutory duty of a police force. That fails to recognise the shared responsibilities for policing within the tripartite structure, which the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings mentioned. It is the statutory duty of the police authority to maintain an efficient and effective police force for its area. The chief constable is responsible for the day-to-day direction and control of the force. To disapply best value from those duties would not be consistent with the objective to secure year-on-year improvements in services. However, as we recognised in last year's local government White Paper, it would not be appropriate to expose to competition certain core statutory activities that are carried out by the police.
    I am assuming that the reference in the amendment to "support services" means services such as administration, information technology and training. We see no valid argument for exempting any police support services from best value, whether they are provided nationally, or on a force-by-force basis. Indeed, such services, like others, should be critically reviewed and inspected regularly, so that we can be sure that they are being provided as efficiently and effectively as possible.
    Amendments Nos. 54 and 55 are both undesirable and unnecessary, and I ask the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings to withdraw amendment No. 54 at the appropriate moment.
    Amendment No. 58 would provide that nothing in the manner in which the duty of best value impacts on police authorities shall have effect on the functions of chief constables. Amendment No. 72 would require police authorities to have regard to section 8 of the Police Act 1996 in preparing a best value performance plan. Amendment No. 73 would put responsibility on the chief constable to draft the local performance plan for the police authority's agreement.
    Those amendments cover territory that has already been the subject of interesting debate in Committee. I hope that they have been tabled, as the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings indicated, to obtain reassurance, rather than to reopen old arguments.
    The Bill is very explicit about how it will impact on police. The duty of best value will apply to police authorities, but will not apply to police forces. As such, the Bill does not affect the tripartite structure of policing. However, that said, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is anxious that no opportunity should be missed to ensure that police forces are run as efficiently and effectively as possible. In achieving that end, close co-operation between chief constables and police authorities is very important.
    The Bill will strengthen that process of co-operation by virtue of the provision in clause 23(1)—which requires that the local policing plan, as provided for by section 8 of the Police Act 1996, shall give particulars of any action proposed for the purposes of complying with best value. As a matter of law, responsibility for production of the local policing plan is that of the police authority.
    In practice, however, the chief constable prepares the first draft of the policing plan. In doing so, he is thus required to have regard to the authority's statutory duties under best value, without being subject to a statutory obligation to achieve best value himself.
    446
    Section 10 of the 1996 Act is entirely consistent with that approach. It provides that the chief constable, in discharging his functions, is to have regard to section 8—which I have just described—but does not apply the statutory duty of best value to the chief constable; nor is it the Government's intention to create such a duty. We believe that that is the best way of ensuring an integrated approach between police authorities and police forces under best value. The Association of Chief Police Officers and the Association of Police Authorities—both of which have been consulted about the amendment to the 1996 Act—fully support that approach.
    I therefore ask the Opposition Members who tabled amendments Nos. 58, 72 and 73 not to press them.
    Mr. Andrew Lansley: I am not entirely clear on the matter, not having had the benefit of participating directly in the debates in Committee. However, as I understand it, the Association of Police Authorities took the view that it would be better if the best value aspects of police authorities' role were assessed by the Audit Commission rather than by Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary. The Minister seemed to be saying that the Government are proposing that HMIC should undertake the best value scrutiny of police authorities. Did I misunderstand him, or is he saying that the Association of Police Authorities is happy with all the provisions, including the one with which he is now dealing?
    Mr. Meale: The hon. Gentleman is right to mention that point. However, I am assured that I was right in what I said about the consultation process. Possibly the advice and information that he has received was misjudged.
    Amendment No. 26 would have the effect of subjecting all the functions of the Greater London authority to the general duty of best value, and not only those corporate functions exercised through the mayor.
    In Committee, we discussed at some length application to the Greater London authority of the duty of best value. Indeed, amendment No. 26 is identical to an amendment that was considered in Committee—as the Official Report will show, at columns 31–34 of the Standing Committee debates. Nevertheless, I appreciate that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth)—who is not in the Chamber—was not a member of the Committee that considered this Bill. I am therefore prepared to explain—if not to him, to his colleagues—why the Bill was drafted as was. Subsequently—if the right hon. Gentleman comes into the Chamber by the end of the debate—I hope that he will not press his amendment.
    As I have said before, the Government believe that the Greater London authority should be subjected to the duty of best value. However, the way in which that duty is applied to the authority will have to be flexibly drawn to take account of the different ways in which the GLA itself exercises its functions and its relationship with the four functional bodies that will deliver the main Londonwide services—the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority, Transport for London, the London Development Agency and the Metropolitan Police Authority.
    The Government believe that the Bill has to be sufficiently flexible to cater for different internal working arrangements, to ensure that as much of the GLA's normal

    447
    work as possible is subjected to the duty of best value. Clause 2(4) will achieve that, by allowing the Secretary of State to provide, by order, for the duty of best value to be applied to any functions that the GLA exercises other than through the mayor, and to any role it plays in respect of functions of other best value authorities, such as setting a strategy for Transport for London.
    6.45 pm
    Our approach to creating a duty of best value for the GLA takes specific account of the range of different responsibilities that will exist between its constituent parts, and will ensure, as far as possible, that accountability for delivering best value will be attached to the bodies that are responsible for performing its various functions.
    Mr. Swayne: I was not a member of the Standing Committee. I am also not sure that I am following the Minister's logic. Although he is stressing the importance of flexibility in dealing with the Greater London authority, he seemed to rule out such flexibility earlier in the debate, when he dismissed the flexibility that would have been afforded to police authorities by amendment No. 55.
    Mr. Meale: I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no question of our using the Bill to allow the GLA to usurp the functions of any other body when it does not have a statutory basis for doing so. I assure him also that, if he will allow me to finish my speech, I shall answer any questions that he might have on our approach to the amendments. He will have clarity.
    A simple application of the duty of best value to the GLA corporately—which is what amendment No. 26 seems to be seeking to achieve—would prevent the objectives that I have described from being achieved satisfactorily. If the application of the duty of best value were not clearly specified, we should run the risk of blurred lines of accountability. The Bill as currently drafted will give us the ability to identify clearly the roles of the mayor, the assembly and the functional bodies. A simple corporate application of the duty would not allow us to do so, and would detract from the transparency that we wish to create.
    I hope that that has clarified for the Opposition the position regarding the GLA, and that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst will agree not to press amendment No. 26—if he arrives in the Chamber in time to do so.
    Mr. Burstow: Although the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst is not in the Chamber, I have raised the same issue as it affects the GLA. I am not the right hon. Gentleman's keeper and cannot account for his absence, but believe that it is an important issue, which my hon. Friends also have raised and are still concerned about.
    Mr. Jenkin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Burstow: I am intervening on the Minister; it would be very difficult to take a further intervention.
    448
    Will the confusion on the Government's proposals on local government more generally and on executive mayors require future amendments to the legislation?
    Ms Armstrong: That is not in the Bill.
    Mr. Meale: The simple answer to that—as my right hon. Friend the Minister is saying—is that the Bill does not deal with those proposals, which will be debated when they are proposed.
    Amendment No. 27 would require the Secretary of State to consult relevant bodies before making an order disapplying a best-value duty in specified authorities.
    I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst for his apparent concern over the way in which the power to disapply a best value duty might be exercised by the Secretary of State. His amendment has at least given the Government an opportunity to state our views. He will be aware—as he has followed the debate in Committee—that we recognise that the duty of best value could be onerous if applied in full to smaller town and parish councils. In recognition of that possibility, clause 2(5) will allow us to vary the duty as appropriate. If he gets around to listening to me, I should like to pay tribute to the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), who led for the Opposition in Committee. In particular, he emphasised the need for a more sensible approach to town and parish councils.
    We also recognise the need for proper scrutiny of the exercise of the power. That is why clause 2(6) requires an order made under this provision to be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure in both Houses of Parliament.
    I am sure that I do not need to remind Opposition Members that it is simply a matter of good government to ensure that the views of interested parties are taken on board before proceeding with legislation. My Department has already had discussions with representatives of town and parish councils, as well as the Audit Commission, about the application of best value to those authorities.
    I am sure that Opposition Members cannot seriously believe that the Government would be so neglectful as to submit an order for parliamentary approval without first having had regard to the views of interested parties.
    Amendment No. 27 would require the Secretary of State only to consult relevant bodies and not to have regard to their views. It would not guarantee the quality, depth or extent of that consultation. Indeed, for the purposes of the amendment, consultation could be so meagre as to be worthless. Therefore, if the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst gets here on time, I shall ask him not to press the amendment.
    Mr. Hayes: I shall not delay the House long, but I should like to pick up a couple of the points that the Minister made. He claimed that the tripartite system for the governance of the police remained intact. The tripartite system is essentially a separation of powers. Historically, the arrangements for accountability and inspection have similarly been separate. Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary has typically dealt with managing, inspecting and holding to account the operational functions of the police force. The notion that it will now have power to inspect police authorities is certainly contentious. As my hon. Friend the Member for

    449
    South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) said, there is clearly some disagreement about the attitude of the Association of Police Authorities in that regard. I have a document from the APA saying:
    "The Association is vigorously opposed to the proposal that HMIC, the professional adviser to the Home Secretary, should play any part in inspecting how police authorities go about fulfilling their best value duties."
    So at the very least there is some doubt as to the position of the APA. It may have changed its mind following further discussion. Perhaps the Minister can clarify that.
    Mr. Meale: I should like to make two points. First, on the different views on the matter, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I have expressed the views that resulted from consultations conducted by officials in the Department. Secondly, I did not give the hon. Gentleman a complete answer on the effect of performance indicators on the style of policing. I understand his concern, bearing in mind his many years of involvement in these matters. Local authorities and police authorities will be free to put the national indicators into a local context. Auditors and inspectors will take full account of that.
    Mr. Hayes: I am grateful for the Minister's kind words, particularly the hyperbole about my service in Nottinghamshire. I give credit for prompting him to the hon. Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell) who served with me for a number of years, and I am grateful. However, it seems to me that there is at least a question mark about the role of HMIC and the Audit Commission in terms of their particular responsibilities for ensuring the efficiency and effectiveness of the police forces. I shall not make further comment about the APA's view, but it is certainly my view that HMIC inspectors are not the best people to perform that function, whereas they clearly are the best people to carry out their current functions effectively.
    In respect of the style of policing, if we move to a system of comparable targets, there will have to be a degree of uniformity. Particularly if the funding mechanisms are based on that system, it will encourage a style of policing that is straightforward and easily measured. That is already occurring to some degree and it is why, for example, police forces find it hard to fund and implement a style of policing which, although it may be popular with the public, is hard to measure in tangible terms.
    Mr. Meale: I do not think that that affects the duty of best value. One reason why I paid tribute to the hon. Gentleman is that for a long time I have had sympathy with the views that he has expressed in the county that I represent. Those views are widely known. I take some comfort from the fact that such views are being expressed about policing. The hon. Gentleman will know that the police in my constituency of Mansfield have adopted that style.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. I shall attempt to assist the Minister by reminding him that interventions must be brief.
    Mr. Meale: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not think that the duty of best value will upset the process of decision making by local police.
    Mr. Hayes: I said that I would be brief, but I am hesitant to draw the debate to a close, because if it
    450
    continues any longer the Minister may say even nicer things about me, and the more of those that are recorded in Hansard, the better.
    Mr. Swayne: I followed the Minister's logic when he appealed for flexibility in dismissing amendment No. 26, but it seemed to me that he was also dismissing that very flexibility in respect of police authorities when he dismissed amendment No.55. Am I alone in spotting that contradiction?
    Mr. Hayes: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As hon. Members will know, I am renowned for my generosity, whereas my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) is more hardhearted and never wastes an opportunity to draw attention to contradictions in a Minister's speech. There is certainly a fundamental issue of flexibility and independence of police forces that concerns the Opposition.
    Having said that, I am anxious to ensure that the House has the maximum time to discuss the other faults and failures of the Bill, so I shall not prolong matters further. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

  Clause 3

    THE GENERAL DUTY
    Mr. Jenkin: I beg to move amendment No. 50, in page 3, line 5, leave out
    `way in which its functions are exercised'
    and insert
    'value for money of its provision of services,'.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 57, in page 3, leave out line 6 and insert
    `having equal regard to economy, efficiency and effectiveness.'. No. 29, in page 3, line 9, after `(a)', insert 'elected'.
    No. 30, in page 3, line 11" after `(b)', insert 'elected'.
    No. 33, in page 3" leave out lines 17 to 19.
    No. 63, in clause 4, page 3, line 38, leave out
    `having regard to a combination of'
    and insert 'having equal regard to'.
    No. 51, in clause 5, page 4, line 12, leave out
    `way in which its functions are exercised'
    and insert
    `value for money of its provision of services,'.
    No. 66, page 4, line 13, leave out
    `having regard to a combination of'
    and insert 'having equal regard to'.
    Mr. Jenkin: The importance of this part of the Bill cannot be overestimated. The amendments relate to clause 3, which covers the fundamental duty of best value. We spent considerable time in Committee discussing its definition. Clause 3(1) states:
    "A best value authority must make arrangements to secure continuous improvement in the way in which its functions are exercised, having regard to a combination of economy efficiency and effectiveness."

    451
    Considerable effort must have been applied to the drafting of those words to tighten the meaning. The Bill puts an obligation on an authority to achieve specific aims, but if someone wanted to sue a council for failure to fulfil the best value duties, the court could well have difficulty deciding what the duties mean.
    7 pm
    Everything hangs on the duty of best value. We wondered whether the definition could be improved. We spent a lot of time in Committee considering possible expansions or enlargements of the definition. The purpose of this group of amendments is to establish the meaning. We think that it means value for money. That may be rather like going into a drawing room and saying a rude word to the Government. They may regard value for money as a mean-spirited, bad-tempered and narrow-minded phrase that does not reflect people's wider aspirations for their local authority, but in its broadest sense it means securing the finest and best-quality services at the best available cost.
    Clause 3(1) seems to be part of the packaging of the Bill. It is designed to be all things to all men. It is attractive to Labour authorities because it does not mean competitive tendering and to Conservative authorities because they may understand it as a duty to secure value for money. The disciplines of competition are extended to all the activities of local authorities later in the Bill, with clause 5 all but putting in place a competitive tendering regime.
    The Bill uses all kinds of language in place of the ultimate truth: if best value is to mean anything, the fundamental duty must be to achieve value for money. That is not the same as the cheapest option, which the Government have endlessly caricatured as our position; it means getting best value.
    To inform the concept of value for money. we suggest that, rather than having regard to a combination of economy, efficiency and effectiveness, authorities should have regard to those three in equal measure, because they are equally important. We are suggesting a more specific way of expressing the combination, because we are asking not for a bit of economy, a lot of efficiency and a lot of effectiveness, but for an equal consideration of all three. Amendments Nos. 50 and 51 to clause 5, and amendments Nos. 57, 63 and 66, which deal with the need to have equal regard to the combination of economy, efficiency and effectiveness, cover those points.
    My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) has tabled further amendments, but he is not present tonight. The Government changed the business of the House at very short notice, which may explain why he is unable to be with us for this debate. He had expected to be able to debate the amendments last night. Indeed, if the Government had not pulled stumps he would have been able to do so.
    My right hon. Friend's amendments clarify who should be the
    "representatives of persons liable to pay any tax, precept of levy to or in respect of an authority"
    and the
    "representatives of persons liable to pay non-domestic rates in respect of any area"
    452
    He says that they should be elected, which is a good principle. We heard earlier this evening that it might be all right to consult a focus group to find out how popular the Government's capping policies are. It may be implicit in the Bill that a focus group would be enough to deal with the requirement to consult. We are suggesting that elected representatives are the right people to consult. Amendment No. 33 would delete subsection (3) of clause 3. If the representatives to be consulted under subsections (2)(a) and (2)(b) are elected, subsection (3) becomes unnecessary.
    The amendments are useful and are designed to promote discussion about what best value means. We think that value for money in the provision of an authority's services is a clearer definition of best value than
    "the way in which its functions are exercised".
    We commend the amendments to the House.
    Jackie Ballard: The definition of best value is central to the Bill. The Liberal Democrats have no problem with having equal regard to the three Es, although we moved amendments in Committee to add other Es—equality, environmental sustainability and equity—because the Audit Commission's three Es of economy, effectiveness and efficiency provide too narrow a focus and do not encompass all the issues that local authorities should consider when providing or contracting for services. Amendments Nos. 50 and 51, which would narrow even further the focus of best value to make it just a value-for-money exercise, should be rejected.
    The amendments of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) look attractive on the surface.
    Mr. Jenkin: When the hon. Lady goes shopping and buys herself a nice new dress, does she believe that she does not get value for money unless she buys the cheapest dress? That is not how normal people make purchasing decisions. They judge value for money on the relationship between the quality of what they are buying and what they are spending. That is what we are focusing on. The hon. Lady is falling into the trap of believing that value for money means the cheapest. That is silly. We are looking for the best value for money.
    Jackie Ballard: I am so pleased that the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin)—or wherever it is—holds me in such high regard. Under compulsory competitive tendering, people shopping for trousers would have had to look for the cheapest.
    Ms Armstrong: What about dresses?
    Jackie Ballard: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman buys dresses, too. When I go shopping, I might be looking at more than just the cost or the quality of the article. If I were looking at just those two aspects, value for money might be my main consideration, but I might be interested in whether the article was made by people in a sweat-shop in the Philippines or by people somewhere else who were paid a decent wage. Many people take into account equity, decency and opportunity when looking for goods and services. The purpose of our amendments in Committee was to widen the definition from the Audit Commission's narrow three Es.

    453
    The amendments of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst look attractive on the surface, because most of us have a positive knee-jerk reaction to the word "elected", but I am confused about who the right hon. Gentleman thinks the elected representatives of taxpayers are. Councillors are their direct representatives. I wonder whether he is thinking of having more elections to choose people to be consulted on best value. I should be surprised if that was his plan, because it would be bureaucratic nonsense.
    However, that argument does not apply to amendment No. 30, which would be an improvement. It would be useful for the business community to elect representatives for consultation purposes. That could refer to representative organisations that already exist—for example, chambers of commerce and industry. We support the requirement for local authorities to consult local people on how to fulfil their duties under best value; any good local authority should be doing that already.
    Consultation would show that most people with an interest in service delivery would want other issues above and beyond the three Es to be taken into account. In Committee, the Minister said that, although only the three Es would be in the Bill, local authorities would, for example, be expected to take equality issues into account. Local authorities should act as leaders of their communities, and ensure that services are provided in accordance with the needs and wishes of local people.
    Without policies to address disadvantage, there is a danger that majoritarianism may rule in consultation responses, and that would further disadvantage minorities who are excluded by economic, social, physical or geographical conditions. I repeat my concern that employees are not included on the list of those to be consulted about the duty of best value.
    Mr. Lansley: I wish to respond to two points made by the hon. Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard). First, I do not think that it is necessary for additional Es—be they equality, equity or environmental sustainability—to be added to the list of those considerations to be taken into account. The word "effectiveness" in this context is a compelling word; and includes the taking into account of all those purposes for which the authority exercises its functions.
    If the authority, rightly, believes that equity in the administration of its functions or environmental sustainability is an appropriate purpose, it is perfectly reasonable for the authority to seek to carry that out effectively—and it will come to its best value duty by that route.
    Secondly, amendment No. 50 deals with the hon. Lady' s caricature of what value for money means in this context. My hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) made it clear that he thought that value for money would be an improvement. However, it is not simply that the amendment would improve the drafting, but that it would radically change the way in which authorities had to think about their best value duty.
    My fear is this: The Government's rhetoric in relation to the best value duty is that the concept of continuous improvement embraces—naturally and spontaneously in all authorities that exercise the best value duty—continuous improvement in value for money. However, that is not necessarily the case. An authority that said that
    454
    it had regard to economy, efficiency and effectiveness in the context of seeking continuously to improve its services may not necessarily continuously improve value for money.
    That authority may be far more concerned with the continuous raising of the level of service provided—even to the point where there are, effectively, diseconomies of scale or inefficiencies in the service provided—or with the way in which the quality of service is provided, while having regard to things like efficiency and economy, but none the less seeing the continuous improvement criterion as the driving consideration.
    Labour and Liberal Democrat authorities are prone to move on quickly from a debate about value for money to a debate about how additional money can be spent in ways that will deliver additional services to the public. They may well take the view—they may well be wrong—that the additional service that they wish to provide represents a continuous improvement in that service. However, that may not necessarily deliver value for money. Although an authority may think about whether it can provide a service economically, that does not mean that that level of service represents necessarily greater value for money than that provided the year before. The authority may have moved to a standard providing lower value for money than that which applied before.
    The redrafting of the best value duty—so that continuous improvement is expressed in terms of value for money, and not simply the way in which functions are exercised—cements the duty in a context which the local taxpayer would regard as appropriate. Taxpayers should not be at the mercy of an authority that is using the best value duty, and which says that it can continue to take the service to levels that are not justified by the value for money of what is delivered.
    7.15 pm
    My hon. Friend the Member for North Essex expressed the need to have regard not just to the three Es, but to ensure that each is given its due weight. "Having equal regard" would be the appropriate wording. If that does not happen, it seems perfectly legitimate—if not satisfactory—for an authority to have regard to economy in the delivery of its service, but to override economy in the interests of what it regards as effectiveness.
    Amendments Nos. 50 and 57 deal with the same purposes, but the amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) give effect to a different purpose, to which I am quite sympathetic. The hon. Member for Taunton seemed not to appreciate the circumstances in which the measure could apply. Happily, my district authority and county council routinely consult me, as a Member of Parliament, about the manner in which they exercise their functions before they set budgets. It is not necessary for them to do so—it is certainly not their duty.
    Equally, county councillors are not necessarily consulted by district authorities before budgets are set, and district councillors are not routinely consulted by county councillors before budgets are set. Likewise, the "elected representatives" could well include representatives elected to parish councils who, in my experience, could offer an effective means by which the service that a district council provided to the people in its area could be assessed and consulted upon before a district authority set its budget.

    455
    In truth, elected representatives from parish councils would probably deliver a far more meaningful set of consultations to a district authority about how it should set its budget and balance its demands upon the taxpayer with the service that it provides than would a focus group or a representative sample of the electorate, who may well have a less complete understanding than parish councillors of the manner in which the district council relates to the local area.
    The hon. Member for Taunton asked who would be the representatives of persons who were liable to pay non-domestic rates. Under the clause, that is left entirely in the hands of a best value authority to choose for itself. I was the representative of the British chambers of commerce at the time of the Local Government Act 1989, and it was largely at our instigation that we secured a statutory duty for local authorities to consult representatives of the business community—effectively, non-domestic ratepayers—in relation to the framing of local economic development plans. That is sometimes honoured more in the breach than in the observance, but it is still there, 10 years later, on the statute book.
    This is an opportunity for the Minister to say who she thinks the representatives of persons liable to pay non-domestic rates would be, in any context. For my part, I hope that chambers of commerce and industry would be pre-eminent among those representatives. In practice, they are often the elected representatives of such persons—even though not every non-domestic ratepayer, by any means, in any given area would be a member of a chamber of commerce and industry. In almost every case, a non-domestic ratepayer can be a member of a chamber of commerce and industry. The articles of association of such chambers are designed to give local representation in relation to that class of person.
    It would be helpful if the Minister made it clear that, if the Secretary of State is to issue guidance to best value authorities, that guidance may well direct those authorities to consultations with chambers of commerce and industry.
    Dr. Whitehead: Hon. Members have been a little kind about amendments Nos. 29, 30 and 33, which give an interesting insight into the mind of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and, to some extent, that of the previous Government. It appears that he wants to nail everything down and have everything precisely defined but, as in the famous parable of the sorcerer's apprentice, everything goes haywire when one examines the detail.
    As the hon. Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) pointed out, the amendments would leave the words
    "in respect of the authority"
    in subsection (2)(a) of clause 3, so the people referred to must be the councillors, and not other people as suggested by the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), who has put a kind and sweeping interpretation on the intentions of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst.
    Amendment No. 30 would have subsection (2)(b) refer to
    "elected representatives of persons liable to pay non-domestic rates in respect of any area"
    456
    but since the provision requiring that the local authority takes account of
    "persons who appear to the authority to be representative of that group"
    would be deleted by amendment No. 33, the authority would appear to have to consult anyone who pays non-domestic rates and is elected in any capacity whatever.
    Presumably, then, the local chamber of commerce, the Confederation of British Industry, the Federation of Small Businesses, the local ironmongers and anyone else who could claim to have elected anyone to anything should be exhaustively consulted. That is a nice ideal picture, but in my experience of local government the reality of the proper exercise of consultation has always been that people who appear to be representative of the various groups are invited to take part.
    It would be perverse if, under subsection (3), the chamber of commerce, with its elected officers, did not appear to the authority to be representative. The local authority would be in some trouble if it did not accept that a local chamber of commerce was representative, but by trying to nail everything down exactly, the amendments would achieve precisely the opposite of what was in the mind of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, although, as I systematically fail to read his mind, perhaps that was not his intention after all.
    It is interesting to note the boundaries of what the right hon. Gentleman thinks is appropriate. He does not appear to be interested in consumers, who are the subject of subsection (2)(c) and (d). Under the amendments, anybody could represent himself and no one would have to be elected. As amendment No. 33 would delete subsection (3), anyone could turn up and say whatever they wanted. The same applies to any amenity society or local group interested in the parks and commons, the old town or local history.
    In the amendments, the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst has given us a little cameo of what happened under the previous Government, who tried to nail everything down so that authorities could not move at all, with such toxic side effects that relations between central Government and local authorities were widely poisoned.
    The clause is designed to inject some flexibility into the relationship between the local authority and the groups representing those who pay the local taxes, which should properly be consulted about what the authority does. If the authority acts responsibly, that should be the end of the matter. It is a sad reflection on the quality of the Opposition's attempts to amend the Bill that the amendments, if accepted, would completely reverse that intention.
    Ms Armstrong: As my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) said, all the amendments would narrow the issue of best value. I appreciate the fact that the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) moved the amendment in a probing manner, and I intend to respond in that spirit.
    On amendments Nos. 50 and 51, we have consistently said that the duty of best value needs to tackle both the cost and the quality of public service provision. The amendments are clearly designed to improve auditability

    457
    but they seem to betray a fixation with cost to the detriment of other equally relevant considerations, such as quality.
    I understand that Opposition Members might want to base the duty on value for money, given the Audit Commission's skill in assessing it, as has been demonstrated over recent years, but value for money is not in itself as easily demonstrated as continuous improvement against consistently set performance indicators. The question is begged, value for whom? Simple, measurable improvement is what local people expect and is the yardstick against which best value should be judged. Alongside that will go what local people are prepared to pay.
    Amendments Nos.50 and 51 betray a narrow focus because they are couched in terms of services, not functions, as the clause currently provides. We have deliberately chosen to define the duty of best value in those terms, as the definition of functions goes far wider than that implied by the use of the word "services". It means that internal support functions, not normally delivered to the public, but nevertheless part of the overall cost of functions, and a contributory factor in their efficiency, will be subject to the duty of best value.
    The amendments would run the risk of removing such functions from the scope of the duty altogether and recreating the "us and them" mentality in authorities that so bedevilled compulsory competitive tendering. The duty of best value will very often be measured against the quality and cost of front-line services, but the way in which it is defined in the clause allows us also to consider internal functions and the manner in which an authority is managed generally. That is the best and most comprehensive way in which to ensure that authorities improve their performance and make themselves more responsive to their community generally. I hope that the amendments will not be pressed to a vote.
    As my hon. Friend the Member for Test dealt effectively with the problems arising from amendments Nos.29, 30 and 33, I will not dwell on them, especially as the right hon.Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) is not here.
    Amendments Nos.57, 63 and 66 would alter the nature of the duty of best value by requiring authorities to have equal regard to each of the elements of economy, efficiency and effectiveness, rather than a combination of them. The hon.Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) supported that.
    7.30 pm
    I ask Opposition Members to consider carefully what the amendments would mean. Do they seriously believe that an authority that is already demonstrating a high level of effectiveness in a function, based on a comparison with others, should not be able in the future to concentrate its efforts on delivering a similar level of performance in the economy with which it delivers that function? We seek to maintain flexibility so that councils can make sensible decisions that arise from the information they get from performance reviews and audit reports about what they do reasonably well and what they might improve. We expect them to pay particular attention to areas that could be improved. That is common sense and, on reflection, I am sure that Opposition Members would agree.
    458
    Opposition Members seem to forget that we are dealing with many different authorities of different types. We want to celebrate those differences. None of them is likely to have exactly the same priorities and none of them will start from exactly the same level of performance. It is nonsense to expect that they would wish to adopt exactly the same approach to improving economy, efficiency and effectiveness, and nor should they be made to do so. The amendments would impose uniformity across the board and would remove local flexibility at a stroke. They fly in the face of what the duty of best value is designed to be about, which is making best value authorities more accountable to their communities. They are restrictive and rigid in the same way that CCT was and I urge Opposition Members to withdraw them.
    Mr.Lansley: I raised one particular question that the Minister has not addressed—what do the Government believe is the best mechanism for best value authorities to consult representatives of non-domestic rate payers?
    Ms Armstrong: The White Paper makes that clear. We have set out ideas for consultation on the non-domestic rate that are not simply mechanical but which obtain the support of the business community. We want to lock that community into a process that it feels gives it real consultation.Local authorities have a statutory duty to consult on their budgets. In some, the process works well and the business community is satisfied. However, in too many authorities, that is not the case. We want a clear process to be adopted in every area so that the business community is part of determining the process and agreement is achieved between the social partners—business and the local authority—about the precise mechanism to be employed. I hope that the Opposition will not feel the need to press the amendments to a Division.
    Mr.Jenkin: I feel like Hamlet trying to persuade Polonius that a cloud has adopted a particular shape. I am pleased that we have had this debate, because we have exposed this part of the Bill as packaging and little more. I hope that the Minister will consider what she has said. She said that amendment No.57 would remove flexibility at a stroke and destroy the accountability at the heart of the Bill. That is the most ridiculous language to use about three lines of text. She said that the amendments were strict and rigid.
    We have exposed the fact that this part of the Bill is gobbledegook. The real guts of the Bill are not contained in these airy-fairy objectives but come later in the provisions for powers of supervision, control and, ultimately, intervention. That is the purpose of the Bill and the airy-fairy language at the front is merely to persuade people that it is a good Bill. The Minister said, absurdly, that to talk of value for money is narrow minded, but most electors, when they vote in elections, regard value for money as the most important issue, although they may express that differently. For example, I am a cyclist and I regard good provision for cyclists by local authorities as good value for money, but other people have different views of what is good value for money. What is crucial is that the performance of local

    459
    authorities, when they undertake functions, should be measured so that we know whether they are getting value for money.
    Mr.Lansley: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in our culture of continuous improvement, there comes a point in every type of business where the marginal cost of improving the service offered no longer yields value for money? The acid test of whether the duty in this part of the Bill will deliver value for money will be when a local authority seeks constantly to improve its service but gets diminishing returns. I suspect that that is what will happen.
    Mr.Jenkin: I agree with my hon. Friend, but the point that he has neglected is that the Government want local authorities, as the providers of services, to aspire to best value, but the ultimate control comes from the council tax capping powers and the council tax benefit subsidy limitation. The control on cost ultimately comes from the other provisions in the Bill. I find it extraordinary that the Minister can use such extravagant language when to talk about which approach is better—a combination of economy and efficiency, or the need for an equal regard for economy, efficiency and economy—is to count the angels on a pin head.
    We have exposed this part of the Bill as complete nonsense and the Minister, in her heart of hearts, knows that. The important provisions in the Bill are the powers of intervention that the Secretary of State will exercise over local authorities.Unfortunately, the Bill lacks any prescription over how the Secretary of State should exercise those powers, which is why it is such a dangerous Bill. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

  Clause 4

    PERFORMANCE INDICATORS AND STANDARDS
    Mr. Waterson: I beg to move amendment No.60, in page 3, leave out lines 28 to 30.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No.61, in page 3, line 31, leave out 'or standards'.
    Government amendment No.6.
    No.62, in page 3, line 35, leave out 'and standards'.
    No.46, in page 3, line 39, leave out from 'and' to end of line 41 and insert
    'shall do so in the terms recommended to him by the Audit Commission.'
    No.64, in page 3, line 41, after 'Commission', insert
    'and any other statutory body specified by order.'
    No.47, in page 3, line 41, at end insert —
    '() in any instance when he specifies a performance indicator or standard in terms contrary to any recommendations made to him by the Audit Commission, shall publish with the order an explanation of his reasons for doing so.'.
    460
    No.77, in clause 14, page 9, line 37, leave out from 'if to end of line 39 and insert
    'a report under section 13 recommends that the Secretary of State give a direction under this section.'.
    No.78, in page 10, line 3, after 'opinion', insert
    ', having regard to the report issued under section 13 and any recommendations therein,'.
    No.79, in page 10, line 5, after 'Part', insert
    'and is proportionate to the degree of failure identified in the report issued under section 13.'.
    No.80, in page 10, line 17, leave out
    'or for so long as the Secretary of State considers appropriate'.
    No.48, in page 10, line 22, at end insert—
    '() where the Secretary of State exercises any function of the authority, he shall publish a statement of the way in which he will exercise that function, how this will remedy any failings set out in the Audit Commission's report, and the period of time over which he expects to exercise this function.'.
    No.81, in page 10, line 26, leave out '(if any)'.
    No.5, in page 10, leave out lines 33 to 43 and insert—
    '(8) No direction under this section shall be given unless a resolution in support has been approved by the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs.'.
    No.49, in page 10, line 33, leave out subsections (8) and (9) and insert—
    `() The Secretary of State may give a direction before the expiry of one month as specified in (7) above, if he considers the direction sufficiently urgent.'.
    No.86, in page 10, line 33, leave out subsection (8).
    No.87, in page 10, line 34, leave out 'he' and insert
    'the report issued under section 13'.
    No.88, in page 10, line 39, at end insert—
    'c) representatives as required under section 3(2).'.
    Mr. Waterson: The first amendments in this important group alter clause 4. Amendments 60 to 62 would reduce the Secretary of State's discretionary power to set standards for local authorities. The key theme of the Bill is the Secretary of State's gathering to himself of some extraordinary powers over whose exercise there will be little control. Clause 4 is another example of that.
    Performance indicators should be set centrally, but performance standards could profitably and sensibly be decided by local people, through their elected representatives. The amendments provide a litmus test of whether the Government mean what their rhetoric says about returning power to, and trying to rejuvenate, local government, and of whether they are willing to trust local government to make such decisions.
    If local government is to mean anything, it must recognise that different people in different parts of the country have different needs, aspirations and approaches. We want a looser rein than the Bill allows, and an explanation from the Minister of why the Secretary of State needs such tight controls. Why do the Government not trust local government?
    Government amendment No.6 relates to consultation by the Secretary of State on performance standards and indicators. The reference to consultation is a welcome gesture from the Government, but imposes no terribly heavy burden on the Secretary of State, mentioning
    "such persons as he thinks fit."

    461
    He may choose as few or as many as he wishes. It is a pretty puny requirement, which bears comparison—although there is no direct read-across—with how clause 3 sets out in graphic detail the sort of people that best value authorities must consult. Clause 3 creates detailed obligations for authorities setting out who they must consult, and, perhaps, implying those they should not or need not consult.Pill the Minister explain the philosophy behind the rather wishy-washy consultation requirement? If the Government really believe in consultation, why do they not spell out that belief in the Bill?
    Amendments Nos.46, 64 and 47 would limit the Secretary of State's discretionary power to vary the performance indicators that he will set for local authorities from those recommended by the Audit Commission. The Bill requires him to have regard to the recommendations, but in practice gives him carte blanche to act as he sees fit. We could usefully tweak those powers, circumscribing them somewhat.
    7.45 pm
    Clause 14 deals with the Secretary of State's powers. There can be few precedents, at least in peacetime, for the panoply of powers that the Secretary of State seeks in order to enforce his will on local government. Amendment Nos.77 to 79 would remove from the Secretary of State the decision as to whether the local authority is failing to comply with the best value regime.Pe say that the criteria should be measured and established by the Audit Commission, which would remove the temptation for political interference and make sure that the best value regime operated objectively.
    No one will argue with the proposition that a lot of faith and confidence from both sides of the House reposes in the Audit Commission because of the expertise that it has built up over many years. It seems sensible to have the commission monitor that part of the Bill.
    Clause 14(5) allows the Secretary of State to take over the running of a local authority service, an extraordinary power to be proposed by a Government who pose as the champion of local democracy and accountability. The Government want the power, and they will certainly be able to drive the measure through under the guillotine and by use of their majority. However, amendments Nos.80 and 42 would oblige the Secretary of State to announce in advance a time limit to his function, or to seek a new order before he continues in this role. They would also require him to say in advance how he would go about remedying the failure that he felt had required his intervention.
    That is no more than the Secretary of State requires of the authorities under the Bill. If they must show that they are tackling issues in a clear and structured way, it is much more necessary for central Government, who are not accountable in quite the same way to local people, to do precisely the same.
    The Bill would allow the Secretary of State to issue a direction without having received a report from the Audit Commission to the effect that remedial action was necessary. He would require no external evidence or sanction before intervening in a draconian fashion in local affairs. Amendment No.81 would prevent such arbitrary action.
    462
    I shall deal only briefly with amendment No.5, as it was tabled by the Liberal Democrats, one of whom may wish to deal with it in detail. It appears to make the Secretary of State accountable to the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs.
    Clause 14(8) enables the Secretary of State to issue direction without reference to the constraints imposed by earlier subsections. That would give him unprecedented power to intervene in matters that are properly the affair of local authorities without reference to Parliament or the Audit Commission as impartial arbiters of best value. Amendments Nos.49, 86 and 87 rein in the Secretary of State to ensure that he is guided by the Audit Commission.
    Finally, amendment No.88 would oblige the Secretary of State to consult with the same bodies that local authorities must consult when they draw up best value strategies. As with amendment No.48, it imposes on the Secretary of State the same conditions that he imposes on local authorities. If he is to be directly responsible for the functions of a best value authority, he should prove that he has a plan that will satisfy the local community in whose name he intends to act.
    This large group of amendments covers two clauses. The Opposition's guiding light throughout the Bill's progress has been that the powers demanded by the Secretary of State are extensive and sometimes draconian.Limits should be set on them. There should be a tighter rein on the Secretary of State' s powers and on how and when he can exercise them.
    Mr. Sanders: I beg to move amendment No.5 in the name of my hon. Friend and myself.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There is no need for the hon. Gentleman to move his amendment.Pe group all the amendments together. The only amendment that has been moved is the first amendment in the group, in the name of the hon.Member for Eastbourne (Mr.Paterson). The hon. Gentleman may wish to say simply that he supports the amendment, to avoid confusion.
    Mr. Sanders: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.Of course we support the amendment that the hon.Member for Eastbourne (Mr.Paterson) has just moved.
    Amendment No.5 leaves out lines 33 to 43 and removes the power of the Secretary of State to operate by order of mandamus. It would replace that power with a process of resolution approved by the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs.Yesterday, we received the latest version of the protocol between central and local government. The existence of the protocol implies some consultation and agreement on the way forward, but clause 14(8), (9) and (10) are the ultimate coercive powers that the Secretary of State would have if this part of the Bill were not amended. He would have the power to determine urgency and need for action without reference to the House. The only reference to the local authority required is that he has to inform it of what action he has taken—he does not have to consult it.
    The Minister referred to referendums. They are a form of consultation. Any Minister in the new regime would not look kindly on a local authority that simply informed its local residents of its council tax rather than consulting them. What is supposedly good for local government does

    463
    not seem to be replicated for central Government in the Bill. The LGA still has concerns about the protocol, especially on the use of urgency powers, of which notice does not even need to be given to local authorities.
    We believe that clause 14 is crucial. Although our amendment would not remove as many of the new centralising powers given to the Secretary of State as we would like, it at least provides a solid mechanism for parliamentary scrutiny of those powers.
    Mr.Lansley: I am grateful for this opportunity briefly to speak to four amendments within the group. Amendments Nos.46 and 47 are not complementary but competitive. For reasons on which I will not elaborate because my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr.Paterson) referred to them, there is everything to be said for tweaking the powers of the Secretary of State. There will naturally be some creative tension between local authorities and the Government about the manner in which performance indicators or standards are to be set.Local authorities might well take reassurance from the fact that the indicators would be set in terms recommended by the Audit Commission. Fortunately, the reputation of the Audit Commission is such that hon.Members on both sides of the House ought to be happy that its history and knowledge of local authorities well equip it to recommend satisfactorily to the Secretary of State the basis on which the standards should be set.
    I recognise that Ministers are normally not minded to circumscribe themselves, so if they are not minded to go as far as accepting amendment No.46, I commend amendment No.47 to them. If the Audit Commission takes the trouble to recommend performance indicators or standards to the Secretary of State and he chooses not to follow them, local authorities will find it helpful if any order published is accompanied by reasons why the Secretary of State has gone down a different path. That will remove any sense that the indicators or standards are arbitrary.Of course, Ministers never behave arbitrarily.
    Amendments Nos.48 and 49 also relate to clause 14. Amendment No.49 has the purpose of removing those subsections that allow the Secretary of State to act urgently without consulting and simply to notify the relevant authority and such persons as the Secretary of State sees fit of what he has chosen to do and why he has chosen to do it urgently. The amendment would replace those subsections with a different mechanism, the purpose of which would not be to constrain the Secretary of State in acting in an urgent manner, but would require him to go through a consultation period, although obviously on a highly accelerated basis, without observing the one-month period that would otherwise apply for consultation.
    I admit that amendment No.49 would not enable the Secretary of State to act quite as swiftly as the Bill presupposes, but local authorities would find it a great deal more satisfactory procedurally if the Secretary of State consulted—albeit in the space of hours rather than days or weeks—and then acted, rather than acted and then notified. There is a big difference between those two things.
    For my money, amendment No.48 is the most important in the group, and I hope that Ministers will take it on board. If a report from the Audit Commission
    464
    deemed an authority to be failing to exercise its functions, and the Secretary of State took it over, it would be incumbent on him to say how he proposed to exercise that function, how he would remedy the failings set out in the report, and the period during which he expected to exercise the function. The amendment does not bind the Secretary of State to exercise that function for any specific period or in a specific way, but at least in this culture of measurement the Secretary of State will be measured at the outset as to the manner in which he takes over a function, how he exercises it and for how long.
    I commend amendments No.48 and 47 to the Government and hope that, even at this late stage, they are willing to take them on board.
    Ms Armstrong: This is a rather large group of amendments so I will get through them as quickly as I can. I shall start with Government amendment No.6. In Committee, we gave a commitment to the hon.Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) —I am sorry that she is not here, because this is her moment of triumph—to table an amendment to require the Secretary of State to consult widely before he issues an order specifying performance indicators and standards. Amendment No.6 fulfils that commitment. It is a commitment that we gladly give, as it has always been the Government's intention to undertake wide and inclusive consultation on the likely suite of national performance indicators and standards for best value. It is a commitment that we freely gave in both local government White Papers that we published last year.
    I reiterate what was said in Committee.Performance indicators cannot and will not be developed in isolation or without the interest of those in the field, including the best value pilots and any successors. The consultation will be wide-ranging and open. It will include best value authorities, representative bodies of the private and voluntary sectors, of consumer organisations, trade unions and other bodies that the Secretary of State considers will usefully contribute to the debate. Such consultation will take place before we initially specify national performance indicators and standards for best value and subsequently when we propose any changes to the order. I hope that the amendment, and the commitments given in the White Papers, in Committee and today will reassure Liberal Democrat Members of our commitment to consult on national performance indicators and standards for best value. I urge hon.Members to accept the amendment.
    8 pm
    Amendment No.46 would give the Audit Commission an effective veto over what the suite of performance indicators and standards specified by the Secretary of State would contain. It would cut across much of the purpose of clause 4 and undermine the wider consultation process that the Government will undertake before specifying performance indicators and standards. I urge hon.Members not to press the amendment to a vote.
    Amendment No.64 would give the Secretary of State power to specify those bodies whose views he will have regard to when specifying performance indicators and standards. The Bill, as it currently stands, provides for the Secretary of State to have regard only to recommendations made to him by the Audit Commission. It is because of the commission's unique role in best value

    465
    and its experience in monitoring local authority performance that it is included in clause 4(3)(b).Under best value, it will be responsible for auditing best value performance plans and undertaking best value inspections. It will retain a power, under the Audit Commission Act 1998, to set performance indicators. It will also have had considerable experience of setting performance indicators to monitor the performance of local authorities. The requirement for the Secretary of State to consult other organisations has been catered for by amendment No.6, and I hope that hon.Members will not see the necessity to press amendment No.64.
    Amendment No.47 would require the Secretary of State to publish the reasons for his specifying any performance indicators or standard in a manner contrary to a recommendation received from the Audit Commission. We are considering the best way to publish the conclusions of the consultation process that we will undertake before the Secretary of State specifies national performance indicators and standards. However, I hope that hon.Members will understand why I do not warm to the amendment. The Government should say how they have reacted to the views of consultees, but that should not be limited to explaining their reaction solely to the Audit Commission's recommendations; it should also include the conclusions of other consultees. The Government will consider how best to put that into effect, and the debate will help us in those considerations.
    With regard to amendments Nos.60, 61 and 62, we discussed performance standards at great length and in great detail in Committee. I hope that I can again reassure hon.Members about how performance standards will be applied and why they are important not only in driving up the performance of best value authorities, but also in providing the high-quality service that the public expect and deserve. The Government are committed to improving local services and ensuring that all people, no matter where they live, have access to, and receive, quality services. Standards and targets will be the key to achieving continuous improvements in service delivery.
    The hon.Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr.Lansley) suggested that we cannot maintain continuous improvement without sacrificing value for money. I invite him to discuss that idea with, for example, the British Retail Consortium, whose members know that unless they improve their service year on year and give value for money, they will go out of business. Standards and targets will drive up the performance of local authorities, and put most pressure on those authorities that are performing poorly.
    Where there is a clear national requirement, such as new standards for educational attainment for different age groups, the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales will specify the performance standards that an authority must meet. The White Papers on local government in England and Wales set out that the Government will take a clear lead in setting standards, and the Bill makes provision for that.
    The Government do not intend to impose a large number of new standards.Our aim is to specify minimum acceptable levels of service provision in areas where the achievement of particular standards is clearly in the national interest. The Government will consult widely with local government and other interested parties on those areas in which standards will be set, and on what form they will take. The ability to set and change
    466
    standards over time will be a key driver of improvement. That power will be used only where there is a clear national interest in setting standards. Standards will be relevant, necessary and appropriate for best value.
    In some cases, they will arise from Government targets; for example, if the Government set a target that all authorities should achieve by 2003, all authorities should be performing at that level in 2003. That target might then become a standard to ensure that performance did not subsequently fall below that level. Future targets would ask for improvement above that standard. Standards and targets provide a mechanism for pegging existing levels of performance and ensuring the drive for continuous improvement in service delivery. For those reasons I urge hon.Members not to press the amendments to a vote.
    Amendments to clause 14 are also included in the group. Clause 14 is an important part of the Bill and is vital to underpin the success of the best value framework. We realise that these provisions are powerful, but make no apology for that. We want to see all best value authorities making real progress towards continuous improvement and believe that the majority will do so. The enhanced system of audit and inspection will act as an early warning system and help to put best value authorities back on the right track in most cases where problems are starting. However, we need to ensure that we can tackle failure when it occurs. We structured the best value framework carefully to ensure that we will minimise the need for intervention, but there will be times when the Secretary of State or the National Assembly need to act, and there are plenty of precedents in existing local government and other legislation for such action being delegated to the Secretary of State.
    Amendment No.5 would require that any direction issued under clause 14 must have secured the approval of the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs. That proposal is unacceptable; it would impose unnecessary time constraints on the process of intervention and would not enrich or enhance the process. It is not usual for Select Committees to scrutinise individual cases, and that would represent a significant extension of the Select Committee's current remit. It would be particularly inappropriate, and an overreaction, for the Secretary of State to need the Select Committee's consent to issue a direction under clause 14(2)(a) to (c), where the Secretary of State directs an authority to undertake a particular action, such as to prepare or amend a performance plan.
    By deleting clause 14(8) and (9), amendment No.5 would also remove the provision, which we inserted by Government amendment in Committee, for the Secretary of State to intervene in urgent cases. As we said then, the Government believe that fast-track intervention is necessary to protect vulnerable groups or individuals.Yesterday, I was pressed by the hon.Member for Mole Valley (Sir P. Beresford) to say what we would do when, for example, there were serious problems in children's services and the process was not swift enough to protect children. Fast-track intervention will only occur in exceptional cases, where the severity or persistence—
    Mr. Chope: Will the right hon.Lady give way?
    Ms Armstrong: I certainly will.
    Mr. Chope: The right hon.Lady talks about fast-tracking.Pill she explain why it has taken two years

    467
    and two months for her Department to determine a footpath appeal involving St.Leonards and St. Ives parish council?
    Ms Armstrong rose—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon.Lady will not answer that question. It has nothing to do with the amendments before us.
    Ms Armstrong: I was trying to respond to the debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but as the hon. Gentleman had just walked into the Chamber, I probably should not have given way to him. I am trying to be fair, but that was not fair to other hon.Members; I apologise to them.
    As I said, fast-track intervention is necessary to protect vulnerable groups or individuals. It will occur only in exceptional cases, where the severity or persistence of failure, or the continuing risk of harm or financial loss, show that urgent intervention is necessary. If those circumstances prevail and an authority could reasonably be expected to be aware of the problems but fails to take action to address them, the Bill provides the Secretary of State with the discretion to intervene without giving the authority concerned the opportunity to make representations about the report as a result of which intervention is proposed, or about the direction proposed. When intervening in that way the Secretary of State need not have regard to any statement of action produced under clause 9(2) but he will have to inform both the authority and its representatives of the intervention that is necessary, and give his reasons for using fast-track procedures.
    Whatever the form of intervention, the Secretary of State will act according to the protocol on intervention, which, as the hon.Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) mentioned, is currently being discussed with the Local Government Association under the framework for central-local partnership. I am pleased to be able to report that we were able to proceed with this morning's meeting of the central-local partnership. That exercise will set out agreed principles and procedures underpinning intervention.
    The Government believe that local democracy and accountability are important and that is why clause 14(3) gives the Secretary of State the power to direct the holding of a local inquiry in which the views of local people can be ascertained, where he believes that to be appropriate. Given that explanation and Opposition Members' comments yesterday on various aspects of the Bill, I hope that they will not feel it necessary to press the amendment. Amendment No.86 would delete the provisions in clause 14 relating to fast-track intervention. For the reasons that I have already given, I ask that it, too, should not be pressed.
    Amendment No.49 would alter the fast-track provisions in clause 14 to allow the Secretary of State—or in Pales the National Assembly—to issue a direction under the clause before one month had expired, if he considered the direction sufficiently urgent.Unlike the existing fast-track provisions, which provide the Secretary of State with the discretion to issue a direction without complying with subsections (6) and (7) if he believes the
    468
    case is sufficiently urgent, the amendment would allow authorities to retain the right to make representations about the report as a result of which the direction is proposed, and about the direction proposed. That could cause difficulties in extremely urgent cases.
    The Government believe that it is important to work with authorities and to provide them with the opportunity to comment on the report and the direction proposed before intervention takes place. I made it absolutely clear in Committee that authorities will have the opportunity at each stage of best value to put their own house in order, and if they do so intervention will never be necessary. However, in cases of severe or persistent failure, where an authority is unwilling or unable to take action to address the failure, there may be a need to intervene very quickly. In such cases, there may not be time to allow authorities to comment on the report and direction proposed. The removal of clause 14(9), would mean that, when the Secretary of State took urgent action, he would not be required to inform the authority and its representatives of his reasons for doing so. I therefore request that hon.Members do not press the amendment.
    8.15 pm
    In respect of amendment No.88, we agree that, however urgent the case, it is important for interested parties to be kept informed. However, fast-track intervention could lead to a direction from the full range of possibilities, either where the responsibility for the function remained with the authority, or where it was taken over by the Secretary of State. The circumstances of the case would dictate who was best placed to ensure that interested parties were informed and, indeed, consulted as appropriate. In some cases, that might even be included in the direction itself. However, there would always be an immediate and practical need for the authority and its representatives to be kept informed and that is what the Bill provides for. I therefore consider amendment No.88 to be unnecessary.
    If I understand correctly the reasons underlying amendment No.79 and it is indeed designed to ensure that only appropriate action is taken, I am sympathetic to its purpose. However, I do not accept that it is necessary. The powers in clause 14 to act in cases of failure are powerful and clearly need to be exercised with care. That is why we are in the process of agreeing with the Local Government Association and the Association of Police Authorities draft protocols that will govern the use of the powers in clause 14 in England. The Welsh Office will be developing a similar protocol with the Welsh LGA. The National Assembly will have responsibility for intervention in Wales and will want to discuss the draft in due course.
    The draft protocol recognises that the form and extent of intervention should reflect the type and seriousness of failure and the need for effective improvement. It also recognises other important principles for example, that except in cases of urgency, the authority will normally be given the opportunity to make the necessary improvements itself. I cannot overemphasise the importance of that. However, I do not believe that it is necessary or desirable to make the amendment. In the first place, although I blame no one for it, the amendment is flawed in that it covers only those powers contained in clause 14(2), unlike the protocol, which will cover all the powers contained in the clause. Secondly, it is

    469
    unnecessary, because the Secretary of State is bound to exercise his powers in a reasonable way and such decisions could be tested by judicial review. Again, I ask hon.Members not to press the amendment.
    Clause 14(5) contains powerful provisions giving the Secretary of State the fullest means possible to ensure that serious and persistent cases of failure can be addressed to meet the needs of local people. As we have discussed already, any action taken would be in keeping with the nature and degree of failure. We expect that cases in which the Secretary of State takes over responsibility for exercising a function on behalf of an authority will be rare. In cases of persistent failure, it is likely that a range of measures will have already been tried. We recognise that, in the event of such powers being exercised, a range of parties would have an interest. We are giving consideration to the best way of ensuring that those with an interest are kept informed in the event of such intervention. Naturally, interested parties would include not only the authority itself and its representatives, but—crucially—employees, local people and users of the service.
    Amendment No.48 is unnecessary, because there is no need for an additional provision on the face of the Bill to achieve its aim; the Bill already includes a provision for the Secretary of State to direct an inquiry to be held under section 250 of the Local Government Act 1972. Although we do not accept that amendment of the Bill is necessary, we recognise that, as the hon.Member for South Cambridgeshire said, amendment No.48 raises an important issue. I am happy to consider the matter further and the Government will report back at a later stage of the passage of the Bill.
    In respect of amendment No.80, it is an extension of the principle of proportionality that the Secretary of State should not take over a function of an authority for longer than is necessary. That is recognised in the draft protocol, which describes the way in which the Secretary of State will monitor the function and consider whether the authority is in a position to resume and sustain effective responsibility for it.
    It may be that the date by which the intervention will be terminated can be reasonably estimated from the outset. That is why subsection (5)(a) provides for a date to be specified in the direction. However, it must be recognised that intervention under subsection (5) is likely to be in the most serious circumstances. Although there must be a diagnosis of how the proposed intervention will help to address the failure, it may not be possible to determine how long it will take to put things right.
    If there were a constraint on the Secretary of State to include a date in the direction, it would have no practical effect. It might merely lead to an artificial date being included. Nothing would prevent a further direction or series of directions being issued. It is better for all concerned for considered and timely monitoring to take place in accordance with the principles in the draft protocol.1 therefore urge hon.Members not to move amendment No.80.
    Amendment No.77 would severely limit the circumstances in which intervention could take place. Not only would the Secretary of State's discretion to determine the circumstances in which intervention may take place be removed, but a requirement that intervention must be based on an Audit Commission report produced under clause 13 would be introduced.
    470
    By limiting the trigger for intervention to Audit Commission reports and excluding reports produced by other inspectorates, such as Ofsted or the social services inspectorate, the amendment undermines the work of these inspectorates and precludes their reports from having a major role in informing the process of enforcing best value policy.
    The amendment would also remove the possibility of intervention being triggered by evidence which has emerged from other sources, such as public complaints. We envisage that intervention will in most cases be triggered by a report, but in some instances other evidence may be critical and might provide the basis for intervention. For example, evidence of serious public harm or risks to vulnerable groups may emerge from public complaints or a prominent event. In these cases it may not be desirable for the Secretary of State to wait for an inspection report to be produced before any action can be taken. Examples were given last night that exemplified the points that I am making. I therefore recommend that amendment No.77 should not be pressed.
    Amendment No.78 presumes that all intervention under clause 14 will be based on an Audit Commission report, as proposed in amendment No.77. I have already explained why I think that is unacceptable. It is important that the authority concerned has the opportunity to make representations about any report as a result of which intervention is proposed. The Bill already provides for this under subsection (6)(a) in all but the most urgent of cases. I have explained why that provision is not appropriate in urgent cases. I therefore recommend that amendment No.78 is not pressed.
    The aim of amendment No.81 is to require that a direction issued under clause 14 must always be based on a report and not on evidence that has emerged from other sources. However, the amendment would not have that effect. Instead, its effect would be that in cases where intervention is based on an inspection report, the authority would retain the right to make representations about the report. In cases where there is no such report, the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales would still be able to issue a direction under clause 14, but would not need to allow the authority to make representations about this direction.
    As I have mentioned, the Government believe that the Secretary of State should retain the ability to issue directions based on evidence emerging from sources other than reports and welcome the fact that the amendment does not secure that effect. It is a principle of the draft protocol that such evidence should always be clear. I hope that Opposition Members will withdraw amendment No.81.
    It is important that the Secretary of State retains the discretion to determine when urgent intervention may be justified. As I mentioned earlier, the triggers for intervention may be reports from other inspectorates or evidence that has emerged from other sources. When the Government intervene in urgent cases, it will be to protect the interests of local people. By precluding certain sources from providing evidence which could justify fast-track intervention, amendment No.87 would limit the Secretary of State's ability to protect vulnerable groups from harm. I am sure that that is not the intention. I therefore hope that the amendment, along with the others which have

    471
    been discussed in this complex and extensive group, will not be pressed. I will move Government amendment No.6 at the appropriate stage.
    Mr.Paterson: As the Minister has rightly said, this is quite a complex set of amendments. I am grateful to her for taking such trouble to deal with the amendments one by one. I am sure that the right hon.Lady will agree that some interesting points have been raised during the debate. I am especially grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr.Lansley), who made several valid points on the amendments with which he was particularly concerned.
    I was pleased that the Minister at least recognised that clause 14 provides strong powers for the Secretary of State. There can be no disagreement about that. We still feel strongly that there is much nannying of local authorities inherent in the powers set out in clause 14 and in the Bill generally. I am disappointed that the right hon.Lady has not been able to accept our amendments, although I appreciate, as is always the way with these quite technical issues, that some of our amendments may not have had the effect that we intended. In some instances they may have had almost the opposite effect.
    I am grateful for the right hon.Lady's specific assurances on Government amendment No.6. We intend to hold her and the Government to them in practice. If we are not to have more tightly drawn protections in the Bill, her assurances will stand proxy for them. We shall want to see how they work out in practice.
    I was pleased with the right hon.Lady's undertaking on amendment No.48. That was very helpful. We look forward to hearing more about that in due course.
    The Minister touched on the draft protocol. We have not had a major discussion of it, but it is in many ways an extraordinary document. As I understand it, the protocol attempts to set out how the powers will be exercised, and that it is in no sense legally binding. In the event of a dispute between central and local government, it will be interesting to see to what extent the courts will take it into account in coming to a conclusion. Again, as I understand it, there is no formal scope for parliamentary scrutiny of such a protocol. It is probably comparable with the concordats that are being established between Government Departments and the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly. It is similar to what I believe are called executive agreements in the United States. I think that it can be fairly described as a new form of executive action that is immune from democratic control.
    Ms Armstrong: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not pursue that point. If he did, he would be saying that local government should have more say over what happens to it. The protocol is being established with the Local Government Association and not between Government agencies. The association, too, has democratic accountability. The hon. Gentleman and his colleagues are responsible for holding the Government to account, but we want to move forward with local government. It was our intention anyway, but local government pushed for a protocol to be established. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not associate himself with opposition to the principle of a protocol prevailing in these circumstances.
    8.30 pm
    Mr. Waterson: I am grateful for the Minister's intervention, although I did not particularly want to develop a substantial argument at this stage of our debate. The Minister said nothing contrary to my assertion that if there is a legal dispute, the protocol may or may not have any effect. I appreciate that we are in uncharted waters.Protocols and concordats are a relatively foreign import into our system and we must, perhaps, build up a body of experience and law before we can take a black and white view of them.
    We can legitimately complain that the protocol was not made available earlier and more widely. However, it is an interesting concept.
    If what was set out in the draft protocol is important and if, as I understand the Minister to be saying, it is necessary to define the Secretary of State's powers and, more precisely, how they are to be exercised, there is no reason not to specify in the Bill those restrictions on the Secretary of State's power and discretion. I shall not labour the point now—I suspect that we shall return to it in future.
    I shall end on a happier note and repeat my gratitude to the Minister for dealing in such detail with all our points. We are sorry that she has not accepted our amendments, but we are grateful for the assurances and undertakings that she has given.On the strength of those, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment made: No.6, in page 3, line 34, at end insert—
    ?() Before specifying performance indicators or standards the Secretary of State shall consult such persons as he thinks fit.'.— [Mr.Robert Ainsworth.)

  Clause 5

    BEST VALUE REVIEWS
    Mr.Jenkin: I beg to move amendment No.35, in page 4, line 5, after 'section', insert
    'unless it can satisfy the Secretary of State that there is a reason why this should not be done.'.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No.65, in page 4, leave out line 10.
    No.37, in page 4, line 43, at end insert—
    '(e) the upper cost limit of conducting a review.'.
    No.38, in clause 6, page 5, line 43, at end insert—
    `(m) to provide details of the cost of completing the plan.'.
    No.94, in clause 7, page 6, line 27, at end insert—
    '(g) indicating clearly the financial savings (if any) and quality improvements (if any) achieved from past plans, and to be delivered from the current plan.'.
    Mr.Jenkin: Amendment No.35 is in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), but he has not been able to attend the Chamber for most of this afternoon's proceedings owing to the rather late date on which this business was fixed. I am sure that the House will forgive him for that.

    473
    The amendment concerns the obligation in clause 5 on best value authorities to conduct best value reviews
    "in accordance with the provisions of any order made under this section."
    The amendment would add the caveat that there should be an obligation to conduct a best value review unless there is agreement between the authority and the Secretary of State that such a review should not be conducted. I understand that the amendment would make a substantive change to the Bill, and I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about that and the other amendments.
    Amendment No.65 would delete clause 5(2)(c), which requires
    "specified functions to be reviewed in specified financial years."
    We are discussing only what the Secretary of State may put into an order about a best value plan. We are testing whether specified functions should be prescribed in that way. A function should be considered in the round, not in specified financial years. I should like the Minister to deal with amendments Nos.65 and 94 in his comments.
    Clause 5(4)(e) refers to
    "other best value authorities and…commercial and other businesses".
    They must be considered when a best value plan for reviewing a function is being drawn up. Subsection (4) says:
    "The Secretary of State may by order specify matters which an authority must include in a review of a function under this section; and in particular an order may require an authority…to assess the competitiveness"
    of its functions with regard to how similar functions are exercised by those other bodies. I would be grateful if the Minister addressed that point.
    Mr. Burstow: I shall not take up too much time because I am also interested in the Minister's response to the amendments, particularly amendment No.35, which would have the added value of tipping the balance back towards the local authority. That would be welcome because clause 5 on best value reviews, which the amendment seeks to alter, and other clauses in this part of the Bill place in the hands of the Secretary of State disproportionate power relating to how best value reviews are to be conducted.
    We welcome also amendment No.65, which would remove the requirement for specific functions to be reviewed in specified financial years. That is unnecessarily prescriptive about the way in which best value reviews are to be undertaken. Given the partnerships, protocols and concordats that the Minister described in Committee and again in today's proceedings, it seems to us that clause 5 goes to the heart of the prescriptive nature of the Government's approach.
    I want to take this opportunity to say that I have had the chance to read the report of the Committee proceedings on this clause and others, and I was struck by the number of contributions made by my hon. Friends the Members for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) and for Taunton (Jackie Ballard).Unfortunately, I was unable to serve on the Committee because I was serving on another Committee. I want to express my gratitude to my hon. Friends for their hard work.
    474
    I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about the amendments. I hope that the Government will be encouraging and say that they will support amendment No.35 in particular, as it tilts the balance back to local authorities and away from central Government prescription.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Pales Mr.Jon Owen Jones): I am afraid that I shall have to disappoint the hon. Gentleman. Amendment No.35 is designed to add an additional factor by which a best value authority could satisfy the Secretary of State that it should not carry out a best value review of its functions.
    Hon.Members will be aware that one of the fundamental requirements of the duty of best value is that authorities will have to carry out fundamental performance reviews of all their functions over a period, probably five years, so that we ensure that continuous improvements are made to all services, not just to those where there are serious shortcomings. That should apply to all local authorities across the board, so that a proper comparison of performance is made between authorities on a common basis. Neither local people nor the Government would be prepared to accept any exceptions.
    The amendment has the potential to create a bureaucratic machinery for the Secretary of State, who would need to evaluate all cases made by local authorities, to satisfy himself that the reasons given for not carrying out the review were valid. We could not rule out some local authorities using that as a means of delaying or avoiding reviews, at least in the short term. That would be unacceptable to all concerned, not least to the local community, who would lose out.
    Amendment No.65 would remove the flexibility and discretion that the Secretary of State needs to specify functions to be reviewed in specified financial years, as circumstances may warrant. If, for instance, a local authority should try to delay or avoid conducting the reviews of some of its services, or should face some particular crisis in the way that it provides its services, it is essential for the Secretary of State to have powers to direct the local authority to carry out those services quickly and effectively. It would be the local communities who would be most disadvantaged if the amendment were allowed to stand.
    Amendments Nos.37 and 38 relate to the costs of best value performance reviews and local performance plans. The amendments recognise that some compliance costs are likely to be involved in best value reviews and local performance plans. However, the drive for continuous improvement will deliver efficiency gains of around 2 per cent, which would far outweigh those costs.
    I have been asked to comment particularly on amendment No.94, which would add to the work of the auditor in his audit of performance plans. In auditing a performance plan, the auditor is required to state whether the plan has been prepared and published in accordance with legislation and guidance.
    Clause 6 sets out clearly that, in preparing plans, authorities must summarise their past performance with regard to performance indicators; compare their performance with previous financial years; summarise their success in meeting performance standards; and summarise their progress towards performance targets.

    475
    An authority that has met the requirements of the Bill will have indicated the financial savings and the quality improvements that it achieved as a result of past plans, and those delivered by current plans. If the auditor is prepared to state that the plan has been prepared in such a way that it meets the requirements of clause 6, he will have ensured, by default, that financial savings and quality improvements are indicated.
    The amendments are, therefore, unnecessary and I ask hon.Members to withdraw them.
    Mr.Jenkin: I am not entirely convinced that amendment No.94 does not add anything to the Bill. By specifying that savings might be made, it might encourage best value performance plans to produce savings, which would improve value for money—or best value, as the Minister prefers to call it. However, in the interests of brevity, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
    Mr.Jenkin: I beg to move amendment No.68, in page 4, line 29, leave out from 'other' to end of line 30 and insert 'parties'.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No.69, in page 4, line 31, leave out from 'other' to 'about' in line 32 and insert 'parties'.
    Mr.Jenkin: The amendments refer to clause 5, under which best value authorities must conduct best value reviews, and subsection (4) under which
    "The Secretary of State may by order specify matters which an authority must include in a review of a function".
    The order that the Secretary of State may draw up must include the requirement to assess the competitiveness of performance against various other parties. Those parties are specified in the Bill as
    "other best value authorities and commercial and other businesses".
    We suggest that an authority's performance should be measured against that of other parties, without those being specified. Similarly, in clause 5(4)(f), which sets out the obligation
    "to consult other best value authorities and commercial and other businesses",
    we believe that the word "parties" should replace the word "businesses". I should be grateful for the right hon.Lady's comments.
    Ms Armstrong: Amendments Nos.68 and 69 betray a misunderstanding by Opposition Members. It was never our intention to make an exhaustive list of all the bodies that the Secretary of State may require best value authorities to consult, or against which they should assess their competitiveness. Any future order may go wider if there is a case for it to do so. However, to be useful and sensible, consultation must be meaningful. It may not be appropriate for it to include a wide range of bodies. There needs to be a link to those that can most usefully assist best value authorities in discharging the general duty.
    476
    In clause 5(4)(e) and (f) we have listed the most obvious bodies against which a best value authority should compare its performance in exercising a function. Naturally, those bodies are other best value authorities and private sector bodies. Best value authorities should consult with such bodies and make comparisons in respect of their competitiveness.
    It is difficult to see how the current description omits anything of substance. The term "parties", which is the subject of the amendment and a substitute for our definition, defines nothing in particular. I am told that it is not helpful in achieving what the hon.Member for North Essex (Mr.Jenkin) is looking for.Using that term could send the wrong message about the breadth of consultation and mean that the essential link to those who can input most value to the process is lost.
    The House will remember that, yesterday, hon.Members pressed the point that consultation, if undertaken too loosely, could be expensive. We are concerned that the consultation should be appropriate and that the authority should consult the appropriate people—those who need to be consulted—during the process. It is important that we restrict the duty to such people.
    We would expect the existing definition to cover organisations such as chambers of commerce, about which the hon.Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr.Lansley) was concerned.
    It being five hours after the commencement of proceedings, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order [24 March], put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
    Amendment negatived.
    MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER then put the remaining Questions required to be put at that hour.

  Clause 9

    RESPONSE TO AUDIT
    Amendments made: No.16, in page 7, line 40, leave out 'as soon as practicable'.
    No.17, in page 7, line 42, at end insert—
    ?()A statement required by subsection (3) shall be prepared—

    (a) before the end of the period of 30 working days starting with the day on which the authority receives the report,or

    (b) if the report specifies a shorter period starting with that day, before the end of that period.'.

    No.18, in page 8, line 5, leave out 'as soon as practicable' and insert—

    '(a) before the end of the period of 30 working days starting with the day on which the authority receives the report, or

    (b) if the report specifies a shorter period starting with that day, before the end of that period.

    () For the purposes of this section a working day is a day other that—

    (a) a Saturday or a Sunday,

    (b) Christmas Day or Good Friday, or

    (c) a day which is a bank holiday under the Banking and Financial Dealings Act 1971 in England and Wales.'— [Mr.Meale.]

  Clause 13

    REPORTS
    Amendment made: No.7, in page 9, line 26, at end insert
    ',and—
    (b) may publish a report and any information in respect of a report.'—[Mr.Meale.]

  Clause 18

    CONTRACTS: EXCLUSION OF NON-COMMERCIAL CONSIDERATIONS
    Amendments made: No.8, in page 12, line 17, at end insert—
    ()provide for a matter to cease to be a non-commercial matter for specified purposes or to a specified extent;'.
    No.9, in page 12, line 25, leave out
    ?,by virtue of an order under this section, not a noncommercial matter,'
    and insert
    'the subject of an order under this section'. —[Mr.Meale.]

  Clause 21

    AUDIT COMMISSION
    Amendments made: No.19, in page 13, line 12, at end insert—
    () The Audit Commission may delegate any of its functions under this Part to—

    (a) 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

    (b) an officer or servant of the Commission.'.

    No.20, in page 13, line 29, at end insert—
    () After section 75(1)(e) of the Housing Associations Act 1985 (Housing Corporation and, in relation to Wales, Secretary of State: general functions) there shall be added—
    "(f) to provide on request, to such extent as the Relevant Authority considers appropriate, advice and assistance to the Audit Commission for Local Authorities and the National Health Service in England and Wales in relation to the Commission's functions under Part I of the Local Government Act 1999 (best value)"
    () The Audit Commission may make payments to the Housing Corporation or the Secretary of State in respect of advice and assistance provided under section 75(1)(f) of the Housing Associations Act 1985.'—[[Mr Meale.]

  Clause 24

    GUIDANCE
    Amendments made: No.21, in page 14, line 38, after first `to' insert 'or in respect of.
    No.22, in page 14, line 38, after second `to' insert 'or in respect of.
    No.23, in page 14, line 40, after 'to' insert 'or in respect of.
    No.24, in page 15, line 4, at end insert—
    () Before issuing guidance under section (Coordination of inspections, &c) the Secretary of State shall, in addition to the consultation required by subsection (2)(c) above, consult the persons or bodies concerned.'—[Mr Meale.]

  Clause 25

    COMMENCEMENT
    Amendment made: No.10, in page 15, line 5, leave out `18 and 21' and insert
    `19 and 21 to 24'. —[Mr Meale]

  Clause 26

    ORDER
    Amendments made: No.11, in page 15, line 16, after `order', insert `or regulations'.
    No.25, in page 15, line 20, leave out 'or 7' and insert
    , 7 or (Coordination of inspections, &c), and regulations under section 22,'—[Mr.Meale.]

  Clause 31

    FINANCE
    Amendment made: No.12, in page 17, line 33, at end insert—
    () The Secretary of State may make grants to the Audit Commission, out of money provided by Parliament, in respect of expenditure incurred or to be incurred by the Commission under this Act
    () The National Assembly for Wales may make grants to the Audit Commission in respect of expenditure incurred or to be incurred by the Commission under this Act—'[Mr.Meale.]
    Bill reported, with amendments.
    Order for Third Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to the Order [24 March], That the Bill be now read the Third time. —[Mr.Robert Ainsworth.]
    The House divided: Ayes 319, Noes 170

    Division No.131]

    [8.48 pm

    AYES

    Ainger, Nick

    Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Browne, Desmond

    Allen, Graham

    Buck, Ms Karen

    Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

    Burden, Richard

    Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

    Burgon, Colin

    Armstrong, Ms Hilary

    Butler, Mrs Christine

    Atkins, Charlotte

    Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

    Austin, John

    Caborn, Richard

    Banks, Tony

    Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

    Barnes, Harry

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Barron, Kevin

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Battle, John

    Campbell-Savours, Dale

    Bayley, Hugh

    Cann, Jamie

    Beard, Nigel

    Caplin, Ivor

    Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

    Casale, Roger

    Begg, Miss Anne

    Caton, Martin

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

    Bennett, Andrew F

    Chaytor, David

    Benton, Joe

    Clapham, Michael

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

    Best, Harold

    Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

    Betts, Clive

    Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

    Blackman, Liz

    Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

    Blizzard, Bob

    Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbndge)

    Boateng, Paul

    Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

    Borrow, David

    Clelland, David

    Bradley, Keith (Withington)

    Clwyd, Ann

    Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    Coaker, Vernon

    Bradshaw, Ben

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Brinton, Mrs Helen

    Cohen, Harry

    Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

    Coleman, lain

    479

    Colman, Tony

    Hinchliffe, David

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Hodge, Ms Margaret

    Corbett, Robin

    Hoey, Kate

    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, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

    Howells, Dr Kim

    Cryer, John (Homchurch)

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Cummings, John

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack

    Hutton, John

    (Copeland)

    Iddon, Dr Brian

    Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

    Illsley, Eric

    Dafis, Cynog

    Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

    Dalyell, Tam

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

    Jamieson, David

    Darvill, Keith

    Jenkins, Brian

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

    Davidson, Ian

    Johnson, Miss Melanie

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

    Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

    Denham, John

    Jones, Ms Jenny

    Dismore, Andrew

    (Wolverh'ton SW)

    Dobbin, Jim

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Donohoe, Brian H

    Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

    Doran, Frank

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

    Dowd, Jim

    Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

    Drew, David

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Drown, Ms Julia

    Keeble, Ms Sally

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

    Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

    Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

    Edwards, Huw

    Kemp, Fraser

    Efford, Clive

    Khabra, Piara S

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Kidney, David

    Ennis, Jeff

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Field, Rt Hon Frank

    King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

    Fisher, Mark

    King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

    Fitzsimons, Lorna

    Kingham, Ms Tess

    Flynn, Paul

    Kumar, Dr Ashok

    Follett, Barbara

    Ladyman, Dr Stephen

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Lawrence, Ms Jackie

    Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

    Lepper, David

    Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

    Leslie, Christopher

    Fyfe, Maria

    Levitt, Tom

    Galloway, George

    Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

    Gapes, Mike

    Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

    Gardiner, Barry

    Linton, Martin

    George, Bruce (Walsall S)

    Livingstone, Ken

    Gerrard, Neil

    Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

    Gibson, Dr Ian

    Lock, David

    Gilroy, Mrs Linda

    Love, Andrew

    Godsiff, Roger

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Goggins, Paul

    McCabe, Steve

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    McCafferty, Ms Chris

    Gordon, Mrs Eileen

    Macdonald, Calum

    Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

    McDonnell, John

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    McIsaac, Shona

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Grocott, Bruce

    McNamara, Kevin

    Grogan, John

    McNulty, Tony

    Hain, Peter

    MacShane, Denis

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    Mactaggad, Fiona

    Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

    McWalter, Tony

    Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Hanson, David

    Mallaber, Judy

    Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

    Mendelson, Rt Hon Peter

    Heal, Mrs Sylvia

    Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

    Healey, John

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

    Marshall—Andrews, Robert

    Heppell, John

    Martlew, Eric

    Hesford, Stephen

    Maxton, John

    Hewitt, Ms Patricia

    Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

    Hill, Keith

    Meale, Alan

    480

    Merron, Gillian

    Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

    Michie, Bill (Shefld Heeley)

    Smith, Miss Geraldine

    Milbum, Rt Hon Alan

    (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

    Miller, Andrew

    Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

    Moffatt, Laura

    Smith, John (Glamorgan)

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

    Soley, Clive

    Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

    Spellar, John

    Morley, Elliot

    Squire, Ms Rachel

    Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

    Starkey, Dr Phyllis

    Mounttord, Kali

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Mudie, George

    Stevenson, George

    Mullin, Chris

    Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

    Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

    Stinchcombe, Paul

    Naysmith, Dr Doug

    Stoate, Dr Howard

    O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

    Stott, Roger

    O'Hara, Eddie

    Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

    Olner, Bill

    Straw, Rt Hon Jack

    Osborne, Ms Sandra

    Stringer, Graham

    Palmer, Dr Nick

    Stuart, Ms Gisela

    Pearson, Ian

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Pendry, Tom

    Taylor, Ms Dan (Stockton S)

    Pike, Peter L

    Taylor, David (NW Leics)

    Plaskitt, James

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Pollard Kerry

    Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

    Pond, Chris

    Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

    Powell, Sir Raymond

    Tipping, Paddy

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

    Todd, Mark

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Touhig, Don

    Prosser, Gwyn

    Trickett, Jon

    Purchase Ken

    Truswell, Paul

    Quinn Lawrie

    Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

    Radice Giles

    Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

    Twigg, Derek (Halton)

    Rammell, Bill

    Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

    Rapson Syd,

    Vaz Keith

    Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

    Wall ley, Ms Joan

    Robertson, Rt Hon George

    Wareing, Robert N

    (Hamilton S)

    Watts, David

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    White, Brian

    Rogers, Allan

    Whitehead, Dr Alan

    Rooker, Jeff

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan

    Rowlands, Ted

    (Swansea W)

    Roy, Frank

    Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

    Ruane, Chris

    Wills, Michael

    Ruddock, Joan

    Wilson, Brian

    Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

    Winnick, David

    Savidge, Malcolm

    Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Wise, Audrey

    Shaw, Jonathan

    Woolas, Phil

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

    Shipley, Ms Debra

    Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

    Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

    Wyatt, Derek

    Singh, Marsha

    Skinner, Dennis

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

    Mr. Greg Pope and Jane Kennedy.

    Smith, Angela (Basildon)

    NOES

    Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

    Allan, Richard

    Brady, Graham

    Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

    Brand, Dr Peter

    Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

    Brazier, Julian

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

    Breed, Colin

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Baker, Norman

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Baldry, Tony

    Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

    Ballard, Jackie

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Beggs, Roy

    Burnett, John

    Beith, Rt Hon A J

    Burns, Simon

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Burstow, Paul

    Blunt, Crispin

    Cable, Dr Vincent

    Body, Sir Richard

    Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

    Boswell, Tim

    Bottomley, Peter (Worthing VI)

    Cash, William

    481

    Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

    Hammond, Philip

    Hancock, Mike

    Chope, Christopher

    Harris, Dr Evan

    Clappison, James

    Harvey, Nick

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

    Hawkins, Nick

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Hayes, John

    Collins, Tim

    Heald, Oliver

    Colvin, Michael

    Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

    Cormack, Sir Patrick

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

    Cotter, Brian

    Horam, John

    Gran, James

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Davey, Edward (Kingston)

    Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

    Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice & Howden)

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

    Hunter, Andrew

    Day, Stephen

    Jack, Rt Hon Michael

    Donaldson, Jeffrey

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Duncan, Alan

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Duncan Smith, Iain

    Johnson Smith,

    Evans, Nigel

    Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Faber, David

    Keetch, Paul

    Fabricant, Michael

    Key, Robert

    Fallon, Michael

    King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

    Fearn, Ronnie

    Laing, Mrs Eleanor

    Flight, Howard

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Forsythe, Clifford

    Lansley, Andrew

    Forth, Rt Hon Eric

    Leigh, Edward

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Letwin, Oliver

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

    Fox, Dr Liam

    Lidington, David

    Fraser, Christopher

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Garnier, Edward

    Lloyd. Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

    George, Andrew (St Ives)

    Loughton, Tim

    Gibb, Nick

    Luff, Peter

    Gill, Christopher

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Gray, James

    MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

    Greenway, John

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Grieve, Dominic

    Malins, Humfrey

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

    Mates, Michael

    482

    Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

    Streeter, Gary

    May, Mrs Theresa

    Stunell, Andrew

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

    Swayne, Desmond

    Moore, Michael

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Moss, Malcolm

    Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

    Norman, Archie

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Öpik, Lembit

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Ottaway, Richard

    Thompson, William

    Page, Richard

    Tonge, Dr Jenny

    Paterson, Owen

    Townend, John

    Pickles, Eric

    Tredinnick, David

    Prior, David

    Trend, Michael

    Randall, John

    Tyrie, Andrew

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Viggers, Peter

    Bendel, David

    Wallace, James

    Robathan, Andrew

    Walter, Robert

    Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

    Wardle, Charles

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxboume)

    Waterson, Nigel

    Ross, William (E Lond'y)

    Webb, Steve

    Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

    Wells, Bowen

    Ruffley, David

    Whittingdale, John

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

    St Aubyn, Nick

    Wilkinson, John

    Sanders, Adrian

    Willetts, David

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Willis, Phil

    Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

    Wilshire, David

    Shepherd, Richard

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

    Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

    Woodward, Shaun

    Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

    Yeo, Tim

    Soames, Nicholas

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Spicer, Sir Michael

    Spring, Richard

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Mrs. Caroline Spelman and Sir David Madel.

    Steen, Anthony

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Bill read Third time and passed.

    Kosovo
    9.5 pm
    The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr.John Prescott): Earlier this evening, four British aircraft, together with missiles from the submarine HMS Splendid, attacked targets in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia as part of a co-ordinated NATO air strike. Two other aircraft flew supporting missions.
    Hon.Members may have heard the Prime Minister's remarks from Berlin earlier this evening, when he said:
    "I want to pay tribute, at the outset, to our forces. We owe a huge debt to them for their courage, and their professionalism. Tonight, there are families in Britain who will be feeling a real sense of anxiety. They can feel too a real sense of pride at the contribution their loved ones make to peace and stability in Europe."
    I am sure that the House will wish to join me in echoing those sentiments. The UK Harriers operated out of Gioia del Colle in Italy. In addition, attacks were mounted by seven United States Air Force B52 bombers from Fairford in Gloucestershire.
    The strike in which they participated was a very significant one, involving both air-launched and sea-launched cruise missiles and manned aircraft from the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Canada and Spain. A number of other allied air forces flew supporting missions.
    The targets being attacked in this first phase were mainly elements of the Yugoslavian air defence system, but also included a number of Serbian military facilities related to the repression in Kosovo.
    The NATO military action, which has the full support of all 19 member states, is intended to support the political aims of the international community. It is justified as an exceptional measure to prevent an overwhelming humanitarian catastrophe.
    It is, and will continue to be, directed towards disrupting the violent attacks being committed by the Yugoslav army and the Serbian special police force and weakening their ability to continue their repressive strategy.
    Two United Nations Security Council resolutions, 1199 and 1203, underpin our actions. Both demanded that the Serbs cease all actions against the civilian population and withdraw the security units used for civilian repression.Milosevic has been in breach of every single part of those UN resolutions.
    As the Prime Minister said yesterday, 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 past month, and no fewer than 25,000 in the days since the peace talks broke down. Families are being uprooted and driven from their homes. There are disturbing reports of the destruction of whole villages.
    Over the past few days, we have all seen harrowing and unforgettable images on the television and in newspapers. The scenes are more reminiscent of the middle ages than of Europe on the eve of the 21st century.
    484
    I would remind the House that the decision to initiate air strikes was taken last night only after it became clear that the final diplomatic effort in Belgrade had not met with success and that all efforts to achieve a negotiated political solution to the Kosovo crisis had failed.
    Over the past year the international community, with Britain at the forefront, has made intensive efforts to seek a peaceful solution.Milosevic has either rejected these approaches or entered into undertakings on which he has subsequently reneged, notably his blatant failure to observe the limits on army and special police numbers in Kosovo.Military force is now the only option.
    NATO's position is clear, and was set out in its statement of 30 January. We seek to bring an end to the violence in order to avert a humanitarian catastrophe and support the completion of negotiations on an interim political settlement.
    Three demands were made at the time, all of which Mr.Milosevic has so far rejected: he has not ended his use of excessive and disproportionate force in Kosovo; he has broken the undertaking that he gave last October to reduce Serb forces in Kosovo to pre-February 1998 levels; and he has so far refused to accept the interim political settlement that was negotiated at the peace talks in France earlier this year.
    Tonight the NATO alliance—19 nations of which 13 flew their aircraft tonight—has backed its words with action. It has hit hard and it will continue to hit hard until its military objectives are achieved.
    What happens next is up to Mr.Milosevic. It remains open to him to show at any time that he is ready to meet the demands of the international community. The demands are reasonable: they are an autonomous Kosovo within Serbia and an international military force to underpin the settlement. We hope that the Yugoslav people will understand that this is the only practical basis on which to move forward without further bloodshed.
    I take this opportunity tonight to address a warning to those in the Yugoslav army and other forces who may be in receipt of orders to repress the Albanians in Kosovo: "Do not assume that you can carry out such activity with impunity.You have a personal responsibility not to exceed the bounds of international law.You run the risk of being prosecuted by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia at The Hague if you do so."
    I also address the Kosovar Albanians: "You have had the courage to commit yourselves to the path of peace. It is imperative that you remain committed to that approach and refrain from provocative actions in the days to come."
    Neither NATO nor the United Kingdom is waging war against the people of Yugoslavia. We will make every effort to avoid civilian casualties.Our objective is to reduce the human suffering and violence against the civilian population of Kosovo. We seek to bring to an end the human tragedy now unfolding.
    We know the risks of action and we salute the bravery of our service men and women who are undertaking these operations on our behalf. To the families of the brave men and women of our armed forces involved in this action—and indeed to the British people as a whole—I say this: we should remind ourselves that history has proved time and time again that standing up to aggression is the only way to stop such brutal leaders.

    485
    As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said to the House yesterday:
    "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." —[Official Report, 23 March 1999; Vol.328, c.161.]
    We, as fellow Europeans, cannot contemplate, on our own doorstep, a disintegration into chaos and disorder.
    This is indeed a grave moment. Those who have doubted NATO's resolve have been shown to be wrong. We are prepared to see this through. We do not expect that air attacks will lead to an instant end to the brutality in Kosovo-Yugoslavia has a substantial military machine and is under the control of a ruthless man. But our attacks will make it clear to the president and his security forces that if they continue to use excessive force in Kosovo, they will pay a very high price indeed.
    Mr.Peter Lilley: I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his statement. As he says, this is a grave moment and our forces are engaged in a perilous mission. We join him in giving our armed forces our full support and we have total confidence in their skill, courage and ability. We share with their families and loved ones the combination of pride and anxiety that they must be feeling.
    As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said yesterday, we support the Government in the action that they have taken. We also entirely support and endorse the warning that the Prime Minister has given to those who may contemplate using disproportionate and inhumane methods in the province of Kosovo.
    Will the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that the action is aimed at military targets and that every effort will be made to avoid civilian casualties?
    Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm—even if it is not appropriate to spell them out in public—that NATO has clear criteria by which it will judge the success of its action? In view of the accusation by Russia that this is an act of aggression, will he take the opportunity to set out clearly for the House the legal basis for NATO's action? In view of the massive movements of refugees to which the Prime Minister referred yesterday, can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what action the Government are taking to help the Governments of Albania and Macedonia cope with the consequences of this tide of human misery?
    Tomorrow's debate will allow the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for Defence to update the House, and will allow Members to discuss this matter in more detail. However, can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that he will keep the House fully informed as developments unfold?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I am grateful for the support offered by the right hon. Gentleman—which is shared on both sides of the House—for the Government's action. I can confirm that our targets are totally military, and not civilian. I understand the concern of the Russians about the legal justification—to which the right hon. Gentleman referred—but the use of force is justified under international law to prevent an overwhelming humanitarian disaster. We believe that what is happening
    486
    in Kosovo could be such a disaster, and that is the legal justification for our action on this occasion. We will review what we can do to help Macedonia and Albania, and perhaps in the debate tomorrow we can give further information to the right hon. Gentleman. The House can be assured that we will continue to keep it informed, as we have tried to do this evening by reporting to it on the very first occasion when we could make a statement.
    Mr. Donald Anderson: President Milosevic is a loser. He was a loser in Bosnia, when he could have emerged with a much better deal, and an excellent deal was available to him at Rambouillet.Ultimately, he will lose. What lines of communication are still open to him? Is the deal that was on the table at Rambouillet still available to him?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: Yes, I assure my hon. Friend that the deal is still available, and everybody would want to see it pursued and achieved. At the moment, we are trying to prevent a humanitarian tragedy in Kosovo.Our lines of communication are the normal ones through the various UN bodies and organisations. We will be available to be informed if there is any change of mind but, at the moment, the NATO action clearly is to prevent such a tragedy and to prevent the Yugoslav authorities from deploying their military might, as they are at the moment.
    Mr.Menzies Campbell: This is clearly not the occasion upon which to probe the Government on the precise nature of the operations that have been undertaken, or which may be undertaken in future. Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that it is right for us to express our support for our military, and to express the hope for the safe return of all the aircraft and aircrew involved in the operations this evening? Does he agree that other, wider issues can be left until the debate tomorrow? Is it not right that the House should be in sombre mood, because to ask our young men and women to risk their lives in aid of political objectives is a sombre and anxious request to make of them?
    The Deputy Prime Minister said that the scenes had been reminiscent of the middle ages. Have they not also been reminiscent of the second world war, which we believed had been fought to put an end to that kind of repression? Finally, will he confirm that, at any time, Mr.Milosevic has it within his power to bring an end to the operations by bringing an end to his own opposition to the political settlement which remains on the table?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I am grateful for the right hon. And learned Gentleman's expression of support and for his understanding of the difficulty concerning how much information can be given on these occasions, which I am sure the House fully appreciates. We hope for the safe return of our aircraft, and if that happens in the latter minutes of this discussion, I shall of course inform the House. Everyone would want that to be the case and will bear in mind the great contribution of our soldiers and aircrew.
    This is indeed a sombre moment and, on reflection, there are comparisons with the lead-up to the second world war, but we would do best to keep those memories in the back of our mind and learn the lesson that if we appease dictators they go on to create even greater

    487
    mayhem and repression. We must say to Mr.Milosevic, "You started it, and you have the chance to end it. We have to make it clear that we consider your actions repressive and offensive. We want to stop them, and that is what we are doing with our NATO forces."
    Mr. Tony Benn: Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware that the only body in the world that can deal with an humanitarian crisis is the United Nations itself, by organising a peace conference without the threat or the use of force and providing aid on the necessary scale? Is he also aware that NATO does not act on behalf of the international community, and never has done?
    People of my generation, who lived through the 1930s and the 1940s, feel a sense of utter shame and disgust that the British Government should be breaking its solemn commitments to the United Nations and launching air attacks on Serbia, which was praised to the skies during the war, because it was the Serbian resistance to Hitler that gave us the opportunity of the victory that we secured. To demonise Serbia now, when Yugoslavia was deliberately broken up by western policy makers, is to mislead the public into a crusade that does not exist.
    The Deputy Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman should bear it in mind that, regardless of whether they were allies many years ago, the Serbs today are murdering an awful lot of people in Kosovo. I understand that he is talking of 50 years ago and the concerns of the 1930s and 1940s, but there were great debates in our movement at that time about Hitler and about hawking one's conscience about. I am bound to say that we were wrong not to have dealt with appeasement at that time, and I hope that we have learned our lesson. That is why we are doing what we are doing today.
    Mr. Edward Leigh: The whole House is united in condemning repression, from wherever it comes, and pays tribute to our troops. Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware that, despite the constraints that we are naturally under, there is genuine concern about the effect of bombing a sovereign, independent nation, about the innocents who may lose their lives and about what will happen if the bombing fails to shake the dictator's resolve?
    Will the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that there can and will be no question of sending in ground troops, and will he inform the House of his plan for the future if bombing fails to achieve its object?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I think the whole House shares concerns about what may happen, but I have made it clear that the targets are military, not civilian. As for innocent people losing their lives, that is happening to many thousands in Kosovo and was happening throughout the time of negotiations, when the repression of innocent people, many of whom were driven out of their homes, was continuing as we tried to find an agreement.One has to make a judgment.
    The Prime Minister made it clear yesterday that we have no intention of sending in ground forces to fight a war in Kosovo.Our forces are in the region to support a settlement, if agreed, and not to fight their way in, which
    488
    would require more than 100,000 troops and risk high casualties. There is not general agreement in favour of such action.Our targets are specific. They are basically military and we are clear about what we intend to achieve.
    Mr. Frank Cook: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the bombing did not start tonight and that bombing has been going on for some considerable time against the Kosovar Albanians? Does he agree that appeals for dialogue, although they have been heeded and continued, are somewhat futile when one party believes that the only useful dialogue is through the barrel of a gun? Does my right hon. Friend agree with the school of thought that Milosevic needed that armed intervention to protect himself from a backlash among his electorate if he made any concessions on Kosovo? In the fervent hope that that proves to be correct as quickly as possible, will my right hon. Friend tell us what measures might be in train quickly to restore normal relations between ourselves and Russia, which may have been adversely affected in the continuing negotiations?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I think the House will agree with my hon. Friend's comments that a great deal of repression was going on in Kosovo before the bombing and during the negotiation of the UN resolutions that made it clear that the Serbs should desist—they failed to do so.Of course we are concerned about relationships with countries such as Russia. We shall maintain those contacts, and those countries have made it clear, both in the UN and other councils, that they deplore the actions that have been taken. While there may be disagreement with the actions that have been taken by NATO today, there is no doubt that those countries do not support the position put forward by Milosevic and his Government.
    Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I have considerable support for the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman. Compassion for the humanitarian difficulties that have been faced, including massacres, in the past months—almost years—is worthy of our support on humanitarian grounds. When the Deputy Prime Minister says that military installations are being bombed, does that include the ground forces of the Serbian nation? That is the area that causes us great concern. If we are to intervene and the war is to finish, we want to be certain that not only radar installations and airports are destroyed but that Serbian ground forces are rendered useless and cannot intervene.
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I think that the right hon. Gentleman will be aware that on such occasions one does not detail the military targets. That is normal practice. I understand the reasons for his question, but he can be assured that the targets are military ones.
    Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: Will my right hon. Friend relay to those pilots who are out there tonight in darkness over Yugoslavia a simple message from the House of Commons? That is that we overwhelmingly support them in their endeavours. They are acting for Britain and we are proud of them.
    The Deputy Prime Minister: My hon. Friend has made it clear in a powerful way that that is exactly what

    489
    the House feels. It has shown in its expressions that we fully support them in the pilots endeavours and admire the courage that they use to achieve them.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: Does the right hon. Gentleman understand the great sense of dismay that many in the House feel? Does he agree that we have gone to war without there being a sufficient national interest, without there being a clear understanding of the strategic and political objectives, without there being a proper exit strategy and without the authority of the House? The right hon. Gentleman and the Government will have the support of the House because the credibility of NATO has been put at issue and because our service men are in action, but we should not have been brought to this pass.
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I should have thought that the right hon. And learned Gentleman would be from his experience of Bosnia at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office that these matters are extremely difficult and that our justifications for taking the actions were the ones that I outlined. The national interest is in upholding international law. We act within that international law and the use of force is justified under that law to prevent an overwhelming humanitarian disaster. There is no doubt that that was about to take place and, indeed, has been taking place for some time. Frankly, one must make a judgment: do we want to sit in front of the television, observe what is happening and say, "Is this in the national interest?" I think that the overwhelming majority of the public will see those events and want this Government to do something and, along with other NATO countries, go in to try to stop it. That is what we are doing.
    Mr. Bruce George: I hope that my right hon. Friend accepts that we recognise the difficulties that we all face in this grave situation. Will he reiterate to those who need to be told that the House overwhelmingly supports the Government and British and NATO forces? Will he ask doubters what consolation it would be to a Kosovan running away from being killed to be able to say that the British Government did not act, but were upholding a precise, legalistic definition of international law? We can be proud of what we are doing.
    The Deputy Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend has made clear, the House overwhelmingly supports our forces in this action. We offer our consideration and sympathy to the families of our soldiers, airmen and airwomen. We are proud to be involved in these matters, we have a right to be involved, and our action is based fully on international law. It will help people who are being brutally repressed, and that is the job of a democratic nation. I am proud to belong to a country that is part of an alliance trying to stop that repression.
    Mr. Ian Taylor: The Deputy Prime Minister should know that there comes a moment at which taking action on humanitarian issues is necessary, whatever doubts we have. The Government have done absolutely the right thing.
    Will the right hon. Gentleman remind the right hon.Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Bean) that his views are much more like those that pertained at the time of the
    490
    League of Nations than those that currently exist? Will he take note of the fact that all 19 members of NATO—not just America and Britain—are involved in this exercise? Will he consider whether all 19 members have understood the full implications of launching an aerial bombardment on military targets, which may have to be protracted and which may require other measures if political objectives are to be achieved?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I want to take this opportunity to inform the House that all the Harriers have returned safely. We shall all be pleased about that.
    I must tell the hon.Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor) that the House of Commons should reflect all points of view. No one can be absolutely sure in his or her judgments, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Bean) is entitled to express his view. That is what democracy is about. Differences of opinion are the nature of democracy.
    I believe that the 19 nations fully understand the consequences of this action. We shall maintain consensus throughout the action.
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: Can we return to the subject of the Russians, which I raised yesterday with the Prime Minister? Hon.Members who sat in the previous Parliament will remember our Russian-speaking colleague Harold Elletson. He rang me tonight from Moscow to say that the Duma had passed a resolution not discouraging Russians from going to fight for the Serbs. That is alarming.
    Even more alarming, however, are suggestions that Russia is prepared to provide Serbia with a supply of arms. Can we be told, factually, what contact there has been with the Russians, what they have said and how contacts might be maintained?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: My hon. Friend will be well aware that Russia agreed with the Security Council resolution that made it clear that Serbia should desist from its terrible actions. The Russians made it absolutely clear that they thought that Yugoslavia was in breach, and was causing a humanitarian catastrophe. While they have made it clear that they do not agree with bombing, I do not believe that they will support the actions of some of their own people to join the Serb forces. We are doing what we believe to be right.Others must make their judgment. Normal contacts will be maintained with other countries through diplomatic channels, as we would wish.
    Mrs. Angela Browning: Can the Deputy Prime Minister assure the House that the actions that have begun have in no way compromised the security of British troops already serving in Bosnia and Macedonia?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: We have already made it clear that all necessary measures have been taken to protect NATO troops in neighbouring countries from a possible attack by Yugoslav forces. The Yugoslav Government should understand that any attack on those troops would lead to the most serious consequences. That has been made clear by our military commanders. I hope that the Yugoslays understand fully.
    Mr.Peter L.Pike: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that this House is united in wishing that the action

    491
    had not been necessary? We all hope that there will be no civilian casualties, but the simple fact is that civilians were dying in Kosovo as a result of the actions of Milosevic. It is therefore clear that the solution to the problem is for Milosevic to sit down and talk now. The sooner he does that, the sooner the action can cease. We would all welcome his decision to do so.
    The Deputy Prime Minister: The House will recognise that a real humanitarian catastrophe is evolving in Kosovo. It is estimated that more than 25,000 people have fled their homes since Sunday 21 March and that there are 420,000 refugees in and outside Kosovo. I think that the Yugoslav authorities understand all too well exactly the position that we have taken. We should like to see peace. We should like to see them accept the agreements that were negotiated in France. If they did so, the military action could end, but in the meantime we are not prepared to step aside and let them commit atrocities.
    Mr.Michael Colvin: Everyone in this House acknowledges the seriousness of the situation and the heavy burden of responsibility on the shoulders of Her Majesty's Government. At a time when our armed forces are putting their lives at risk, it is necessary to demonstrate solidarity. We wish them well, notwithstanding the reservations that many of us have about this operation. There will be plenty of time to express those reservations tomorrow afternoon during the debate. What will constitute a success in this operation? What will happen if Milosevic does not return to the negotiating table as a result of the air strikes?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's expression of solidarity and support.Of course, these matters are day-to-day judgments, but the objectives of the bombing are clear. They are to curb the ability to attack the people of Kosovo and to disrupt the armed forces of Yugoslavia involved in the violence in Kosovo. We have made it clear that that is the intention of the action that we are taking and we hope that it will have some effect.
    Mr. George Galloway: In the interests of balance, will the Deputy Prime Minister acknowledge that one of the reasons for the tremendous suffering and bloodshed in Kosovo in the recent past has been the armed separatist rebellion in the country, and that that is a two-sided, not a one-sided, fight? Given his knowledge and sense of history, will he comment on what the impact on the psyche of the Yugoslav army and people is likely to be of the knowledge that this evening the Luftwaffe, the German air force, is in action over Yugoslav skies — [Interruption.] Hon.Members tut, but hundreds of thousands of Yugoslavs were massacred by the Wehrmacht and the Luftwaffe within the lifetime of Members of this House.
    Lastly, with that sense of history and with reference to previous wars that the Deputy Prime Minister has made —and given the widespread unease in the House that this action was easier to start than it will be to finish —would he like to predict whether this will all be over by Christmas?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: The House will have heard the comments made by the hon.Member. Some of
    492
    this inflammatory remarks are not helpful. He refers to history in a limited way. There is a new democratic Germany and it is offering its troops to help save lives in Kosovo. That is a proper democratic objective. I am proud that the Germans have joined in. Nineteen NATO nations have agreed the action and 13 of them, especially Germany, have air forces involved. The House will welcome that. The hon. Gentleman talks of massacres, but many people were being massacred in Kosovo.President Milosevic is the person responsible for those massacres and he is the one who denied autonomy to the people of the area. That is the history of today, not 50 years ago, and the one to which we have to address ourselves.
    Rev.Martin Smyth: We understand the concerns expressed in the House, and I believe that I speak for many people, if not all, in Northern Ireland when I say that we are in sympathy with what has happened.Our prayers are with the naval and air forces that are in action. We trust that there will be no need to engage the Army in any action in future, but when the Secretary of State is giving warnings to Milosevic, will he bear in mind what might happen if Milosevic does not listen? Perhaps, the President is saying the same things in Serbia tonight to rally his people. From our experience during the second world war and recently in Northern Ireland, we all know that bombing does not detract from the courage of the people, but strengthens their endeavour.
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I welcome the expression of support given by the hon. Gentleman, as I welcome it from all quarters of the House. Whatever concerns there might be that bombing adds to people's resolve, we shall continue to try to achieve agreement and dialogue between disagreeing parties —as we have done for a long time. Indeed, one party had signed up to the agreement in France, but the other decided not to do so. Whenever there is disagreement, one seeks agreement, and in this case we are not prepared to stand aside and observe the tragic consequences that are unfolding in Kosovo. I think that our action is right and, in the main, that is shown by the consensus among the 19 NATO countries.
    Mr. Alan Pilliams: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, desirable as the suggested United Nations peace conference might be, it would offer nothing to those helpless people who at this very moment are running ahead of the Serbian tank tracks and trying to hide from their death squads? Although we acknowledge and respect the consciences of our hon. Friends who feel that they cannot support what NATO is doing today, most Members of this House could not live with our consciences if we did not support it.
    The Deputy Prime Minister: Again, my right hon. Friend is referring to the point I made earlier about diversity of opinion in the House. All of us who have watched these tragic circumstances evolve —especially when we see those events on television —are often asked to find a balance between practical realities and conscience. The Government have decided to join the other 18 NATO nations to prevent such events from taking place. That is a proper balance and we are right to support it.
    Mr.John Wilkinson: Do not our service men over and around Yugoslavia tonight deserve

    493
    our confidence and our faith rather than our speculations? Will Her Majesty's Government assure the House that they will have the courage to see this matter through until the mission is fully accomplished, namely, that the poor, suffering, oppressed people of Kosovo are granted the opportunity to decide their own political destiny in freedom and in peace?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I agree very much with the political objective expressed by the hon. Gentleman, as will most Members of the House. However, we are discussing the military objectives that we have set. Those objectives are clear —they are to curb Milosevic ability to attack the people of Kosovo, and to disrupt the armed forces of Yugoslavia and their violence in Kosovo. That is a proper military objective which it is to be hoped may lead to the political results described by the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Derek Twigg: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, although it is important for hon.Members to express their opinions freely, what is important tonight is that a message expressing the full support of this House goes to the service men and women in our armed forces? Is it not a consequence of doing nothing that the slaughter will continue and the pictures on television to which my right hon. Friend refers will get worse and will be shown more frequently? Will there not be dire consequences for the whole region if we do nothing? I assure my right hon. Friend of my full support, and that of most Members of this House, for the actions that have been taken by the Government.
    The Deputy Prime Minister: What has been notable and unsurprising is that the fullest support has been expressed on both sides of the House. There is solidarity for our purpose and unity in support of service people. As my hon. Friend says, watching pictures of slaughter on television leads us to think deeply about the actions that we must take. As he rightly points out, history teaches us that there are consequences for the whole region.Perhaps certain historical lessons are clearly in our minds. This action is right; the military objectives are clear and we shall seek to achieve them.
    Mr. Crispin Blunt: The Deputy Prime Minister will be aware that there are hon.Members on both sides of the House who have serious reservations about the current strategy's potential for success. However, it is undoubtedly true that the best outcome for all is that the current strategy is a success, so now that our armed forces are in action I hope that the right hon. Gentleman understands that he, as the representative of our Government, and our armed forces and those of our allies have our full support in making a success of the strategy on which the Government have embarked.
    The Deputy Prime Minister: Once again, I am grateful for that expression of support. As the hon. Gentleman rightly points out, everyone, whatever view they hold on the matter, feels great concern at this time. We need to give our fullest support, and that support has been offered by hon.Members on both sides of the House. We shall work extremely hard and our armed forces will seek to achieve success in the targets and aims we have set for ourselves.
    Mr.Robert N. Wareing: Did my right hon. Friend hear the statement issued tonight by
    494
    Vuk Draskovic, who is a long-standing political opponent of President Milosevic, stating that the NATO aggression against Yugoslavia will unite all Serbs everywhere in opposing their enemies? Does my right hon. Friend realise that it is now extremely likely that the war in Bosnia will be re-ignited and that Serbs in other parts of the former Yugoslavia will unite? While he is about it, can he explain why British foreign policy towards the Serbs in respect of Kosovo differs from our policy toward the Croats in respect of Krajina, where 280,000 Serbs were ethnically cleansed?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: Many lessons of history have been referred to this evening, but we have to deal with what is happening now, which is that Mr.Milosevic is carrying out a policy that is killing thousands of people in a most horrific way.My hon. Friend suggests that Mr. Draskovic —
    Mr. Wareing: Draskovic.
    The Deputy Prime Minister: Whatever his name is, he is not the leader of the opposition, but is a Deputy Prime Minister in the Milosevic Government.
    Mr. Wareing: He still opposes him.
    The Deputy Prime Minister: If he is a Deputy Prime Minister, he does not oppose, but I shall not get into that argument. Clearly, whatever the history and whatever references to that history my hon. Friend wants to make, an overwhelming catastrophe is taking place in Kosovo and we have decided that we cannot simply sit by and watch. We know who is committing those acts and we have decided to attack military targets in order to curb those people's ability to attack the people of Kosovo. That action is right and that is what we are doing.
    Mr. Shaun Woodward: I, too, join hon.Members in expressing support for the service men and for the action that is taking place tonight. We clearly had no choice, and it is clearly the right thing to do.
    However, there is a grave danger ahead that the conflict will not be contained. The Deputy Prime Minister has given an account of the Russian response during the past few days, but will he tell the House what has been the Russian Government's response to the attack this evening? Given the historical allying of Russia to Serbia, will the right hon. Gentleman also tell us what the Government's response would be if the Russian Parliament were to sanction volunteers going to Serbia to aid the Serbs? Is it true or not true that aeroplanes found today were bound for Serbia and came from Russia? Finally, will he tell the House whether or not the Security Council is in session, or plans to be in session?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman must recognise that Russia has made it clear that it disagrees with the action; that is well known and it is an honourable disagreement. However, the Russians did agree with the UN resolution that made it clear that the Serb actions taking place should not take place, which the Yugoslav authorities have totally ignored. The dialogue will continue and we want it to do so. If the Russians have a decision to make on what further actions they should take, we want to discuss that with them, but it is

    495
    their right to make that decision. We have made ours, and we think that it is absolutely right. It is consistent with the UN resolutions.
    As for the reports on the Russian aeroplanes, I do not know a great deal about the matter except that it seems to be clouded in mystery and that people are not too sure exactly what happened. We shall, of course, continue with dialogue and discussion within the UN.
    Mr. Bill Rammell: This is a grave evening and I do not believe that any Member of the House views the events of this evening lightly. Does my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister agree that given the systematic breaking of virtually every commitment and agreement that President Milosevic has previously given, for the international community to do nothing at this stage would be a position wholly lacking in credibility? Does my right hon. Friend agree also that when we are dealing with an evil aggressor, just as in 1939, there comes a point when talking as a means of resolving a conflict is no longer a viable option, and that the decision on when that moment comes is a matter for acute judgment? I believe that the judgment that has been made this evening will be supported by the vast majority of Members and by the vast majority of people in the country.
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I believe, like my hon. Friend, that our action is supported overwhelmingly by Members of the House, as we have seen this evening, and by the general public. I believe also that the actions that have been taken by President Milosevic are ones that appal the world, that need to be condemned and that are entirely unacceptable. I further believe that the judgment that we have had to exercise will be shown to be correct. I hope that it will lead to a better situation. At least it offers the people of Kosovo hope of escape from the repression that they now face. That is the least that we can do, that is what we have embarked upon, and I think that it is right to do so.
    Madam Speaker: Thank you. We shall be returning to these matters tomorrow.

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
  Madam Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No.118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
    SOCIAL SECURITY
    That the draft Social Security and Child Support (Decisions and Appeals) Regulations 1999, which were laid before this House on 4th March, be approved.

    FAMILY LAW
    That the draft Child Support (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No.2) Regulations 1999, which were laid before this House on 8th March, be approved.
    That the draft Child Support (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No.2) Regulations 1999, which were laid before this House on 8th March, be approved.

    NATIONAL LOTTERY
    That the draft New Opportunities Fund (Specification of Initiatives) Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 11th March, be approved.
    INTERNATIONAL IMMUNITIES AND PRIVELEGES
    That the draft International Mobile Satellite Organisation (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 25th February, be approved.
    CRIMINAL LAW (SCOTLAND)
    That the draft Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (Application to Summary Proceedings) Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 8th March, be approved.

    CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
    That the draft Scottish Adjacent Waters Boundaries Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 8th March, be approved —[Br. Hanson.]
    Question agreed to.
    Madam Speaker: We move on to motion 14.
    Mr. David Hanson: Not moved. [Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. I have business to do. Will hon.Members sit down? A little courtesy here would do very well.

  PETITION

    Royal Hospital Haslar
    9.53 pm
    Mr.Peter Viggers: Earlier today, a delegation from Hampshire took to 10 Downing street a petition with 50,000 signatures. This evening, it is my privilege to produce to the House a parliamentary petition that similarly has 50,000 signatures. Both of those petitions are related to the retention of our only military hospital, which is the Royal hospital Haslar, which is in my constituency. All the people who have signed the petitions care deeply about the retention of our only tn-service centre of medical excellence.My constituents are profoundly concerned about the prospective loss of their local hospital.
    The parliamentary petition is a most unusual one. It is, I think, in exemplary form, and I think that the House will appreciate it.
    Madam Speaker: It looks very pretty.
    Mr.Viggers: Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is an attempt by my constituents and others to put in graphic form their deep concern about the present issue. I shall read the words of the petition, which speak for themselves
    The petition states:
    To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
    The Humble Petition of the Citizens of Gosport, Fareham and surrounding areas, and others throughout the United Kingdom who are concerned about the future of the Royal Hospital Haslar and Defence Medical Services.
    Sheweth
    That Royal Hospital Haslar has provided medical services for Service personnel and civilians since 1753; that it currently treats 111,000 patients a year and 27,000 Accident and Emergency cases; that since 1994 Haslar Hospital has operated as the sole tri-Service hospital and centre of excellence for the Army, the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force; that there is no possibility of alternate medical provision being made in the Gosport area before the closure of Royal Hospital Haslar which could be as early as 2002.
    Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House do resolve and instruct Her Majesty's Government to reconsider its proposals to close the Royal Hospital Haslar; and instead to use the facilities of the Royal Hospital Haslar in a new partnership with the National Health Service in order to continue medical cover of the highest order for the citizens of the Gosport area; and to maintain the Royal Hospital Haslar as a centre of excellence for Defence Medical Services.
    Most unusually, the petition has been sealed by the seals of the borough of Gosport, the borough of Fareham, the borough of Havant, the city of Portsmouth and Hampshire county council, which is a symbol of the exceptional concern of the community.
    To lie upon the Table.

    Branded drugs
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hanson.]
    9.55 pm
    Mr. Peter Bradley: It is hard, on an evening such as this, to turn one's mind away from the events in Kosovo. Nevertheless, I am grateful for the opportunity to expose in this House two lawful but, in my view, improper, scams —I can think of no better word to describe them —which last year plunged 78 of the 100 health authorities in England into a deficit on their drugs budget. Five of those health authorities —East Kent, Leicestershire, Manchester, South Cheshire and Suffolk —were in deficit by over £2 million, and no fewer than 34 were in deficit by over £1 million, including Shropshire health authority, which serves my constituency.
    Last year, the total overspend on drugs in the national health service was no less than £69 million. That sum would have helped the NHS to recruit an additional 4,000 nurses or abolish dental charges throughout England. That sum is in excess of that required for the construction of the new hospital in Barnet.
    All hon. Members are aware of the strains on the NHS drugs budget. The technological, scientific and medical breakthroughs that many of this country's leading drug companies are pursuing and achieving puts a strain on our health service, as does increasing life expectancy. The raising, year by year, of expectations among patients and the demands that they place on their GPs and hospitals also cause strain. However, the drugs overspend to which I am drawing attention does not benefit the patient or the taxpayer. It benefits pharmaceutical companies and, sadly, some general practitioners.
    It is a shocking fact that, of last year's £69 million drugs overspend, no less than £66 million could have been saved. If that money could have been saved on behalf of the NHS, why was it not? The answer is that pharmaceutical companies push branded drugs in our NHS and some general practitioners are addicted to those drugs. For companies and GPs, there is profit in dispensing branded drugs in place of generic drugs.
    As I said, there are two scams. First, there should be a Government health warning that hospital-led prescribing can be habit-forming, and it certainly will be if pharmaceutical companies have their way. Their intention is to push on our hospitals discounted, branded drugs that are as loss leaders all too irresistible to many hospital consultants. When patients are discharged from hospital with prescriptions for branded drugs, they in turn place almost irresistible pressure on GPs to prescribe the same brand.
    Research by the University of Keele has demonstrated that some 70 per cent. of prescriptions in primary care are influenced by prescriptions in secondary care. In 1994, when the Select Committee on Health undertook investigations into the pharmaceutical industry and

    499
    prescribing practices, Dr. Malcolm Patch, a general practitioner from Maidenhead, gave evidence to the Committee.
    It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —[Mr. Hanson.]
    Mr. Bradley: Dr. Malcolm Patch told the Select Committee:
    "A lot of expensive drugs are initiated within hospitals. The patient then comes to us as their GPs for further prescriptions. It is very difficult to change this prescription even if there is a cheaper and equally effective alternative as the patient sees the consultant as the ultimate decision-maker on therapy."
    Dr. Patch was clear about the pharmaceutical companies' motives. He said:
    "The drug companies sometimes offer loss-leaders' to hospital pharmacies at an artificially low price so that the drug replaces others …Thus the drug companies get their products initiated by hospital based doctors and we GPs are left to foot the ultimate, long-term and more expensive bill."
    Dr. Patch's evidence was borne out by Professor Charles George, a consultant and member of the Royal College of Physicians, who told the Committee:
    "I would be the first to acknowledge that we have been responsible in hospitals for creating problems for general practitioners."
    He cited the example of the drug Frumil. He said:
    "It's relatively cheap in hospital and it is very expensive out there in the community—there is no doubt that hospital doctors have created problems for general practitioners because of that."
    I can tell the House that, while only 37 per cent. of GPs' prescriptions are branded, they account for 49 per cent. of the drugs budget.
    Dr. Howard Stoate: My GP colleagues round the country will be interested to hear what my hon. Friend says. I am sure that many of them share his concerns. Many GPs are already trying to prescribe generic rather than branded drugs, and many health authorities offer incentive schemes for prescribing, to ensure best value. Those schemes allow GPs to have money to spend on equipment in their practices, if they can show genuine savings on the drugs budget.
    Mr. Bradley: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, which prompts me to make it clear to the House and to general practitioners throughout the country that I am certainly not alleging that they are all out to exploit the national health service and to make a profit from branded drugs. That is not the case. I am speaking of a small minority of GPs, but of a very large sum, which belongs to the NHS, to the community, to patients and to the taxpayer.
    As my hon. Friend suggests, there is a great deal of best practice, to which I hope to refer later. The problem is that it is not yet as widespread as it ought to be. I hope that, by raising the issue tonight, we can encourage and educate more doctors so that that best practice is more extensively adopted.
    The price differentials between drugs dispensed in the hospital and those dispensed in the community can be staggering. Shropshire health authority tells me that the
    500
    cost of prescribing the diuretic Frumil in hospital is 6 per cent. of the cost of prescribing it in the community—6 per cent. In other parts of the country, Frumil costs 20p per patient per day in the hospital, but £6.20 per patient per day out in the community.
    Mathematics has never been my strong point, but I calculate that as a differential of 2,800 per cent. Shropshire health authority tells me that the cost of Imdur in hospital is 2.5 per cent. of its cost when prescribed by a GP. In other health authorities, I understand that it costs 14p per patient per day to dispense in a hospital, but £11.14 per patient per day outside hospital. That is a differential of 8,000 per cent.
    Giving drugs away in hospital makes good sense for the pharmaceutical companies, because only 20 per cent. of our drugs are dispensed there. The other 80 per cent. are dispensed in the community. That is where the profit is to be made. The drugs barons, whether they are in pharmaceutical companies or in a more illicit trade, know that first they must hook their victim—in this case, in the hospitals—so that then they can then take the money from him. For good measure, they provide a ceaseless flow of gifts for GPs—blotting pads, pens and calendars, which hang on the walls of surgeries—which serve as constant reminders of the names of the branded drugs that they want doctors to prescribe or dispense.
    The drugs barons have another clever, but effective, means of achieving their ends. They give branded drugs names that are simple and memorable, compared with the Latin or Greek roots of the names of generic prescribed drugs. Thus diconal is a branded drug and di—I cannot pronounce that word; it is Milosevic hydrochloride. I was hoping that my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Dr. State) would ask me to give way.
    Dr. Stoate: The correct pronunciation is dipipanone hydrochloride.
    Mr. Bradley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for coming to my aid; I have been rehearsing all afternoon, but this has proved my point: it is a great deal easier to remember diconal than it is to remember whatever name my hon. Friend just—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not require simultaneous translation throughout the rest of his speech.
    Mr. Bradley: I will resist the temptation, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
    There is a problem too in the pharmacies. When a GP writes a prescription with a branded name on it, the pharmacist is not in a position to dispense anything other than that brand. That is not the case if the prescription specifies a generic drug—the pharmacist can dispense whatever comes to hand or whatever he advises—whatever is cheapest.
    The key point is that, in the vast majority of cases, there is absolutely no difference in effectiveness in terms of the patient's welfare between the branded and the generic drug, but there is most certainly a difference in price. That problem alone costs my health authority, Shropshire, about £400,000 a year. That money could, and should, be spent on cancer care or on the Cinderella services such as mental health and services for people with learning difficulties.

    501
    The second scam is a nice little earner for a small minority of GPs. This country has about 23,000 prescribing doctors in general practice and 4,000 doctors who are entitled to dispense. They practise, typically, in rural areas. They provide a dispensing service as a community service, which is very valuable for people in isolated communities who do not have access to pharmacies. Dispensing GPs have been providing that service for a long time and the vast majority of them do so with quiet efficiency and with no thought for anything other than the care of their patients.
    However, dispensing is also an income supplement for those GPs and it was intended to be so from the beginning of the national health service, when it was recognised that GPs in rural communities had fewer patients than their counterparts in urban communities. They therefore tended to earn less, and deriving a fee—and therefore an income—from dispensing was regarded as a sensible way of equalising their pay.
    The income that GPs derive from dispensing consists of four elements: a dispensing fee, a container allowance, a value added tax allowance and a payment of 10–5 per cent. of the cost of the drugs that they dispense. The problem is the built-in incentive for some GPs to abuse the system. It is clear, particularly in respect of proportionate element of remuneration, that the greater the volume of drugs dispensed, the higher the cost of those drugs, the more frequent the prescription and the larger the income supplement that doctors are able to derive.
    The GP community has been concerned about that issue for many years. In 1996, the British Medical Association's General Medical Services Committee discussion document "Dispensing Remuneration" stated:
    "unfortunately the on-cost arrangement is open to the criticism that a dispensing doctor can increase gross earnings from dispensing more expensively".
    That is absolutely true. Unhappily, the BMA concluded, somewhat complacently, that there was
    "no clear evidence of this."
    Mr. David Drew: The situation is not helped by the fact that there has been something close to a state of war between dispensing general practitioners and pharmacists in rural areas. Until that is sorted out, problems will continue, and, inevitably, it will be the patients who suffer in the end.
    Mr. Bradley: That is an important point. We are doing our best to dismantle the internal market in the national health service—to some effect, I think—but all too many rivalries, factions and hostilities persist. There are conflicts between one type of doctor and another, between doctors and pharmacies, between general practitioners and hospital consultants and between medical practitioners in general and administrators. Only when we ensure that everyone working in the health service works for the health service will we see the progress that we all wish to make. It strikes me at times that some people in the NHS—I stress that I am talking about a small minority, but that minority can wreak considerable damage—are more committed to their own interests than to the interests of the health service and the patients whom, they ultimately serve.
    The incentive to which I have referred is clear and irresistible. Among non-dispensing GPs, the average prescribing of branded drugs is about 34 per cent.;
    502
    the remaining 66 per cent. consists of generic and cheaper drugs but, among dispensing GPs, the average is 74 per cent. In other words, only a third of non-dispensers' prescriptions consist of branded drugs, while the figure for dispensing GPs is virtually three quarters. The average cost of a prescription per patient per year is £118 in the case of dispensing GPs, while in the case of non-dispensing GPs it is as little as £78.
    The question is this: is the original purpose of the scheme whereby doctors in rural communities were entitled to derive a supplementary income from the scheme being fulfilled? The answer is no. Between 1995 and 1997, the average GP's income was £47,000. The average for prescribing GPs was lower, at £45,800. However, the average for dispensing GPs, whose incomes had originally been considered to be falling below those of their urban counterparts, was £53,400—over £7,500, or 16 per cent., more than that of their non-dispensing colleagues. Dispensing GPs can make a profit of as much as £50,000 from dispensing. Some of them bank the money, as they are entitled to; others invest it in securing locums or other partners in their practices, and can therefore enjoy a rather more leisured life than other doctors.
    In Shropshire, 21 of the 66 general practices dispense. Although they account for only 28 per cent. of the drugs budget, they account for 36 per cent. of its overspend. The Government have set a target: they intend 72 per cent. of all drugs dispensed to be generic by 2002. Shropshire's average is currently 57 per cent. Prescribers are working towards the 72 per cent. target, and are currently at 63 per cent., but the dispensers are way down the order at 30 per cent.
    As I have said, I am not arguing that rural doctors, particularly those in isolated areas in, for example, Scotland and Pales, do not need that valuable income supplement. If we are to recruit and retain doctors who perform such a valuable duty in those communities, we must find a way in which to help them to supplement their income. Nor do 1 by any stretch of the imagination claim that all dispensing doctors are exploiting the system.
    I pay tribute to the only dispensing practice in my constituency, the Wellington Road surgery in Newport. In the context of his intervention, the following information will be of particular interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford. The practice dispenses to some 5,000 of its 12,500 patients, but its generic prescribing rate is as high as 70 per cent. —well in excess of the county average in Shropshire and more than double the rate of dispensing colleagues throughout the county. The rate can be achieved if a practice is committed to keeping costs as low as possible on behalf of the NHS. The cost to Shropshire health authority of wasted dispensing of drugs is about £500,000. Two years ago, its deficit was £1.5 million. This year, it will be close to £1.2 million. Next year, it will be little better.
    I should like to mention briefly some of the solutions that we might apply. It is to be hoped that peer pressure to contain budgets will be brought to bear when primary care groups are introduced on 1 April, but that in itself will not be enough. Shropshire health authority is pursuing a number of initiatives. It is seeking agreement between consultants in hospitals and GPs in the community to identify the costliest brands for the local NHS and to replace them with generics in hospital. Collaborative working is important in the NHS.

    503
    The health authority is introducing software packages, so that GPs can identify in their surgeries not only the most appropriate drugs for their patients, but how to secure them at the lowest possible prices. It is introducing incentives that my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford mentioned earlier for reducing drug budgets among GPs.
    In 1994, the Select Committee on Health made a recommendation about generic substitution. I hope that the Government will consider the benefits of generic substitution, which mean that a chemist or pharmacist can dispense the cheapest available drug that will do an effective job for the patient. However, we also need to rein in the pharmaceuticals, to contain their excesses and to bear in mind that in other countries, including Germany, there is legislation to ensure that the cheapest possible drugs are dispensed.
    I have outlined the problem and shown that there are solutions at hand, but I look to the Minister for assurances that action will be taken to ensure that every last penny in the NHS goes on front-line health care, not into the pockets of private enterprise or a small minority of greedy doctors.
    10.18 pm
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Denham): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Bradley) on his success in the ballot. He is right to identify as an important issue the cost of medicines to the health service. We are striving to achieve the best return on our use of NHS resources. The use of generic medicines can make a major contribution to achieving that goal.
    It is widely accepted that, save for a few examples—treatments for epilepsy, for example, where it can be important that the patient receives the same brand—non-proprietary or generic medicines are as clinically effective as their proprietary or branded counterparts. Generics are generally cheaper and therefore more cost-effective.
    We spend large sums on medicines. In 1997–98, total NHS expenditure on drugs was £5–1 billion. Of that, £4.1 billion represented drugs prescribed by family health service practitioners, mainly family doctors. Prescribing by hospitals accounted for just over £1 billion. Those two components have up to now been managed as distinct budgets by different parts of the NHS and subject to different rules and flexibilities. Those are major deficiencies, which our reforms, set out in the "New NHS" White Paper, are design to address.
    Action to secure higher rates of generic prescribing continues to figure prominently. The national performance figure across health authorities of 63 per cent. generic prescribing hides wide variations in performance—the best being about 74 per cent., and the lowest about 49 per cent. Shropshire—in common with other authorities serving predominantly rural areas—is a relatively poor performer. The prevalence of dispensing doctors is likely to be a factor, but there are many other influences that can have a bearing and will vary from authority to authority.
    I should caution my hon. Friend on his simple equation between the cost of non-generic prescribing and past overspends in health authority budgets. There can be a wide variety of local variations in performance giving rise to such differences.
    504
    We attach special significance to generic prescribing targets. By the end of March 2002, we aim to achieve an average national generic prescribing rate of at least 72 per cent. —the current figure is about 63 per cent—and at least half the practices currently below 40 per cent. to be brought above it. Currently, about 7 per cent. of practices are below 40 per cent.
    I should like to deal now with the first specific issue that my hon. Friend raised—hospital prescribing. Prescribing by hospital specialists is managed by health authorities within their cash-limited budgets. Cash limits are a key mechanism for ensuring that the NHS stays within funding limits approved by Parliament.
    Historically, however, prescribing by family doctors has been subject to a separate and distinct funding stream, which is often referred to as a non-cash limited budget. However, even here, the position is blurred, as 50 per cent. of that budget has been covered by general practitioner fundholding and managed as a cash-limited budget. Under the existing system, the risk of an overspend on those non-cash limited costs is managed centrally by the Department of Health.
    It is important to realise that, in non-cash limited prescribing costs, although there may not be a pre-determined limit on the amount that may be spent in each health authority, all expenditure at national level has to be met from within the overall funds voted by Parliament for the NHS. Any increase in non-cash limited services above assumed levels has to be managed and may involve reducing or deferring expenditure in another area of the NHS budget. Those costs are therefore not a free good to the NHS.
    There is the possibility that, within the arrangements that we inherited, hospital specialists working within cash-limited budgets may view the prescribing budgets of their GP colleagues as a free good. Any arrangement that provides for an artificial separation between clinical and financial responsibilities will almost inevitably result in clinicians making decisions without full knowledge of the financial consequences or decisions by NHS management that appear to disregard clinical efficacy. The current disjunction between clinical and financial responsibility creates fertile ground on which to develop perverse incentives to shift the cost to another budget.
    My hon. Friend was right to identify the hospitals' huge influence and impact on the prescribing behaviour of GPs. Once a drug is prescribed by a hospital, the patient's reluctance to change is understandable. Clinicians in secondary and primary care should collaborate, but it is easy enough to recognise the temptation to shift the cost of treatment to another budget. In those circumstances, a hospital specialist may maximise the use of his budget without taking into account the overall impact on the use of NHS resources.
    We acknowledge those problems. The introduction of unified budgets, from 1 April, is a key feature of the changes that we are making, which will remove the artificial funding barriers that actively discourage collaboration between doctors working in primary and secondary care. We shall bring together the hitherto separate components for hospital services and GP prescribing, with investment in GP practice infrastructure, in a single funding stream.
    Those changes will complement the changes that we are making in management of the NHS. Unified budgets will help primary care groups and primary care trusts to

    505
    fulfil their key functions—developing local health services and improving the health of their local populations—by enabling them to decide the priorities across the full range of their responsibilities, in the full light of those budgets and the wider NHS.
    If a medicine is judged to be the most appropriate treatment, local mechanisms should be in place to ensure the most cost-effective provision of that medicine. Most health authorities have established forums to deal with those issues—generally through area prescribing committees, which facilitate the exchange of information between primary and secondary care. The role of the committees is being developed to encompass the introduction of primary care groups.
    Certainly, we do not expect hospitals to buy in medicines at artificially low prices, taking no account of the true cost to the NHS resulting from wider use in primary care. I am pleased to note that Shropshire health authority is working with its primary care groups and trusts to address those concerns.
    I now turn to the second point that my hon. Friend raised—the concerns being expressed about the prescribing activity of doctors, predominantly serving rural areas, who are allowed to dispense medicines to those of their patients who do not have easy access to a community pharmacy. The basic allegation is that the so-called dispensing doctors dispense more costly branded medicines to their patients rather than the cheaper generic versions of equal clinical efficacy. It is suggested that the way in which we pay dispensing doctors influences their prescribing activity.
    As has been recognised, there are sound reasons for allowing some doctors to dispense medicines to some of their patients. Generally, doctors prescribe medicines and pharmacists dispense them. Patients benefit from the expertise of two professions. However, in rural areas where a pharmacy would not be viable, GPs may be required or permitted to dispense. About 16 per cent. of GPs in England are dispensing doctors, covering about 3.2 million patients. In those cases the GPs provide a valuable additional service and it is one which is greatly appreciated by their patients. Of course patients must have adequate services available to them wherever they live. Equally we must ensure that those services are provided in the most efficient manner possible.
    I have already described the targets that we have set on generic prescribing and we have introduced a number of developments to underpin the work, including the introduction of unified budgets. Primary care groups are being encouraged to make fuller use of other professional expertise, particularly that of pharmacists, to support better prescribing practice. Prescribing incentive schemes will continue to be developed, allowing GP practices to
    506
    retain a share of the savings they make as a result of better prescribing. There will also be a role for computerised decision support systems such as PRODIGY.
    My hon. Friend has recognised that there are already good examples of improvements that can be secured if practices work together to a common goal.
    Dispensing doctors will be subject to the programme of action. In particular, their performance will be subject to scrutiny by their peers in primary care groups, and we expect them to contribute to the development of cost-effective services for their patients within the new financial and management structures.
    Shropshire health authority recognises the desirability of improving the prescribing behaviour of its GPs. I understand that the authority is forecasting a 3 per cent. overspend, involving some £1.16 million, against this year's prescribing budget. It has identified the specific need to improve generic prescribing performance by its dispensing practices and has established pilots to seek to develop ways to improve generic prescribing, but in a manner which does not jeopardise practice income and which maintains services to patients.
    It is commonly claimed that the dispensing doctor pay system actively discourages the use of generic products. Dispensing doctors are paid by a mixture of fee per prescription item and an on-cost allowance of 10–5 per cent. of the list price of drugs dispensed. It is argued that there is an in-built incentive to use higher-cost drugs because they get paid more for doing so. The evidence is not clear, but the perception is there, that doctors may be influenced in their prescribing decisions. That is recognised by professional representatives and, as my hon. Friend said, back in 1996, the then General Medical Services Committee of the British Medical Association suggested that a more appropriate method of payment would be by a higher professional fee alone, which would provide the same total amount of remuneration as at present provided by fees and on-costs combined
    I recognise that there may be merit in arguments that we should underpin our basic strategy by removing anomalies within dispensing doctor pay arrangements, but it a complex issue and one that we are looking at. I will reflect carefully on the points made during tonight's debate.
    In conclusion, I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising these important issues. We place great emphasis on the continued promotion of cost-effective prescribing, and increased rates of generic prescribing will continue to have a key place in our strategy.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Ten o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Palace Lifts
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee if the Committee will investigate the possibility of increasing the speed of lifts within the Palace. [78254]

  Sir Sydney Chapman
  The Parliamentary Works Directorate has a rolling programme of lift machinery modernisation. Five lifts in the Palace are to be refurbished in 1999. When new machinery is installed the lift winding speed can be adjusted and I have asked the Director of Parliamentary Works to ensure that speeds are carefully set with regard to both the convenience and the comfort of users. Door speeds are generally set so as not to inconvenience any users with disabilities.

WALES

  Crickhowell House
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will estimate the cost of furnishing Crickhowell House for the Welsh Assembly; and if he will make a statement. [77462]

  Mr. Hain
  The current estimated cost of furnishing Crickhowell House for the Assembly is £2 million. This is included in the estimate for establishing the Assembly stated in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum to the Government of Wales Bill.

  Date/Project

  Action taken

  Reason

  July1998

  IGAD—fisheries

  Withdrawn

  Regional instability

  Guinea Bissau—(3 projects)

  Withdrawn

  Insecurity

  September 1998

  Ivory Coast—Decentralisation Programme (1st presentation)

  Blocked

  Insufficient poverty focus/lack of specific outputs

  December 1998

  Kenya—northern corridor

  Blocked

  Maintenance concerns

  Ivory Coast—Decentralisation Programme (2nd presentation)

  Blocked

  Insufficient poverty focus

  March 1999

  Haiti—Direct Budged Aid

  Withdrawn

  Political circumstances in Haiti

  Haiti—Rural development

  Withdrawn

  Political circumstances in Haiti

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development when was the last time that(a) the ALA and (b) the EDF Committee of the European Commission demanded that an independent (i) environmental impact assessment should be conducted

  Millennium Compliance
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales for what reason no external assessment has been made of the plans of his Department for millennium compliance. [78461]

  Mr. Hain
  Independent assessment of the Welsh Office's Year 2000 programme is being undertaken by the Department's Internal Audit Service, who report separately to the Permanent Secretary from the staff responsible for implementing the compliance programme.

  The content of the programme was audited at inception and progress against established activities is reviewed on a regular basis. Internal Audit are free to recommend changes to the programme as they see fit.

  Duplicating this effort by employing external assessors is unnecessary and would add additional costs to the compliance programme.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  EU Project Appraisal
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development when was the last time that(a) the ALA and (b) the EDF Committee of the European Commission completely rejected a proposed project (i) on any subject and (ii) on environmental and social grounds; what was the title of the project; and what were the grounds for the objections. [77930]

  Mr. Foulkes
  The Asia and Latin America (ALA) and European Development Fund (EDF) committees have not completely rejected any proposal within the last 12 months. Such rejection is rare for three reasons. A proposal cannot be blocked by a single member state acting alone. Secondly, if the commission senses that there is wide opposition to a project, it may choose to voluntarily withdraw the proposal from the agenda. Finally, in order to secure sufficient support from member states to proceed, the Commission may undertake to revise aspects of its proposals to take account of the views expressed by member states. In the last 12 months, the following projects have either been withdrawn or blocked as a result of pressure applied by the member states.

  before a project was given approval and (ii) evaluation be conducted on a Commission (1) project and (2) programme that was currently under implementation or had recently been completed. [77931]
  227
  Mr. Foulkes
  During the last 12 months neither committee has demanded an independent Environmental Impact Appraisal as a pre-condition to approval. The Commission is required to undertake Environment Impact Appraisal screening as part of its project appraisal process and environmental issues are often raised at Committee meetings. For example, at the last European Development Fund (EDF) Committee on 17–18 March 1999, the UK raised environmental issues on 4 out of the 9 projects under consideration. Monitoring and evaluation arrangements are normally agreed when project proposals are submitted to the Committees for consideration. At the last EDF Committee, the UK raised the question of evaluation with regard to 3 projects.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Police Vehicles (Accidents)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 15 March 1999,Official Report, column 495, if he will rank police forces according to the number of accidents in 1997–98 involving police vehicles which resulted in injury and death. [78203]

  Mr. Boateng
  Ranking of police forces by number of accidents involving police vehicles would be misleading, as many different factors can affect the figures, such as force size and local road conditions. For accidents during pursuits and emergency responses broken down by force, I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Efford) on 18 January 1999,Official Report, column 334.

  Immigration and Nationality Directorate
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what meetings he has had regarding the reorganisation of Lunar House and the introduction of a new computer system to deal with immigration and asylum applications; what representations he has received about delays in the provision of immigration services; and if he will make a statement. [78245]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  [holding answer 23 March 1999]: I have had a number of meetings regarding the reorganisation of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate and will continue to do so. I have received representations about the current delays there from hon. Members, from interest groups and from the business community. I am, therefore, taking a close personal interest in improving the level of service.

  The Home Secretary and I recently met with officials from the Immigration and Nationality Directorate and Siemens Business Services to discuss the casework programme. Siemens Business Services have reiterated their commitment to working in partnership to deliver the major modernisation programme as a whole.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he has taken to improve the situation for clients at the Immigration and Nationality Directorate in Croydon. [77346]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The reorganisation in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate in Croydon has caused significant disruption and delays in the throughput 228
  of cases. A number of steps have been taken to improve matters. These include taking on additional staff, running special exercises to target priority cases and providing additional temporary accommodation to the Public Caller Unit to ensure that all callers are seen on the day by a member of staff. In addition, there have been changes in procedure which have resulted in increasing productivity particularly relating to straightforward cases. Extra training has also been provided in certain key areas to ensure maximum flexibility of staff resources and a steady throughput of work.

  Police and Immigration Officers
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many (i) police officers and (ii) immigration officers were based at each port in England and Wales in each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement. [77280]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Operational deployment of police officers is a matter for the Chief Constable. Details of the number of police based at ports in England and Wales is not collated centrally.

  The number of immigration officers, including assistant immigration officers, based at ports in England and Wales as at 1 January 1997,1998 and 1999 is set out in the table. Immigration officers at some of these locations attend both airports and seaports. Other ports in England and Wales which do not have permanently based staff are covered as required.

  We are in the process of appointing over 200 additional immigration officers and assistant immigration officers as part of the package of measures designed to deliver the objectives set out in the Government's White Paper.

  1 January 1997

  1 January 1998

  1 January 1999

  Heathrow

  775.5

  759.0

  694.9

  Dover ports

  295.4

  274.0

  265.9

  Gatwick

  290.5

  294.3

  282.4

  Waterloo

  115.0

  110.0

  102.8

  Manchester airport

  60.6

  63.7

  66.3

  Stansted airport

  46.6

  47.8

  47.8

  Birmingham airport

  37.8

  35.5

  32.1

  Harwich

  34.0

  34.0

  33.1

  Portsmouth

  28.0

  29.0

  29.0

  Luton

  19.1

  18.1

  17.3

  Tyne ports

  17.1

  16.0

  16.0

  Newhaven

  16.7

  15.7

  16.0

  East Midlands airport

  14.0

  13.0

  13.0

  London City airport

  13.5

  13.1

  13.3

  Leeds Bradford

  11.6

  12.6

  12.6

  Southampton

  10.8

  9.0

  9.0

  Bristol

  10.0

  10.0

  9.8

  Cardiff

  9.0

  9.0

  9.0

  Hull

  9.0

  9.0

  9.0

  Liverpool

  8.0

  8.0

  8.0

  Plymouth

  7.5

  8.6

  8.6

  Stockton

  7.0

  6.6

  6.4

  Norwich

  5.0

  5.0

  5.0

  Felixstowe

  5.0

  3.0

  3.0

  Poole

  4.0

  4.0

  4.0

  Bournemouth

  4.0

  4.0

  3.0

  South Humberside

  3.6

  3.6

  3.6

  Brize Norton

  3.0

  3.0

  3.0

  Mildenhall

  3.0

  3.0

  3.0

  Swansea

  2.0

  2.0

  2.0

  Southend

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  Cambridge

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  Total

  1,868.3

  1,825.6

  1,730.8

  Freedom of Information
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if it is the Government's policy to apply the test of substantial harm set out in the White Paper on freedom of information in its forthcoming Bill on freedom of information. [78258]

  Mr. Straw
  The Government hope to publish a draft Bill on freedom of information in May. It is our intention to make sure the legislation is clear and easy to use. We are still considering the precise drafting of the Bill to ensure that the principles set out in the White Paper "Your Right to Know" form the basis of the legislation.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the Advisory Group on openness in the public sector will be able to consider the progress since 1 May 1997 of proposals for freedom of information legislation. [78343]

  Mr. Straw
  The purpose of the Group is to advise me on the steps needed to be taken ahead of freedom of information legislation to increase openness in the public sector. I expect the group to submit a report to me before the end of the year making recommendations on how I might facilitate an increase in openness in the public sector as a whole.

  The Home Office took over responsibility for freedom of information legislation from the Cabinet Office in the summer of 1998, to enable the policy to be developed alongside other constitutional measures, such as human rights and data protection. Since then, we have devoted a great deal of effort towards translating the White Paper's proposals into a draft Bill. I now hope to publish the draft in May.

  Prostitutes (Calling Cards)
  Mr. Caplin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) civil and (b) criminal prosecutions were made in relation to prostitutes calling cards in telephone boxes in 1997 and 1998. [78047]

  Mr. Boateng
  This information is not readily available. There are several pieces of legislation under which a person may be charged for offences relating to placing prostitutes cards in telephone boxes. Home Office statistics do not indicate which prosecutions relate to prostitutes cards. Civil injunctions are not recorded centrally.

  Mr. Caplin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will consult on the possibility of making the placing of prostitutes calling cards in telephone boxes a specific criminal offence. [78046]

  Mr. Boateng
  Yes. My reply to the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) on 2 March 1999,Official Report, column 631, said that the Home Office will shortly be issuing a consultation paper on new measures to tackle the problem of prostitutes cards in telephone boxes which will look at options for changing the law to enable those who put cards in telephone boxes to be dealt with more effectively.

  Millennium Compliance
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reason no external assessment has been made of the plans of his Department for millennium compliance. [78462]

  Mr. Straw
  An external assessment of my Department's Year 2000 programme began earlier this month, to complement an internal assessment recently completed. DBI Associates were awarded a contract to carry out this independent assessment, following a competitive tender exercise. This comprehensive assessment will examine the Year 2000 work carried out within the main Home Office, its executive agencies and the Police Information Technology Organisation, concentrating on business critical processes and business continuity planning. A final report is expected in June.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reason no(a) internal and (b) external assessment has been made of the United Kingdom Passport Agency's plans for millennium compliance; and if he will make a statement. [78468]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Passport Agency's plans for millennium compliance are being assessed by independent technical consultants appointed by the Home Office.

  The agency's audit needs are assessed every three years and are currently under review. Audit plans will include millennium compliance but will take into account the work of the independent consultants (DBI Associates Ltd.).

  Macpherson Report
  Sir Norman Fowler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people had access to the Macpherson report prior to some of its contents appearing in The Sunday Telegraph; and if he will make a statement. [78480]

  Mr. Straw
  I refer the right hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) on 15 March 1999,Official Report, column 492.

  Sir Norman Fowler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what standard of proof will be required in the leak inquiry into the provision of unauthorised information concerning the Macpherson report to The Sunday Telegraph; and if he will make a statement. [78419]

  Mr. Straw
  No proof test has been set. My permanent secretary will advise on what course of action might be appropriate, taking account of any weight attached to particular findings by the independent investigator.

  Sir Norman Fowler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made on the leak inquiry into the provision of unauthorised information concerning the Macpherson report to The Sunday Telegraph; and if he will make a statement. [78418]

  Mr. Straw
  My permanent secretary expects to receive the independent investigator's conclusions shortly.

  EU Fraud
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 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. [77783]

  Kate Hoey
  [holding answer 19 March 1999]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury gave on 19 March 1999, Official Report, columns 858–59.

  Civil Servants (Appraisal)
  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what were the appraisal performance markings awarded to civil servants in 1998 for(a) each agency in his Department and (b) the Department broken down by (i) grade, (ii) gender, (iii) ethnicity, (iv) part-time/full-time working and (v) disability; and for (1) each agency and (2) the Department whether the Cabinet Office's four fifths rule for detecting potential adverse impact was applied to the appraisal markings of civil servants in the 1998 report round. [78149]

  Mr. Straw
  The available information has been placed in the Library and is set out as follows:

  Table 1: performance appraisal markings for the Home Office including the United Kingdom Passport Agency and the Forensic Science Service (but excluding the Prison Service and the Fire Service College which have different appraisal systems) for the reporting year 1996–97 broken down by grade, ethnicity and gender. Information on part-time/full-time working could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Table 2: performance appraisal markings for the Fire Service College in 1998 broken down by gender and part-time/full-time working. There were no ethnic minority or disabled staff working at the College in this period. The total number of staff working at the College is small and to provide figures broken down by grade would risk identifying individuals.

  Table 3: performance appraisal markings for the Prison Service in 1998 broken down by gender and ethnicity. Information on part-time/full-time working is not held centrally in the Prison Service and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Table 4: performance appraisal markings for the Prison Service in 1998 broken down by the core grades. (There are many non-standard specialist grades with small numbers of staff in the Prison Service and to provide information broken down by these grades would risk identifying individuals).

  Table 5: performance appraisal markings for the Home Office including the United Kingdom Passport Agency and the Forensic Science Service (but excluding the Prison Service and the Fire Service College) for the reporting year 1996–97 showing the spread of box markings among disabled and non-disabled staff.

  The four-fifths rule—which is only a guideline, not a statistical test—was not applied to these appraisal markings.

  General Pinochet
  Sir Norman Fowler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what public statements he made in his official capacity prior to 17 October 1998 on the former Government of General Pinochet in Chile; and if he will make a statement. [78420]

  Mr. Straw
  I have made no such public statements.

  Police Research Paper
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the cost of researching, publishing and distributing the Police Research Series paper, "Face Value? Evaluating the Accuracy of Eyewitness Information". [78478]

  Mr. Boateng
  The cost of producing the Police Research Series paper "Face Value? Evaluating the Accuracy of Eyewitness Information" was £12,040. This was broken down as follows:The University of Liverpool was paid £6,916 over a three month period to conduct the work on which the report is based and to produce a draft report; and
  3,500 copies of the report were produced along with 2,600 copies of an associated briefing note. Printing costs were £5,124.
  3,700 reports or briefing notes were distributed at the time of publication using existing administrative support staff at marginal cost. Postal costs are not calculated for individual reports.

  Firearms
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many(a) handguns and (b) accessories, broken down by (i) type and (ii) calibre, have been surrendered to each police force in Great Britain by (A) private citizens, (B) shooting clubs and (C) firearms dealers under the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997; [78153]

  (2) how much compensation (a) has been paid and (b) is outstanding in respect of firearms surrendered under the terms of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997; and when he expects the process to be completed. [78154]

  Mr. Boateng
  Over 162,000 large and small-calibre handguns were surrendered to the police following the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997. I regret that the more detailed information requested is not at present available. A total of £80.3 million has so far been paid in compensation. The total of compensation paid is expected to be in the region of £87 million.

  Yemen
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the recent arrest of Abu Hamza al-Masri; and what his policy is in respect of Yemen's request for his deportation. [78131]

  Mr. Straw
  Abu Hamza al-Masri and two other men were arrested under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 (PTA) on 15 March. I subsequently authorised extensions of detention beyond the initial 48 hours allowed by the Act. On 18 March, all three detainees were released from detention under the PTA, re-arrested under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and given police bail to return for further questioning in mid-May after further inquiries have been made.
  233
  The United Kingdom has no extradition treaty with Yemen. The law contains provision in these circumstances for a special arrangement to be considered. I cannot say what would be the outcome were such an approach to be made by the Yemen, but it would be open to their authorities, if they so wished, to pursue the possibility.

  Venezuelan Nationals
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Venezuelan nationals there are in British prisons. [78125]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The latest available provisional information is for 31 December 1998. On that date, there were 16 Venezuelan nationals (15 males and 1 female) in prisons in England and Wales. Information on the numbers of Venezuelan nationals held in prisons in Scotland and Northern Ireland are available from the Secretary of State for Scotland and Secretary of State for Northern Ireland respectively.

  Death Penalty
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reasons Her Majesty's Government have not ratified the Council of Europe Protocol Number 6 to the convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms concerning the abolition of the death penalty; and if he will make a statement. [77284]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Home Secretary signed Protocol 6 in Strasbourg on 27 January 1999. An Explanatory Memorandum and a Command Paper relating to the ratification process will be laid before the House shortly.

  Prison Governors
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisons in England and Wales have had more than three principal governors within the last three years; and if he will make a statement. [77587]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Bullwood Hall and Maidstone prisons are the only establishments to have had more than three governing governors, including those temporarily in charge, in the last three years.

  Asylum Seekers
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce a concession to the Immigration Rules granting asylum seekers from Sierra Leone immediate exceptional leave to remain in the United Kingdom. [77548]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I do not consider that such a policy would be justified at present, but we are keeping the situation in Sierra Leone under continuous close review.

  Following a decline in the country situation in December 1998, enforced removals to Sierra Leone were suspended on practical and precautionary grounds. In view of the continued fighting and the rebel invasion into parts of Freetown, consideration of asylum applications was suspended in January 1999.
  234
  Appalling human rights violations and destruction have been perpetrated by the rebel forces in Sierra Leone. However, President Kabbah has remained in power and Freetown has recently been secured following action by ECOMOG troops. There are large numbers of internally displaced people in the city. In all the circumstances, it would not be appropriate to resume widescale enforced returns of rejected asylum seekers at this stage. We will consider the viability of making limited returns to Freetown now that the city is secure, but no one will be returned to Sierra Leone unless it is considered safe to do so.

  As and when consideration of applications by asylum seekers from Sierra Leone is resumed, they will be considered in accordance with the standing instructions to caseworkers which point, among other things, to the grant of exceptional leave to remain in cases where there are compassionate or humanitarian reasons which merit not requiring the person to return to their country of origin or habitual residence.

  Police (Sick Leave)
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the rates of sick leave reported in each police force in each of the last three years. [78391]

  Mr. Boateng
  The information requested is shown in the tables.

  Police days lost through sickness

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  Avon and Somerset

  32,498

  35,051

  30,326

  Bedfordshire

  11,209

  12,205

  15,539

  Cambridgeshire

  15,730

  14,115

  14,018

  Cheshire

  28,867

  25,787

  28,416

  City of London

  10,446

  10,753

  10,326

  Cleveland

  18,488

  18,761

  17,709

  Cumbria

  10,138

  10,519

  11,870

  Derbyshire

  21,939

  25,271

  24,953

  Devon and Cornwall

  28,722

  30,527

  30,259

  Dorset

  14,058

  13,219

  14,403

  Durham

  18,154

  18,830

  17,104

  Dyfed-Powys

  11,110

  11,777

  10,585

  Essex

  25,533

  28,399

  34,066

  Gloucestershire

  11,412

  12,725

  11,934

  Greater Manchester

  103,602

  107,360

  106,894

  Gwent

  10,273

  12,804

  12,576

  Hampshire

  27,784

  32,241

  36,665

  Hertfordshire

  20,162

  23,914

  20,462

  Humberside

  27,267

  24,798

  24,212

  Kent

  39,368

  36,335

  36,564

  Lancashire

  47,205

  37,766

  37,419

  Leicestershire

  26,632

  27,389

  23,840

  Lincolnshire

  14,255

  16,910

  14,465

  Merseyside

  78,554

  80,165

  54,011

  Metropolitan Police

  272,131

  396,768

  394,568

  Norfolk

  15,115

  13,253

  15,053

  Northamptonshire

  13,953

  12,382

  14,744

  Northumbria

  43,771

  39,935

  43,329

  North Wales

  16,624

  12,075

  13,882

  North Yorkshire

  16,058

  14,524

  14,925

  Nottinghamshire

  33,172

  29,951

  29,529

  South Wales

  43,932

  *

  50,147

  South Yorkshire

  37,862

  36,422

  38,827

  Staffordshire

  28,767

  32,397

  28,868

  Suffolk

  9,817

  10,059

  10,581

  Surrey

  16,994

  18,967

  21,998

  Sussex

  40,811

  39,302

  36,835

  Thames Valley

  45,425

  43,685

  45,027

  235

  Police days lost through sickness

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  Warwickshire

  13,179

  12,284

  13,476

  West Mercia

  24,883

  25,055

  23,584

  West Midlands

  68,861

  96,992

  89,881

  West Yorkshire

  54,102

  56,388

  60,536

  Wiltshire

  10,468

  11,289

  10,219

  Provincial total

  1,187,200

  1,172,581

  1,200,057

  England and Wales total

  1,459,331

  1,569,349

  1,594,625

  Notes:

  * Figures not available due to changes in data collection methods

  Average days lost through sickness per police officer

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  Avon and Somerset

  11

  12

  10

  Bedfordshire

  10

  11

  14

  Cambridgeshire

  13

  11

  11

  Cheshire

  15

  13

  14

  City of London

  12

  12

  12

  Cleveland

  13

  13

  12

  Cumbria

  9

  9

  10

  Derbyshire

  12

  14

  14

  Devon and Cornwall

  10

  11

  10

  Dorset

  11

  10

  11

  Durham

  13

  13

  12

  Dyfed-Powys

  11

  12

  11

  Essex

  9

  10

  12

  Gloucestershire

  10

  11

  11

  Greater Manchester

  15

  15

  15

  Gwent

  10

  10

  10

  Hampshire

  8

  9

  11

  Hertfordshire

  12

  14

  12

  Humberside

  13

  12

  12

  Kent

  13

  11

  11

  Lancashire

  15

  12

  11

  Leicestershire

  14

  14

  12

  Lincolnshire

  12

  14

  12

  Merseyside

  17

  19

  12

  Metropolitan Police

  10

  14

  15

  Norfolk

  11

  9

  10

  Northamptonshire

  12

  10

  12

  Northumbria

  12

  11

  13

  North Wales

  12

  9

  10

  North Yorkshire

  12

  11

  11

  Nottinghamshire

  14

  13

  13

  South Wales

  15

  *

  17

  South Yorkshire

  12

  12

  12

  Staffordshire

  13

  14

  13

  Suffolk

  8

  9

  9

  Surrey

  10

  11

  13

  Sussex

  13

  13

  12

  Thames Valley

  12

  12

  12

  Warwickshire

  13

  13

  14

  West Mercia

  12

  12

  12

  West Midlands

  10

  13

  12

  West Yorkshire

  10

  11

  12

  Wiltshire

  8

  10

  9

  Provincial total

  12

  12

  12

  England and Wales total

  12

  12

  13

  Notes:

  * Figures not available due to changes in data collection methods

  Police (Early Retirement)
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers took early retirement on health grounds in each police force in each of the last three years. [78387]

  Mr. Boateng
  The information is set out in the table.
  236

  Number of police officers retiring on ill-health grounds, England and Wales

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  Avon and Somerset

  29

  66

  66

  Bedfordshire

  14

  15

  23

  Cambridgeshire

  26

  20

  12

  Cheshire

  16

  19

  21

  City of London

  14

  7

  6

  Cleveland

  25

  22

  8

  Cumbria

  9

  18

  20

  Derbyshire

  49

  39

  51

  Devon & Cornwall

  27

  21

  22

  Dorset

  9

  11

  10

  Durham

  23

  23

  17

  Dyfed-Powys

  22

  12

  11

  Essex

  31

  29

  29

  Gloucestershire

  7

  11

  9

  Greater Manchester

  168

  207

  199

  Gwent

  19

  28

  15

  Hampshire

  31

  21

  30

  Hertfordshire

  22

  10

  17

  Humberside

  26

  19

  27

  Kent

  46

  15

  18

  Lancashire

  66

  36

  27

  Leicestershire

  45

  29

  25

  Lincolnshire

  31

  11

  28

  Merseyside

  195

  167

  80

  Metropolitan

  430

  457

  406

  Norfolk

  15

  15

  15

  North Wales

  36

  33

  11

  North Yorkshire

  29

  39

  22

  Northamptonshire

  10

  14

  18

  Northumbria

  123

  85

  95

  Nottinghamshire

  41

  34

  40

  South Wales

  74

  43

  69

  South Yorkshire

  46

  33

  29

  Staffordshire

  30

  47

  66

  Suffolk

  25

  22

  20

  Surrey

  24

  24

  10

  Sussex

  61

  42

  23

  Thames Valley

  58

  55

  40

  Warwickshire

  14

  10

  18

  West Mercia

  27

  39

  27

  West Midlands

  105

  93

  97

  West Yorkshire

  48

  57

  41

  Wiltshire

  4

  11

  9

  Provincial Total

  1,720

  1,552

  1,421

  England and Wales Total

  2,150

  2,009

  1,827

  Mr. Tangney
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answers of 18 March 1999,Official Report, column 721, and 11 March 1999, Official Report, column 332, on life prisoners, on the basis of what evidence the Parole Board decided that Mr. Tangney fulfilled the conditions that the life sentence prisoner is trustworthy enough not to abscond. [78270]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The Parole Board recommended that Mr. Tangney be transferred to open conditions on the basis of reports and recommendations from prison and probation staff that Mr. Tangney's attitudes and behaviour had improved to the point where he could be trusted in open conditions. Ministers accepted the Board's recommendation taking account of those reports and recommendations and Mr. Tangney's overall progress in prison, and reduction in risk, since the offence for which his mandatory life sentence was imposed.

  Life Prisoners (Transfer)
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the minimum period a life sentence prisoner must serve before being considered for transfer to an open prison. [78269]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The general position is set out in my right hon. Friend's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Stinchcombe) on 9 July 1998,Official Report, columns 587–88. The first Parole Board review of a life sentence prisoner's case occurs 3 years, or in the case of a prisoner who has made good progress through his sentence 3½ years, before expiry of the minimum period required for retribution and deterrence, commonly known as the tariff. The tariff varies considerably from case to case.

  Prisoner Correspondence
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what regulations govern prisoners writing to addresses registered as Post Office box numbers; and what security considerations apply. [78358]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Prisoners' correspondence is governed by the Prison Rules, and policy is set out in Prison Standing Order 5 (copies of which are in the Library). Under paragraph 29 of Standing Order 5B, governors have the authority to stop prisoners writing to a Post Office Box. Prisons must be able to identify and check the recipients of prisoners' correspondence, particularly in the case of high risk prisoners and sex offenders.

  While this provision will more often apply to individuals using PO Box numbers, it may also be applied to organisations where the governor considers there to be a risk. Some organisations, for example, operate pen-pal schemes for prisoners to make contact with people on the outside. Such schemes may be susceptible to infiltration by sex offenders and paedophiles seeking to network and make contact with vulnerable people. These schemes, therefore, need to be thoroughly vetted. Where the organisations concerned are not able to do this, and the use of a box number precludes prisons from making appropriate checks on the recipients, a governor is within his or her rights to stop prisoners from writing to the organisation.

  Detective Superintendent McElroy
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) when the Chief Constable of Nottinghamshire expects to make a decision relating to the suspension and investigation of DS McElroy; [78208]

  (2) what explanation he has been given for the continued suspension of DS McElroy following the Crown Prosecution Service's decision not to pursue charges; [78212]

  (3) what have been the costs of the suspension and investigation of DS McElroy from the Nottinghamshire Constabulary since 10 April 1997; [78206]
  238
  (4) if he will refer the case of DS McElroy to the Chief Inspector of Constabulary for a report on (a) the cost and conduct of the investigation, (b) compliance with regulations, (c) the status of the participating witness in the investigation and (d) the impact of the investigation on the explosives case which DS McElroy had been working on; [78209]

  (5) what reasons the case of DS McElroy was not referred to the Police Complaints Authority under the Police (Complaints) (Mandatory Referrals etc.) Regulations 1985. [78207]

  Mr. Boateng
  Disciplinary matters relating to individual officers are the responsibility of chief officers of police. I am told that DS McElroy remains suspended while consideration is given to possible disciplinary proceedings, and that following a complaint by a member of the public, Nottinghamshire Constabulary has referred its handling of the case to the Police Complaints Authority for independent investigation.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Biotechnical Industry
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the biotechnical companies which have placed staff(a) on secondment and (b) on placement within his Department since 1 May 1997. [74840]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 5 March 1999]: Secondments and attachments are part of the Interchange Initiative, which promotes the exchange of people and good practice between the Civil Service and other organisations. All sectors of the economy are involved: Voluntary, Education, Health, Public and Private.

  No staff from biotechnical companies have been on either secondment or placement with this Department.

  Genetically Modified Crops
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the studies commissioned by his Department into the potential indirect effect on the environment from the growing of genetically modified crops. [74865]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 5 March 1999]: My Department is in the process of commissioning ecological studies of the diversity and abundance of plants and invertebrates associated with the management of certain genetically modified herbicide tolerant crops compared with equivalent non genetically modified crops to test whether there are any significant differences over a four year period.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many release consents for genetically modified crops trials there have been in each year since 1990. [75110]
  239
  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 8 March 1999): Since the current Regulations came into force in February 1993, 154 consents have been issued. The break down per year is as follows:

  Year

  Applications approved

  1993

  15

  1994

  24

  1995

  40

  1996

  28

  1997

  25

  1998

  22

  India (Ministerial Visit)
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to report his assessment of the environmental damage to coral reefs following his recent visit to India and the Maldives. [75543]

  Mr. Prescott
  [holding answer 9 March 1999]: During my visit to the Maldives, I was able to see for myself some of the damage to the coral reefs there, particularly the evidence of the coral bleaching event recorded during April to June last year. This was the worst ever recorded in the Maldives and affected some 95 per cent. of the reefs. On one of the sites that I was shown, over 35 per cent. of the corals were bleached and approximately 40 per cent. were dead.

  I was also shown a reef that had been mined for use in the construction of the airport 30 years ago (traditionally in the Maldives, coral has been used as a building material). The extraction of coral had removed the upper 0.5m of reef framework, leaving a bare, flat surface of broken rubble and unconsolidated sediment and had resulted in a loss of live coral cover and associated reef fish. The area covered by live corals was less than 3 per cent. compared with 35 per cent. on nearby unmined reefs.

  A BBC crew joined me on these dives and recorded much of what I was shown. The resulting film report was transmitted on BBC News programmes around the world, confirming the point that I had set out to make; that there are clear links between climate change, oceans and land-based sources of pollution.

  I intend to continue to highlight this issue and to press for improvement in international co-ordination on oceans matters when I attend the Commission on Sustainable Development in New York next month.

  While I was in the Maldives, I was also able to announce continuing UK support for the South Asia region of the Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network. This will evaluate the sustainability of coral reefs; raise community level awareness of coral reef status and resource management issues; and establish regional capability to collect critical monitoring data on coral reefs, coral reefs resource-use and related livelihoods. Coral reef monitoring programmes at key sites will develop a national coral reef database in each country. The programme will provide a foundation for maximising sustainable benefits from coral reef resources for coastal communities, thereby improving livelihoods in coral reef areas in South Asia.

  Packaging Waste
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of whether the UK will achieve the targets set under the EU Directive on Packaging Waste; and if he will make a statement. [76983]

  Mr. Meacher
  As I said in my answer to my hon. Friend on 15 March 1999,Official Report, columns 466–67, the recovery rate for packaging waste is expected to have reached approximately 32 per cent. in 1998 and the interim business targets are designed to enable the UK to achieve the mandatory EC Directive recovery and recycling targets in 2001. Industry itself has reported that there was an oversupply of reprocessing capacity in 1998 compared with the targets that had to be met and this was damaging the market. The increase in the interim business recovery and recycling targets should therefore generate the necessary momentum to enable sufficient activity to be carried out to achieve the 2001 targets. A further consideration was the need for sufficient resources to be directed at generating the necessary collection and reprocessing capacity that will be needed to meet the targets in 2001. With this additional infrastructure in place the UK should be able to meet the mandatory Directive targets.

  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will take steps to provide clarification of the definition of imported materials under the packaging waste regulations. [76984]

  Mr. Meacher
  Guidance on the definition of imported packaging and packaging materials was provided in chapter five of the "Users Guide", issued by my Department in March 1997, a copy of which is in the Library. This continues to reflect the Department's opinion.

  Genetically Modified Organisms
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions on what dates his Department has received representations from the United States Government on genetically modified organisms since 1 May 1997; in what form each representation was made; and from which United States department each originated. [77116]

  Mr. Meacher
  I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Stinchcombe) on 1 March 1999,Official Report, column 509. The visit was from a representative of the State Department and took place 25 January 1999.

  Global Warming
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what evidence he obtained about global warming during his visit to the Maldives; and what conclusions he has drawn from it. [75691]

  Mr. Prescott
  [holding answer 18 March 19991: Small island states are especially vulnerable to global warming and its associated effects. During my visit to the Maldives, I heard from the Government and local marine scientists about the effects of global warming, rising sea

  241
  temperatures and pollution on some of the coral reefs there, and the particular threat that is posed by these phenomena to island states like the Maldives.

  I was also able to see some of the damage to the reefs for myself, particularly the evidence of coral bleaching event recorded during April to June last year, the result of high sea-surface temperature caused by El Niño. This was the worst ever recorded in the Maldives and affected some 95 per cent. of the reefs. On one of the sites that I was shown, over 35 per cent. of the corals were bleached and approximately 40 per cent. were dead.

  There are clear links between climate change, oceans and land-based sources of pollution—everyone has a part to play in helping to solve the problem. In addition to the ongoing efforts to tackle climate change, I intend to continue to highlight this issue and to press for improved international co-ordination on oceans matters when I attend the Commission on Sustainable Development meeting in New York next month.

  Asbestos
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the purpose of the medical examination required by Regulation 16(2) of the Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 1987 as amended by the Control of Asbestos at Work (Amendment) Regulations 1998. [77876]

  Mr. Meale
  Doctors carry out medical examinations under Regulation 16(2) to advise workers on their general fitness for work with asbestos (including their fitness to work wearing respiratory protective equipment), to provide them with information about their current state of respiratory health, to alert workers to early signs of disease, and to warn them about the increased risk of lung cancer for those who smoke and work with asbestos.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what controls will be applied to contractors licensed only to remove asbestos insulation board to prevent them from undertaking any other type of asbestos stripping work. [77877]

  Mr. Meale
  Contractors are required to give 14 days advance notice of work with asbestos as a condition of their licence. In 1999–2000, the Health and Safety Executive's Field Operations Directorate plan to visit at least 800 notified jobs and also to visit 40 local authorities to deal with risks from asbestos to building and maintenance workers in their properties.

  Organisation

  Remediation type

  Brief description

  1 Action Environment

  Decontamination

  Reclamation of contaminated land at Plean Country Park (public amenity)

  2 Action for Chitterne's Environment

  Rubbish removal

  Clearing roadside banks (in cutting) of fly-tipped litter and debris at Winterbourne (public amenity)

  3 Argyll and Bute Trust

  Rubbish removal

  Beach cleaning by volunteer bodies, including general flotsam and tanker crude oil residues (public amenity)

  4 Beach Watch Bute

  Rubbish removal

  Beach cleaning, including removal of crude oil residues (public amenity)

  242
  In addition, in 1999–2000 the Directorate has planned for 80,000 preventive inspections in addition to complaint and accident investigations. Inspectors are aware of the importance of asbestos and will be alert to illegal work during such visits.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if the Health and Safety Executive plans to license contractors who remove only asbestos insulation board under the Asbestos (Licensing) Regulations 1993, as amended by the Asbestos (Licensing) (Amendment) Regulations 1998. [77874]

  Mr. Meale
  Yes. From 1 August 1999, the regulations will apply to licensed contractors who only work with asbestos insulation board in the same way as they do to those working with asbestos coating and insulation.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if the medical examination certificates issued to workers exposed to asbestos under the amended Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 1987 are intended to fulfil the requirements of asbestos laws in all European Union member states. [77875]

  Mr. Meale
  No. The intention behind the amendment to the Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations to issue a medical certificate to both the employer and employee is to prevent the forgery of medical certificates. The UK's requirements for medical surveillance are stricter than the minimum standards laid down by the EU Directive on the protection of workers from the risks related to asbestos at work.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he plans to ban the import, marketing and use of Chrysotile asbestos. [77878]

  Mr. Meale
  The Government are firmly committed to further restrictions on the importation, supply and use of white asbestos. The Health and Safety Commission has already consulted on proposals to amend the (Asbestos Prohibitions) Regulations and I look forward to receiving its recommendations, taking account of European Developments, in June.

  ENTRUST
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 2 December 1998,Official Report, columns 180–81, on ENTRUST, if he will list the 33 projects for the remediation of contaminated land and the sort of remediation undertaken. [77645]

  Mr. Meale
  According to ENTRUST, the 33 projects are listed in the table.
  243

  Organisation

  Remediation type

  Brief description

  5 Bluebell Railway Trust

  Rubbish removal

  Reclamation of fly-tipped domestic refuse-filled railway cutting for preserved steam railway (public amenity)

  6 Cheshire Environmental Services

  Dereliction removal

  Reclamation of derelict and contaminated land, formerly a paint works, in Chester (residential)

  7 Cheshire Environmental Services

  Decontamination

  Reclamation of former gasworks site at Bollington, Cheshire (commercial)

  8 Cheshire Environmental Services

  Decontamination

  Removal of heavy-metal contaminated soil at Northwich Victoria football ground (public amenity)

  9 Cheshire Environmental Services

  Decontamination

  Reclamation of contaminated land at former gasworks, Bollington, Cheshire

  10 Earth Centre

  Decontamination

  Removal of heavy metal contamination/dereliction of former collieries (public amenity)

  11 Enventure

  Dereliction removal

  Regeneration of derelict land for Greatwood and Horseclose Millennium Green (public amenity)

  12 Greenbank Trust

  Restoration

  Reclamation of disused quarry for public amenity use (public amenity)

  13 Groundwork Blackburn

  Dereliction removal

  E. Darwen landscape renewal project: reclamation and enhancement of derelict area (public amenity)

  14 Groundwork Dearne Valley

  Dereliction removal

  Site investigation for reclamation of derelict former steel mill (public amenity)

  15 Groundwork Erewash Valley

  Decontamination

  Removal and storage of contaminated waste at former steelworks (public amenity)

  16 Groundwork Medway Swale

  Decontamination

  Remediation of contamination and dereliction at abandoned wharf (public amenity)

  17 Levenseat Trust

  Dereliction removal

  Removal of dereliction at Furth Wanderers football ground and improve landscape (public amenity)

  18 Loch Awe Improvement Association

  Rubbish removal

  'Clean Sweep': removal of litter, shore improvement and provision of litter bins (public amenity)

  19 Marybank Partnership (Comharradh Criche)

  Dereliction removal

  Removal of contamination and dereliction for Western Isles business park (commercial/public amenity)

  20 Northern Environmental Projects

  Decontamination

  Decontamination of land at Ellesmere Old Forge (public amenity)

  21 Northern Environmental Projects

  Decontamination

  Reclamation and decontamination of former colliery at Gresford, near Wrexham (public amenity)

  22 Public Arts

  Dereliction removal

  Derelict land reclamation and construction of amenity featuring sculpture (public amenity)

  23 Score Environment

  Dereliction removal

  Reclamation of derelict quarry for agricultural use

  24 Scottish Conservation Projects Trust

  Decontamination

  Irvine Beach park: management plan to reduce/remove pollutants (public amenity)

  25 S. W. England Environment Trust

  Decontamination

  Remediation of contaminated land at Isle of Wight Housing Association site (residential)

  26 S. Yorkshire Forest Environment Trust

  Decontamination

  Lower Don and South Sheffield Valleys: creation of woodland on contaminated former steel industry site (public amenity)

  27 Todmorden Moor Restoration Trust

  Dereliction removal

  Sharneyford Top: derelict land reclamation, rubbish removal to renew landscape (public amenity)

  28 Urban Mines

  Survey

  National Brownfield sites Development Unit: surveying derelict/contaminated sites

  29 Webfell Environmental Body

  Decontamination

  Reclamation and decontamination of former landfill site (public amenity)

  30 Wildlife Trust (Cheshire)

  Decontamination

  Owley Community Woods reedbed extension: water cleaning to preserve habitat (public amenity)

  31 Wildlife Trust (Notts)

  Dereliction removal

  Reclamation of dereliction and other improvements at Daneshil NR (public amenity)

  32 Groundwork Wigan and Chorley

  Dereliction removal

  Chanters Valley, Atherton: reclamation of 1.4 ha derelict land (public amenity)

  33 Wildlife Trust (Yorkshire)

  Decontamination

  Potteric Carr reedbed: improvement of bio-filtration/water quality to reduce pollution (public amenity)

  Landfill Levy
  Dr. Whitehead
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proportion of the net yield of the landfill levy was from local authority payments in each year since it was introduced. [77675]

  Mr. Meale
  The net yield of the landfill tax was £360 million in 1997–98, the first full year following the introduction of the tax in October 1996. Initial data on waste arisings from the Municipal Waste Survey for England and Wales for 1997–98 will not be available until
  244
  later this year. In addition, the landfill tax is payable to Customs and Excise by landfill operators on a registered person basis rather than a site specific basis. This makes it difficult to accurately calculate the proportion of landfill tax revenues effectively paid by local authorities.

  Dr. Whitehead
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the additional financial contribution which will be made by local authorities for each of the years to which the Government have committed itself to escalate the landfill levy by £1 per annum. [77676]
  245
  Mr. Meale
  The Municipal Waste Survey for England and Wales for 1995–96 and 1996–97 shows that municipal waste arisings were approximately 26 million tonnes per year, of which approximately 22 million tonnes was disposed of to landfill. Until sufficiently reliable data are available for several years, it is not possible to be confident about the trend. This makes it difficult accurately to predict the future cost to local authorities of the announced increases in the landfill tax.

  If one assumes that: the majority of the waste will be active, and so taxed at the standard rate of £7 per tonne; and that site operators will pass the tax on in full to their customers; and that the level of waste being disposed of to landfill is broadly in line with figures for 1996–97, the additional financial contribution from local authorities in England and Wales for each incremental increase of £1 would be approximately £22 million. We would, however, expect the tax increases to start to have an effect on the amount of municipal waste sent to landfill, even though there is little evidence so far that the tax has led to a significant change in behaviour. A delayed impact in this area is in line with our expectations.

  Fly-tipping
  Dr. Whitehead
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what statistics his Department collates of the level of(a) commercial fly-tipping and (b) domestic fly-tipping. [77672]

  Mr. Meale
  My Department does not collate statistics on the fly-tipping of either commercial or domestic waste. However, the Tidy Britain Group has carried out a study into fly-tipping. The study comprised three surveys and one of its main aims was to establish the types, quantities and locations of fly-tipped waste. The third survey was carried out in partnership with the Environment Agency and was published last month. It suggests a modest increase in fly-tipping over the period from 1994–95, but less than was originally feared following the introduction of the landfill tax.

  Offshore Industry (Safety)
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he is taking to encourage the offshore industry work force to become involved in safety matters. [77940]

  Mr. Meale
  The promotion of work force involvement is one of the Health and Safety Commission's/Executive's key priorities. As elsewhere, the involvement of the workforce offshore is critical in maintaining and improving safety standards.

  The Offshore Installations (Safety Representatives and Safety Committees) Regulations 1989 specify the powers and functions of work force safety representatives, and set out requirements for their election. Installation managers are required to consult safety representatives, to provide them with information and to ensure that they receive adequate training.

  HSE's offshore inspectors routinely meet safety representatives when they visit installations and encourage their involvement in safety matters.
  246
  Employers and employees are represented on the Health and Safety Commission Oil Industry Advisory Committee. The Committee has produced an award-winning booklet on work force involvement in health and safety, entitled "Play Your Part". This draws on examples of good practice from across the offshore industry. The Committee has also set up a working group to consider the offshore health and safety agenda for the next ten years. One of the issues which it will discuss is the promotion of greater work force involvement.

  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the implementation by offshore operators of the recommendations of the Cullen Inquiry into the Piper Alpha disaster. [77941]

  Mr. Meale
  On the recommendation of Lord Cullen, responsibility for offshore health, safety and welfare regulation was transferred in 1991 from the former Department of Energy to the Health and Safety Commission (HSC) and the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). The HSC carried out a fundamental review of arrangements in the light of the 106 recommendations made by Lord Cullen. Action on most of these fell to the regulator and all were implemented in full.

  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many(a) deaths at work and (b) serious injuries were recorded for the United Kingdom oil and gas extraction industry in each of the years 1978 to date, excluding the deaths as a result of the Piper Alpha disaster. [77978]

  Mr. Meale
  Figures for the United Kingdom are not readily available. Figures for the oil and gas extraction industry before 1986–87 are not available. The figures for the industry in Great Britain from 1986–87 are shown in the table.

  Fatal and major/serious injuries in the oil and gas extraction industry in Great Britain—as reported to all enforcing authorities

  Year

  Fatal

  Major

  Total

  1986–871

  4

  92

  96

  1987–88

  9

  75

  84

  1988–892

  5

  64

  69

  1989–90

  2

  75

  77

  1990–91

  12

  95

  107

  1991–923

  13

  88

  101

  1992–93

  5

  82

  87

  1993–94

  1

  58

  59

  1994–95

  1

  42

  43

  1995–96

  5

  45

  50

  1996–974

  2

  529

  31

  1997–986

  3

  41

  44

  1 Injuries reported between 1986–87 and 1995–96 were reported under the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations (RIDDOR) 1985 (for onshore injuries) and separate legislation for offshore injuries.

  2 Excludes 167 Piper Alpha fatalities.

  3 Includes Cormorant Alpha helicopter accident.

  4 Injuries reported from 1996–97 were reported under RIDDOR 1995. Data for 1996–97 are not comparable with previous years due to the introduction of RIDDOR 1995.

  5 Based on information collated in 1998 and published in the Health and Safety Commission's Annual Report for 1997–98, and its 'Health and Safety Statistics 1997–98'. Subsequent information indicates that the reported figure may be 49 and the total 51.

  6 Provisional.

  Fuel Duty Increases
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the additional cost to public transport providers in the United Kingdom from the increases in fuel duty in the Budget. [77909]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 22 March 1999]: Public transport provision in the United Kingdom should not be significantly affected as my Department announced following the Budget that the level of fuel duty rebate payable to operators of local bus services would be immediately raised in line with the increase in fuel duty. This equates to a value of around £50 million per annum. The small increase in gas oil duty should only have minimal impact on train operating costs.

  Worthing Bypass
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement regarding the prospects for a Worthing bypass; and what new studies have been carried out by his Department on the A27 between Worthing and Lancing. [77911]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 22 March 1999]: Following the Roads Review we announced our proposal, subject to consultation with the regional planning conference, to carry out a study to consider the problems of congestion on the A27 between Worthing and Lancing.

  The South East Regional Planning Conference (SERPLAN) has agreed with the Government Office for the South East (GO-SE) proposal that the A27 Worthing to Lancing study should build on existing work to produce recommendations in advance of the completion of the Southampton to Folkestone study. GO-SE will now be undertaking further discussions with SERPLAN and with the most directly affected local authorities, with a view to drawing up terms of reference and a plan for further work. The study will adopt a multi-modal approach and will consider all options for addressing the identified transport problems in the context of the whole corridor.

  The Highways Agency has already undertaken a study into options for improving pedestrian facilities on the A27 through Worthing and Lancing. The study identified eight locations where work on refuges could be carried out to benefit pedestrians, and this work has already started.

  In addition, the Highways Agency intends to install at least one signal-controlled crossing at one of these locations, following Worthing Borough Council's investigations into possible cycle routes in the area; and in early April work will take place to upgrade the existing crossing at Boundstone College in Lancing, where new guard rails will be provided to give improved visibility for drivers.

  Building Act 1984
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to amend section 113 of the Building Act 1984. [78307]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I have no plans to amend section 113 of the Building Act 1984.
  248
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received regarding section 113 of the Building Act 1984 in the last two years. [78308]

  Mr. Raynsford
  There has been correspondence with one of the hon. Member's constituents about the procedures for prosecutions under section 57 of the Building Act, which are subject to section 113 of that Act.

  Green Ministers
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what matters were discussed, what conclusions were reached and which Departments were represented by officials at the meeting of Green Ministers on 22 March; and if he will make a statement. [76519]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 23 March 1999]: The Green Ministers Committee met on 22 March. This is the first of three meetings planned for 1999.

  The Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Deputy Prime Minister attended the Committee's meeting and we were able to have a very positive discussion of environmental tax reforms in the light of the measures announced in the Budget on 9 March 1999, Official Report, columns 173–90. The meeting also heard that the Government would shortly be able to take another important step forward on sustainable development when the sustainable development strategy for the UK is published shortly.

  The Green Ministers Committee also considered and agreed next steps on a number of other important issues. In particular, it agreed:
  on the format and outline for its first published report due to be issued in the summer. The report will cover progress in promoting sustainable development across Government; developments in the use of environmental appraisals as part of the policy making process; and, the further progress made across departments to green their operations.
  to report to the Cabinet Committee on the Environment on how sustainable development is being reflected in the aims and objectives of departments and their associate bodies. This will also be covered in the published report in the summer.
  that an early dialogue should be initiated with the new devolved administrations when they are all up and running to agree on the most effective and appropriate mechanisms for links between the Committee and those administrations.
  that departments should take forward work on developing new energy efficiency targets for the public sector to replace the one set for March 2000. The Committee will consider this further later in the year.
  15 of the 18 departments were represented by Ministers. The Department of Social Security and the Home Office were represented by officials and the Scottish Office was not represented.
  The next meeting of Green Ministers will be held on Tuesday 6 July 1999.

  British Railways Board
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will place in the Library a copy of(a) the job description, (b) the contract, (c) the terms of reference and (d) the letter of appointment of the new Chairman of the British Railways Board. [78344]
  249
  Dr. Reid
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is already required by statute to lay before each House a statement of the salary, any allowances, and any pension arrangements of British Railways Board Members, as soon as possible after they are first appointed. In the case of the new Chairman, he will at the same time place copies of the job description, contract and letter of appointment in the Library of each House. The Chairman's terms of reference will be reflected in new formal objectives for the British Railways Board, to be published in due course.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what functions the Chairman of the British Railways Board will have between 1 April and the establishment through legislation of a Strategic Rail Authority other than those functions which presently are performed by the Chairman of the British Railways Board; what budget will be available to him; and if he will make a statement. [78261]

  Dr. Reid
  The Chairman will lead the shadow Strategic Rail Authority (SRA), working with the new Franchising Director to develop a shadow SRA capability. He will advise Ministers on the strategic development of the railway network within our integrated transport policy, including advice on galvanising investment and on franchising issues. The Government have set a budget of £93 million for the British Railways Board in 1999–2000.

  Rail Services
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the financial(a) incentives and (b) disincentives to (i) local authorities and (ii) Railtrack in respect of (1) the reopening of disused lines and stations and (2) the creation of new lines and stations. [78265]

  Dr. Reid
  None. The Rail Regulator has started a comprehensive reappraisal of the level and structure of access charges. He has made it clear that he wants to use his review to promote investment and growth in rail services, and to improve the performance of the railway network. We have endorsed those objectives. We expect the Rail Regulator to put in place a charging structure which imposes incentives on those in the industry to invest properly in the network.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what was the average cost charged by(a) British Rail and (b) Railtrack for (i) station reopenings and (ii) reopening track for passenger use expressed on a cost, per mile, for each year from 1980 to date. [78264]

  Dr. Reid
  This information is not readily available in the form requested.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is his policy on the substitution of rail services by bus services; and if he will make a statement. [78260]
  250
  Dr. Reid
  The Objectives, Instructions and Guidance which we issued to the Franchising Director in November 1997 require him to secure that minimum service levels remain at least broadly comparable to those specified in the current Passenger Service Requirements. Discontinuation of rail services could occur only after comprehensive closure procedures have been exhausted. These powers have been used very rarely and we do not expect that to change.

  Rail Passengers
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what recent research he has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into the relationship between the level of rail fares and passenger numbers. [78267]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  No research has been either commissioned or evaluated in this area.

  A63
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is his policy in respect of the implementation of the Highways Agency scheme for the A63 Melton junction improvement. [78256]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I have asked the Chief Executive of the Highways Agency, Mr. Lawrie Haynes, to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Norman Baker, dated 24 March 1999:

  I have been asked by the Transport Minister, Glenda Jackson, to answer your recent Parliamentary Question about the A63 Melton junction improvement.

  The Report which Ministers published in July following the Roads Review, "A New Deal for Trunk Roads in England", said that preparation work would continue on the scheme so that if, after full appraisal and statutory procedures, it were eventually endorsed, it could be taken forward without delay. Ministers announced last December that the next step would be to publish the draft Orders for the scheme in the financial year 2000/01.

  Passenger Service Requirement Franchises
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the implications for service levels in excess of PSR franchise requirements of the annual decline in subsidy levels contained in those franchise agreements. [78259]

  Dr. Reid
  The Secretary of State has made no such assessment.

  Rail Franchises
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the generic quality improvements he plans to require to be introduced to existing rail franchises when the opportunity for renegotiation of franchises occurs. [78262]
  251
  Dr. Reid
  At the National Rail Summit last month, we announced that all requests for franchise renegotiations will be judged against the following six criteria: the train operator's current performance; proposed accelerated or new investment; a willingness to commit to a more demanding enforcement regime and higher quality standards; a willingness to give passengers a greater say in the level and standard of services; and value for the taxpayer.

  Squire Regime
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to extend the Squire regime to franchises outside PTA areas; and if he will make a statement. [78263]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  There are currently no plans to extend the Squire regime to franchises outside PTA areas.

  Strategic Rail Authority
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what(a) powers and (b) responsibilities he plans to give to the Strategic Rail Authority in respect of the creation of new rail links and stations. [78266]

  Dr. Reid
  Subject to Parliamentary approval of the necessary legislation, the Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) will have broad powers to make payments, through grants or by contractual agreements, to achieve its objectives, including the creation of new rail links and stations. It will be able to support or oppose planning applications and orders.

  The duties of the SRA will include the preparation of a strategic plan for the development of the railway, including improvements to the network. The SRA will work with other national, regional, and local organisations to promote rail within our integrated transport policy.

  Greater London Authority
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list those organisations referred to in the White Paper, "A Mayor and Assembly for London" (Cm 3897), for which it was planned to transfer responsibility to the Greater London Authority but for which provision has not been made in the Greater London Authority Bill; and if he will make a statement. [78479]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The organisations referred to in the White Paper for which it was planned to transfer responsibility to the Greater London Authority but for which provision has not been made in the Greater London Authority Bill are listed as follows:

  Centre for Young Musicians

  Croydon Tramlink

  Docklands Light Railway

  London Heritage Forum

  London Pension Fund Authority

  Woolwich Ferry.

  252
  I last week tabled amendments to Part X of the Bill, providing for the establishment of a Cultural Strategy Group for London to replace the London Heritage Forum. We intend to bring forward amendments at a later stage to provide for the GLA taking on responsibility for the LPFA. It is our intention that responsibility for the Docklands Light Railway, Croydon Tramlink and the Woolwich Ferry should transfer to Transport for London, and are considering whether specific provisions are needed in the Bill to provide for this.

  In addition, the White Paper raised the question of future responsibility for some London museums currently directly funded by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and some of the historic properties now managed by English Heritage that were previously the responsibility of the GLC. The White Paper also considered future arrangements for the Theatre Museum and the Museum of Childhood. Following the conclusion of his departmental CSR, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport has concluded that there should be no change at the present time to the funding arrangements for these bodies, but that the GLA's role in funding the museums should be reviewed in due course. I last week tabled amendments to enable the GLA to provide funding to cultural institutions, including museums, galleries and libraries.

  I am discussing the future funding of the CYM—and possible arrangements for the transfer of that funding to the GLA—with my colleagues at the Department for Education and Employment and we will make an announcement as soon as possible. Specific provision is not required in the GLA Bill to achieve any transfer.

  Millennium Compliance
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions for what reason no external assessment has been made of the plans of(a) his Department, (b) the DVLA and (c) the Highways Agency for millennium compliance; and if he will make a statement. [78463]

  Mr. Meale
  External consultants are employed by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions to assist in assessing its overall programme for millennium compliance, and by the Highways Agency to assist in assessing its millennium plans. The plans of the Driver and Vehicle Licencing Agency for millennium compliance are being assessed by a team of experienced computer Internal Auditors who are independent of the Agency's millennium projects.

  RJB Mining
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his letter to the hon. Member for Linlithgow of I March, ME/PSO/2030/99, if he will make a statement on his discussion with RJB Mining on methane emissions from coal mines. [76678]

  Mr. Meale
  RJB Mining are continuing to investigate the proposed Canadian methodology for reducing methane emissions from coal mining and they are in contact with the relevant research bodies in Canada. The Government will continue to monitor progress with these discussions.

  Channel Tunnel Shuttle Service
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received on the restriction applied to gas-powered motor vehicles being transported on the Channel Tunnel Shuttle Service; and if he will make a statement. [78342]

  Dr. Reid
  There have been two recent questions on this subject from the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) on 16 November 1998,Official Report, column 341, and the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) on 26 January 1999, Official Report, columns 154–55. There has also been one recent letter to my Department from a member of the public. In addition, the Channel Tunnel Safety Authority has dealt with one recent inquiry.

  Eurotunnel will need to obtain safety approval from the bi-national Intergovernmental Commission (acting on the advice of the Channel Tunnel Safety Authority) before they can convey gas—and dual-fuelled vehicles. Subject to this safety approval being granted, the Government would welcome the opening of Shuttle services to these vehicles.

  Houses (Multiple Occupation)
  Ms Blears
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the Government will publish its proposals for licensing of houses in multiple occupation for England and Wales. [78857]

  Ms Armstrong
  I will publish tomorrow, on 25 March, a consultation paper setting out the Government's proposals for licensing Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs) in England. The Under-Secretary of State for Wales, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones), will be publishing a similar paper for Wales.

  HMOs can be home to some of the most vulnerable in our society, but are often squalid, poorly maintained and potential deathtraps. Our licensing proposals will raise standards and improve safety in HMOs, but without reducing the supply of rented accommodation.

  Copies of the consultation papers will be placed in the Library of the House and will be available from the Vote Office.

  Net receipts 1 (£ million)

  Price band (£000) 60–2503

  Price band (£000) 250–500

  Price band (£000) over 500

  Price band (£000) Total

  Proportion of total (%) 2

  1997–98

  Rate of stamp duty

  1%

  1.5%

  2.0%

  —

  —

  Residential transactions

  695

  100

  80

  875

  60

  Commercial property and land transactions

  125

  40

  455

  620

  40

  Total

  820

  140

  535

  1,495

  100

  1998–99 (provisional)

  Rate of stamp duty4

  1%

  2.0%

  3.0%

  —

  —

  Residential transactions

  700

  245

  215

  1,160

  55

  Commercial property and land transactions

  40

  65

  825

  930

  45

  Total

  740

  310

  1,040

  2,090

  100

TREASURY

  Vehicle Excise Duty
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what environmental factors he considered in determining the capacity of engines of cars below which a reduced rate of vehicle excise duty is to be charged. [78370]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 23 March 1999]: A consultation paper setting out the options for reforming vehicle excise duty (VED), including a reduction in VED for the smallest, cleanest cars, was published on 3 November. The formal consultation period ended on 31 January. The Government considered carefully all representations received in determining the conditions for eligibility to the reduced rate of vehicle excise duty.

  Mr. Whittingdale:
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many cars will attract the reduced rate of vehicle excise duty for cars with engines up to 1100 cc. [78010]

  Ms Hewitt
  As of September 1998, it is estimated that over 1.8 million cars will be eligible for the reduced rate of vehicle excise duty for cars of 1100cc or less.

  Stamp Duty
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the revenue arising from stamp duty, broken down by each rate, and the proportions raised from(a) transactions in residential property and (b) commercial transactions for (i) 1996–97, (ii) 1997–98, (iii) 1998–99 and (iv) 1999–2000. [77189]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 17 March 1999]: The estimates are as follows.

  Net receipts1(£ million)

  Over £60,000

  Proportion of total (%)2

  1996–97

  Rate of stamp duty

  1%

  —

  Residential transactions

  675

  65

  Commercial property and land transactions

  385

  35

  Total

  1,060

  100

  255

  Net receipts 1 (£ million)

  Price band (£000)60–2503

  Price band (£000)250–500

  Price band (£000)over 500

  Price band (£000)Total

  Proportion of total(%) 2

  1999–200 (projected)

  Rate of stamp duty4

  1%

  2.5%

  3.5%

  —

  —

  Residential transactions

  720

  310

  270

  1,300

  50

  Commercial property and land transactions

  40

  90

  1,170

  1,300

  50

  Total

  760

  400

  1,440

  2,600

  100

  1 Net receipts rounded to nearest £5 million

  2 Proportions rounded to nearest 5 per cent.

  3 In 1997–98 the 1 per cent, rate applied to transfers of all properties over £60,000 before 8 July

  4 Because of time lags, receipts in the first few weeks of the year would relate to transfers charged at the rates which applied in the previous year

  Married Couple's Allowance
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many couples currently in receipt of the married couple's allowance(a) have no children, (b) have children all over the age of 16 and (c) have children all over the age of 18 years. [76452]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 15 March 1999]: About 6.4 million married couples who benefit from the married couple's allowance have no children eligible for child benefit. Another 0.3 million married couples have children eligible for child benefit but who are all over 16. These estimates are based on the Family Expenditure Survey.

  Income Tax (Pensioners)
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate(a) the number of pensioners who, as a result of the 1999 Budget, will pay income tax at a marginal rate of 10 per cent. and (b) how many of these pensioners have savings income taxable at the 20 per cent. rate; and if he will make a statement on the arrangements for reclaiming overpaid tax in such circumstances. [77003]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 16 March 1999]: It is estimated that some 450,000 women aged 60 and over and men aged 65 and over will have a marginal rate of 10 per cent., and of these around 380,000 have savings taxable at 20 per cent.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate how many pensioners with a marginal rate of income tax of 10 per cent. after 5 April 1999 will have income from savings. [77162]

  Dawn Primarolo
  It is estimated that some 450,000 men aged 65 or over and women aged 60 or over will have a marginal rate of 10 per cent. Most of these taxpayers are likely to have some savings income, although by no means all of it may be taxable.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate how many pensioners have a marginal rate of income tax of(a) nil, (b) 20 per cent., (c) 23 per cent. and (d) 40 per cent. in 1998–99. [77163]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The numbers of women aged 60 or over and men aged 65 or over in 1998–99 with different marginal rates of income tax are shown in the table.
  256

  Marginal rate (percentage)

  Number (Thousand)

  0

  6,800

  20

  2,350

  23

  1,400

  40

  150

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate how many pensioners will have a marginal rate of income tax of(a) nil, (b) 10 per cent., (c) 23 per cent. and (d) 40 per cent. in 1999–2000. [77164]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The estimated number of women aged 60 or over and men aged 65 or over in 1999–2000 with different marginal rates of income tax are shown in the table.

  Marginal rate percentage

  Number (Thousand)

  0

  7,000

  10

  450

  23

  2,350

  40

  150

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy to make the savings income of people of pensionable age subject to the 10p tax rate announced in the Budget. [77893]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 22 March 1999]: The Chancellor announced that the 10p starting rate of income tax is being introduced to improve work incentives and to help make work pay. The 10p rate will be available to pensioners who pay tax on their earnings or pensions. The Budget has taken 200,000 pensioners out of tax. As a result, around two-thirds of pensioners will not pay tax.

  Savings income is already taxed favourably. Most savers will continue to enjoy the benefit of the lower rate at 20p on their savings rather than the basic rate at 23p (22p from April 2000). And our introduction of Individual Savings Accounts in April this year means all savers—including pensioners—can invest substantial amounts tax-free each year.

  Tourism Industry
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what assessment he has made of the advantages and disadvantages of reducing VAT on hotel room charges; [77479]
  257
  (2) what plans he has to use the taxation system to promote the UK tourism industry. [77480]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answers 18 March 1999]: The Government currently have no such plans. UK tourism is enjoying record success and the tourism industry is about to benefit from the long term strategy "Tomorrow's Tourism: a growth industry for the new millennium" recently announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport.

  Petrol Smuggling
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the amount of revenue lost to HM Treasury from petrol smuggling during the most recent period for which figures are available. [77482]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 18 March 1999]: HM Customs and Excise do not have sufficient reliable information on which to base a published estimate of the revenue lost through petrol smuggling.

  Green Transport Plan
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what involvement fleet managers have had in drawing up his Department's Green Transport Plan. [77967]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 22 March 1999]: The Treasury do not own any fleet vehicles. Ministerial cars are supplied and managed by the Government Car and Despatch Agency (GCDA).

  Road Fuel Duty
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will set out the assumptions used in calculating the annual saving of carbon if the road fuel duty escalator is maintained at its present level until 2010 as in Customs and Excise Press Notice, C&E11. [78017]

  Ms Hewitt
  Table 5.1 in the 1999 Economic and Fiscal Strategy Report and Financial Statement and Budget Report contained an environmental appraisal of those Budget measures which were primarily environmental or which are likely to have a significant environmental impact.

  The road fuel duty escalator over the period 1996 to 2002 is estimated to reduce annual carbon dioxide emissions by between 2 and 5 million tonnes of carbon in 2010. Footnote 6 of Table 5.1 explains that this estimate is based on the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions "1997 National Road Traffic Forecast" and the methodology set out in "Energy Paper 65" published by the Department of Trade and Industry in 1995.

  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to continue to implement the road fuel duty escalator in future years; and if he will set a final date for implementation of the duty escalator. [78016]

  Ms Hewitt
  The road fuel escalator, which provides for duty increases on road fuels of at least 6 per cent. above inflation, shows the Government's continuing commitment to the environment and to the 'polluter pays' principle. It will help the Government to deliver the UK's share of the EU target to reduce emissions of greenhouse 258
  gases by 8 per cent. by 2008–2012. Our environmental assessment shows that the escalator, if continued at its present level until 2002, will improve urban air quality and reduce greenhouse gases by between 2 and 5 million tonnes of carbon a year by 2010. The future of the road duty escalator will be considered each year in the Budget.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the annual cost for businesses of the additional fuel duties introduced since 1 May 1997. [76260]

  Ms Hewitt
  The collection of excise duty is the responsibility of HM Customs and Excise. The annual cost to business of the existing road fuel escalator commitment, inherited from the previous Administration, is estimated to be about £2.5 billion. In addition, Customs estimate that the annual cost of the charges to fuel duties announced in the 1997, 1998 and 1999 Budgets is about £750 million.

  Although it was legislated for under the previous Government, the separate rate for ultra-low sulphur diesel did not come into effect until after 1 May 1997 and has therefore been treated as a change since that date.

  Critical Illness Insurance
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the number of companies in the financial services sector which offer critical illness insurance cover; and what steps he is taking to ensure that exclusions are brought to the attention of policy holders. [77660]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government do not maintain records of the number of companies which offer critical illness cover. I understand that the Association of British Insurers (ABI) estimate that in 1998 some sixty insurance companies offered critical illness insurance cover in the UK.

  To ensure policyholders are aware of exclusions and other terms, the ABI code of practice for the selling of life insurance business, including critical illness insurance, includes an obligation that an intermediary shall at all times conduct business with the utmost good faith and integrity, explaining all essential provisions of the contract and drawing attention to all restrictions applying to the policy. The aim is to ensure that as far as possible the prospective policyholder understands the extent of his insurance cover.

  Financial Statement and Budget Report
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which of the items listed in Table 1.11 of the Red Book are also included in public spending figures. [76455]

  Mr. Milburn
  To ensure consistency with the European System of Accounts 1995, the following measures in Table 1.11 of the Financial Statement and Budget Report, published in March 1999, are scored either in DEL or AME:

  3: Research and development tax credit

  6: Abolition of Vocational Training Relief

  15: Employment Credit

  16: Income Support: two week extension for lone parents moving into work

  19: Increases in Income Support child premia

  259

  20: Increases in Working Families Tax Credit and Disabled Person's Tax Credit

  21: Child benefit: indexation of rates and uprating

  22: Sure Start Maternity Grant

  23: Maternity pay reforms

  25: Increase in minimum income guarantee for pensioners

  26: £100 Winter Allowance

  27: Abolition of mortgage interest relief

  39: Energy efficiency measures and support for renewable energy sources.

  Mortgage interest relief, the Working Families Tax Credit and Disabled Persons Tax Credit are income tax credits administered by the Inland Revenue and are therefore netted off from income tax receipts when assessing the level of and changes to net taxes and social security contributions.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what measures he has put in place to ensure the spread of best practice on use of the PFI throughout Government; [76398]

  (2) what are the criteria on the basis of which decisions about the relative priority of PFI projects are made. [76397]

  Mr. Milburn
  Recommendation number 4 of the review of the Private Finance Initiative by Sir Malcolm Bates, announced on 23 June 1997, said that the Treasury Taskforce should sign off the commercial viability of all significant projects before the procurement process commences.

  A further announcement on 10 February 1998 said that projects would be deemed "significant" for at least one of four reasons: those which are either big, high profile, highly replicable or ground breaking. They are also likely to raise issues that require speedy resolution.

  The Taskforce continues to publish a full range of policy statements, technical notes and other guidance on PFI. These are available from Treasury Public Enquiry Unit, the Taskforce website (www.treasury-projects-taskforce.gov.uk) and in CD ROM form.

  The Taskforce also maintains a library containing contract documents, case studies and other relevant documentation which those involved in PFI are encouraged to consult.

  The Taskforce encourages public sector staff involved in PFI to undertake appropriate training, and has commissioned PricewaterhouseCoopers to manage a Taskforce approved training programme.

  Capita in partnership with the Taskforce runs a programme of conferences covering PH issues of the day.

  Alcohol Duty
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy to use revenue gained from the abolition of duty free to reduce excise duty on beer. [77603]
  260
  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government are continuing to press strongly for an extension of duty free sales to allow time for a better successor regime to be developed. In his Budget on 9 March 1999,Official Report, columns 173–90, the Chancellor announced a freeze on beer duty.

  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the proposal to reduce indicative limits contained in the Customs and Excise review of alcohol and tobacco duties. [77604]

  Mrs. Roche
  The recommendation that the Government should consider the need to negotiate changes to the rules regulating the system of minimum indicative levels is currently being considered along with a range of other options designed to tackle fraud and smuggling. It would require the unanimous agreement of all 15 member states to change the rules.

  Pensions
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate is provided by his Department's Survey of Personal Incomes of(a) the number of people making contributions in excess of £3,600 per year and (b) the average contribution of those persons to (i) personal pensions and (ii) occupational pension schemes. [76244]

  Ms Hewitt
  Of the 14 million people currently making extra provision to voluntary private pensions above the compulsory minimum, around 2½ per cent. make contributions in excess of £3,600.

  Approximate information for those contributions in 1996–97 is in the table.

  Contributions in excess of £3, 600 per year to pensions

  Number of people

  Average contribution (£)

  Personal pensions

  230,000

  8,800

  Occupational pensions

  120,000

  6,200

  Notes:

  1. Estimates should be treated with caution since contributions to occupational pensions and net personal pension arrangements are not directly measured by the Survey of Personal Incomes and have been modelled from other survey and administrative information.

  2. Personal pensions includes contributions to retirement annuity contracts, but excludes 'minimum contributions' by DSS to appropriate personal pension schemes and contributions made by employers.

  3. Occupational pensions excludes contributions made by employers, but includes free-standing additional voluntary contributions.

  4. Covers contributions made by employees and the self-employed.

  5. Includes basic rate tax repaid to scheme administrators in respect of contributions made by employees to personal pensions under net contribution arrangements.

  6. Figures are rounded to the nearest 10,000 people and £100 respectively, although they are not necessarily accurate to that degree.

  Agricultural Chemicals
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to publish the results of his Department's work on taxing(a) fertilisers and (b) pesticides. [74971]

  Ms Hewitt
  A research report commissioned by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions on the possible impact and design of a tax or charge on pesticides has today been published, together
  261
  with a list of consultative questions. The Government will consider carefully the views expressed on a number of issues raised in the report in deciding how best to proceed.

  EU Soul Programme
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which part of the budget of the Europe Union provides funds for the Soul Programme; how much is devoted to it; by whom it is administered; and what programmes in the United Kingdom it supports. [76773]

  Ms Hewitt
  I am unaware of any programme by this name.

  Euro
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the adoption of the euro would involve the physical movement of any proportion of UK gold reserves to the European Central Bank. [77543]

  Ms Hewitt
  In accordance with Article 30 of the ESCB Statute and paragraph 10(b) of Protocol No.11 to the EC Treaty, if the UK joined the single currency, the Bank of England would be required to contribute to the foreign reserve assets of the ECB. The Bank of England would be credited by the ECB with a claim equivalent to its contribution, which would be remunerated. The ECB has the right to hold and manage the foreign reserve assets that are transferred to it, but physical movements is not necessary for these purposes.

  Rural Building Projects
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has had with Action with Communities in Rural England on a VAT refund scheme for building projects which have received grant aid from public funds; and if he will make a statement. [78286]

  Dawn Primarolo
  ACRE made representations in November 1997 to the first phase of the Review of Charity Taxation. These, along with 3,000 other replies, were analysed and informed the Review's consultation document which was published on Budget Day.

  Withholding Tax
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the outcome of discussions about the proposed withholding tax at the ECOFIN meeting on 15 March; and if he will make a statement. [78204]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Commission gave an informal progress report on its discussions with third countries on adoption of equivalent measures in relation to payments of interest to Community residents. There was no general discussion of the draft Directive on taxation of savings, and no decisions were taken.

  Village Halls
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his policy is on the charging of VAT on repairs and improvements to village halls; and if he will make a statement. [78288]
  262
  Dawn Primarolo
  There is no scope for VAT relief on Village halls under the EC Sixth VAT Directive. Therefore their repair and maintenance is subject to VAT at the standard rate.

  Duty Free
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the outcome of discussions about the future of duty free at the ECOFIN meeting on 15 March; and if he will make a statement. [78205]

  Dawn Primarolo
  At ECOFIN the Presidency proposed a one-off further extension of two and a half years for excise duty free arrangements with VAT being applied from 1 July 1999. Six member states supported this compromise proposal. Six member states and the Commission opposed it. The Presidency concluded that COREPER should be invited to examine the Commission's proposals and report back to the next ECOFIN Council. The UK will continue to press strongly the case for a deferral of the abolition of excise duty free so that better successor regime arrangements can be developed.

  Financial Services Regulator
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what guidelines or advice he has issued concerning the reference of matters subject to investigation by the Financial Services Regulator to the Serious Fraud Office; and if he will make a statement. [76970]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Treasury has not issued guidance to the Financial Services Authority (FSA) on when to refer matters subject to investigation to the Serious Fraud Office (SFO). The FSA and SFO have long-standing arrangements which ensure that each agency is informed about investigations where the other has an interest and agreed guidelines on the criteria for determining who is best placed to pursue a particular case. They are currently preparing, with other investigative and prosecuting authorities, new guidelines for co-operation to take account of the new powers proposed for the FSA in the Financial Services and Markets Bill.

  Valuation Office
  Ms Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what targets will be set for the Valuation Office Executive Agency for 1999–2000. [78855]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I have set the following key targets for the Valuation Office in 1999–2000:

  Operational

  rating

  to publish new rating valuation lists by 31 December 1999

  to clear 264,500 appeals against the existing rating lists

  Council tax

  against the policy, in co-operation with the valuation tribunals, of clearing appeals within 6 months of receipt:

  to clear council tax appeals equal to the number received up to a maximum of 80,000

  Client and customer services

  to achieve a further improvement against the Agency's valuation indicator by 1 per cent. to 88 per cent.

  to meet timeliness targets in 90 per cent. of cases

  263

  Finance and cost efficiency

  to break even overall after charging for the full cost of chargeable services including notional interest of 6 per cent. on the average working capital.

  measurement will be within a tolerance of the greater of 2 per cent. of relevant turnover or £1 million

  to achieve financial efficiency gains of 4.0 per cent.

  Investing in People

  to achieve Investors in People accreditation by 31 December 1999.

  Further details are contained in the Valuation Office's Forward Plan, copies of which will be placed in the Library of the House on publication.

  Tax Law Rewrite Project
  Ms Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what further developments there have been on the Tax Law Rewrite Project. [78963]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I am pleased to announce that the Tax Law Rewrite project is making very good progress and continues to enjoy wide support. The Inland Revenue have published a document which reviews the recent progress of the project and outlines its work programme for 1999–2000. Copies have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  The Steering Committee chaired by Lord Howe of Aberavon carried out a stocktake of the project during 1998. The rewritten legislation has been well received by the main users in the tax community and they are enthusiastic that the project should continue. It is a massive undertaking, but one we are committed to doing well.

  Public Expenditure
  Ms Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what arrangements are being made for in-year control of public expenditure from 1999–2000 onwards; and if he will make a statement. [78856]

  (i) Cigarettes

  (ii) Hand-rolling Tobacco

  Excise

  VAT

  Excise

  VAT

  Member state

  Specific (£ per thousand)

  Ad valorem (Percentage of selling price)

  (Percentage)

  Specific (£ per kilogram)

  Ad valorem (Percentage of selling price)

  (Percentage)

  Austria

  13

  42

  20.0

  0

  47

  20.0

  Belgium

  9

  47

  21.0

  0

  38

  21.0

  Denmark

  57

  21

  25.0

  38

  0

  25.0

  Finland

  11

  50

  22.0

  1

  50

  22.0

  France

  4

  55

  20.6

  0

  51

  20.6

  Germany

  33

  22

  16.0

  11

  18

  16.0

  Greece

  2

  54

  18.0

  0

  59

  18.0

  Ireland

  59

  17

  21.0

  76

  0

  21.0

  Italy

  3

  54

  20.0

  0

  54

  20.0

  Luxembourg

  6

  49

  12.0

  0

  32

  12.0

  Netherlands

  31

  21

  17.5

  13

  15

  17.5

  Portugal

  15

  40

  17.0

  0

  30

  17.0

  Spain

  2

  54

  16.0

  0

  38

  16.0

  Sweden

  15

  39

  25.0

  47

  0

  25.0

  UK

  83

  22

  17.5

  88

  0

  17.5

  Source:

  UK figures, effective from 9 March 1999, from HM Customs & Excise Budget Notice BN 81/99. Other figures from European Commission (Directorate General XXI) Excise Duty Tables (December 1998).
  264
  Mr. Milburn
  I have today written to the Chairman of the Treasury Committee outlining the arrangements the Government are making for in-year control of public expenditure.

  The spending control framework announced in the Comprehensive Spending Review establishes a new aggregate, the Department Expenditure Limit, which covers all spending within departments' direct or indirect control. The new arrangements were set out in the 1998 Economic and Fiscal Strategy Report (Cm 3978) and the Comprehensive Spending Review White Paper (Cm 4011).

  With effect from 1999–2000 the system of cash limits will be replaced by a single control on each department at the level of the Departmental Expenditure Limit (DEL). In future, the disciplines of notifying a control limit to Parliament, reporting changes in that limit, and accounting for any breach will apply at the level of the DEL. Changes in DELs arising from transfers between departments or calls upon and benefits to the DEL Reserve will be notified to Parliament.

  Details of this and the increased emphasis on the use of End-Year Flexibility to contain pressures on the DEL will be described in the Introduction to the 1999–2000 Main Supply Estimates which will be presented to the House shortly.

  Departments have been encouraged to establish small unallocated provisions within their Departmental Expenditure Limits for 1999–2000 onwards to give them flexibility to manage their budgets and respond to unforeseen pressures in-year. This will help ensure that the three year plans set in the CSR can be adhered to.

  Excise Duty and VAT
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the rates of(a) excise duty and (b) VAT on (i) cigarettes and (ii) hand-rolling tobacco in each member state of the European Union, the United States of America and Canada, taking account of the changes in his Budget. [76567]

  Mrs. Roche
  The information on the European Union is as follows. The information on the United States of America and Canada is not readily available.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Coal Production
  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he will publish the report by International Mining Consultants Ltd., prepared as part of the Review of Energy Sources for Power Generation, on the prospects for coal production in the United Kingdom for the next 20 years. [78859]

  Mr. Battle
  I have today placed a copy of the Report in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament.

  This report is a thorough, technical engineering study of the British coal-mining industry. It assesses geological conditions and other extraction issues, to estimate production prospects and costs for coal in the UK. Though it does not attempt to predict the market conditions for coal, it will provide a valuable reference point for all those involved in the industry.

  The report should be seen against the background of the measures the Government are taking to remove distortions in the UK electricity market, which will ensure a level playing field for all fuels. The coal industry is getting fairness, not favours—which is what they asked for. The reform programme under way includes:

  working on the reform of the electricity trading arrangements in England and Wales;

  seeking practical opportunities for divestment by major coal-fired generators;

  pressing ahead with competition in electricity supply for all customers;

  separating supply and distribution in electricity markets.

  resolving the technical issues about the growth of gas, including the proper remuneration of flexible plant; and

  continuing to press for open energy markets in Europe.

  Year 2000 Business Continuity Plan
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry for what reason his Department did not meet the Government's target of producing an initial Year 2000 business continuity plan by January; and if he will make a statement. [78470]

  Mr. Wills
  Plans to deal with disasters affecting the central Department are well established and have existed for some years. Their review and modification as necessary to deal with potential Year 2000 problems started in late 1998. The broad approach was agreed in mid-December but required confirmation of some technical issues by relevant suppliers. This confirmation was provided by mid-January. Whilst the Business Continuity Plan was therefore agreed by the target date, there had not been sufficient time to document it by then.

  The DTI's initial Business Continuity Plan was documented by the end of February and will be updated during 1999 as required.

  Timber Protection Costs
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will identify the(a) health, (b)safety and (c) environmental standards which apply to United Kingdom producers of timber which do not apply to
  266
  similar producers in Baltic states; and if he will make a statement on the impact which such standards have upon United Kingdom costs of production. [74150]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 2 March 1999]: There are many health, safety and environmental standards which apply to the UK forestry and sawmilling industry, the majority of which emanate from European Directives. These have been introduced under the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 and the Environmental Protection Act 1990 among other statutes. Health and Safety standards include those laid down in secondary legislation such as the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations; the Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations; the personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations; the Noise at Work Regulations; and the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health (COSHH) Regulations. While the Government recognise that there may be costs for business associated with higher environmental standards, they do not believe that these costs are significant over the long term in relation to the overall costs of sawmill operations.

  Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania have Association Agreements with the EU under which they undertake to align their laws in respect of these standards with EU legislation by 2005, and are receiving assistance from the EU and member states to achieve this earlier in the context of intensifying their preparations for accession to the EU.

  Sub-contractors
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will introduce further measures to ensure that contractors meet their obligations to sub-contractors. [75919]

  Mr. Byers
  There is already in place an extensive framework of commercial law on which parties to a contractual arrangement can seek to rely. Where disputes arise between parties to a contract, it is advisable for them to seek to establish their legal rights and obligations under the arrangements.

  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received regarding sub-contracting malpractices; and if he will make a statement. [75917]

  Mr. Byers
  I have not received any representations regarding sub-contracting malpractices in particular.

  Working Time Directive
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will oppose the extension of the Working Time Regulations to the self-employed. [76257]

  Mr. Byers
  There are no proposals to extend the Working Time Directive or the Working Time Regulations specifically to the self-employed.

  Trade Promotion
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the last occasion on which a Government Minister led a trade delegation to(a) Ukraine and (b) Uruguay; and what future trade delegations are planned. [76562]
  267
  Mr. Wilson
  There has been no Ministerially led trade delegation to Ukraine. The then Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) visited Uruguay in September/October 1993.

  There are no plans at present for a Ministerially led trade delegation to visit Ukraine or Uruguay.

  Exports (Pains Wessex)
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) if he will list the export licences granted to Pains Wessex (Schermuly) for the export of(a) pyrotechnics, (b) tear gas, (c) plastic baton rounds and (d) anti-personnel fragmentation grenades or components for the above products since 1988 to Malaysia; [77242]

  (2) if he will list the export licences granted to Pains Wessex (Schermuly) since 1988 for the export of (a) anti-personnel fragmentation grenades and (b) anti-ambush grenades to Indonesia; [77244]

  (3) if he will list the open individual export licences granted to Pains Wessex (Schermuly) in each of the last 10 years. [77243]

  Dr. Howells
  The Export Control Organisation's computer databases have been interrogated and the following results were obtained. Between 1 January 1991 and 5 March 1999, no Standard Individual Export Licences, and between 1 January 1994 and 5 March 1999, no Open Individual Export Licences were issued to Schermuly Ltd.

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

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the export licences granted to Pains Wessex for the export of(a) tear gas, (b) plastic baton rounds and (c) anti-personnel fragmentation grenades since 1988. [77241]

  Dr. Howells
  Inquiries are being made under the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. Where confidential information is involved, the parties concerned may be asked if they consent to its disclosure, and this can take some time. I will write to my hon. Friend as soon as possible, and place a copy of that letter in the Library of the House.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the licensed production agreements that Pains Wessex has established in other countries, indicating the products which these agreements cover. [77240]

  Dr. Howells
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave her on 22 March 1999,Official Report, column 117.

  National Minimum Wage
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what measures will be taken to ensure that employers who contravene the national minimum wage will face a high risk of prosecution. [76046]
  268
  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 16 March 1999]: The Inland Revenue will enforce the National Minimum Wage on behalf of my Department. The National Minimum Wage Act 1998 contains a number of provisions relating to enforcement, both civil and criminal. Workers will be able to take cases of underpayment to an employment tribunal or a civil court.

  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to extend the minimum wage provisions to those workers employed over 12 miles offshore. [78239]

  Mr. Byers
  A draft Order in Council was laid before both Houses of Parliament on 10 March which makes provision for extending the national minimum wage to workers who work or ordinarily work in UK territorial waters. It will also extend the national minimum wage to those who work or ordinarily work in the UK sector of the continental shelf where the work is connected with the exploration or exploitation of the sea-bed of the UK sector of the continental shelf (or its subsoil) or is work in the UK sector connected with the exploration or exploitation of a foreign sector of a cross-boundary petroleum field. Subject to Parliamentary approval and the approval of Her Majesty, it will come into force on 1 May.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action has been taken regarding the complaints made in respect of a company referred to in the correspondence between the hon. Member for Leicester, East and the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs dated 12 June 1998. [77586]

  Dr. Howells
  My hon. Friend should be well aware of the Department's long standing policy of not commenting on the affairs of individual companies.

  Fireworks
  Mr. Sawford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects to announce the 1998 figures for firework injuries from all hospital casualty units in Great Britain. [77602]

  Dr. Howells
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mrs. Gilroy) on 16 March 1999,Official Report, column 598.

  Mortgages
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey), 10 March 1999,Official Report, columns 263–64, concerning the mortgage market, how he defines unjust interest rates in relation to the provisions on extortionate credit in the Consumer Credit Act 1974. [77448]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 18 March 1999]: Under the terms of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, it is for the Court to decide whether any particular credit agreement is extortionate. Among the factors that the Court may take into account are the prevailing interest rates when the credit bargain was made, the financial pressure the borrower was under at that time and the level of payments.
  269
  The research we have commissioned in this area will, amongst other things, look at what indicators can be drawn from past cases on extortionate credit and will also look at types of lending that appear to give rise to problems.

  Unsolicited Mail
  Dan Norris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to introduce measures to protect(a) the elderly (b) people with mental health problems and (c) mentally disabled people from the impact of unsolicited direct mail. [77668]

  Dr. Howells
  The draft Regulations implementing the Distance Selling Directive will provide a mechanism under which consumers can object to receiving unsolicited direct mail in connection with distance contracts, that is one where consumer and supplier do not have face to face contact up to and including the moment when the contract is concluded.

  My Department is committed to developing a strategy which offers consumers, especially older and vulnerable people in our society, the protection they need to ensure that they receive fair treatment and that they know about their rights. I will therefore seek to ensure that we explain clearly to consumers, especially the vulnerable, how they can object to receiving unsolicited direct mail.

  Dan Norris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he will take to regulate unsolicited direct mail sent to individuals' homes. [77669]

  Dr. Howells
  The Department will be issuing in the summer a draft of Regulations to implement the EU Distance Selling Directive (97/7/EC). The Directive requires, among other things, that unsolicited direct mail in connection with distance contracts, that is one where consumer and supplier do not have face to face contact up to and including the moment when the contract is concluded, may be used only where there is no clear objection from the consumer. Thus consumers must have the right to register their objection to receiving such mail and have their objection respected. Member States have to implement the Directive by 4 June 2000. The Department is consulting widely over the best means of implementing the Directive.

  Milk Marque
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received on the future of Milk Marque; and if he will make a statement. [77843]

  Dr. Howells
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has received a number of representations from hon. Members individually and on behalf of constituents. He has also received representations from interested parties and from members of the public.

  My right hon. Friend will announce what action, if any, he intends to take when he publishes the report.

  Mr. Healey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he plans to publish(a) the report of the MMC inquiry into Milk Marque and (b) his Department's response to the report; and if he will set out the terms of reference of the inquiry. [78236]
  270
  Dr. Howells
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will publish the MMC's report as soon as is practicable. I refer my hon. Friend to my previous answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) on 27 November 1998,Official Report, column 36, for the terms of reference of the inquiry.

  Milk Market
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects to announce his response to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's inquiry on the milk market. [78021]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 22 March 1999]: My right hon. Friend will publish the MMC's report as soon as is practicable.

  Product Liability
  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will introduce a statutory mandatory product recall requirement for domestic appliances. [78357]

  Dr. Howells
  I have no plans to introduce a statutory mandatory product recall requirement for domestic appliances at the present time. However, the DTI is currently working with business to develop a best practice guide to help companies conduct more effective product recalls. The question of a mandatory product recall power is one of the issues likely to be discussed in Europe in the context of the review of the General Product Safety Directive.

  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many cases have been brought under the product liability provisions of the Consumer Protection Act 1987; and what level of damages has been awarded by the courts. [78356]

  Dr. Howells
  There is no central record of cases brought under the product liability provisions of the Consumer Protection Act 1987, which is a civil law process. A search of judgments reported in the Law Reports has revealed two cases brought under the product liability provisions but the judgments concerned preliminary issues. Judgments in the County Court and some judgments in the High Court are not reported.

  Travel Companies
  Mr. Darvill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer of 24 February 1999,Official Report, column 316, on travel companies, when he expects the Director General of Fair Trading to complete his discussions with the major travel groups. [77791]

  Dr. Howells
  The Director General of Fair Trading is continuing his discussions with the major travel groups regarding undertakings on transparency of ownership links. He will provide me with advice in due course and I will make an announcement.

  Clothing and Textile Industry
  Mr. Woolas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to revise the guidance notes on country of origin labelling for the United Kingdom clothing industry. [77898]
  271
  Mr. Wilson
  The Department issued guidance on origin marking in December 1996 at the time that the Trade Descriptions (Place of Production) (Marking) Order 1988 was revoked. This applies not only to the labelling of clothing but to products generally. The guidance remains an accurate reflection of the current statutory requirements. I have no plans to revise it.

  Republic of Ireland (Trade)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in the last financial year for which figures are available and in each case estimating the financial sums involved, if he will list(a) the top 10 companies by volume of exports from Great Britain to

  UK trade with Republic of Ireland 1998–Top 10 products

  SIT

  Description

  £ million

  UK Exports

  C

  75

  Office machines and ADP equipment

  988

  77

  Electrical machinery, apparatus and appliances, nes and electrical parts

  907

  78

  Road vehicles

  563

  84

  Articles of apparel and clothing accessories

  445

  72

  Specialised industrial machinery

  346

  64

  Paper, paperboard, and articles of paper pulp, etc.

  341

  76

  Telecommunications and sound recording and reproducing apparatus

  331

  69

  Manufactures of metal nes

  309

  74

  General industrial machinery and equipment, nes and machine parts nes

  293

  54

  Medicinal and pharmaceutical products

  285

  Others

  >4,916

  Total

  9,724

  UK Imports

  C

  75

  Office machines and ADP equipment

  >1,447

  51

  Organic chemicals

  813

  76

  Telecommunications and sound recording and reproducing apparatus

  463

  09

  Miscellaneous edible products and preparations

  416

  54

  Medicinal and pharmaceutical products

  357

  77

  Electrical machinery, apparatus and appliances, nes and electrical parts

  357

  02

  Dairy products and birds' eggs

  320

  01

  Meat and meat preparations

  282

  11

  Beverages

  176

  65

  Textile yarn, fabrics, made-up articles, nes

  165

  Others

  2,861

  Total

  7,655

  Source:

  HM Customs and Excise

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Millennium Compliance
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the President of the Council which Government organisations providing information for the March 1999 review of year 2000 readiness have(a) failed to report on progress with business critical embedded systems since the last review and (b) have moved back completion dates since the last review. [78473]

  Mrs. Beckett
  The following is the information:(a) Organisations which failed to report on progress with business critical embedded systems since the last review.

  272
  the Republic of Ireland, (b) the top 10 companies by volume of imports from the Republic of Ireland to Great Britain, (c) the top 10 products in volume exported from Great Britain to the Republic of Ireland and (d) the top 10 products by volume imported from the Republic of Ireland to Great Britain. [78176]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 22 March 1999]: Information on UK companies trade with Ireland is not available from any official sources. Figures for trade by financial year are not readily available, while data in volume terms are not available on an individual country basis.

  Information on the top 10 products in value terms for UK exports to Ireland and imports from Ireland in 1998 is given in the following table.

  Central government departments and agencies

  Scottish Fisheries Research Services

  Government Car and Despatch Agency

  National Archive of Scotland

  Northern Ireland Office

  Planning Inspectorate

  UK Passport Agency

  Vehicle Inspectorate

  (b) Organisations which have moved back completion dates for business critical embedded systems since the last review:

  Central government departments and agencies

  Central Computer & Telecommunications Agency

  Department for International Development

  Driving Standards Agency

  Employment Tribunals Service

  273

  General Registrar Office for Scotland

  HM Customs and Excise

  Lord Chancellor's Department

  Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  Ministry of Defence—centre

  Ministry of Defence—Defence Evaluation and Research Agency

  Planning Inspectorate

  Public Record Office

  Radiocommunications Agency

  Royal Mint

  Scottish Agricultural Science Agency

  Scottish Fisheries Research Services

  Scottish Record Office

  Wider public sector

  Bank of England.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the President of the Council which(a) Government organisations and (b) Departments providing information for the March 1999 review of year 2000 readiness have moved back completion dates for business critical information technology systems since the previous review; and which are now predicting 100 per cent. completion later than March. [78474]

  Mrs. Beckett
  The following is the information:(a) Government organisations and departments which have moved back completion dates for business critical IT systems since the previous review:

  Central government departments and agencies

  Companies House

  Crown Prosecution Service

  Department for Education and Employment

  Department of Social Security

  Department of Trade and Industry

  Department for International Development

  Driving Standards Agency

  Employment Tribunal Service

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  Forestry Commission

  Highways Agency

  HM Customs and Excise

  HM Treasury

  Inland Revenue

  Insolvency Service

  Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  Ministry of Defence—Procurement Executive

  NI Department of Education

  NI Department of the Environment

  Ordnance Survey

  Passport Agency

  Patent Office

  Radiocommunications Agency

  Scottish Fisheries Research Services

  Scottish General Register Office

  Scottish Prison Service

  Serious Fraud Office

  Treasury Solicitor's Department

  Vehicles Inspectorate

  Welsh Office

  274

  Wider public sector organisations

  Bank of England

  (b) Government organisations and departments which are now predicting 100 per cent. completion of work on business critical IT systems later than March 1999:

  Companies House

  Crown Prosecution Service

  Department for Education and Employment

  Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions

  Department of Health

  Department for International Development

  Department of Social Security

  Department of Trade and Industry

  Driving Standards Agency

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency

  Employment Tribunal Service

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  Forensic Science Service

  General Register Office for Scotland

  Government Car and Despatch Agency

  Highways Agency

  HM Customs and Excise

  HM Treasury

  Home Office

  Inland Revenue

  Insolvency Service

  Intervention Board

  Lord Chancellor's Department

  Maritime and Coastguard Agency

  Medicines Control Agency

  Ministry for Agriculture Fisheries and Food

  Ministry of Defence—Army

  Ministry of Defence—centre

  Ministry of Defence—Meteorological Office

  Ministry of Defence—Procurement Executive

  Ministry of Defence—Royal Air Force

  Ministry of Defence—Royal Navy

  Ministry of Defence—Hydrographic Office

  National Weights and Measures Laboratory

  Northern Ireland Office

  NI Department for Economic Development

  NI Department of Education

  NI Department of Agriculture

  NI Department of the Environment

  NI Department of Finance and Personnel

  NI Department for Health & Social Services

  NI Prisons Service

  Passport Agency

  Patent Office

  Planning Inspectorate

  Office for National Statistics

  Ordnance Survey

  Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre

  Radiocommunications Agency

  Registers of Scotland

  Scottish Fisheries Research Services

  Scottish Prison Service

  Serious Fraud Office

  275

  The Buying Agency

  Treasury Solicitor's Department

  Valuation Office

  Vehicle Inspectorate

  Welsh Office

  Wider public sector

  Bank of England

  British Broadcasting Company

  Government Actuary's Department

  Legal Aid Board

  London Transport

  Post Office.

  Year 2000 Business Continuity Plans
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the President of the Council which Government Departments have not yet completed initial business continuity plans for 2000. [78471]

  Mrs. Beckett
  I refer the hon. Member to the summary tables and quarterly returns which on 16 March I placed in the Libraries of the House following my recent quarterly statement on progress across government in tackling the bug. At that time, 18 Government Departments and Agencies had forecast completion dates for their initial business continuity plans in March or later. Of these, eight have still to complete their initial plans. They are: the Department of Trade and Industry (centre), the Radiocommunications Agency, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, the Debt Management Office, the Crown Prosecution Service, the Serious Fraud Office, the Public Record Office and the Fisheries Research Services.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the President of the Council if she will place copies of all Government Department initial business continuity plans for 2000 in the Library. [78472]

  Mrs. Beckett
  Information about business continuity plans is included in the latest quarterly returns which I placed in the Libraries of the House following my recent quarterly statement on 16 March. Future quarterly returns

  Income related benefits expenditure (cash terms)

  £million

  Scotland—by age group

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  Total (All age groups)

  2,010

  2,190

  2,330

  2,430

  2,560

  2,610

  Income—related benefits (15 to 25)

  310

  320

  330

  340

  350

  300

  Income—related benefits (26 to 40)

  670

  730

  790

  840

  890

  920

  Income—related benefits (41 to 65)

  550

  610

  660

  700

  750

  810

  Notes:

  1. Figures may not sum due to rounding.

  2. Figures have been rounded to nearest £10 million.

  3. Figures include expenditure on Jobseeker's Allowance (income-based), Income Support, Family Credit, Housing Benefit, Council Tax Benefit and Disabled Working Allowance.

  4. They do not include smaller benefits such as Grants to Independent Living Fund, Grants to Motability and British Limbless Ex-Serviceman's Association, Earning Top Up and Social Fund Payments.

  5. These benefits make up about 1.5 per cent. of all income related benefits expenditure.

  Income related benefits expenditure (real terms 1998–99 prices)

  £million

  Scotland—by age group

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  Total (All age groups)

  2,340

  2,480

  2,590

  2,640

  2,690

  2,680

  Income-related benefits (15 to 25)

  360

  360

  360

  370

  370

  310

  276
  will provide more detail, in particular focusing on what plans are in place to ensure the continuity of essential services at the Millennium.

  It is for individual Ministers to decide whether or not to publish their complete business continuity plans, according to their judgment of the nature of some of the detail involved. It would clearly be inappropriate for Ministers to publish information that is sensitive or relates to matters of national security.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Bereavement Allowances
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many widows will be affected by the loss of the widow's bereavement allowance broken down by those aged(a) 50–55, (b) 55–60 and (c) 60 years and over; and what the average amount will be lost not including the effects of the proposed reforms to bereavement benefits. [76841]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 15 March 1999]: Existing claimants will retain their entitlement to this allowance even after 5 April 2000. Women who are bereaved after 5 April 2000 will not be able to claim the allowance.

  Means-tested Benefits (Scotland)
  Mrs. Laing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the cost of(a) all means-tested benefits in Scotland, (b) means-tested benefits for people aged 15 to 25 years in Scotland, (c) means-tested benefits for people aged 26 to 40 years in Scotland and (d) means-tested benefit for people aged 41 to 65 years in Scotland in each year since 1992 in (i) cash terms and (ii) 1998–99 prices. [77770]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the tables.
  277

  Income related benefits expenditure (real terms 1998–99 prices)

  £million

  Scotland—by age group

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  Income-related benefits (26 to 40)

  780

  820

  880

  910

  940

  940

  Income-related benefits (41 to 65)

  640

  690

  730

  760

  790

  830

  Notes:

  1. Figures may not sum due to rounding.

  2. Figures have been rounded to nearest £10 million.

  3. Figures include expenditure on Jobseeker's Allowance (income-based), Income Support, Family Credit, Housing Benefit, Council Tax Benefit and Disabled Working Allowance.

  4. They do not include smaller benefits such as Grants to Independent Living Fund, Grants to Motability and British Limbless Ex-Serviceman's Association, Earning Top Up and Social Fund Payments.

  5. These benefits make up about 1.5 per cent. of all income related benefits expenditure.

  Total social fund spending in Scotland

  £million

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  Cash Terms

  42

  44

  47

  46

  47

  64

  Real Terms1

  49

  50

  52

  50

  49

  65

  11998–99 prices

  Notes:

  1. Figures do not include Cold Weather Payments.

  2. Social Fund Spending in Scotland broken down by age is not available.

  3. Figures rounded to the nearest million.

  Winter Fuel Payments
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to extend to those(a) in receipt of benefits and (b) on low incomes the heating allowance for those on pensions. [77990]

  Angela Eagle
  The Winter Fuel Payments scheme provides extra help to around ten million eligible pensioners, in over seven million households towards their heaviest fuel bills. We have no plans to extend the scheme to other groups.

  We are committed to tackling the problems associated with vulnerable people keeping warm and has already introduced numerous substantial measures to meet this objective.

  Unclaimed Benefits
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the amount of income-related benefits unclaimed by those entitled to them in(a) the Tamworth constituency and (b) Staffordshire. [78341]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is not available. The national estimates of take-up of income-related benefits are currently being revised and are due to be republished in May.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the number of people receiving the higher rate of disability living allowance; and of these the number who have(a) had their benefit (i) reduced and (ii) stopped and (b) had their benefit increased. [78316]

  Mr. Bayley
  The information is not available in the form requested. Such information as is available is in the table.278

  Recipients of Disability Living Allowance

  Thousands

  All recipients of higher rate awards1,2

  1,447

  Number of these cases where the value of the previous award was lower3,4

  238

  Number of these cases where the value of the previous award was higher3,4

  44

  Number of these cases where the previous award terminated3,5

  19

  1 Figures at 31 August 1998.

  2 Awards involving the highest rate of the care component or the higher rate of the mobility component either paid singly or combined with any rate of the other component.

  3 The previous award was made between 1 April 1992 and 31 August 1998.

  4 The value of the award is based on the rates of each component.

  5 Cases terminate for various reasons including: expiry of a fixed period award; residence and presence conditions no longer satisfied; other conditions of entitlement not satisfied. Benefit may have been relinquished voluntarily by the claimant or withdrawn by the Department.

  Source:

  Analytical Services Division 5 per cent. Data

PRIME MINISTER

  Iraq (Medical Supplies)
  Mr. Baylyell
  To ask The Prime Minister:, pursuant to his answer of 16 March 1999,Official Report, column 573, if he will have discussions with the Iraqi authorities about increasing the role of the UN in the distribution of medical supplies in central and southern Iraq. [78029]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 22 March 1999]: As my hon. Friend is aware, we have no diplomatic relations with the Government of Iraq and our dealings with them are strictly limited to occasional contacts with the Iraqi Interests Section of the Jordanian Embassy in London and the Iraqi mission to the UN in New York.
  279
  As I said in my earlier answer, we would support proposals from the panel assessing the humanitarian situation in Iraq to increase the role of the UN in distributing medical supplies in central and southern Iraq. But it would be for the UN to discuss any such proposals with the Iraqi authorities.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Civil Servants (Appraisal)
  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department what were the appraisal performance markings awarded to civil servants in 1998 for(a) each agency in his Department and (b) the Department broken down by (i) grade, (ii) gender, (iii) ethnicity, (iv) part-time/full-time working and (v) disability; and for (1) each agency and (2) the Department whether the Cabinet Office's four fifths rule for detecting potential adverse impact was applied to the appraisal markings of civil servants in the 1998 report round. [78140]

  Mr. Hoon
  The appraisal performance markings awarded to Civil Servants in 1998 within the Lord Chancellor's Department and its Agencies are shown in the tables.

  Although we do monitor for Equal Opportunities purposes, neither the Lord Chancellor's Department nor its Agencies applied the four fifths rule in analysing the appraisal markings awarded to staff in 1998.

  Appraisal marks received in LCD headquarters for appraisals completed in 1998

  A

  B

  C+

  C

  T

  D

  (a) LCD Headquarters

  26

  228

  219

  145

  3

  1

  (b)(i) Grade/Box mark

  Grade 6

  3

  18

  11

  6

  —

  —

  Grade 7

  4

  63

  40

  35

  —

  —

  SEO

  1

  19

  22

  7

  —

  —

  HEO

  4

  48

  51

  24

  1

  —

  EO

  6

  29

  45

  34

  1

  1

  AO

  5

  45

  35

  19

  1

  —

  AA

  —

  —

  4

  2

  —

  —

  Support Grades

  3

  6

  11

  18

  —

  —

  Total

  26

  228

  219

  145

  3

  1

  (b)(i) Grade/Box mark

  Female

  16

  130

  131

  72

  2

  —

  Male

  10

  98

  88

  73

  1

  1

  Total

  26

  228

  219

  145

  3

  1

  (iii) Ethnicity/Box mark

  White

  24

  192

  164

  114

  —

  1

  Asian

  2

  5

  17

  9

  —

  —

  Black

  —

  8

  18

  13

  1

  —

  Other

  —

  2

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Unknown

  —

  21

  19

  9

  2

  1

  Total

  26

  228

  219

  145

  3

  1

  (iv) Part time or full time/Box mark

  Full Time

  25

  223

  201

  131

  3

  1

  Part Time

  1

  5

  18

  14

  —

  —

  Total

  26

  228

  219

  145

  3

  1

  280

  Appraisal marks received in LCD headquarters for appraisals completed in 1998

  A

  B

  C+

  C

  T

  D

  (v) Disability/Box mark

  Disabled

  1

  6

  9

  3

  —

  —

  Non-disabled

  24

  198

  188

  124

  1

  1

  Unknown

  1

  24

  22

  18

  2

  —

  Total

  26

  228

  219

  145

  3

  1

  Notes:

  LCD Headquarters moved to a new Appraisal system from 1997–98 and use A, B, C+, C, T and D.

  A, B, C+ and C are above standard, and D is below standard. T = Training and indicates a temporary drop in standard whilst learning a new job.

  At 31 March 1998 there were 815 permanent staff in post in LCD Headquarters.

  Senior Civil Servants are not included.

  Appraisal marks received in the court service and public trust office for appraisals completed in 1998

  1

  2

  3

  4

  5

  a)

  Total for Court Service

  32

  3,611

  4,695

  27

  4

  Total for Public Trust Office

  —

  165

  223

  2

  —

  (b) (i) Grade/Box mark

  Grade 6

  1

  20

  9

  —

  —

  Grade 7

  1

  44

  28

  —

  —

  SEO

  2

  103

  80

  1

  —

  HEO

  6

  403

  326

  2

  1

  EO

  9

  737

  1,014

  4

  —

  AO

  6

  1,722

  2,321

  16

  2

  AA

  —

  81

  149

  —

  —

  Support Grades

  7

  666

  991

  6

  1

  Total

  32

  3,776

  4,918

  29

  4

  (ii) Gender/Box mark

  Female

  21

  2,507

  3,157

  11

  2

  Male

  11

  1,269

  1,761

  18

  2

  Total

  32

  3,776

  4,918

  29

  4

  (iii) Ethnicity/Box mark

  White

  30

  3,325

  4,121

  16

  3

  Asian

  —

  105

  199

  4

  —

  Black

  1

  99

  216

  4

  1

  Other

  —

  18

  30

  —

  —

  Unknown

  1

  229

  352

  5

  —

  Total

  32

  3,776

  4,918

  29

  4

  (iv) Part time or full time/Box mark

  Full Time

  30

  3,299>

  3,924

  24

  4

  Part Time

  2

  477

  994

  5

  —

  Total

  32

  3,776

  4,918

  29

  4

  (v) Disability/Box mark

  Disabled

  —

  82

  162

  1

  —

  Non-disabled

  31

  3,198

  4,014

  19

  4

  Unknown

  1

  496

  742

  9

  —

  Total

  32

  3,776

  4,918

  29

  4

  Notes:

  The Court Service and Public Trust Office switched to new appraisal system for the 1998–99 year. However, for reports ending in 1998 they both used a numeric system of 1 to 5.

  The figures at b) are for the Court Service and Public Trust Office combined.

  At 31 March 1998 there were 9,246 permanent staff in post in the Court Service and 554 in the PTO.

  Senior Civil Servants are not included.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the total number of occasions when(a) departmental and (b) non-departmental special advisers have travelled abroad in an official capacity since 2 May 1997, unaccompanied by Ministers. [77980]

  Mr. Hoon
  There have been no occasions since 2 May 1997 when the special adviser employed by my Department has travelled abroad in an official capacity unaccompanied by Ministers. Neither the Lord Chancellor nor I have any non-departmental special advisers.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Human Rights Commission
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations she has received relating to the Human Rights Commission's work. [76686]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  The Government have received no representations relating to the work of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission since it was established on 1 March. However, during the passage of the Northern Ireland Bill, we received many representations from interested parties on what the functions and powers of the Commission should be. These were fully debated in Parliament and the Government introduced a number of amendments to the Bill to reflect the representations that had been made.

  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will make a statement on the work of the Human Rights Commission. [76698]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission was formally established on 1 March under the provisions of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. The Chief Commissioner is Professor Brice Dickson, and there are nine part-time Commissioners. The establishment of the Commission is the central feature of the additional protections for human rights in Northern Ireland which are envisaged in the Belfast agreement. The Government believe that it will be a powerful force in developing, through education and research, an active human rights culture in Northern Ireland. One of its early functions will be to advise on a possible Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland. How the commission carries out its various responsibilities is a matter for the commission itself to determine.

  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if the interview panel for appointments to the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission recommended only the persons ultimately appointed. [77985]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The two interview panels put forward recommendations on all those interviewed which numbered eight for the Chief Commissioner part and 23 for the Commissioner parts.

  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what criteria were adopted to ensure that the human rights commissioners appointed were representative of the community as a whole. [77982]
  282
  Mr. Paul Murphy
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, in placing advertisements widely and issuing a press release, ensured that applications were received from as wide a selection of people as possible. The sift criteria for interview were adopted to ensure that the best candidates were interviewed. The Secretary of State then appointed a Chief Commissioner and Commissioners making a judgment about the group as a whole being representative of the community in Northern Ireland. She is satisfied that the statutory requirement has been met.

  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what criteria were used for shortlisting applicants for membership of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission; who carried out the shortlisting; and what consultation was undertaken with(a) the Irish Government and (b) others regarding shortlisting. [77984]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Shortlisting was carried out by the three members of the interview panel using the following two criteria:

  (a) the candidate's record of achievement in their chosen field, and

  (b) evidence from their application form of a good grasp of human rights.

  The panel did not consult with anyone in drawing up the shortlist.

  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what were the advertised requirements for the appointment of Northern Ireland's Human Rights Commission; and if these requirements were discussed with(a) the Irish Government and (b) the Secretariat at Maryfield. [77981]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Copies of the advertisements will be placed in the Library of the Houses. The details were not discussed with either the Irish Government or the Secretariat at Maryfield.

  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whom she consulted prior to agreeing the appointments to the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. [77986]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The Secretary of State discussed the recommendations of the two interview panels with the Chairmen of those panels. She did not consult anyone else prior to appointing the Chief Commissioner and Commissioners.

  Fishing
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will make a statement on discussions she has held with the Irish Government on ways of improving fishing opportunities in the Irish sea. [76687]

  Mr. McFall
  Over the past six months I have written to the Taoiseach on a number of occasions in connection with a joint approach to exploitation of Irish Sea stocks. I am delighted to report that the United Kingdom and Irish Governments were able to co-operate at last December's Council of EU Fisheries Ministers. We achieved significant increases in fishing opportunities for haddock for the benefit of all fishermen fishing in the Irish Sea, particularly the Northern Ireland fleet. This was a very welcome development, and I hope that we will continue to find opportunities to co-operate constructively on fisheries issues.

  Good Friday Agreement
  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what meetings she has had with the Irish Government about the implementation of the Good Friday agreement in the last month. [76688]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  I have had regular contacts with the Irish Government and with the Northern Ireland political parties in the last month. It is important that all parties to the Good Friday Agreement work together at this crucial time to ensure that every aspect is implemented in full.

  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will make a statement on progress on implementing the Good Friday agreement. [76689]

  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will make a statement on progress in implementing the Good Friday agreement. [76690]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  I refer hon. Members to the reply that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) today,Official Report, column 379.

  Irish Language
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what new proposals she has to improve the quality of teaching through the medium of Irish. [76691]

  Mr. McFall
  The quality of intakes to Irish Medium Education initial teacher training courses is already high and the Education and Training Inspectorate has found the quality of teaching in schools to be generally good.

  Post-devolution, this issue will be for the Irish Language Agency of the North-South Implementation Body on Languages.

  Euro
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will make a statement on the impact of the euro on north-south relationships in the island of Ireland. [76692]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Northern Ireland is unique in that it is the only part of the United Kingdom with a border to the euro-zone. It is very early to be definitive about the impact of the euro, but in the short term it is likely to be limited.

  Decommissioning
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment she has made of progress on the decommissioning of illegally held arms and explosives. [76693]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Good Friday agreement committed all the participants to the total disarmament of all paramilitary organisations. The participants also confirmed their intention to work constructively and in good faith with the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning and to use any influence they may have to achieve the decommissioning of all paramilitary arms within two years of last May's referendum and in the context of the implementation of the overall settlement.
  284
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what report she has received from General De Chastelain on the status of parties in the Assembly in relation to decommissioning. [76699]

  Mr. Ingram
  I understand that discussions continue between various Assembly parties and the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will consider the purchase of arms from paramilitary groups in Northern Ireland as part of the process of decommissioning. [76703]

  Mr. Ingram
  Decommissioning schemes were agreed in June 1998 after extensive consultation. The schemes do not provide for the purchase of paramilitary arms since that option was not supported by the parties.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when she last met the Taoiseach to discuss matters relating to the issue of the decommissioning of paramilitary weaponry. [76706]

  Mr. Ingram
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State last formally met with the Taoiseach on 3 February and they also met again during their recent visits to the USA for St. Patrick's day.

  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment she has made of progress on the decommissioning of illegally held arms and explosives. [76707]

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent representations she has received on when the decommissioning of illegally held weapons and explosives will begin. [76683]

  Mr. Ingram
  I have welcomed the start to decommissioning made by the LVF on 18 December. The Independent International Commission on Decommissioning is continuing its vital work. It is time for all groups to play their part in the full implementation of the agreement; they should start to decommission now.

  Drumcree
  Mr. McCabe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will make a statement on progress towards the resolution of the problems relating to the Orange Order parade at Drumcree. [76694]

  Shona McIsaac
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress is being made towards the resolution of the problems over the Orange Order parade at Drumcree. [76704]

  Mr. Ingram
  Since last July, the Government have been playing an active and constructive role in helping to find a solution to these problems which would address the legitimate concerns of all sides. We have appointed in a personal capacity Frank Blair, Director of ACAS Scotland, as facilitator and urge all sides to co-operate with him.

  Health Care
  Mr. McNulty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what impact the Budget will have on health care provision in Northern Ireland. [76695]
  285
  Mr. McFall
  The Chancellor's Budget statement confirmed the Government's continuing commitment to modernise the NHS. I am equally determined that health services in Northern Ireland are equipped to provide a first class service, and am considering how this can best be achieved.

  Omagh Bombing
  Mr. Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what estimate she has made of the total compensation payable as a result of the Omagh bomb. [76696]

  Mr. Ingram
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Compensation Agency and I understand from the chief executive that the information is as follows.

  Compensation for death or injury in such circumstances is payable under the Criminal Injuries (Compensation) (Northern Ireland) Order 1988. The Agency anticipates that approximately £9 million is likely to be paid in respect of the victims of the Omagh bomb.

  Loss or damage to property in such circumstances is payable under The Criminal Damage (Compensation) (Northern Ireland) Order 1977. The current estimate is that approximately £8 million is likely to be paid for damage caused to buildings, their contents and to vehicles.

  National Stadium
  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will make a statement on the Government's policy on a national sports stadium in Northern Ireland. [76697]

  Mr. McFall
  The Government are aware of the need to assess the possibility of providing a national stadium in Northern Ireland. It has, therefore, asked the Sports Council to lead in establishing a Working Group to explore the need for, and feasibility of providing a national stadium and to recommend the way forward.

  Paramilitary Violence
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what estimate she has made of the number of punishment beatings since the Good Friday agreement; and in how many of the cases charges have been laid against alleged perpetrators. [76700]

  Mr. Ingram
  Since the Good Friday agreement, to 11 March, there have been 161 paramilitary-style assaults, 102 by Loyalists and 59 by Republicans. There have been 66 paramilitary-style shootings, 39 by Loyalists and 27 by Republicans.

  Charges are made on the basis of specific offences, for example, common assault, grievous bodily harm and actual bodily harm. The database does not record separately those which are deemed to be paramilitary-style and it is therefore not possible to provide information on the number of persons who have been made amenable for these attacks.

  New Deal (Young People)
  Mr. Goggins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many young people under 25 years have participated in the new deal in Northern Ireland to date; and how many of those are now in work. [76701]

  Mr. McFall
  The Chief Executive of the Training and Employment Agency has informed me that since 6 April 1998, 9,707 New Deal clients under 25 years have entered New Deal. Of these, at the end of February 1999, 2,547 had found work. Almost 70 per cent. were unsubsidised jobs. Information on whether they are still in employment could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Lifelong Learning
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proposals she has to introduce the Government's lifelong learning programme in Northern Ireland. [76702]

  Mr. McFall
  The Government's strategy for lifelong learning in Northern Ireland was published on 9 February 1999. A copy of the document, "Lifelong Learning: a New Learning Culture for All", has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Equality Commission
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the Equality Commission in Northern Ireland will be established. [76705]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) today,Official Report, column 376.

  Peace Process
  Ms Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will make a statement on the progress of the peace process. [76708]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) today,Official Report, column 379.

  Patten Commission
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) if she will make it her policy that no information from the Patten Commission on policing which is not in the public domain will be shared with(a) any other Government and (b) any private group; [77582]

  (2) if she will make it her policy that no information from the Patten Commission on policing which is not in the public domain will be shared with (a) any other Government and (b) any private group. [77584]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer the hon. and learned Gentleman to the answer given to him by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 19 March 1999,Official Report, columns 843–44.

  Closed Circuit Television
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the greatest approved expenditure during the past five years for the provision of CCTV security equipment at(a) a controlled school, (b) a maintained school and (c) a voluntary grammar school; and if she will make a statement on the criteria used for approval of expenditure on CCTV security systems at schools. [77611]

  Mr. McFall
  The greatest approved expenditure for CCTV equipment over the past 5 years was £18,000 for a controlled school, £17,000 for a maintained school and £12,000 for a voluntary grammar school. Applications for CCTV systems in schools are considered on their merits in light of the available resources and a risk assessment based on guidelines in the booklet, "Security and Personal Safety in Schools".

  Dundonald Training Centre
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many staff are presently employed at Dundonald Training Centre; how many trainees are involved there; and what proposals she has to increase training opportunities in the boroughs of Ards, Castlereagh and North Down. [77796]

  Mr. Ingram
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Training and Employment Agency under its Chief Executive, Mr. Ian Walters. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Ian Walters to Mr. John D. Taylor, dated 23 March 1999:

  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has asked me, as Chief Executive of the Training and Employment Agency, to reply to your question about Dundonald Training Centre and training opportunities in the Boroughs of Ards, Castlereagh, and North Down.

  Pending a decision on its future, Dundonald Training Centre is not currently operational. Five staff remain in the Centre to maintain the premises and provide support services to other parts of the training centre network. A further 30 T&EA staff are located on the Dundonald site engaged in duties which are not directly linked to the work of training centres. There are no trainees in the Centre at present.

  A document on the future structure of relationships between training centres and Further Education Colleges, which was published for consultation purposes in September 1998, recommended a working partnership between colleges and training centres which would better utilise their respective strengths. The views and advice offered during the consultation process are being assessed and an announcement on the way forward is expected shortly.

  The future of Dundonald Training Centre will depend upon the outcome of the Review. The extent to which vocational training arrangements in Ards, Castlereagh, and North Down might be further improved will be similarly addressed through the implementation of the Review's recommendations.

  As you know, high quality training is available now under the New Deal and Jobskills programmes and will be offered shortly in Worktrack which will succeed ACE. Complementing these programmes is the recently announced strategy for Lifelong Learning, a £63 million initiative to encourage a culture of continuous learning. This major new initiative will help individuals of all ages to acquire the skills they need to meet the demands of a rapidly changing economy.

  I hope you find this information useful.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Further Education
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what change there has been in the number of students in further education in the United Kingdom since tuition fees were introduced. [75022]

  Mr. Mudie
  The information requested is not available.

  New Deal (Targets)
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what targets the Employment Service has set for improving employability through the implementation of the New Deal. [75665]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  [holding answer 9 March 1999]: 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 Leigh Lewis to Mr. Graham Brady, dated 24 March 1999:

  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has asked me to reply to your question about the targets we have set for improving employability through the implementation of New Deal. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.

  We are working to the goal of implementing the Government's commitment to helping 250,000 young unemployed people off benefit and into work. Placement in jobs, retention in employment and qualifications gained are employability measures included within the core performance measures of the New Deal.

  I hope this is helpful.

  Chief Inspector of Schools
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will investigate the recent reports relating to the conduct of the Chief Inspector of Schools; and if he will make a statement. [76456]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Chris Woodhead has made it clear that he does not accept the allegations made in recent reports about his conduct during the period when he was a school teacher and no evidence has been brought forward to substantiate them. He has also made it clear that he supports the Government's new legislation on improper relationships between pupils and their teachers.

  Museums (School Programmes)
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the effect on local authority museums' school programmes of the further delegation of funding to schools. [76640]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Local education authorities are not required to delegate funding for school museum services in 1999–2000, except to grant-maintained schools. From April 2000, we intend to require them to delegate funding for school library and museum services to secondary schools; in the case of primary and special schools, our intention is that any funding for these services which is not delegated should be passed to the schools on an
  289
  earmarked basis, which will enable the schools to decide whether to buy the services from their own or another authority.

  We are committed to encouraging museums and galleries to develop their educational role and strengthen their links with schools, and have recently announced that we shall be making £2.5 million available for this purpose over three years.

  Working Time Directive
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment 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. [76810]

  Mr. Mudie
  Three members of the Senior Civil Service in the Department for Education and Employment (including the Employment Service) have signed an agreement to disapply the 48 hour limit. Central records are not kept for staff outside the Senior Civil Service in DfEE (including the Employment Service), nor do the Regulations require employers to keep records of the number of workers who refuse to sign an opt-out agreement. The standard terms and conditions of service for staff employed by the Department for Education and Employment (including the Employment Service) are well within the limits set by the Working Time Regulations. Compliance costs are not kept centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Support Staff Pay
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment his Department has made of the impact of the single status agreement on the pay of non-teaching support staff. [76939]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 16 March 1999]: No assessment has been made. As with other groups of local government staff, pay and conditions of service for education support staff are determined by local authorities in negotiation with staff and the relevant trade unions. The Government traditionally are not involved. However, we welcome the encouragement in the single status agreement of local pay and grading reviews and the commitment to training and development for all staff.

  Correspondence
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when the hon. Member for West Derbyshire can expect a reply to the letter he sent on 20 November 1998 on behalf of his constituent, Mr. Purdy. [77316]

  Mr. Mudie
  Since an interim reply was issued on 11 January 1999, the hon. Member for West Derbyshire's letter of 20 November has, unfortunately, been mislaid in the Department. A reply was issued to the copy letter provided by the hon. Member's office today.

  Departmental Review (Regional Consultation)
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if his current review of the delivery of high-quality further education, training and work force development includes consultation at a regional level. [77824]

  Mr. Mudie
  Yes. We have invited comments from a wide range of partners at local, regional and national level.

  Classroom Assistants
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what regulations set the pay and conditions of classroom assistants. [77906]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The pay and conditions of classroom assistants in schools are not governed by regulations but are determined by Local Education Authorities and schools in negotiation with their staff and relevant trade unions.

  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what minimum qualifications classroom assistants are required to possess. [77907]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  It is for Local Education Authorities and schools to determine the qualifications required by classroom assistants working in schools. The Department is working with Local Education Authority representatives and others to develop a national framework of training and qualifications for classroom assistants based on occupational standards/NVQs.

  Local Authority Spending
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the local authorities to which Ministers have written urging greater spending on local services within their portfolio area. [77960]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 22 March 1999]: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has written to all English Local Education Authorities to urge them to ensure that the additional provision which we have made available is actually spent on education and, in particular, is used to support schools so that the resources can be spent directly on raising standards.

  Millennium Dome (School Visits)
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what discussions he has had with teaching unions regarding overnight accommodation costs and overtime payments for teachers accompanying parties of school children visiting the Millennium Dome. [78166]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 22 March 1999]: None. Many schools are accustomed to taking children on overnight trips.

  Information Technology Learning Centres
  Mr. Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many of the new IT learning centres announced in the Budget are to be developed in rural areas; and if he will list their locations. [78310]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The number of learning centres to be located in rural areas and their locations is yet to be decided.

  Table 1: Schools in North East Lincolnshire which have benefited from the first two rounds of the New Deal for Schools

  Schools in NE Lincolnshire benefiting from NDS

  Purpose for which grant was awarded

  Bradley Park Infants

  Upgrading of glazing to conform with legislation

  Bradley Park Junior

  Upgrading of glazing to conform with legislation

  Cambridge Park

  (a) Upgrading of old/worn wiring, switchgear and lighting luminaries

  (b) Renewal of roofing

  (c) Upgrading of glazing to conform with legislation

  Coomb Briggs Primary

  (a) Replacement of windows and window frames

  (b) Renewal of roofing

  Edward Heneage Primary

  (a) Boiler/valve replacement

  (b) Repairs to chimney and high level gables

  (c) Upgrading of glazing to conform with legislation

  Elliston Infants

  Upgrading of glazing to conform with legislation

  Elliston Junior

  Upgrading of glazing to conform with legislation

  Enfield Primary

  Renewal of roofing

  Freshney Park Infants

  (a) Upgrading of glazing to conform with legislation

  (b) Replacement of dangerous metal doors with wooden doors

  Grange Infants

  Renewal of roofing

  Grange Junior

  Renewal of roofing

  Havelock

  Remedial work to local exhaust ventilation system

  Healing Comprehensive

  Upgrading of glazing to conform with legislation

  Healing County Primary

  (a) Boiler/valve replacement

  (b) Upgrading of glazing to conform with legislation

  Hereford Comprehensive

  Replacement of windows and window frames

  Humberston Comprehensive

  Upgrading of glazing to conform with legislation

  Humberston CE Primary

  Upgrading of glazing to conform with legislation

  Humberston Park

  Provision of storage for wheelchairs and other mobile means of transport

  Immingham Comprehensive

  (a) Boiler/valve replacement

  (b) Remedial work to local exhaust ventilation system

  Laceby Acres Primary

  Renewal of roofing

  The Leas Junior

  (a) Boiler/valve replacement

  (b) Upgrading of glazing to conform with legislation

  Lindsey

  Remedial work to local exhaust ventilation system

  Littlecoates Primary

  Upgrading of glazing to conform with legislation

  Matthew Humberstone

  (a) Replacement of heating/hot water services

  (b) Remedial work to local exhaust ventilation system

  (c) Upgrading of glazing to conform with legislation

  (d) Re-roofing of leaking sports hall and CDT block

  Middlethorpe Primary

  (a) Upgrading of glazing to conform with legislation

  (b) Resurfacing of dangerous playground

  New Waltham Primary

  Boiler/valve replacement

  Nunsthorpe Infants

  Renewal of roofing

  Nunsthorpe Junior

  Refurbishment of toilets

  Nunsthorpe Nursery

  Upgrading of glazing to conform with legislation

  Old Clee Infants

  Upgrading of glazing to conform with legislation

  Old Clee Junior

  Upgrading of glazing to conform with legislation

  Queen Mary Avenue Infants

  Upgrading of glazing to conform with legislation

  St. Peter's CE Primary

  Upgrading of glazing to conform with legislation

  Scartho Infants

  Upgrading of glazing to conform with legislation

  Scartho Junior

  (a) Boiler/valve replacement

  (b) Rewiring

  (c) Upgrading of glazing to conform with legislation

  Signhills Infants

  Upgrading of glazing to conform with legislation

  Signhills Junior

  Replacement of heating/hot water services

  South Parade Infants

  Upgrading of glazing to conform with legislation

  South Parade Junior

  Upgrading of glazing to conform with legislation

  Springfield Primary

  Part replacement of plumbing to ensure adequate hot water to toilets

  Stanford Primary

  (a) Replacement of windows and window frames

  (b) Renewal of roofing

  Strand Junior

  Renewal of roofing

  Waltham Toll Bar Comprehensive

  Concrete lintels

  New Deal (Lincolnshire Schools)
  Shona Mclsaac
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list those schools in(a) north east Lincolnshire and (b) north Lincolnshire which received finances through the New Deal for schools; and in each case for what purpose the money was allocated. [78312]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The following two tables answer my hon. Friend's question.
  293

  Table 1: Schools in North East Lincolnshire which have benefited from the first two rounds of the New Deal for Schools

  Schools in NE Lincolnshire benefiting from NDS

  Purpose for which grant was awarded

  Western

  (a) Replacement of heating/hot water services

  (b) Remedial work to local exhaust ventilation system

  Willows Primary

  Renewal of roofing

  Wintringham Comprehensive

  (a) Remedial work to local exhaust ventilation system

  (b) Upgrading of glazing to conform with legislation

  Wybers Wood Infants

  Upgrading of glazing to conform with legislation

  Wybers Wood Junior

  Upgrading of glazing to conform with legislation

  Yarborough Junior

  (a) Upgrading of glazing to conform with legislation

  (b) Replacement of dangerous metal doors with wooden doors

  Table 2: Schools in North Lincolnshire which have benefited from the first two rounds of the New Deal for Schools

  Schools in North Lincolnshire benefiting from NDS

  Purpose for which grant was awarded

  Baysgarth

  Provision of local exhaust ventilation

  Berkeley Infants

  Replacement of rotten external timber windows

  Berkeley Junior

  Partial rewiring

  Brigg Primary

  Upgrading of heating

  Broughton Infants

  (a) Replacement of part heating schemes

  (b) Partial rewiring

  Brumby Comprehensive

  (a) Provision of local exhaust ventilation

  (b) Partial re-roofing

  Burton-upon-Stather County Primary

  Upgrading of heating

  Crosby Primary

  Replacement of part heating schemes

  Foxhills Comprehensive

  (a) Upgrading of heating

  (b) Provision of additional toilets

  Frederick Gough

  Provision of local exhaust ventilation

  Frodingham Infants

  Replacement of part heating schemes

  Goxhill Primary

  Partial rewiring

  Grange Lane Junior

  Complete rewiring

  High Ridge Comprehensive

  (a) Provision of local exhaust ventilation

  (b) Partial re-roofing

  Huntcliff Comprehensive

  (a) Upgrading of heating

  (b) Provision of local exhaust ventilation

  Killingholme Primary

  (a) Partial rewiring

  (b) Partial reheating and upgrading of low surface temperature system

  Kirmington Primary

  (c) Partial rewiring

  (d) Partial reheating and upgrading of low surface temperature system

  Kirton in Lindsey Primary

  Partial re-roofing

  Leys Farm Junior

  Partial rewiring

  Messingham Primary

  Partial re-roofing

  New Holland Primary

  Partial rewiring

  St. Bede's

  (a) Provision of local exhaust ventilation

  (b) Complete rewiring

  Sir John Nelthorpe

  Provision of local exhaust ventilation

  South Axholme

  Provision of local exhaust ventilation

  South Ferriby Primary

  Partial reheating and upgrading of low surface temperature system

  South Leys Comprehensive

  (a) Provision of local exhaust ventilation

  (b) Replacement of rotten external timber windows

  Thomas Sumpter Comprehensive

  (a) Provision of local exhaust ventilation

  (b) Fire precautionary work

  Vale of Ancholme

  (a) Provision of local exhaust ventilation

  (b) Complete rewiring

  Winterton Comprehensive

  (a) Upgrading of heating

  (b) Replacement of asbestos-impregnated ceilings

  Science Laboratories
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many new scientific laboratories have been built in schools in the last five years. [78232]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  This information is not held centrally.

  Education Funding (Leicestershire)
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what advice he has given
  294
  Leicestershire County Council concerning the expenditure of the 1999–2000 increase in the education SSA for the county; and if he will make a statement; [78247]

  (2) what responses he has received from the leaders of the (a) Conservative, (b) Liberal and (c) Labour county councillors in Leicestershire to his letter of 1 March to county councillors entitled Education Funding; and if he will make a statement; [78246]

  (3) if he will list the education authorities which have not passed on to schools the whole of the increase in the education SSA for 1998–99; and if he will make a statement. [78337]
  295
  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 23 March 1999]: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has written to all English Local Education Authorities, including Leicestershire, to urge them to use all of the cash increase in the education SSA for 1999–2000 to support education services. We expect every Local Education Authority of whatever political control to ensure that the increase is spent on education and used in the direct delivery of services. No responses have been received from the leaders of the Conservative and Liberal Groups to the letters which have been sent to the County Council. The Labour Group Leader has indicated that the Labour Group is committed to providing additional resources for education in Leicestershire. Final data are not yet available on actual expenditure in 1998–99 or planned expenditure in 1999–2000 but we will be monitoring the financial returns of authorities to see whether the cash increase in the education SSA has been used to support education.

  Ministerial Engagements
  Ms Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what his engagements were at 11.00 am on Friday 19 March; and if he will make a statement; [78447]

  (2) what engagements the Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities had at 11.00 am on Friday 19 March; and if he will make a statement; [78448]

  (3) what engagements the Minister for School Standards had at 11.00 am on Friday 19 March; and if he will make a statement; [78449]

  (4) what engagements the Minister for Education and Employment had at 11.00 am on Friday 19 March; and if he will make a statement; [78450]

  (5) what engagements the Under-Secretary of State responsible for Lifelong Learning, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Mudie), had at 11.00 am on Friday 19 March; and if he will make a statement; [78452]

  (6) what engagements the Under-Secretary of State responsible for School Standards, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), had at 11.00 am on Friday 19 March; and if he will make a statement; [78453]

  £

  Name of Appointee

  Body

  Position

  Remuneration

  Keith Vaz MP

  British Council

  Vice Chairman

  Nil

  D. A. Thompson (reappointment)

  Commonwealth Institute

  Chairman

  15,000

  Tony Baldry MP

  Commonwealth Institute

  Governor

  Nil

  Floella Benjamin

  Commonwealth Institute

  Governor

  Nil

  Algy Cluff (reappointment)

  Commonwealth Institute

  Governor

  Nil

  Lord Dholakia

  Commonwealth Institute

  Governor

  Nil

  Anne Ferguson

  Commonwealth Institute

  Governor

  Nil

  Mary Marsh

  Commonwealth Institute

  Governor

  Nil

  Anthea Millett

  Commonwealth Institute

  Governor

  Nil

  Bill Morris

  Commonwealth Institute

  Governor

  Nil

  Helen Robinson (reappointment)

  Commonwealth Institute

  Governor

  Nil

  Jonathon Taylor

  Commonwealth Institute

  Governor

  Nil

  Sam Younger

  Commonwealth Institute

  Governor

  Nil

  Keith Vaz MP

  Commonwealth Institute

  Governor

  Nil

  296
  (7) what engagements the Under-Secretary of State responsible for Employment and Equal Opportunities, my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms Hodge), had at 11.00 am on Friday 19 March; and if he will make a statement. [78454]

  Mr. Blunkett
  Following the briefing given to my hon. Friends the Members for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) and for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) by the School Standards Minister the day before the announcement relating to Hackney LEA on Thursday, 18 March, Education and Employment Ministers were visiting a range of schools and other facilities throughout England on Friday. Details are as follows:I was visiting Mossbrook Special School in Sheffield and attending an international education seminar;
  The Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities was giving a speech in Oxford to the Tourism Business Scheme on recruitment problems in the Tourist Industry and visiting a New Deal self-build project;
  The Minister for School Standards had a two hour dental appointment and was in Birmingham on Departmental and Constituency business;
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Lifelong Learning was visiting Rawthorpe High School in Huddersfield;
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for School Standards was opening the Milton Keynes Educational Partnership Conference in Northampton;
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment and Equal Opportunities was addressing a childcare conference in Gloucester.
  Baroness Blackstone was in London providing Ministerial cover.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Appointments
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those people he has appointed to public bodies since 1 November 1998, indicating the positions to which they have been appointed and if they receive remuneration. [76419]

  Mr. Fatchett
  Since 1 November 1998, the Secretary of State or other FCO Ministers have made or approved the following appointments to non-departmental public bodies:

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Spanish Foreign Minister concerning his recent statements about alleged criminal activity in Gibraltar; and if he will make a statement; [76928]

  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the recent allegations about criminal activity in Gibraltar made by the Spanish Foreign Minister; and if he will make a statement. [76395]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 15 March 1999]: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary raised Spanish allegations about criminal activity in Gibraltar with the Spanish Foreign Minister when they met on 21 February. He made clear to Sr. Matutes the strength of British and Gibraltarian determination to confront criminal activity in any form. He invited the Spanish authorities to substantiate their allegations.

  We have received details of some specific Spanish concerns. We have been looking into these, together with the relevant Gibraltar authorities, and are responding.

  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the instructions given to(a) the Governor of Gibraltar and (b) the Royal Gibraltar Police regarding the enforcement of the laws restricting fishing in Gibraltar's territorial waters. [78352]

  Ms Quin
  It is not our practice to reveal details of confidential exchanges between the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and any Governor or Ambassador. Nor is it our practice to give details of the operational instructions given to the Royal Gibraltar Police.

  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish the agreement reached with the Spanish Government on fishing by Spanish trawlers in Gibraltar's territorial waters. [78351]

  Ms Quin
  The understanding reached with Spain was not a written document. On 5 October 1998, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and the Spanish Foreign Minister confirmed an understanding reached earlier between British and Spanish officials on the basis for a return to the situation that had prevailed in British waters around Gibraltar between 1991 and 1997, when fishing took place in moderation and the fishermen respected the authority of the Gibraltar law enforcement agencies. They agreed that we should revert to that situation.

  Pakistan
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met the Attorney General of Pakistan to discuss the law as it affects women in Pakistan. [76349]

  Mr. Fatchett
  [holding answer 23 March 1999]: Neither I nor my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary have met the Attorney General of Pakistan. We discuss the law as it affects women as part of our continuing dialogue with Pakistan.

  EU Budget Contribution
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will provide a breakdown of the UK's contribution to the EU for the last year for which figures are available. [78373]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 23 March 1999]: The European Commission's report of 7 October 1998 called "Financing the European Union", a copy of which was deposited on 26 October (Batch list 121), contains Member States' payments into the EU budget from 1992–99, although the figures for 1998 and 1999 are estimates. The payments are listed by type; Traditional own resources (customs duties, agriculture duties, sugar levies less collection costs), VAT, GNP and the adjustment made to other Member States' contributions to fund the UK abatement. UK 1995–97 average contributions were:

  £million

  Euro million

  Traditional Own Resources

  1,929.6

  2,807.6

  VAT Own Resource

  3,700.7

  5,384.5

  GNP Own Resource

  1,991.8

  2,898.1

  Abatement

  -1,574.4

  -2,290.7

  Total

  6,047.7

  8,799.5

  The average net contribution (net of receipts) was:

  1,957.4

  2,848

  Millennium Compliance
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs for what reason no external assessment has been made of the plans of his Department for millennium compliance. [78466]

  Mr. Fatchett
  At present I am content to rely on the robustness and independence of our own Internal Audit team. They have just completed an examination of our compliance programme. We have taken on board the lessons they have flagged up. If, however, we feel that there is a need for external assessment, we shall arrange one.

  European Commissioners
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which European Union institution will be responsible for controlling the payments to the retiring commissioners when they leave office; what plans he has to meet those who are to make those payments; and if he will make a statement. [78202]

  Ms Quin
  Commissioners' terms and conditions are set down in the 1967 Council Regulation 422/67. This governs transitional and pension payments following their retirement or resignation from the Commission.

  Payments following a Commissioner's departure are paid by the Commission.

  We expect out-going Commissioners to be treated in accordance with this Statute. I have no plans to meet the Commission to discuss these arrangements.

  Sierra Leone
  Mr. Alan Johnson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received of the murder of civilians in Waterloo, Sierra Leone; and if he will make a statement. [78323]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We have no precise figure for the number of civilian deaths in Waterloo. We believe that between 3,000 and 5,000 persons were killed during the rebel attack on Freetown in January, and that many of them had fled initially from Waterloo.

  The Nigerian-led West African peacekeeping force, ECOMOG, succeeded in expelling the rebels from Waterloo on 24 February. In Waterloo, we understand that the rebels murdered some civilians and committed other atrocities; the rebels destroyed much of the town's infrastructure. Our High Commissioner in Freetown visited Waterloo on 6–7 March, and reported evidence of heavy fighting and widespread destruction.

  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of developments in Sierra Leone following the most recent reports of atrocities by rebel troops. [78421]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The situation in Freetown is improving, but remains volatile. The picture in the rest of the country is unclear, due to difficulties of access. Rebels are believed to be active in large areas of the north and east; for example, heavy fighting has recently been reported around Kambia, near the border with Guinea. We condemn the appalling atrocities, murder and destruction committed by the rebels. We continue to support strongly the democratically elected Government of Sierra Leone and the efforts of the Nigerian-led West African peacekeeping force, ECOMOG, to protect the civilian population. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary's announcement on 2 March of a new £10 million package of assistance for Sierra Leone is further evidence of that commitment.

  Schengen Agreement
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his oral answer to the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) of 16 March 1999,Official Report, column 868, on Spain, what is the legal basis for his statement that no country has a veto on a United Kingdom application to join in arrangements made under the Schengen agreement. [78399]

  Ms Quin
  Under Article 5 of the Protocol integrating the Schengen acquis into the framework of the European Union, the United Kingdom will be free to participate in any future Schengen-based co-operation. Under Article 4 of that Protocol, it is only in respect of existing Schengen provisions (the "Schengen acquis") that a request by the United Kingdom to take part will be subject to the unanimous approval of the thirteen Schengen States.

  Asia-Europe Foreign Ministers Meeting
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish the agenda for the forthcoming Asia-Europe Foreign Ministers meeting of 29 and 30 March. [78394]
  300
  Mr. Fatchett
  The Asia-Europe Foreign Ministers' Meeting in Berlin on 28–29 March 1999 will discuss regional and international issues of common interest. It will also review progress on the wide range of ASEM initiatives promoting economic, social, environmental, cultural and law enforcement co-operation, particularly those initiatives endorsed by Leaders at the Second Asia-Europe Meeting in London on 3–4 April 1998. Publication of the formal agenda is a matter for the German Federal Government as host of the meeting.

  Pauline Green
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he made and on what dates to the head of the European Socialist party concerning the January motions of no confidence in the European Parliament on fraud and the Commission; and if he will make a statement. [78397]

  Ms Quin
  It is not the practice for members of the Government to give details of party political discussions in this manner.

  Rambouillet
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Rambouillet negotiations. [77754]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  I refer my hon. Friend to the Statement on Kosovo made by my right hon. Friend The Prime Minister on 23 March 1999,Official Report, columns 161–63.

  Russia (Human Rights)
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the human rights situation in Russia. [78382]

  Ms Quin
  Russia has made progress towards the rule of law and democracy. But we remain concerned about anti-semitism; the law on religion; prison conditions; and the cases of the environmentalists Nikitin and Pasko, among other issues. We raise our concerns frequently with the Russians. The Foreign Secretary did so most recently during his visit to Russia on 3 to 5 March. We also hold annual talks with the Russians on human rights.

  Moldova (Human Rights)
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the human rights situation in Moldova. [78383]

  Ms Quin
  Moldova enjoys a working, multi-party democracy. International observers regarded the 1998 parliamentary elections as free and fair. There have been no reports of politically motivated killings or disappearances or torture of prisoners by the authorities. There are occasional instances of police cruelty and prisons are generally overcrowded. The Constitution and the law provide for freedom of expression though it is forbidden to publish views which question the country's independence, sovereignty or territorial integrity. The law makes it easy for public figures to launch defamation suits which can lead to self-censorship by journalists. The Constitution provides for judicial independence though in
  301
  practice the Prosecutor's Office has too much influence over the judiciary. Religious freedom, the right of assembly, freedom of movement and academic freedom are all respected.

  In the separatist region of Transdniestria, there are reports of serious human rights abuses (including torture, police cruelty, questionable detentions, pressure on the media and discrimination against use of the Roman alphabet).

  Bulgaria (Human Rights)
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the human rights situation in Bulgaria. [78386]

  Ms Quin
  The Government believe that Bulgaria has made good progress on human rights in recent years. Positive developments in the past few months include the abolition of the death penalty and the ratification of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities. Further progress is needed, however, on the implementation at local level of human rights legislation.

  Romania (Human Rights)
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the human rights situation in Romania. [78384]

  Ms Quin
  Considerable progress on human rights has been made in Romania since the overthrow of the Communist regime in 1989. The UK is satisfied that Romania now adheres to modern European standards of human rights in respect of democracy, the rule of law and protection of the rights and freedoms of citizens. In certain areas, such as the administration of justice, the elimination of corruption and the treatment of minorities and the disadvantaged, further improvement is needed. The UK welcomes the movement towards greater protection of human rights in Romania and seeks to support this process.

  China (Human Rights)
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the human rights situation in the People's Republic of China. [78385]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We continue to be very concerned about human rights in China, including the recent clampdown on peaceful political activists. We have raised these concerns directly with the Chinese authorities through the continuing bilateral and EU human rights dialogues. These dialogues have made limited progress in some areas. The General Affairs Council decided on 22 March that the EU would not change its position on China at this year's UN Commission on Human Rights (UNCHR). The EU will continue to express publicly its growing concerns about human rights in China at the UNCHR, as well as at bilateral and EU high-level meetings with China. It will remain in close contact with its main partners in pursuit of the common objective of achieving concrete improvements in human rights in China. It will keep its policy under regular review in the light of developments there.

  Falklands Flights
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will quantify the economic effects that the removal of the Lan Chile link will have on the people of the Falklands. [78210]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We hope that Lan Chile will continue to fly to the Falklands. We have expressed our regret to the Chilean Government over the decision to ask the airline to suspend these flights and have said we do not believe this to be justified. It is not possible to quantify reliably the economic effects that suspension of the flights would have on the Falklands, but without an alternative in place, the impact would be adverse. For example, tourism would be affected as would the ability to buy some Chilean goods and services. Airfreight would no longer pass through Chile.

  Falklands (Agriculture)
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what encouragement his Department has given to the Government of the Falklands to diversify the islands agricultural base. [78389]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  It is for the Falkland Islanders and their Government to decide whether and how to diversify their agriculture. We encourage them to consider diversification options. They are studying options including alternative livestocks. They are investing in a programme to improve their pasture, which will facilitate diversification, and have secured EU funds for the construction of an abattoir.

CABINET OFFICE

  Civil Servants (Appraisal)
  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what were the appraisal performance markings awarded to civil servants in 1998 for(a) each agency in his Department and (b) the Department broken down by (i) grade, (ii) gender, (iii) ethnicity, (iv) part-time/ full-time working and (v) disability; and for (1) each agency and (2) the Department whether the Cabinet Office's four fifths rule for detecting potential adverse impact was applied to the appraisal markings of civil servants in the 1998 report round. [78148]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  The information requested is set out in the tables. In the Cabinet Office the appraisal performance marks were analysed by our statisticians who reported that the differences by gender and ethnicity were not statistically significant. The Department is keeping the situation under review. It is committed to a policy of equal opportunity and wishes to ensure that box marking standards reflect that commitment.

  Percentage

  Department/Agency

  Box 1

  Box 2

  Box 3

  Box 4

  Box 5

  Cabinet Office

  Grade

  SCS

  19

  55

  25

  *

  *

  Band A

  15

  50

  34

  *

  *

  Band B

  10

  49

  41

  *

  *

  Band C

  4

  49

  46

  *

  *

  all Grades

  8

  49

  42

  *

  *

  303

  Percentage

  Department/Agency

  Box 1

  Box 2

  Box 3

  Box 4

  Box 5

  Gender

  Male

  6

  41

  54

  *

  *

  Female

  11

  52

  37

  *

  *

  Ethnicity

  White

  9

  51

  40

  *

  *

  Other ethnic origin

  6

  41

  54

  *

  *

  Part-time/full-time

  Part-time

  4

  60

  36

  *

  *

  Full-time

  8

  46

  45

  *

  *

  Disability

  Yes

  *

  50

  50

  *

  *

  No

  8

  47

  45

  *

  *

  CCTA

  Grade

  A1

  *

  100

  *

  *

  A2

  13

  57

  30

  *

  B1

  10

  74

  16

  *

  B2

  9

  78

  9

  3

  B3

  12

  73

  15

  *

  C1

  9

  91

  *

  *

  C2

  29

  62

  10

  *

  C3

  13

  87

  *

  *

  D

  20

  80

  *

  *

  all Grades

  14

  72

  14

  *

  Gender

  Male

  13

  72

  14

  *

  Female

  15

  73

  12

  *

  Ethnicity

  White

  14

  73

  13

  *

  Other ethnic origin

  *

  80

  20

  *

  Part-time/full-time

  Part-time

  *

  80

  20

  *

  Full-time

  14

  73

  13

  *

  Disability

  Yes

  14

  73

  12

  *

  No

  13

  50

  37

  *

  Civil Service College

  Grade

  Zone 1 and 2

  8

  92

  *

  *

  Zone 3

  6

  60

  33

  *

  Zone 4

  36

  64

  *

  *

  Zone 5

  24

  68

  5

  3

  Zone 6

  9

  73

  17

  *

  Zone 7

  *

  36

  64

  *

  all Grades

  12

  66

  21

  *

  Gender

  Male

  6

  65

  28

  *

  Female

  16

  67

  16

  *

  Ethnicity

  White

  12

  67

  21

  *

  Other ethnic origin

  22

  44

  33

  *

  Part-time/full-time

  Part-time

  5

  81

  14

  *

  Full-time

  14

  63

  23

  *

  Disability

  The number of staff with a disability is too small to permit a detailed analysis

  The Civil Service College is confident that it meets the 4/5ths rule

  304

  Percentage

  Department/Agency

  Box 1

  Box 2

  Box 3

  Box 4

  Box 5

  Government Car and Despatch Agency

  Grade

  *

  86

  14

  *

  *

  The numbers of staff are too small to permit more detailed analysis, including the 4/5ths rule

  Property Advisers to the Civil Estate

  Grade

  Grade 6

  *

  55

  27

  18

  Grade 7

  8

  25

  38

  29

  SEO/SPTO

  *

  33

  33

  33

  HEO

  *

  38

  48

  14

  EO

  *

  15

  52

  33

  AO

  2

  20

  46

  33

  AA

  *

  *

  50

  50

  All Grades

  2

  24

  44

  30

  Gender

  Male

  2

  26

  41

  31

  Female

  *

  23

  47

  29

  Ethnicity

  White

  2

  25

  43

  30

  Other ethnic origin

  *

  17

  44

  39

  Part-time/full-time

  Part-time

  *

  20

  30

  50

  Full-time

  2

  25

  45

  29

  Disability

  The number of staff with a disability is too small to permit a detailed analysis

  The 4/5ths rule has not been applied

  The Buying Agency

  Grade

  Band 5/6

  17

  33

  50

  *

  Band 4

  *

  25

  75

  *

  Band 3

  *

  46

  54

  *

  Band 2

  *

  48

  48

  4

  Band 1

  5

  28

  67

  *

  all Grades

  3

  36

  61

  *

  Gender

  Male

  2

  35

  63

  *

  Female

  4

  37

  57

  2

  Ethnicity

  White

  2

  38

  60

  *

  Other ethnic origin

  20

  *

  80

  *

  Part-time/full-time

  Part-time

  *

  36

  64

  *

  Full-time

  3

  36

  60

  *

  Disability

  The number of staff with a disability is too small to permit a detailed analysis

  The 4/5ths rule has not been applied

  Percentage

  Box 1

  Box 2

  Box 3a

  Box 3b

  Box 4

  Box 5

  Central Office of Information

  Grade

  SCS and Directing grades

  8

  76

  8

  5

  3

  *

  Management A

  6

  66

  26

  2

  *

  *

  Management B

  2

  54

  40

  4

  *

  *

  Management C

  11

  55

  21

  13

  *

  *

  Support A

  3

  44

  46

  8

  *

  *

  Support B

  *

  38

  31

  25

  6

  *

  all Grades

  5

  58

  30

  6

  *

  *

  305

  Percentage

  Box 1

  Box 2

  Box 3a

  Box 3b

  Box 4

  Box 5

  Gender

  Male

  5

  58

  28

  7

  *

  *

  Female

  5

  58

  31

  5

  *

  *

  Ethnicity

  White

  5

  59

  29

  5

  *

  *

  Other ethnic origin

  5

  45

  35

  15

  *

  *

  Part-time/full-time

  Part-time

  *

  60

  40

  *

  *

  *

  Full-time

  5

  58

  29

  7

  *

  *

  Disability

  Yes

  *

  43

  43

  14

  *

  *

  No

  5

  59

  30

  6

  *

  *

  Note:

  The COI has developed its own systems for detecting potential adverse impact in the performance appraisal of its staff. However, retrospective application of the 4/5ths rule confirms that there appears to be no notable bias on the grounds of gender, ethnicity or disability within the limitations imposed by COI's small number of staff.

  The COI is a separate department which reports to the Minister for the Cabinet Office.

  Percentage

  A

  B

  C

  D

  E

  F

  G

  Security Facilities Division (formerly Security Facilities Executive)

  Grade

  Grade 7

  *

  25

  50

  12

  13

  *

  *

  SEO

  *

  6

  41

  41

  12

  *

  *

  HEO

  *

  5

  17

  65

  13

  *

  *

  EO

  *

  4

  34

  41

  21

  *

  *

  AO

  *

  5

  10

  33

  52

  *

  *

  AA

  4

  8

  4

  24

  60

  *

  *

  All Grades

  *

  6

  22

  38

  33

  *

  *

  Gender

  Male

  *

  5

  21

  41

  33

  *

  *

  Female

  3

  13

  28

  25

  31

  *

  *

  Ethnicity

  White

  *

  7

  22

  38

  33

  *

  *

  Other ethnic origin

  *

  *

  18

  45

  36

  *

  *

  The numbers of part-time and disabled staff are too small to permit detailed analysis

  Notes:

  The Security Facilities Division was until 1 July 1998 an Executive Agency of the Cabinet Office. It has now been integrated with the Department. Although the 4/5ths rule has not been used in monitoring performance standards, the results have been reviewed to ensure equality and consistency in report marking.

  Percentages are rounded to the nearest whole number. Asterisks are used for percentages less than 1.5.

  The Cabinet Office and its agencies have each developed their own appraisal systems. In each case the right hand column indicates unacceptable performance and the left hand column outstanding or excellent performance.

  Government Employees (Ethnic Monitoring)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will make a statement on the availability of records which monitor the number of ethnic minorities in Government offices; and what plans he has to publish the breakdown of Government employees by race and gender. [78121]
  306
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  Information on ethnic origin is collected through voluntary surveys in Departments and agencies. The information is treated in confidence, and to protect the privacy of individual staff in any statistical table, numbers relating to fewer than five people are not disclosed, though this policy is under review.

  Information about the ethnic origin and gender of employees is submitted quarterly by Departments and agencies to Mandate, the Cabinet Office's database of civil service personnel. Aggregate information about ethnic origin and gender is collected annually from those Departments and agencies who do not currently provide Mandate records. A service-wide analysis at 1 April each year is published in "Equal Opportunities in the Civil Service Data Summary". The information for 1998 was published in February 1999. We plan to publish the 1999 Data Summary towards the end of the year.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will list the special advisers who have left their posts since 1 January 1998, giving in each case(a) the reasons and (b) the name of their successor. [78257]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  Listed are the names of the Special Advisers who have left the Civil Service either as a result of resignation or through having their contracts terminated as a result of ministerial changes. The names of their successors are in brackets where appropriate:

  John Adams

  Wendy Alexander (Elsbeth Johnson)

  Tim Allan (Lance Price)

  Ruth Allen

  Lisa Barclay

  Tom Bentley

  James Cornford

  Jessica Crowe (David Mepham)

  Kate Davies

  Julian Eccles (Andy Burnham)

  Tony Grayling

  Daniel Harris (Dee Sullivan)

  Liz Kendall

  Cathy McGlynn

  John McTernan

  Marianne Morris

  Nick Pearce (Sue Jackson)

  Roz Preston

  Huw Roberts

  Norman Warner (Justin Russell)

  Benjamin Wegg-Prosser

  Damian Welfare

  Charles Whelan.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Attorney-General for what reason the Crown Prosecution Service did not meet the Government's target of producing an initial Year 2000 continuity plan by January; and for what reason it is not proposed to produce one until August. [78469]

  The Attorney-General
  From April 1999, the Crown Prosecution Service will be reorganised into 42 geographical CPS Areas. The reorganisation includes the appointment of 42 new Area Business Managers. The Crown Prosecution Service Year 2000 Project Board agreed that the production of Business Continuity Plans should await the appointment of the Area Business Managers as they will have a key role in the production, and operational ownership, of the Plans and business processes which the Plans must support.

  August 1999 has been set as a date for the production of CPS Year 2000 Business Continuity Plans. This is an achievable target which takes account of the re-organising of the CPS in April and will enable Plans to be in place well in advance of the end of the year.

DEFENCE

  RN Physiological Laboratory
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what experiments have been carried out at the Royal Navy Physiological Laboratory in the last 12 months; what animals were involved; and what was the purpose of the experiments. [65734]

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

  Letter from Sir John Chisholm to Mr. Mike Hancock, dated 24 March 1999:

  I have been asked to reply to your parliamentary question about the former Royal Navy Physiological Laboratory (RNPL) which is now part of the Centre for Human Sciences (CHS) Sector of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA). The Centre for Human Sciences is currently running a research programme for the Ministry of Defence to determine the pressure and time limits for the safe escape of Navy personnel from a sunken submarine. The programme is also looking at the best treatments to maximise the recovery of those injured whilst escaping.

  Goats are being used as the experimental model for this programme because their physiological behaviour in these circumstances approximates very closely to that of humans. In addition, we already have a substantial database of behavioural information from experiments with goats, thus minimising the number of new experiments needed.

  All proposed research work involving the use of animals is subjected to rigorous internal review. The animals are not immersed in water but are subjected to varying levels of atmospheric pressure whilst in a pressure chamber. They are continuously monitored during the experiment. The work is carried out strictly in accordance with the
  308
  requirements of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 which is administered by the Home Office. During 1998, 124 procedures were carried out using goats (1 animal = 1 procedure; but note that individual animals may take part in several procedures).

  In addition to the statutory controls already in place, the Ministry of Defence has established an independent committee to review arrangements for animal care at DERA sites carrying out work with animals and to advise on best practice. Its independent reports are made to the Chief Scientific Adviser to the Ministry of Defence.

  I hope the foregoing is helpful.

  Falklands Flights
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the effect the potential removal of the Lan Chile flight to and from the Falklands will have on the proposal to reduce Tristar flights to the islands. [77991]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  We regret the Chilean Government's decision to ask Lan Chile to suspend flights to the Falklands and do not believe this to be justified. We hope the Lan Chile will continue to fly to the Falklands. The reduction in the number of RAF Tristar Airbridge flights to the Falkland Islands was one of a range of efficiency proposals identified by the Strategic Defence Review. It represents a rationalisation of the use of Tristar aircraft, following technical improvements that allow them to carry an increased payload. Final arrangements for the implementation of this measure are still under consideration.

  Joint Training
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many joint training exercises were conducted by the Army with other countries in the past year; and which countries they were. [78119]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Seventeen training exercises have been conducted to date by the Army with other countries in the current financial year, involving personnel from the following countries:

  Australia

  Austria

  Azerbaijan

  Belgium

  Botswana

  Bulgaria

  Canada

  Czech Republic

  Denmark

  Finland

  Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia

  Georgia

  Germany

  Greece

  Hungary

  Italy

  309

  Jamaica

  Kenya

  Latvia

  Luxembourg

  Moldova

  Netherlands

  Norway

  Oman

  Poland

  Portugal

  Romania

  Slovakia

  Spain

  Turkey

  Ukraine

  USA.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many personnel were deployed on the jungle training exercises in Brunei carried out between 1 April 1997 and 31 March 1998. [76608]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The number of Royal Marine Command personnel deployed was 2,390 all ranks. In addition, 860 Gurkhas from the battalion in Burnei and 558 members of the Royal Brunei Armed Forces participated in the exercise.

  TA Recruitment
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what targets were set for the Territorial Army recruitment activities held on Saturday 13 March; and what assessment he has made of their impact. [78226]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The aim of the Territorial Army National Open Day on 13 March was to reinforce the messages of the spring national marketing campaign at regional and local levels. This was part of the drive to meet the target for recruitment into the TA for the next financial year which is estimated at up to 10,000 new recruits. We are currently assessing the day's effectiveness and early indications are that it has been successful in increasing awareness of the TA.

  TA Units (Wales)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the Territorial Army units in Wales, indicating which are classed as being in(a) North Wales and (b) South Wales. [78116]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 22 March 1999]: All Territorial Army units in Wales (current and future) can be found in the publication "Modem Forces for the Modern World: A Territorial Army for the Future"—Volume 2, a copy of which has been placed in the Library. TA units in the towns listed have been classified as either South or North as follows:

  South Wales

  North Wales

  Abergavenny

  Bangor

  Abertillery

  Caenarfon

  Aberystwyth1

  Colwyn Bay

  Brecon

  Llandudno

  Bridgend

  Prestatyn

  Cardiff

  Queensferry

  310

  South Wales

  North Wales

  Carmarthen

  Wrexham

  Cefn Fforest

  —

  Cwmbran

  —

  Gorseinon

  —

  Haverford West

  —

  Llanelli

  —

  Monmouth

  —

  Newport

  —

  Pentre

  —

  Pontypool

  —

  Pontypridd

  —

  Swansea

  —

  1 Aberystwyth is included in the list for South Wales because it is home to a University Officers' Training Corps which is affiliated to Cardiff University, and has a detachment of 203 Field Hospital, whose headquarters is in the South.

  Mission Statement
  Ms Dari Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress he has made towards a mission statement for his Department. [78854]

  Mr. George Robertson
  The objectives for the Ministry of Defence were included in the volume of Supporting Essays published as part of the Strategic Defence Review. I have since revised the language of these objectives to make them more simple and direct. The Mission Statement, which describes both the overall output and the main characteristics of the Ministry of Defence and Armed Forces, is as follows:The Defence Mission
  Purpose

  The purpose of the Ministry of Defence, and the Armed Forces, is to:

  defend the United Kingdom, and Overseas Territories, our people and interest;

  act as a force for good by strengthening international peace and security.

  How we achieve it

  To achieve this, we:

  make a vital contribution to Britain's security policy and its promotion at home and abroad;

  direct and provide a defence effort that meets the needs of the present, prepares for the future and insures against the unpredictable;

  generate modern, battle-winning forces and other defence capabilities to help;

  prevent conflicts and build stability;

  resolve crisis and respond to emergencies;

  protect and further UK interests;

  meet our commitments and responsibilities;

  work with Allies and partners to strengthen international security relationships.

  Success depends, above all, on our people. We must:

  recruit and retain the best people for the job from a diverse society;

  train, motivate and quip them properly;

  manage with care, ensuring that the demands on individuals and their families are reasonable;

  develop careers in defence and skills for life.

  In all this we must:

  make every pound count for defence to ensure that the defence budget is used to best effect;

  311

  develop a joint approach, harnessing the three Armed Services, defence civilians and all our resources to deliver the defence mission;

  be open, flexible and creative in the way we work;

  encourage British defence technology, science and industry;

  help protect the natural environment;

  be an active part of the wider community which we serve and in which we live.

  This Defence Mission is implemented through a series of supporting objectives, which were set out in the Strategic Defence Review White Paper.

  RAF Maintenance Group Defence Agency
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people are currently employed by the RAF Maintenance Group Defence Agency; what was the figure at its inception; on what date the RAF Maintenance Group Defence Agency published its report for 1997–98; and what was the cost of production of the report. [76880]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the RAF Maintenance Group Defence Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from K. J. M. Procter to Mr. Mike Hancock, dated 24 March 1999:

  Parliamentary question—numbers of people employed by the RAF maintenance group defence agency and the 1997–98 report

  1. I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence concerning the numbers of people employed by the RAF Maintenance Group Defence Agency (MGDA) currently and at its inception, the date of publication of the MGDA's report for 1997–98 and the cost of production of the report. As Acting Chief Executive of the MGDA, these matters fall within my area of responsibility.

  2. Currently, the MGDA employs some 6,750 people (2,200 Servicemen and 4,550 civilians). At its inception in 1991, the Agency employed some 13,600 people (7,800 Servicemen and 5,800 civilians). During this time, of course, the Agency had reduced substantially in size by transfers and closures from 12 RAF stations and a similar number of other aerosystems, supply and signals units in 1991 to just 3 RAF stations now.

  3. The MGDA's Annual Report and Accounts for 1997–98 was published on 8 July 1998 and copies placed in the libraries of both Houses of Parliament. The cost of production of the report was about £8,000.

  Armed Forces (Uniforms)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information and guidance his Department gives to the United Kingdom textile industry when planning procurement of uniforms and textiles for the armed forces. [77464]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 18 March 1999]: The Defence Clothing & Textiles Agency (DCTA) is bound by EC Regulations which require all contracts with a potential value of more than £160,670 to be advertised in the "European Journal". Requirements to the value of £250,000 are also advertised in the MOD Contracts Bulletin. The Defence Suppliers Service publishes a booklet entitled "Selling to the MOD" to assist all companies considering my Department as a potential market for their goods. Seminars, exhibitions and "Meet the Buyer" events are also organised. The DCTA held two separate day conferences for Contractors during 1998 and
  312
  more are planned—these attract predominately UK contractors. The DCTA also provides ad hoc advice on potential future purchases, and operates a system to debrief unsuccessful tenderers on why their bids were unsuccessful. These activities are designed to ensure that a competitive environment is maintained to meet our objective of achieving Value for Money in the procurement of textile goods.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what proportion of the expenditure by his Department on uniforms for the armed forces during the last three years went to companies in the United Kingdom; [77466]

  (2) how much his Department has spent on procurement of uniforms for the armed forces in the last three years. [77465]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 18 March 1999]: Total expenditure on all items of clothing for the past three years was £159.092 million, 76 per cent. of which went to UK companies.

  Iraq
  Mr. Baylyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer on Iraq of 18 March 1999,Official Report, column 810, what threats to the coalition came from the area of the Syrian Christian community of Ainawa, near Erdbil. [78368]

  Mr. George Robertson
  [holding answer 23 March 1999]: I am not aware of any threats to UK aircraft from the area of Erdbil.

  Recruitment
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the number of recruits to each of the armed services in each of the past three years for which figures are available; what the recruitment targets were; and whether current recruitment targets are being achieved. [77486]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The recruitment targets and achievements for each of the Armed Services over the last three completed financial years were:

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  Naval Service

  Target

  2,682

  4,607

  5,310

  Achievement

  (86%) 2,315

  (85%) 3,909

  (85%) 4,536

  Army

  Target

  15,805

  15,830

  16,504

  Achievement

  (75%) 11,785

  (91%) 14,366

  (89%) 14,658

  RAF

  Target

  2,814

  3,283

  4,163

  Achievement

  (92%) 2,601

  (88%) 2,877

  (92%) 3,839

  For the current financial year, the recruitment achievement to date is:

  Target

  Achievement (%)

  Naval Service

  5,088

  93

  Army

  16,446

  96

  RAF

  4,622

  95

  Military Exports (Private Flights)
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the RAF airfields from which private companies have exported goods in the last five years. [77250]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I have been asked to reply.

  HM Customs and Excise does not keep records of such information.

HEALTH

  Health Authority Debt
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the total debt(a) in cash terms and (b) as a percentage of income, of each trust and health authority at the end of each of the last five financial years. [76477]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 15 March 1999]: The information requested has been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list by NHS region the bad debts and claims abandoned by each health authority, for each of the last five years. [76486]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 15 March 1999]: Detailed information on bad debts and claims abandoned is not held centrally, but copies of expenditure by each health authority on these items has been placed in the Library.

  Barnet Health Authority additional funds from November 1998

  Date

  Purpose

  Amount (£000)

  1998–99

  13 November 1998

  1998–99 winter additions

  1,080

  8 December 1998

  colorectal cancer

  63

  21 December 1998

  waiting list performance fund

  217

  2 February 1999

  winter pressures contingency

  110

  1999–2000

  10 November 98

  cash uplift for 1999–2000 revenue allocations including modernisation funding as itemised below: waiting lists (£ 1,706k)

  12,899

  primary care group management costs (£886k)

  improving primary care (£501k)

  mental health (£440k)

  10 November 1998

  special allocation—drugs misuse

  94

  17 February 1999

  special assistance funding (last tranche)

  170

  Barnet Hospital
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the total capital cost of the approved scheme for Phase 1b at Barnet Hospital. [77581]

  Mr. Denham
  The total capital cost of the approved scheme for Phase 1b at Barnet General Hospital is £65.5 million.

  Drugs Dispensing
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received on permitting pharmacists to prescribe drugs; and if he will make a statement. [77842]

  Breast Screening Programme
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what contingency plans he has to implement the findings of the pilot studies on extending the routine call element of the breast screening programme to women aged 65 to 69 years, as soon as they are published in 2001. [77339]

  Mr. Hutton
  The decision whether or not to extend the breast screening programme to all women aged 65–69 will be taken by Ministers, advised by the National Screening Committee, in light of the evaluation of the final results of the three pilot studies.

  We recognise the pressures on the current programme due to increasing numbers of eligible women and staff shortages. In October 1998, the Chief Medical Officer set up a working group, with membership drawn from the relevant professional bodies, to look at these issues in more detail. He is currently considering their report.

  Barnet Health Authority
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what additional funds(a) have been made available, and (b) have been allocated for future use, to Barnet Health Authority since November 1998; and for what purposes these funds have been allocated. [77580]

  Mr. Denham
  The table shows the additional resources for Barnet Health Authority that have been announced since November 1998.

  Mr. Denham
  The possible prescribing of drugs by various professions, including pharmacists, is referred to in the final report of the Review of Prescribing, Supply and Administration of Medicines, which the Department issued on 8 March for consideration and comment. Copies of the report are available in the Library. We have also had preliminary discussions with various pharmacy, medical and nursing bodies about the possibility of community pharmacists supplying medicines—in particular those for certain minor illnesses—without prescriptions, but on the National Health Service.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received on the right of doctors to dispense drugs; and if he will make a statement. [77862]
  315
  Mr. Denham
  From time to time the Department receives representations from various parties about the rules governing the dispensing of National Health Service prescriptions by general practitioners in rural areas. In particular, departmental officials have recently met representatives of the General Practitioners Committee of the British Medical Association, the Dispensing Doctors Association and the Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee to discuss those organisations' ideas for changes to the relevant regulations.

  Care Standards
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects the proposed regional commissions for care standards to be introduced. [77908]

  Mr. Hutton
  We want to establish the Commissions for Care Standards as soon as possible; however this will require primary legislation and will depend on legislative time being available.

  Primary Care Boards
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his estimate of the extra administrative costs to the National Health Service of the introduction of primary care boards. [78134]

  Mr. Denham
  There will be no extra administrative costs to the National Health Service arising from the introduction of primary care groups. The combined health authority and PCG management costs will be less than the management costs of the previous system of HAs and general practitioner fundholders. This will contribute towards our commitment to deliver a £1 billion saving in NHS management costs over the life of this Parliament.

  HIV
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money he has allocated in the last year for which figures are available for research into the HIV virus in Great Britain. [78124]

  Ms Jowell
  Departmental expenditure on HIV/AIDS research in 1997–98 was £117,000 for wholly funded work and around £1.275 million on partly funded research. The National Health Service research and development levy is also used to support research and development in health care settings. Project details are not held centrally and some further HIV/AIDS work may be supported by this route.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people have the HIV virus in Great Britain. [78128]

  Ms Jowell
  It is currently estimated that there were around 25,000 HIV infected adults (age 15 years and over) alive at the end of 1997. This figure includes diagnosed and undiagnosed infections.

  Bovine Tuberculosis (Cheese)
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the policy of his Department in relation to stocks of cheese made with milk from a dairy herd which subsequently experiences an outbreak of bovine TB. [78110]
  316
  Ms Jowell
  The Dairy Products (Hygiene) Regulations 1995 require that raw cows milk shall come from animals belonging to a herd which is officially tuberculosis free, otherwise it may be sold for human consumption only after it has been heat treated.

  Where cheese has been made with heat treated milk there would be no food safety implications. However, in the case of cheese made from unpasteurised cows milk, the Department would liaise with food authorities to ensure that there were no public health implications or food safety risks before allowing the marketing of that cheese.

  Rowntree Report
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the Rowntree report's proposal to support food projects as a way to tackle health and social problems; and if he will make a statement. [78130]

  Ms Jowell
  This is an interesting and timely report. It is particularly relevant to the work currently being undertaken by the Social Exclusion Unit following the publication of its report "Bringing Britain together: a national strategy for neighbourhood renewal". The findings of the report funded by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation will also be useful in taking forward the twin aims of the Government's health strategy for England: improving health and tackling inequalities. These were set out in the green paper "Our Healthier Nation" and the white paper will be published shortly. As the Joseph Rowntree Foundation report points out, local food projects are just one way of improving access to food which may have long term health benefits in terms of enabling more people to make healthy eating choices. However, the other benefits of improving self confidence, self esteem, and self worth, which all contribute to give people and the communities they live in a sense of well being, are equally important in tackling inequalities and improving overall health.

  Milk (Food Poisoning)
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to ensure that food poisoning incidents attributable to a failure of the pasteurisation process are correctly recorded as emanating from imperfectly pasteurised milk rather than from unpasteurised milk; and if he will make a statement. [78111]

  Ms Jowell
  Investigations into food poisoning outbreaks are usually undertaken by the local authority and the Public Health Laboratory Service. If milk is identified as the source of an outbreak and the investigation is able to establish if the milk was unpasteurised, contaminated post-pasteurisation or subject to pasteurisation failure, then this information will be recorded.

  Hospitals (Accidents)
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what statistics his Department collates on accidents to in-patients in National Health Service hospitals. [78363]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 23 March 1999]: Information about accidents to in-patients is not available centrally. Individual National Health Service trusts are

  317
  responsible for keeping information on accidents involving patients and the general public on their premises.

  Mobile Phones
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to place a health warning on mobile phones. [77642]

  Mr. Wills
  I have been asked to reply.

  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) on 8 June 1998, Official Report, column 440.

  Mobile communications equipment should comply with the guidelines for restricting human exposure to electromagnetic fields of the National Radiological Protection Board. Whilst there has been renewed media interest in this subject there has been no new scientific evidence on which to base any changes to the guidelines.

  There are no plans to require mobile phones to have a health warning.

  Professional Regulation
  Ms Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what statutory protection is provided to the patients of (i) paramedics, (ii) chiropodists, (iii) physiotherapists, (iv) clinical psychologists, (v) occupational therapists and (vi) speech therapists in(a) the National Health Service and (b) the private sector; and what plans he has to introduce measures to provide additional protection. [75224]

  Mr. Denham
  [pursuant to his reply, 15 March 1999, c. 555–56]: I regret that my previous answer contained inaccurate information relating to the restrictions on National Health Service employment of clinical psychologists and proposals for statutory regulation. The revised reply is as follows.

  Chiropodists, physiotherapists and occupational therapists are regulated under the Professions Supplementary to Medicine Act 1960. It is an offence

  Date

  Destination

  Reason

  Personnel

  £

  1997

  12–14 May

  Cannes

  Launch Scottish Film Day

  Sam Galbraith, Private Secretary and 2 officials

  4,160

  19–20 May

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  Lord Sewel and Private Secretary

  1,480

  1–2 June

  Brussels

  Meet EU Commissioners

  Lord Sewel, Private Secretary and official

  1,980

  25–27 June

  Luxembourg

  Education Council

  Brian Wilson and Private Secretary

  1,630

  20–21 August

  Santiago

  Attend Celtic Watersports Festival and tourism promotion

  Brian Wilson and Private Secretary

  1,685

  2–4 September

  Copenhagen

  Study tour of Danish sport participation and school sports

  Sam Galbraith, Private Secretary and official

  2,305

  20–28 September

  USA

  Inward investment and trade promotion

  Secretary of State and Private Secretary

  13,060

  8–9 October

  Brussels

  Fact finding mission for Scottish Parliament

  Secretary of State, Private Secretary and 5 officials

  3,980

  4–10 October

  Hong Kong, Taiwan and Japan

  Inward investment and trade promotion

  Brian Wilson, Private Secretary and official

  25,070

  5–6 October

  Munich

  Fact finding mission for Scottish Parliament

  Henry McLeish, Private Secretary and 4 officials

  4,910

  7–9 October

  Oslo and Tampere

  Meet Norwegian and Finnish Ministers to discuss Agriculture, Fisheries, Forestry and the Environment

  Lord Sewel, Private Secretary and 3 officials

  5,935

  16 October

  Luxembourg

  Environmental Council

  Lord Sewel, Private Secretary and official

  3,145

  318
  to pretend to be registered under that Act. In addition, employment in the National Health Service is restricted to those who are registered under the Act. We plan to replace the Act with new legislation to improve public protection, including restricting the use of common professional title to registered practitioners wherever they work.

  NHS employment of speech and language therapists is restricted to members of the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists. NHS employment of paramedics is restricted to those who have a qualification accredited by the Institute of Health Care Development. We are currently considering petitions to extend the 1960 Act to these two professions.

  NHS employment of clinical psychologists is restricted to those who are eligible for registration as a Chartered Psychologist with the British Psychological Society. The Society manages a voluntary register under the auspices of the Privy Council.

  The Health Bill, currently before Parliament, contains proposals for the strengthening of professional self-regulation.

SCOTLAND

  Overseas Travel
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list, for each overseas trip by his Ministers and officials, since 1 May 1997(a) the individuals who travelled, (b) the total costs of the trip broken down as available, (c) the destination of the trip and (d) the reason for the trip; and if he will make a statement. [69253]

  Mr. Dewar
  [holding answer 4 February 1999]: All overseas visits by Ministers are conducted in accordance with the principles set out in the Ministerial Code. Information in the form requested is not held centrally and could be collated only at disproportionate cost. The figures given are estimates of costs attributable to officials. In accordance with convention the names of officials who accompany a Minister have not been given.
  319

  Date

  Destination

  Reason

  Personnel

  £

  20–21 October

  Luxembourg

  Agriculture Council

  Lord Sewel and Private Secretary

  1,345

  20–22 October

  Ireland

  Gaelic related issues

  Brian Wilson

  500

  29–31 October

  Luxembourg

  Fisheries Council

  Lord Sewel, Private Secretary and 2 officials

  3,160

  19–20 November

  Brussels

  Education Council

  Brian Wilson, Private Secretary and official

  1,590

  1–2 December

  Brussels

  Give St. Andrew's Day Lecture and meet EU Commissioner

  Secretary of State, Private Secretary and official

  1,315

  8 December

  Luxembourg

  ESDP Bilaterals

  Malcolm Chisholm, Private Secretary and 2 officials

  2,465

  17–18 December

  Brussels

  Fisheries Council

  Lord Sewel, Private Secretary and official

  2,140

  1998

  12–13 January

  Copenhagen and Stockholm

  ESDP Bilateral

  Calum Macdonald, Private Secretary and 2 officials

  2,100

  20–22 January

  Helsinki and Bonn

  ESDP Bilateral

  Calum Macdonald, Private Secretary and 2 officials

  2,900

  25–26 February

  Paris

  ESDP Bilateral

  Calum Macdonald, Private Secretary and official

  900

  11–12 March

  Dublin

  ESDP Bilateral

  Calum Macdonald, Private Secretary and 2 officials

  1,200

  12–14 March

  Madrid, Toledo and Barcelona

  Fact finding visit for Scottish Parliament

  Secretary of State, Private Secretary and 2 officials

  3,500

  24 March

  Brussels

  Fisheries Council

  Lord Sewel, Private Secretary and official

  1,150

  25–27 March

  Nice

  METREX

  Calum Macdonald, Private Secretary and official

  1,800

  2 April

  Paris

  ESDP Bilateral

  Calum Macdonald, Private Secretary and 2 officials

  1,300

  14–16 April

  Helsinki

  Fact finding visit for Scottish Parliament

  Henry McLeish, Private Secretary and 3 officials

  4,800

  25–30 April

  USA

  Inward investment promotion

  Brian Wilson, Private Secretary and official

  15,000

  28 April

  Brussels

  European Seafood Exposition

  Lord Sewel, Private Secretary and official

  1,900

  29–30 April

  Luxembourg

  Health Council

  Sam Galbraith, Private Secretary and 2 officials

  2,400

  22 May

  Catania

  Conference of Peripheral Maritime Regions

  Calum Macdonald, Private Secretary and official

  2,200

  27 May

  Brussels

  Communicable Diseases Council

  Sam Galbraith, Private Secretary and official

  1,100

  1–4 June

  Lisbon

  European Forestry Ministers Conference

  Lord Sewel and Private Secretary

  1,800

  3–4 June

  Luxembourg

  Education Council

  Brian Wilson, Private Secretary and official

  1,700

  8 June

  Luxembourg

  Fisheries Council

  Lord Sewel, Private Secretary and 3 officials

  4,400

  10–11 June

  Paris

  Attend Opening Match of FIFA World Cup Finals

  Secretary of State, Private Secretary and 1 official

  1,400

  14–17 June

  Bordeaux

  Trade promotion and attend FIFA World Cup Match

  Brian Wilson and Private Secretary

  1,200

  17–19 June

  Strasbourg, Brussels and Bonn

  Meet Ministers to discuss European affairs and structural funds

  Calum Macdonald, Private Secretary and official

  2,700

  23–24 June

  St. Etienne

  Attend FIFA World Cup Match

  Calum Macdonald and official

  500

  25–27 June

  Prague

  Meet European Education Ministers

  Brian Wilson, Private Secretary and 2 officials

  3,950

  9–12 September

  Kuala Lumpur

  Attend Commonwealth Games

  Sam Galbraith, Private Secretary and official

  14,355

  21–22 October

  Luxembourg

  Fisheries Council

  Calum Macdonald, Private Secretary

  1,130

  13–15 November

  Granada

  Attend British-Spanish Tertulias

  Secretary of State and Private Secretary

  2,025

  23–24 November

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  Lord Sewel, Private Secretary and official

  1,880

  23–25 November

  Munich and Helsinki

  Address Scotland Bavaria Forum and meet Finnish Env. Affairs Minister

  Calum Macdonald, Private Secretary and official (Helsinki only)

  3,545

  17–18 December

  Brussels

  Fisheries Council

  Lord Sewel and Private Secretary

  1,275

  21 December

  Brussels

  Environment Council

  Lord Sewel and Private Secretary

  1,045

  1999

  7–8 February

  Gothenberg

  Meet Volvo senior managers

  Lord Macdonald, Private Secretary and official

  1,110

  8–10 February

  Strasbourg

  Visit European Parliament and address MEPs on devolution issues

  Secretary of State, Private Secretary and 4 officials

  5,115

  16 February

  Bonn

  Meet German Finance Minister

  Secretary of State, Private Secretary and 2 officials

  2,440

  22–26 February

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  Lord Sewel, Private Secretary and 2 officials

  2,635

  320 321
  The cost of these visits is part of this Administration's expenditure on ministerial overseas travel which in 1997–98 was £6.1 compared to £7.8 million in the last year of the previous administration.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the total number of occasions when(a) departmental and (b) non-departmental special advisers have travelled abroad in an official capacity since 2 May 1997.[76823]

  Mr. Dewar
  [holding answer 19 March 1999]: Since 2 May 1997, my Special Advisers have made visits overseas on four occasions in an official capacity. All such travel complied with the requirements of the Ministerial Code and the Civil Service Management Code.

  Means-tested Benefits
  Mrs. Laing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people(a) aged 15 to 25 years,

  Housing Benefit (HB) and Council Tax Benefit (CTB) recipients by age of claimant excluding claimants of IS, JSA (IB), FC and DWA—Scotland

  Aged 15–25

  Aged 26–40

  Aged 41–65

  All recipients

  HB

  CTB

  HB

  CTB

  HB

  CTB

  HB

  CTB

  May 1992

  7

  n/a

  23

  n/a

  71

  n/a

  228

  n/a

  May 1993

  8

  3

  20

  18

  68

  70

  211

  258

  May 1994

  6

  3

  18

  12

  64

  67

  199

  235

  May 1995

  6

  3

  17

  17

  62

  70

  185

  233

  May 1996

  8

  3

  20

  16

  60

  70

  183

  223

  May 1997

  4

  2

  19

  19

  59

  72

  176

  225

  Provisional May 1998

  4

  2

  20

  20

  55

  71

  168

  224

  Notes:

  1.In general, children below the age of 18 are not entitled to benefit. Young people aged 16–17 can receive IS or JSA (IB) if they satisfy the conditions of entitlement and are in one of a number of a categories.

  2.It has not been possible to provide a single figure representing the number of means-tested benefit recipients in Scotland. This is due to the fact that an individual may be in receipt of more than one means-tested benefit and it has not been possible to remove all overlaps between HB and CTB in Scotland due to the data collection procedure.

  3.We estimate however that approximately 65 per cent. of HB recipients also receive CTB.

  4.Figures are rounded to the nearest thousand and as such totals may not sum.

  5.IS, JSA and FC figures are based on a 5 per cent. sample of benefits claimants. CTB and HB estimates are based on a 1 per cent. sample of Housing Benefit Management System and are subject to a degree of sampling error. DWA is based on a 100 per cent. scan of all DWA claimants.

  6.Estimates are based on samples taken at May of each of the years.

  7.Figures are not available for DWA as at May 1992.

  8.IS figures prior to October 1996 include unemployed claimants.

  9.Information refers to benefit units.

  10.The information on HB and CTB does not include second adult rebate cases.

  Sources:

  Housing Benefit Management System, annual 1 per cent. sample inquiries taken in May of each year shown.

  Houses in Multiple Occupation
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what conclusions the Government have drawn from its consultations on proposals for the introducing of Mandatory Licensing of Houses in Multiple Occupation in Scotland.[78858]
  322
  (b) aged 26 to 40 years, (c) aged 41 to 65 years and (d) in total received a means-tested benefit in Scotland in each year since 1992.[77771]

  Angela Eagle
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information requested is set out in the tables.

  Income Support (IS), Income-based Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA(IB)), Family Credit (FC) and Disability Working Allowance (DWA) recipients by age of claimant, excluding any overlaps between these benefits, for Scotland: 1992–98

  Thousands

  Number of benefit recipients

  Aged 15 to 25

  Aged 26 to 40

  Aged 41 to 65

  All recipients

  May 1992

  125

  177

  138

  566

  May 1993

  117

  193

  146

  599

  May 1994

  116

  206

  156

  621

  May 1995

  113

  212

  159

  623

  May 1996

  110

  213

  163

  625

  May 1997

  95

  204

  162

  596

  May 1998

  89

  198

  164

  583

  Notes:

  1. DWA 100 per cent. count of claims.

  2. FC 5 per cent. sample of awards.

  Sources:

  1. IS Statistics Quarterly Enquiries, May 1992 to May 1998.

  2. Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA) Statistics Quarterly Enquiries, May 1997 to May 1998.

  Mr. Dewar
  Some 86 bodies and individuals to the Consultation Paper on the Mandatory Licensing of Houses in Multiple Occupation which was issued last year. The overwhelming majority of those responding supported the case for making it mandatory for all local authorities in Scotland to introduce licensing of houses in multiple occupation.
  323
  The Consultation Paper also sought views on the best way of implementing mandatory licensing and the scope of any licensing scheme. In the light of the responses to the consultation paper, we believe that mandatory licensing of houses in multiple occupation should be introduced initially by means of an Order under the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 although it may be desirable to introduce new primary legislation in the longer term.

  We envisage that any licensing scheme should be based on a definition of a house in multiple occupation as a house which is the only or principal residence of a specified number of persons who are not all members of one family or one or other of two families. We also envisage that there would be a staged implementation of the licensing by progressively reducing the number of specified persons so that the largest houses in multiple occupation would be licensed first but, over time, all houses in multiple occupation would be included in the scheme. The activity to be licensed would be the letting of premises as a house in multiple occupation but we believe that the definition should be extended to include other situations where occupancy rights in houses in multiple occupation are granted, outside of conventional lets.

  We have also given careful consideration to the views of consultees on the need for exemptions from the proposed licensing scheme and we believe that the only categories of houses in multiple occupation that should be exempted are those owned by local authorities (since local authorities will be bodies responsible for enforcement) and residential and nursing homes which are already subject to registration and enforcement by the local authority or health board.

  The Consultation Paper sought views on a number of possible modifications of licensing procedures linked to the use of the powers under the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982. There was strong support for the proposal to extend the period during which an application for a new licence might be considered by the local authority to ensure that applicants have sufficient time to undertake remedial works specified as licensing conditions before a licence is granted. There was also support for granting an authorised officer of a local authority, with the approval of the Court, the power to enter and search premises where there are reasonable grounds for believing that it is being let as a house in multiple occupation but without a licence. We believe that both of these changes should be incorporated into the proposed Order and that account should also be taken of the suggestion, made by some consultees, to exempt women's refuges from the public notification procedures in the 1982 Act to help safeguard the anonymity of this particular type of house in multiple occupation.

  We consider that a licensing system along these lines would give increased protection to tenants without penalising those responsible landlords who are already providing satisfactory housing. We hope that the Scottish Parliament will give early priority to these proposals and their detailed implementation would be taken forward in consultation with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and other relevant interests.

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

  Select Committee Reports
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if(a) he, (b) civil servants in his Department or (c) special advisers in his Department have (i) had sight of drafts of Select Committee reports, in whole or in part, or (ii) been informed of conclusions of Select Committee reports prior to their publication by the Select Committees.[75874]

  Mr. Dewar
  On 26 November 1998, the Glasgow Herald newspaper printed what it claimed were extracts from the then unpublished report of an inquiry into "The operation of multi-layer democracy" by the Scottish Affairs Select Committee. This provoked widespread media coverage and comment on that and subsequent days, and I was approached for comment by many journalists.

  Inquiries established that the Committee had made its report to the House on 18 November. By 26 November the report was with the printers, and it was published on 2 December 1998. I received protests from members of the Committee about the way in which the contents of the report were being reported. My own initial comments reflected those concerns.

  I made it clear to those members of the Committee to whom I spoke that my only concern was to assess the accuracy of the press reports by then appearing in many newspapers. A member of the Committee supplied me with extracts from the report which confirmed that the extensive quotations contained in the media coverage were accurate but not complete. In particular, the Glasgow Herald had not chosen to report the Report's single conclusion, that
  "we wholeheartedly welcome the Scottish Parliament and Executive and wish them all possible success".

  Neither I nor anyone acting on my behalf made any attempt nor had any opportunity to influence the Committee's consideration of the report nor the terms of the report itself. Neither did I nor anyone acting on my behalf comment on the report in advance of its publication other than in response to the publication of extracts from a leaked copy by the Glasgow Herald

  Neither I nor ministerial colleagues in the Scottish Office nor our parliamentary private secretaries have seen drafts of any other Select Committee reports, nor of parts of reports including their conclusions, before publication. Nor to the best of my knowledge have there been any other occasions on which such material has been given to civil servants or special advisers in my Department. This excludes embargoed copies of reports, including the report published on 2 December 1998, issued under House of Commons Standing Orders.

  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a of list leaked Select Committee documents that reached(a) him, (b) his Ministers, (c) his officials, (d) his advisers and (e) departmental parliamentary private secretaries during (i) 1997, (ii) 1998 and (iii) 1999.[77929]

  Mr. Dewar
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave today to the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean),Official Report, column 324. I know of no other such documents.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Meat Hygiene Service
  Mrs. Fiona Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to introduce training programmes for OVS level staff in the Meat Hygiene Service.[62783]

  Mr. Rooker
  Official Veterinary Surgeons (OVSs) are qualified veterinary surgeons. The veterinary undergraduate course is approximately five years and is extensive and intensive. It incorporates training in microbiology, pathology, veterinary public health and zoonotic disease. In addition, and before commencing as OVSs, veterinary surgeons are required to undertake the OVS accreditation course. This provides refresher training in meat hygiene and inspection, animal welfare and relevant legislation.

  The MHS also launched its Continuing Professional Development (CPD) programme in April 1997 as a mechanism for addressing the training and professional development needs of OVSs. In partnership with various training providers, the MHS provides at least two days training per year to facilitate CPD to ensure that the skills and knowledge of OVSs are up to date. OVSs must undertake a minimum of a further three days CPD obtained from other sources such as the Veterinary Public Health Association/British Veterinary Association Conferences and other commercially provided CPD.

  Training in enforcement, assertiveness and other management skills continues to form part of the MHS's ongoing training programme for OVSs.

  Badger Culling
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about Crown immunity in relation to the randomised badger culling trial.[67012]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Protection of Badgers Act 1992 does not bind the Crown. Therefore, in the context of the trial, the licence requirements contained in the Act do not apply to the Minister. The trial is taking place with the agreement of landowners as part of a wide-ranging approach to dealing with an increasing and urgent bovine TB problem. It is being conducted by Ministry staff in designated areas in accordance with the recommendations of the Independent Scientific Group chaired by Professor Bourne, which take account of welfare concerns.

  Horticulture and Fruit Industry
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list those(a) schemes and (b) initiatives which have been introduced by the public and the private sector during the last five years that have been aimed at improving quality standards in the horticulture and fruit industry.[66496]

  Mr. Rooker
  The reformed fruit and vegetable regime emphasises the importance of maintaining and improving quality. Actions to achieve that objective may attract financial assistance within agreed operational programmes. We expect that such programmes will have received in total some £6.5m in the UK in respect of 1998.
  326
  In addition, the Horticultural Marketing Inspectorate continues to assist the sector to achieve the standard required by EU legislation.

  I am not responsible for initiatives in the private sector, but I would commend the Assured Produce Scheme which has been set up by the National Farmers Union and which has the strong support of the multiple retailers.

  Primate Imports (Research)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many primates imported to the United Kingdom in 1998 for research purposes from(a) China, (b) Mauritius, (c) Indonesia and (d) the Philippines were (i) found to be dead on arrival and (ii) suffered serious injury during transit.[69283]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 4 February 1999]: All primates imported into the UK are required to undergo six months in quarantine. Following arrival in the quarantine premises, the Veterinary Surgeon or Medical Supervisor appointed to the premises completes reports on the health of the animals on arrival. During 1998, all primates imported from China, Mauritius and the Philippines were reported as being found healthy on arrival. There were no primates imported into the UK from Indonesia during 1998.

  Food Sampling
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what action his Department has taken in the past two years when the rates of(a) food sampling and (b) food analysis by local authorities, in relation to their statutory duties on food law, have fallen;[77512]

  (2) if he will list the occasions on which he has taken action in respect of a local authority which failed to take sufficient or appropriate samples of food in relation to its statutory duties under food law in the last five years. [77952]

  Mr. Rooker
  Local authorities whose sampling rates fall below acceptable levels are sent a written reminder of their obligations by the Ministry. To date there have been no occasions when action has been required under section 42 of the Food Safety Act 1990.

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) how much money was(a) allocated to and (b) spent by each individual local authority in each of the financial years 1989–90 to 1997–98 on the sampling and analysis of food, pursuant to their statutory duty;[77499]

  (2)how much money was spent in each year between 1989–90 and 1997–98 and in 1998–99 to date by local authorities on their statutory duties in relation to food; and what percentage this was of the total sum provided in the standard spending assessment for each of those financial years for the enforcement of the law in relation to food control;[77522]

  (3)how much was spent, in each of the financial years since 1989–90, by local authorities in relation to (i) food sampling and (ii) food analysis;[77536]
  327
  Mr. Rooker
  Enforcement of Food Law remains with local authorities and we do not hold figures on local authority expenditure on food control centrally.

  Live Animals (Transportation)
  Mr. Prosser
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will introduce legislation requiring the master of a vessel carrying live farm animals to submit a written return on animals(a) injured and (b) dying during the voyage; and if he will make a statement.[77948]

  Mr. Morley
  I have no plans to introduce such a requirement, which would seem to be of minimal value in relation to roll-on/roll-off vessels. On the other hand, a requirement on these lines may be worthy of consideration when negotiations start on the proposals for detailed rules on specialist livestock vessels which the EU Commission is currently drawing up.

  Mr. Prosser
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what criteria he applies in deciding whether to use his powers under the Welfare of Animals (Transport) Order 1997 to prevent a vessel carrying live farm animals from sailing in adverse weather conditions; and if he will make a statement.[77947]

  Mr. Morley
  These powers are granted by WATO 1997 to Inspectors appointed as such by the Minister or by the local authority. MAFF Inspectors have comprehensive guidance covering the use of these powers in relation to rough weather sailings. I am placing a copy in the Library.

  Mr. Prosser
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for what reasons the 'Cap Afrique' was allowed to sail in adverse weather conditions with live farm animals on board on 3 March; and if he will make a statement.[77945]

  Mr. Morley
  I presume my hon. Friend is referring to the voyage by the 'Cap Afrique' on 2 March. In the light of prevailing conditions, and after discussion with the master of the vessel, MAFF inspectors at the quayside were of the view that they did not have grounds for serving a notice prohibiting transport under Article 18 of the Welfare of Animals (Transport) Order 1997. A MAFF veterinarian accompanied the animals on the voyage and concluded that the animals were transported in compliance with the 1997 Order. I am placing a report in the Library.

  Minister for Science
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which meetings he has attended since July 1998 at which the Minister for Science was present where GM foods or crops were discussed.[73125]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 25 February 1999]: None.

  Genetically Modified Crops
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy to require segregation of genetically modified crops from other crops imported into the United Kingdom under the WTO rules relating to the right to protect human health and the application of the precautionary principle.[78255]
  328
  Mr. Rooker
  All genetically modified (GM) crops which are permitted to be imported into the UK have been approved following a rigorous assessment of their safety. It is therefore not possible to require segregation under WTO rules.

  Fisheries Council
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish the agenda for the forthcoming EC Fisheries Council of 30 March. [78395]

  Mr. Morley
  The agenda for the Council is expected to cover an orientation debate on proposals for reform of fisheries structural funds; a Commission presentation of its proposals for reform of the common market organisation in fisheries products and on the listing of serious infringements of EU fisheries controls; and adoption of autonomous tariff quotas for fisheries products.

  I shall represent the UK and will be asking the Commission under Any Other Business for a report on progress on the allocation of new quotas for shrimp, spurdog and blue whiting and on the introduction of closed areas for sandeels.

  Farmland Access (Horseriders)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to provide financial assistance to those farmers who provide new opportunities for access to their land by horseriders; and if he will make a statement.[78220]

  Mr. Morley
  Payments are available for farmers who provide voluntary access for horseriders on their land under the Countryside Stewardship Scheme. Agreements are for 10 years. An independent evaluation of the access provisions under the agri-environment schemes, including the Countryside Stewardship Scheme, was carried out in 1998. This will form the basis of a review including consideration of access for horseriders under Countryside Stewardship in future.

  Regional Development Funding
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the total budget for the EAGGF South West Objective 5b Area for Devon and Cornwall; how much money has been received by the Government in respect of the fund; what is the actual amount spent; and what is the balance as yet unspent.[78372]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 23 March 1999]: The total EAGGF allocation for the South West Objective 5b area is £30.14 million. Of this 89.5 per cent. has been committed to projects. £6.33 million has been spent by projects to date. The unspent balance is £23.81 million. Advances of EAGGF funds are paid when expenditure trigger points are reached. So far £1.94 million has been received and a further payment of 9.26 million euros (approximately £6.59 million) is being processed by the Commission.

  Tridemorph
  Mr. Bradshaw
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action the Government are taking in respect of the pesticide Tridemorph. [78922]
  329
  Mr. Rooker
  The independent Advisory Committee on Pesticides has considered new scientific information and has identified a possible risk of harm to the unborn child if the mother is exposed to high levels of the fungicide tridemorph while working with the compound.

  The Government's first priority is human safety. We therefore acted on 19 March to impose, with immediate effect, stringent measures designed to minimise the risk of harmful exposure. These include engineering controls and protective clothing as well as restrictions on the maximum dose and the way in which it may be applied to the crop. We are also requiring those companies that market the pesticide to mount an active information campaign to inform pesticide users of the issues and the action which they should take.

  Genetic Modification
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what response the Government have made to the House of Lords European Communities Committee report of Session 1998–99 on EC regulation of genetic modification in agriculture (HL 11).[78923]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Government have welcomed the Report as making an important contribution to the intense debate on the regulation of GMOs in agriculture through the presentation of a balanced and considered perspective on the key issues surrounding the application of biotechnology in agriculture and food production.
  330
  The Government's response in particular welcomes a number of the Committees's recommendations. It makes the point that vigorous and wide-ranging assessment of risks to the environment and human health must continue to form the foundations of the regulatory process and that the Government are committed to ensuring that risk assessment provisions are strengthened and extended to include indirect and delayed environmental monitoring on the grounds that this will allow a clear picture to be built up of the environmental effects of GMOs, and enable the assumptions in the risk assessment to be verified.

  The response further welcomes the Committee's recommendations on labelling and makes it clear that the Government are pressing the European Commission to develop further proposals on thresholds for adventitious contamination and a list of materials from GM crops that will not require labelling.

  Finally, the response states that the effective and timely revision of Directive 90/220 on the deliberate release into the environment of GMOs is a major priority for the Government. It offers the opportunity to reinforce the existing legislation to secure full protection for human health and the environment, while providing a stable and predictable regime which will maintain UK and EU competitiveness in the commercial exploitation of biotechnology and genome research. The European Parliament adopted its first reading Opinion in February 1999. The Government welcome the Opinion, and support the Parliament's call for moves to reach a common position shortly.

  A copy of the Government's response is available in the Library of the House.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lard Bishop of Lincoln.): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
The Earl of Jersey—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his grandfather.

Cyclists: Observance of Traffic Lights
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Geddes, and at his request, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in his name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether there are any circumstances in which the law permits cyclists to ignore red traffic lights.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, no.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that clear response. Could not the police take more vigorous steps to support the law and prosecute more cyclists who jump traffic lights and maim and injure people, as happened to my noble friend Lord Clark? How many cyclists—if any—have been prosecuted for jumping traffic lights and maiming and injuring people?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, such statistics are kept by the police authority area and I am therefore unable to give a national figure. As the noble Lord implies, the figure is relatively small. Cyclists are subject to exactly the same restrictions as vehicular traffic, but police enforcement is more difficult. However, it is also true that in terms of accident statistics the number of people injured is extremely small compared with the number of those injured by motor traffic.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I have been a cyclist for many years—and, of course, I have never been through a red light? Does my noble friend agree that when traffic junctions are made cyclist-friendly by providing cycle lanes and signals, cycling becomes safer and more attractive and the behaviour of motor car drivers is modified?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am well aware of my noble friend's interest and recreation as a cyclist, and even more so of his law-abiding nature. He is correct in saying that where road space allows it is better to provide dedicated cycle routes. Some local authorities may have decided at some junctions that it is better to allow cyclists to move closer to the lights. However, that does not imply that they have any greater freedom
1286
to ignore the light signals. Those road markings and dedicated routes are a major contribution towards road safety and encouragement of cycling.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, I am sorry to see that the noble Lord has a bad arm. I hope that he has not fallen off his bike. Does a cyclist dismounting and walking from one pavement to another constitute a bicycle crossing the red light or a pedestrian with a cycle crossing a red light?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his solicitude. My injury is nothing to do with cycling either as a victim or as a cyclist. The question he raises probably requires a written reply. I understand that if one is pushing one's bike in most circumstances one is regarded as a pedestrian. However, I shall clarify that in writing.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, as regards the Minister's initial Answer, would a police constable on a push bike going across a red light be breaking the law whereas his colleague doing so in a panda car would not?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that question. I understand—again the answer is subject to clarification—that no vehicle is allowed to cross traffic lights. There are, however, mitigating circumstances in relation to police in pursuit. I believe that that is the answer.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many of the tantalising problems with which he is being asked to deal could be resolved if we had something like the law of Switzerland where pedestrians are not allowed to ignore the red light?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the laws in this country regarding pedestrians are not as tight as those in Switzerland and the observance of signals is not as effective. However, the reality is that enforcement problems and police priorities would prohibit too much attention to creating new offences for pedestrians in this country and would not constitute a great deal to road safety.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, perhaps I may assist the Minister. A cyclist wheeling his cycle remains a vehicle and does not become a pedestrian unless he carries it above his head. Perhaps I may further assist my noble friend. The only way to deal with cyclists is to follow the practice in China where all cyclists have index numbers and can therefore be traced.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am grateful for my noble friend's clarification from her vast experience of these matters. Even in her experience, I am not sure how many cyclists she has seen carrying cycles over their heads.
Registration would be an enormous administrative effort for few results. Given that a large proportion of the 20 million cyclists are children, there would be

1287
difficulty in identification and it would not contribute substantially to road safety. In the days when the cycle was the primary means of transport in China, things may have been different. In this country, registration would be a diversion of administrative and police resources.
Lord Annan: My Lords, is the Minister surprised at the number of Questions asked in the House over the past few months concerning cyclists? Hardly ever is a Starred Question asked about motorists' behaviour. I refer to road rage and the fact that a motorist may mow down and kill a child and then be fined £200 for careless driving. There are other offences concerned with parking which always seem to arouse great fervour and irritation on behalf of the motorist. Does the noble Lord think that that is an indication of the class war?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am not sure I can make that analysis. However, in response to the first point, I initially found the strength of feeling in this House for and against cyclists somewhat odd. The prime road safety problem in this country relates to driver behaviour and driver error. We are looking at road safety strategy in my department. We hope to draw up a comprehensive road strategy before the end of this year. The main attention will be on motorists and those who are affected by motorists although we shall not ignore the situation of motor cyclists and pedal cyclists. However, the balance in this House has on occasion seemed to me to be inappropriate.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, is there any law which permits bicyclists to ride on pavements?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, no. In general, bicyclists should not be on the pavements. However, there are some pavements which have been designated dual purpose by local authorities.
Viscount Falkland: My Lords, does the Minister agree that spending 20 minutes outside your Lordships' House is quite instructive, especially of an evening? One sees cyclists not only going through red lights but also not having lights on their bicycles. However, one sees police vigilance where bus lane discipline is concerned. Are not these matters getting slightly out of proportion?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I believe that the vast majority of cyclists, even in our city at going home-time, are law abiding and observe the law in relation to lights and traffic lights. Of course, a significant number do not, but they create a substantially smaller problem than motorists who fail to observe the law. Those motorists create their own road safety problems and, indeed, contribute substantially to the number of injuries in this country whereas, by and large, with a few unfortunate exceptions, cyclists do not.

Liberia
2.41 p.m.
Lord Avebury Lord Avebury asked Her Majesty's Government:
What evidence they have for their statement that Liberia has been supporting the rebels in Sierra Leone with military supplies.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, we have no doubt that Liberia had been supporting the rebels in Sierra Leone with military supplies. The intelligence we have is clear and specific, but I know the House will understand that I cannot go into detail. Perhaps I may add that we are not alone in that view. Our view on the matter is shared widely across the international community.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, does the Minister consider it contrary to natural justice to make serious accusations against the head of a friendly state without producing one shred of evidence to support them? Does she agree that when the Foreign Minister of Liberia went to see the Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook, recently, he asked him what the evidence was? He also asked the State Department when he went there and it would not even disclose it to him in private.
Is the Minister aware that when he made inquiries of friends in the United States they told him that the State Department purported to have photographs showing lorries carrying weapons crossing the international frontier between Sierra Leone and Liberia, but that there is only one crossing place along the whole of that 250-mile border, along which runs the Mano river; that is, at a bridge manned by the ECOMOG forces? Therefore, how can the Minister say that such weapons and troops are transported across the international frontier?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I shall not comment on aerial photographs. I did not mention them; mey were mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. As I indicated, I cannot comment on the evidence we have. However, I did say that it was conclusive and wide. It should be noted—I stress this and shall go into a little more detail than in the Answer—mat the UK is not alone in considering the situation and in coming to that conclusion. Our view is shared, in particular, by the regional African states. Nigeria and Ghana have both severely criticised Liberia's continued support for the rebels. The United Nation's Security Council's statements and resolutions—most recently Resolution 1231 of 11th March 1999—as well as United States and European Union statements, have all expressed grave concern at the reports they have that arms and personnel are being supplied from the territory of Liberia. We, and our partners in the international community, would not be acting like this if the evidence of Liberian support for the rebels was not compelling.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, does the Minister agree that one of the most appalling aspects of the civil wars in Liberia and Sierra Leone has been the widespread use of child soldiers? What assistance can the Government

1289
give to the demobilisation of the estimated 4, 000 child soldiers in Sierra Leone, particularly in light of the fact that although the Government are committed to the disarmament, defence minister Hinga Norman stated that that cannot be done while the fighting continues? Furthermore, what steps are the Government taking to support the work of charities in Liberia, such as Save the Children, in helping restore these child victims to a normal life?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, the noble Lord raises one of the very many disturbing aspects of the appalling war in Sierra Leone. The people who will rebuild peace are the people of Sierra Leone. It is right that we must do all we can to help them. Britain, along with Nigeria, has been the principal supporter of Sierra Leone in the international community. Since President Kabbah was restored to power in March 1998 we have pledged over £20 million to help to reconstruct the economy, for humanitarian assistance and for the demobilisation and disarmament of former combatants. We have also helped to rally international support for Sierra Leone. We are very concerned about the humanitarian situation across the board including, in particular, the kind of issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. We have already provided 18 tonnes of emergency medical supplies, as well as rice and disinfectant. A DfID humanitarian co-ordinator is in Freetown to help target UK assistance and we constantly have this in mind.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, is it official or non-official circles that stand accused? Is it recognised that President Taylor has offered financial inducement for Liberian mercenaries to leave Sierra Leone; that his suggestion of UN observers on the border has merit and that it is for the United States Government to exert some influence?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, we welcome the recent statement from President Taylor to try to ensure that any kind of supplies and support from Liberia to Sierra Leone ceases. We consider that to be a positive and productive development. It was as a result of considerable international pressure that President Taylor made these offers. We shall continue to monitor closely the situation in Sierra Leone. We hope that the offers that have been made and the undertakings given will be concrete. We are all watching closely to see whether that is the case.
The noble Viscount raised the point of the joint monitoring of the Sierra Leone/Liberia border mentioned by President Taylor. He suggested that that should be a United Nations monitoring presence. We are not willing to support a United Nations monitoring presence while the security situation would undoubtedly endanger the safety of the UN personnel. The border between Sierra Leone and Liberia is long, heavily forested and extremely "porous"—to use the technical word—in the sense of anything being able to cross at
1290
any point. Even with the deployment of a monitoring force, effective control of the border could not be guaranteed.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, would my noble friend reconsider what she said earlier? Many of us are concerned about the position with Liberia. Surely, if the Government have evidence that they are not co-operating and that they are supplying troops and so on, could not the evidence be produced and published so that we can judge it for ourselves?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I think the House will understand that there is a kind of evidence which governments have that they cannot publish.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that in spite of the fact that—
Noble Lords: Next Question!

Television and Video Standards
2.49 p.m.
Lord Stallard Lord Stallard asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied with the maintenance of standards of morality on television and videos by the bodies responsible; and, if not, whether they will consider introducing some form of censorship.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government believe that the current system of regulation ensures that television broadcasting reflects standards acceptable in society. We shall report shortly on the response to the consultation on the future of regulation. The British Board of Film Classification is responsible for classifying video works. The BBFC is required to take into account the fact that videos are seen in the home and therefore need to be classified on a different basis from cinema films.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that not unexpected but nonetheless disappointing Answer. Is he aware of the widespread concern about the apparently uncontrolled proliferation of foul language as well as explicit scenes of the most intimate sexual behaviour of heterosexuals, homosexuals, bisexuals, transvestites and the like on our television screens and on accessible videos? Is my noble friend further aware of recent research that shows two-thirds of all schoolchildren have access to televisions and videos in their own rooms? So much for the watershed! Given that state of affairs, is it not time that, because of the potential effect of such images being shown so often on our screens, we should give some; deeper consideration to the possibilities of a better scheme of control, even if that means some form of censorship?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I appreciate the strength of feeling with which my noble friend addresses this issue. If he has specific complaints, he

1291
should address them to the regulators, to the governors of the BBC, to the Independent Television Commission, the Radio Authority, S4C or, indeed, to the Broadcasting Standards Council which considers complaints and then reports on standards of taste and decency. I have seen the report to which my noble friend refers. He is correct that a very large number of children have televisions in their bedrooms. That is a matter for parental control.
Lord Renton: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that when immorality is displayed on television programmes, it is bound to lead to an increase in immoral behaviour, and that therefore television programmes should cease to display immorality?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not think that the noble Lord's conclusion follows from his premise. It is by no means certain that people follow the behaviour that they see on television or on video, and it certainly does not follow that there should be the sort of blanket ban which I understand the noble Lord to be advocating.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, has my noble friend seen a recent drama series on the BBC, "The Lakes"? If he has, he will agree that it certainly does not reflect standards which are generally acceptable to the public. My noble friend should know that that series has caused widespread resentment in the Lake District and in the Roman Catholic Church. It is a sheer misuse of the television licence income.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: No, my Lords, I did not see those programmes. My wife watched them, but she did not reach quite the same conclusion as my noble friend. If he has specific complaints, he should make them to the relevant broadcasting authorities.
Viscount Falkland: My Lords, is it not the case that television and video follow what happens in society rather than leading society in terms of morality? With regard to the second part of the Question, perhaps I may put the position that we have always held on these Benches, which is that censorship in any form in a democracy is a very dangerous path to follow and is often much worse than the matters with which this Question is concerned.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it was because I appreciate the noble Viscount's first point that I refused to follow the noble Lord, Lord Renton, in his simple causal relationship between showing immorality and being immoral. The noble Viscount is right. We must not allow our aesthetic distaste for some things which we see around us to tempt us into seeking to ban them.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, I declare an interest as chairman of the Video Standards Council. Is my noble friend aware that a large majority of videos are classified by the BBFC? But the problem does not arise there; it arises with the illegal videos which either enter
1292
this country or are made in this country and which are easily obtainable, and sold in shops. They are dirty videos. Although this subject should be dealt with, the police have more than enough to do, dealing with red lights on bicycles! However, something needs to be done about these illegal videos.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my noble friend is right that under the Video Recordings Act 1984 no video can be legally sold in this country unless it has a classification from the BBFC. The police should take action to pursue illegal sales of videos.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, is it not the case that, unlike television and videos, the Internet is not regulated and that if there is such a problem in society, it is probably linked to the Internet and not to videos and television?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord is right that there is a real problem with the Internet, which is very difficult to control. That is why the Government supported the formation of the Internet Watch Foundation, which has a very difficult job to do. However, a recent joint study by the Home Office and the DTI indicated that it is having some success in controlling excesses on the Internet.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, in the light of the Minister's answers, why have the Government banned tobacco advertising on television?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Question is about morality, not tobacco. The sale and consumption of tobacco in this country is legal.

Public Trust Office
2.56 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they will take to rectify the deficiencies in the operation of the Public Trust Office identified by the Comptroller and Auditor General in his recent report Protecting the Financial Welfare of People with Mental Incapacity.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, the Public Trust Office supervises the investment of patients' assets and assesses their individual financial needs. Currently, there are about 38, 000 patients, of whom 35, 000 are the responsibility of private receivers and about 3, 000 the responsibility of the Public Trustee as receiver of last resort. The PTO's main deficiencies were a failure to chase overdue accounts from private receivers and to review promptly those that it had actually received. It is not suggested that any patient suffered any financial loss as a result, but the procedures need to be strengthened, and they are being. Since June 1998, 10 extra posts have been dedicated to checking accounts and £0.5 million per annum for the next three

1293
years has been allocated for case management. The PTO is agreeing with the Court of Protection new procedures to ensure timely accounts from receivers.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for that helpful Answer. However, does he accept that it is not clear why, immediately before the National Audit Office reported, his department instituted a review of the Public Trust Office? In view of the fact that we are talking about extremely vulnerable people whose assets are not being properly monitored, will the noble and learned Lord assure the House that the department will not wait for the results of the review before putting into effect many of the NAO's recommendations?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I have just told the noble Lord many of the steps that have been, and are being, taken. It is of value that a major independent review of the PTO is about to commence under Ann Chant, who is currently a managing director for Business in the Community. She is a senior and distinguished civil servant. She successfully tackled many of the intractable problems facing the Child Support Agency at the height of its troubles. The problems of the PTO are not remotely comparable. She is the right person for this important job.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord take note of the fact that in 1996–97 only 67 per cent, of those under the care of the Public Trustee Office received a visit, against 86 per cent, in 1992–93? What steps are the Government taking to ensure that all public trustee receivership patients receive an annual visit, as recommended by the National Audit Office?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, pre-1996, home visits were the responsibility of the welfare staff in the Lord Chancellor's Department, not of the Public Trustee Office although the PTO had been established in 1994. The performance then was unsatisfactory. The responsibility was given to the PTO in 1996. Since then there has been a materially improved service which complies with the criteria laid down by the Court of Protection. I intend to consider those criteria to see whether they can be strengthened to enable more visits to take place in the future.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, is there not a duty of care which should be accepted by any agency handling the finances of people with mental incapacity, and also of people with learning disabilities? The noble Lord, Lord Rix, cannot be here today. I am sure that if he were, he would ask a similar question.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I entirely accept that there is a duty of care.

Business of the House: Debates this Day
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 the debate on the Motion in the name of the Lord Northbourne set down for today shall be limited to three-and-a-half hours and that in the name of the Viscount Tenby to two-and-a-half hours. — (Baroness Jay of Paddington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Marriage
3 p.m.
Lord Northbourne Lord Northbourne rose to call attention to the economic and social role of marriage; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise with some trepidation to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
I suggest to your Lordships that in this country today we are facing a social revolution and that we would be wise to face that revolution with our eyes open. For thousands of years, marriage has been the norm. Young people in love have been forced by social sanctions to make a long-term commitment to stay together to support their children and one another. In the past three decades, things have changed. Last year, 37 per cent, of all live births in England and Wales were outside marriage, and for the under-20 age group, the figure was 89 per cent. Today, 2.7 million children live in 1.6 million single-parent households and 25 per cent, of the children born this year can expect to see their parents' marriage break up before they leave school.
Obviously marriage is facing a sharp decline in popularity; it is no longer enforced by social sanctions. Some may say that that is a good thing and I accept that there are arguments for it. It gives adults more freedom to make their own lifestyle choices. We live in a society where individualism is a dominant ideology. Others would say that we are sowing the seeds of an intractable social problem for the future.
This week, the Church of England Board of Social Responsibility published a document, Supporting Families, which states:
"Any weakening of marriage has serious implications for the mutual belonging and care that is exercised in Society at large".
This debate is not only about marriage; it is about how we as a society want to treat one another and how we want to treat our children. I believe that the structure of families matters because of the damage to the child and the cost to the community when parents fail to fulfil their obligations to their children. Children need the security of a long-term committed relationship between their parents. The human child takes 18 years to grow up—some would say more. During that time, he or she needs security, guidance, role-models and unconditional love. Most parents want to give those things and most parents are the best people to do the job.

1295
Statistics show that children brought up in stable, happy, functional families have better life chances in terms of health, drugs, crime, educational achievement, employment prospects and as parents of the future. Also, single parents tend to have problems of poverty because they usually have to struggle to combine parenting with earning or to get by on benefits.
Kathleen Kiernan, writing of social exclusion in 1997, reports overwhelming evidence that the break-up of partnerships or marriages is damaging to children. She states,
"Children are more likely to suffer from poor performance at school—more anxious and attention seeking, to fall ill, have behavioural problems, drug problems and come before the Courts. They are also more likely not to marry as to divorce, and to break up relationships".
Of course, some regular families are unhappy and some reconstituted families are brilliant. But that does not alter the fact that, on average, most children get their best chance to develop to their full potential growing up in a two-parent, stable family.
As to the cost to the community, the cost to taxpayers of paying for the children of neglect and abuse is very high. So also is the cost of supporting young single parents and marriage breakdown. One estimate puts the public cost of divorce and separation this year at £5 billion, and in addition to that there is the cost of housing two families instead of one. Children in foster care cost the taxpayers around £15, 000 a year. Children in special institutions cost from £50, 000 to £100, 000 a year each. And today's situation may be only the tip of the iceberg. Local authorities are already jibbing at those costs, understandably so. But if the numbers of children needing public care increase, the taxpayers will jib at the bill; the quality of care will suffer; and less good care will lead to more illiteracy, more exclusion, more drugs and more crime.
Children who are emotionally deprived or brought up in poverty are a bad investment for the nation. Society is a stakeholder in successful parenting. Indeed, the Government have said that strong, secure families make for a strong, secure society. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said in his Budget speech that children are our investment as a country. But an underclass of children is exploding in this country today, whose day-to-day life is bleak and whose future is frightening. I therefore put the proposition that there is an overwhelming social and economic case for society to welcome, encourage and support mothers and fathers who are prepared to make the long-term commitment to live together in a stable, loving, long-term partnership and to support their own children.
The crucial question is whether marriage is the best way to achieve that commitment. Here I come to arguing the case; I am taking sides. To date, marriage has been the best way that anyone has discovered. In a recent survey, 14 per cent, of people believed that marriage was out of date; 72 per cent, of families are still headed by a married couple; 82 per cent, of young people questioned in the survey still expect to marry.
Marriage is different from cohabitation because marriage involves long-term commitment publicly made. It fundamentally affects the lives of third parties, including the children and the extended family. In contrast, cohabitation normally expressly rejects long-term commitment. David Lock MP, speaking for the Government in an all-party parliamentary group the other day, said,
"Research suggests that marriages are the best environment in which to bring up children. When marriage breaks down we all pay".
I want to mention just two more statistics. Cohabiting couples are almost four times as likely to split up as those who are married, and even where there are children, 50 per cent, of cohabiting couples part within 10 years compared to only 12 per cent, who marry.
I shall spend just a small interlude on the nature of marriage. There is an illusion today that marriage is just about celebrating a relationship. But marriage should, or can be more than that. It can and should be a contract to develop a series of relationships. Most noble Lords will have had the experience of falling in love; of the changes which take place in a relationship when the first baby comes along and one is faced with the demanding little package which is noisy at both ends and leaks in the middle. Marriage is the cement which makes possible the smooth transition from one relationship to the next. It is the signpost and the support at the major crossroads in a couple's life.
I am not suggesting that we should put the clock back. We must find positive ways to move forward. Should we find ways of making marriage itself more attractive and more relevant to young people today? Or should we invent an alternative which offers an opportunity of supporting and enhancing the number of people who are prepared to make a long-term commitment? I hope that some speakers this afternoon will look at alternatives to marriage. I hope that others will focus on the role of the extended family, the importance of marriage for the mutual support of the partners in old age or disability and on marriage as a sacrament. I intend to focus on things which could be done to make marriage more relevant to young people today.
First, let us look at the background. We live in a society today which has changed much since the head of an Oxford college said to his students in a sermon a hundred years ago:
"Gentlemen, I implore you not to imperil your immortal souls in a practice which, I am reliably informed, lasts no more than 2¾ minutes".
For many young people today sex has become a recreation rather than an expression of lasting love. Individualism is the dominant social ideology and the roles of men and women are less differentiated. Fathers are less clear about their role, while mothers often struggle to balance motherhood and a career. Like high street banks, we have moved from long-term loyalty relationships to short-term transactional relationships.
The Home Secretary is reported as saying last week:
"I don't think it is the job of the secular state to be judgmental about how people run their adult personal relationships".

1297
That is fair enough if there are no children. However, does the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor agree that when two adults bring a child into the world their relationship is no longer a purely private matter? The child's welfare may be affected and the state has to assume ultimate responsibility for the welfare of that child. That is why the state is surely justified in behaving in ways which will support and encourage parents who are willing to make a long-term commitment. You cannot have it both ways. If marriage is good for children, you are betraying children if you do not support marriage.
I shall have time this afternoon to touch on only one or two examples of the range of things which could be done to support marriage and to make marriage more relevant to young people today. I will not take time describing the excellent plans for marriage preparation, counselling and mediation and for support for parents which the Government have already put in hand.
I believe that responsible parenthood should be taught in schools based on agreed values about parental responsibility and long-term commitment. I believe that young people in school should also learn about the needs of children; the need for long-term commitment by both parents—for patient, non-judgmental love, for boundaries and example and, above all, for time. Is the law sufficiently unequivocal about the financial responsibility of parents, especially when a child is living away from home? There is also a need for funding for teachers to be trained to teach these things.
In his recent Budget, the Chancellor of the Exchequer sent a message of negative support for marriage. He took away £2.5 billion by withdrawing the married couples' tax allowance. He gave only £1.4 billion in additional support to children, but there was no visible support for parental commitment. Surely to support and encourage long-term parental commitment is the cheapest as well as the best way to support children in the long term.
Then there is the problem of men. I suspect that very few of those 1.6 million single mothers really want to struggle to bring up a family on their own. I suggest that what we need is 1.6 million suitable and eligible young men. Of course, cloning might provide the answer. However, short of that, the Government should focus more on young men. We need family values and suitable role models in our schools. We need education for relationships and parenting. We need to rebuild the youth service. We need to re-instate sport in schools. We need to redefine the role of young men in the family. We need young men who are educated, who have a job and will bring back a pay packet to share with the family.
Finally, I turn to changes to the institution and ceremony of marriage itself. For example, what about "two-tier" marriages, with a greater degree of commitment until the first child arrives, or even "three-tier" marriages? What about term marriages which last 21 years, at which point there is a reassessment? What about a memorandum of agreement, which would not be binding but which would help couples to sort out what they believe the
1298
other person believes before they enter into the commitment? What about contracts of marriage which would be binding? What about a commitment to or from extended families and what about changes to the marriage ceremony to msike it more relevant and make the commitment which young people are making clearer and more transparent?
This debate is not just about marriage; it is about the kind of society that we want to live in. Our attitude to long-term commitment in marriage is a symptom of our attitude to one another, especially our attitude to our children. Children need their parents. Parents need one another. We, as a society, need to relearn how to live together.
My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Sheppard of Liverpool: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, for having tabled this important subject for debate. Indeed, full Benches in the Chamber even on a Wednesday show just how much importance many noble Lords attach to it. I should like to focus my five minutes on the social and economic role of marriage in areas of deprivation such as I have known in Merseyside and in east and south-east London.
Especially among those who have found themselves excluded from regular employment, the world of long-term commitments seems remote. Belonging to institutions or conforming seems to have nothing to offer. Instead, the spontaneous—what we feel like now—fills the horizons.
Being excluded from regular employment has crucial effects on marriage and family life. The noble Lord spoke about the need for suitable eligible young men, but the collapse of so much industry in Britain has left many men without any role. There are many homes where jobs are still unknown to anyone, whether male or female. In the 1991 census, 46 per cent, of children growing up in the borough of Knowsley were growing up in a home where no-one was in employed work; indeed, almost half the children in a large borough. While checking those figures with someone yesterday in Kirkby I receive the devastating comment, "Men are regarded as redundant"—in the home as well as at work. What worries me as much as anything is that the absence of a father who comes home with the dignity of a decent job well done leaves a boy with no positive or realistic directions to steer by.
All that supports the Government's mainline priority of getting people into work. Many of the areas that I have in mind are into their third generation of mass unemployment. A whole culture needs to be changed; that is, a culture that has assumed, with reason, that there would be no jobs. I know very well that there are mothers and carers who are doing real work, work that is of great value to the nation. We should at least consider paying them for that work. However, for the great majority, a decent job must be the expectation of both husband and wife—helped, I believe, by the working families tax credit.

1299
If we are to support marriage better we need to break into that culture, deep set as it is now, that cannot conceive of long-term rewards for long-term commitment. The Church has a major part to play, with many still coming to us asking to be married in church. However, lengthy preparation groups, like parenting groups and those concerned with married counselling, are often declined because they, too, are seen to come out of the tidy institutional world.
However, we must not give up at the first refusal or indeed at the second or third refusal. The Government's consultation paper on support for marriage focuses helpfully on what health visitors might be able to offer in support. Among the professionals health visitors are regarded as relatively non-threatening persons. There is a fear of statutory social workers; a fear that they might take the children away.
I believe the Government should be ready to put fresh resources into other bodies that might provide bridges to bring parenting classes or marriage counselling within reach. I think of voluntary organisations. Rather naturally, I mention the Family Service Units, whose president I was for 10 years. Other bridges could be provided by nursery classes or playgroups, and perhaps we need to go a good deal further than that in building bridges. The detached youth worker has shown that he or she can often make lasting contacts with youngsters that school or the more settled youth club cannot reach. In Kirkby, that I mentioned, the Church's Centre 63 has a small team of detached workers around it with different groups, different skills and different objectives to bring to the young people with whom they are in touch.
In the end, it is the quality of marriages that they see that will persuade young people to attempt this great adventure. What I have called building bridges of human contact is a necessary step along the way.
3.20 p.m.
Lord Griffiths of Fforestfach: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow two speakers who have done so much to support the family and care for the welfare of children. The subject of this debate is extremely important. Marriage has been the basis of family life in this country and the foundation of our social life for centuries. It has not been the basis of a narrow view of the family but a view of the extended family covering far more than just a husband and wife.
We know that the success or failure of marriage has important implications for the individuals involved and for us all, for their quality of life, for their standard of living, for our welfare expenditure and taxation, for the growth of social problems and, as the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, said, for the degree to which we try to create trust in our society and create a certain kind of society. The current trends, which were mentioned, are clearly rather negative. The projections by the Government Actuary are even worse. The predicted increase in divorce and in co-habitation will mean that married couples will be in a minority in the population. It is against this background that I wish to make three points.
1300
First, this is a debate about the public interest and not about our private values and private morality. I am sure that each of us has a different view of marriage. This is not a debate about our private views. The crux of this Motion, as I see it, is whether it is in the interests of our society as a whole that children are brought up within the structure of a marriage in which two parents have made a commitment to each other for life, or whether alternative arrangements are just as good. Should the Government be indifferent as between alternative family forms, or should they throw their weight behind marriage?
No one wishes the Government to start preaching to us. Nor should the Government pressurise people into choosing one particular kind of relationship. But the Government have after all formed a clear view on the need to help lone mothers return to work; on the need to provide extra childcare facilities; and on the need to extend support to help parenting. This is not viewed as preaching or interfering in family life. I believe that in a similar way the subject of marriage is not a subject on which the Government can afford to be neutral, especially when they have made so much of their concern for the welfare of children.
The reason I say this—and this is my second point— is the weight of the evidence. I confess that I had not looked at the evidence and the literature on this matter for some time. However, as I prepared for this debate I was surprised at the reviews of the literature which I read. The conclusion overwhelmingly points in one direction; namely, that judged by almost any indicator you care to mention—the state of mental and physical health; the emotional and intellectual development of children; the frequency of violence and child abuse; care for the elderly; and the likelihood of the relationship breaking up—marriage scores consistently ahead of other family forms.
The studies use averages, so there will be bad marriages and good alternative relationships. But the thrust of the evidence is clear. As the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, said, the reason has to do with commitment. Obviously any relationship involves commitment but a commitment to marriage is a commitment for life. We should not be surprised if that results in different behaviour. Surveys of attitudes show clearly that marriage is a basis for a stable family life. I was interested to note the recent St. Valentine's Day engagement of Zoe Ball to Fat Boy Slim. This shows that the ideal of marriage is alive and well even in the world of the 1990s "ladettes".
My third point is that, in the light of the evidence and because of the pain and cost caused by divorce, in my judgment the Government have no option but to show their unequivocal support for marriage. I believe that that starts with taxation. The Chancellor, Gordon Brown, said in his first Budget,
"The tax system sends critical signals about activities a society wishes to promote or deter".
That theme was developed in the Red Book,
"Taxation is not wholly neutral in the way it raises revenue. How and what is taxed sends clear signals about the economic activities which governments believe should be encouraged and discouraged and the values they wish to entrench in society".

1301
I strongly agree with both those statements. But the signals which a tax system sends out, and the values it wishes to entrench apply to marriage as much as to anything else. In the context of the abolition of the married couples' allowance I ask the following questions. What signals does this send to our society? What values do the Government wish to entrench in our society? This is not a party political point because previous Conservative governments have initiated measures which have gone in the same direction. However, I am afraid this tax measure suggests that, despite the rhetoric of speeches and White Papers, marriage is not a sufficient priority with the Government for them to put the weight of the tax system behind it. Until that is reversed we shall never solve the problems that the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, spoke about in his marvellous opening speech.
3.27 p.m.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, for initiating this debate and for prompting me to take part. His concern for the welfare and effective upbringing of children is formidable. However, he did not anticipate that yesterday was our 25th wedding anniversary.
I intend to speak from the position of someone who has been a step-parent for the past quarter of a century. Aged 25—I am appalled to recall—and with a confidence and seriousness that no doubt belied my youth, I moved into a marriage which involved not just the two of us but also the five others, then aged 13 to four. Of course today they are now almost all 30 somethings and, in the main, parents themselves of our seven grandchildren. I believe that some observations about step-parenthood may add a useful dimension to this debate.
First, the step-parent is able to examine the question: is the children's upbringing the result of nature or nurture? Step-parents examine that question from a special perspective. At those moments when what they say and do is annoyingly similar to one's own weaknesses or foibles, then you know that nurture has been effective. At the same time you live with and offer leadership to people who do not share your nature, but that inherited from their parents.
Secondly, I think it is necessary to face up to the fact that you are marrying not just a spouse but also the children. Novels, dramas and soap operas are full of the old chestnuts of cruel, uncaring and rejective step-parents who end up resenting the presence of the existing children because they only want a relationship with the parent. Clearly this is a useless strategy and quite unrealistic, but it happens. I can think of only a few actions that are worse than having to live with real hostility, especially if you are a child. Such an unfavourable situation is far from the desirable stable upbringing that one hopes will be in an emotionally and physically warm home.
Thirdly, there is the need to co-ordinate the multiplicity of relationships which are brought about by a parent's remarriage. There are usually three sets of grandparents—possibly four if it is a double remarriage.
1302
Those relationships have to be encouraged and enabled to be retained or to be built. There is the need to encourage an on-going relationship between the estranged parent or parents and the children. In 1995 the Children (Scotland) Act established that parents have a right and a duty at law to maintain contact with their children—especially when estranged from them—unless there is a good reason why that should not happen. That recent Act also imposes a duty on the residential parent to facilitate that contact with the children. The law is correct and offers guidance to separating parents about how they should conduct their roles of parenthood in estrangement or in divorce. Whether mere mortals can perform as perfectly as the law requires remains to be seen. After all, marriages rarely end without some form of acrimony, even if it is only temporary.
There can also be the problematic task of integrating the children of two families into one. For example, a simple problem is where one eldest child has to surrender position. Throw in the possibility of a child of the new marriage and we have the proverbial new family, made up of his, her and their children. Except with the wisdom of Solomon—or greater—wi 11 this ever be an easy task for what has to be regarded as new marriage partners?
My own experience was simplified by this marriage continuing as it started, as one with a substitute parent, thereby minimising the multiplicity of relationships and enabling the family to move forward into its new life and the children to move on into their adulthood.
3.32 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Lincoln: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this important debate and to express my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, for introducing it. The Church teaches that marriage is a particular form of relationship which God has made as part of the created order, It is therefore deeply rooted in our social instincts and is the means by which a man and a woman, over the course of their lifetime, may learn love together. By marriage a new unit of society is created, a couple stronger than the sum of the two partners. Just as a wedding is a public ceremony, so a marriage is a public fact. It is a reshaping of human life within the community and, as such, has a responsibility to the community to be a force; for good in its life. Any weakening of marriage thus has serious implications for the mutual belonging and care that is exercised in the community at large.
In the light of this understanding of what marriage is, it will be evident that the "clear principles" required as a basis for a modern family policy cannot simply be derived from an exercise of analysing social trends. It is not because it "remains the choice of the majority of people in Britain" that marriage should be supported by the Government and the institutions of civil society but because it is fundamental to human flourishing.
Understandably, the Government have no wish to act either as preacher or nanny, but it is simply not possible, in my view, to have a "value free" or neutral policy here. An ideological commitment to pluralism, which rules out any possibility of one family form being

1303
judged better than another, provides an inadequate basis for developing a sound family policy. So I urge the Government to base their family policy on the principles I have outlined, with a clear commitment to the support of marriage as their basis.
Having said that by way of introduction, there are some practical things which I believe can be done. First, too much attention is probably paid to the beginning and end of marriages. During the passage of the Family Law Bill the Church of England argued strongly that far more should be done to support marriages through the lifetime of a couple. No doubt more could be done by the Church and others to improve marriage preparation. But, surely, resources devoted to those periods when couples face difficulties—but before they think it is all over—would be of much more use. Of course, more thought needs to go into how that could be delivered in a way that was acceptable and effective. But ways can be found, such as One Plus One's research with health visitors in their role of support and encouragement. That has already been demonstrated.
Secondly, the Government need to send a strong signal to support married people in the choices they make. Now that the decision has been taken to end the MCA, then surely a government who recognise that marriage provides the best context for bringing up children and that it is still the choice of most people in our society must come forward with new proposals for supporting and strengthening marriage. The evidence so far is that we are spending less on marriage support now than when the question was raised first in the wake of the family law debates. That is not encouraging.
Thirdly, there is still much to be discovered about how marriages develop and change that would inform attempts to improve the prevention and treatment of marital distress. What is required is sustained and co-ordinated action, over time, by policy makers, professionals and the voluntary sector attending to those factors which can be addressed. That is why we, as a Church, have argued that the National Family and Parenting Institute should include marriage within its remit.
Lastly, existing knowledge about marriage, and the changes and pressures upon it in our day, need to be more widely used. Most marriages go through bleak periods from time to time. Anecdotal evidence, not least from the clergy and Church-based organisations such as the Mothers' Union, Family Life and marriage education groups, suggests that many couples are unaware of how "normal" it is to experience the difficulties they encounter and are badly equipped to negotiate change and challenge.
Many countries are recognising the important public policy issues in this area. Many of them—I single out Australia and Ireland as examples—have seen the need to devote some serious resources to strengthening marriage. The best way to defend marriage will to be show, in ways that can be demonstrated, that it best meets the contemporary and evolving needs of women, men and children, and therefore society as a whole. More needs to be said about the relationship of the
1304
"ideal" to everyday experienced "reality". But I hope the comments I have made may be some modest contribution towards that.
3.39 p.m.
Lord Jakobovits: My Lords, before contributing to this important debate, perhaps I may be allowed to say a word in tribute to that great personality whom we lost overnight. I refer to Lord Beloff, who so greatly enriched our debates, our thinking and the literary riches of our country. If we are seeking one simple phrase that epitomised his life it would be the title of one of his early books, one of the most popular of the many that he wrote, The Intellectual in Politics. He was that intellectual par excellence. We shall profoundly miss his erudition, wit, perspicacity and friendliness and the insights which have helped to make our House into what it is and which will make his name immortal in the annals of this House and of our country.
We are once again grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, for raising the supremely urgent subject of marriage. I make no apology for having agreed to take part in this debate. We are given an average of six minutes for each contribution. That is soon going to be the average time for each marriage if we are not careful. Our job in those six minutes is to make some contribution to ensuring that the period for a marriage is greatly extended.
Now that we are a multi-cultural society, with many strands making up the diversity of our citizens, we ought to try to collect from each constituent something of enduring value which can contribute to our debate, and eventually towards the solution to one of the gravest problems besetting contemporary society.
We are not helped by some of the statements made by Ministers of the Crown, two of whom have already been referred to. In a recent television interview the Home Secretary argued that the Government, now representing a secular state, should altogether withdraw from moral judgments affecting marriage. The stability of the home is clearly no longer the charge of the Home Secretary. Likewise, the example of the Foreign Secretary in relation to the durability and sanctity of marriage, or the action of the Chancellor in withdrawing the last financial props that encourage the preference for marriage, do not augur well.
We have already paid an extortionately high price as a nation for our indifference to marriage. The People's Princess would still be alive today, and so would her lover, if they had observed the laws on the sanctity of the marital bond. Let us consult each strand of our multi-cultural society to see whether we can enucleate from them something that can help each one of us to contribute towards solving the massive problem that now engages our nation.
Perhaps I may say a word or two drawn from the faith and family tradition which gave birth to me. I wish to mention just two items. A 2000 year-old saying in the Talmud has it that, "He who divorces the wife of his youth, even the altar sheds tears over him". Why the altar? The altar is the instrument of sacrifice. If a marriage fails, it is a sign that the two spouses were not

1305
prepared to make enough sacrifices for each other and thought first of their own happiness before the happiness of their partner and spouse. The altar has failed to teach that lesson, and weeps for its failure.
Perhaps I may give a second, more personal illustration. I heard with pleasure the personal references by previous speakers. My wife often told me that when she left her parental home to be married to me, in a Paris synagogue where her father was the rabbi, her mother told her: "You'd better make a success of your marriage because, if you don't, I won't take you back home". Today, far too many think that if they do not succeed in their new home there will be an open door when they return to their parents or elsewhere.
The alternatives to success are far too easy today. Every marriage encounters its occasional problems and disappointments. But if the alternatives were too simple and the escape too easy, few would make enough effort to make their marriage succeed. The more precious it becomes by dint of the effort put into it, the less dispensable it turns out to be.
I speak as the father of six happily married children and eight happily married grandchildren. I am asked, "What is the recipe?" I answer that, in addition to the careful choice of carefully nurtured genes in the partners to be chosen, it is to close the door of your home to smut and indecency and to open it to the healthy whiff of social engineering to create a Rolls Royce of a home which is indestructible and full of comfort and security.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, if the noble Lord will forgive me, I feel that I must draw the attention of the House to the tight schedule for this debate. Every speaker so far has adhered to what I know is a strict timetable. I appeal to other noble Lords to do the same.
Lord Jakobovits: My Lords, perhaps I may make a final point in the light of that justified reminder.
We believe that the education for marriage starts long before birth, and is never finished. We are bidden to go into marriage preparation, which is so widely neglected today, by making sure that we do not allow children to be born and raised without some form of preparation and training in the most delicate art of human relations. If we succeed, the rewards will be infinite and the rejoicing in countless thousands and millions of homes will be immense.
3.49 p.m.
Lord Ahmed: My Lords, I too should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, for initiating this very important debate. Perhaps it is appropriate for me to speak on the Muslim perspective when the Christian and Jewish leaders have spoken before me.
The family occupies a special status in Islamic teachings on marriage and is seen as the cornerstone of Muslim society. Not only is it a source of mutual comfort, care and protection for the nuclear family unit, but through the extended family social and blood ties are strengthened, responsibilities are shared and respect and appreciation grow across generations. The extended I
1306
family then can operate as an independent social unit. Characteristic of this is the support offered by family members through both good times and bad, and very often, this can entail help, either financially or emotionally. This notion of "family" is so strong that many Muslims apply this concept to their social circles in the absence of the extended family. Of course, that also applies to many other communities.
I wish to concentrate on the legalities of the Muslim marriages in Britain today. I draw your Lordships' attention to the Shariah Application Acts 1935 and 1937 which are significant pieces of legislation passed by the British Parliament in which the Muslim personal laws were recognised during the time of British India. Even after the creation of Pakistan, while it remained a British dominion between 1947 and 1954, the Privy Council remained as the Supreme Court of Pakistan and several matters came before the Privy Council in which their Lordships made decisions in matters pertaining to Muslim personal law.
I have become aware that a number of structural and institutional issues face British Muslims and members of other major non-Christian faiths when entering into marriages in Britain. These issues become difficulties and barriers when people wish to assert their religious rights, if and when a marriage does break down.
Therefore, I propose the following for consideration. First, of paramount importance is the need for research that clearly identifies the problems, issues and experiences faced by Britain's non-Christian populations when contracting marriages like Nikkah and seeking annulments and divorces. Secondly, non-Christian marriages should be awarded some legal recognition in respect of civil marriages. After all, the aims of both are life-long commitment and, historically, members of these communities generally have a good record of lasting marriages To dismiss the legal validity of these marriages is to suggest that children of these unions are not legally legitimate. Places of worship could be granted the necessary status to allow for the solemnising of these religious-legal ceremonies.
Thirdly, one possible way of regulating and legitimising religious marriages may be to offer funding to major religious organisations to enable them to compile directories of reputable clerics who perform religious marriages. Grants could be awarded to these major religious organisations to enable them to establish legitimate religiously-based training programmes, thus conferring a professional status on clerics. This could ensure that sham marriages are not conducted.
Fourthly, when it comes to marital breakdown, there is a need, I believe, to elevate non-Christian marriages and their specific concerns beyond the discretionary status they currently occupy in British family courts. At present it seems that there is a lack of uniformity in how these discretionary practices are exercised by the judiciary.
Fifthly, to assist the legal profession and members of the judiciary when dealing with these areas, some form of training that is periodically reviewed is needed. I am not proposing that religious minorities be awarded a special status; nor do I believe that these groups would

1307
themselves argue for this. But I do believe that the legal system needs to recognise "difference" and not to equate it with "irrelevance". This could simply mean assisting religious minorities to assert their religious rights, provided, of course, they do not contravene civil law.
Finally, members of religious minorities seeking legal intervention in their marital issues should not be placed in the position of experts, having to educate legal counsel on religious aspects. This additional pressure negates the possibility of the clients operating from a misinformed position themselves, but it may also act to dissuade those less confident about such matters from pursuing their legal and religious rights. The legal profession should be in a position to advise and initiate contact with religious organisations on their client's behalf. From my knowledge, it seems that clients are left to seek out such resources themselves.
The main thrust of my arguments stresses the need for education and communication between the legal professions and the religious ones, with the aim of ensuring that Britain's non-Christian minorities' religious rights and sensitivities are protected and respected. This process of education and communication should be a two-way process and should recognise the active contributions and diverse perspectives Britain's minorities offer, not just to the social sphere but also perhaps to the personal sphere as well.
3.56 p.m.
Baroness Platt of Writtle: My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, for initiating this vital debate. I believe that the state of marriage is fundamental to the health and prosperity of our nation. There are many speakers, so I will be short, which is difficult for such an important subject.
Marriage is there for the mutual benefit of its partners so that they may help and comfort each other and achieve happiness together. We all know that marriage does not produce a perpetual state of bliss. It has its ups and downs. Each partner will benefit from plenty of give and take.
In today's atmosphere of easy divorce, as illustrated by the statistics given by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, there is too much tendency to give up and break up rather than work at it and get over the problems. That is very sad because in many cases it certainly does not result in future happiness for either partner.
As the Prayer Book lays down, marriage was ordained for the procreation of children, and that is where I would like to place my emphasis. The arrival of children brings great joy, but also considerable responsibility. We all remember times of near despair, especially during the "terrible teens" when children are establishing their own individuality and continually testing the boundaries of their parents' tolerance and temper.
However, I, like other noble Lords, am fortunate to be able to say that in the long term—and this is our golden wedding year—those difficult tensions are absolutely worth while. I view my children and
1308
grandchildren with great pride. But there are times when the problems seem overwhelming. The husband is probably meeting equally difficult and trying problems at work, as may the wife also. Put together, that is a lethal mix and the time to sort it out is not easy. It is important that young people are prepared for this state of affairs, as many speakers have said today, so that it does not catch them unawares.
When I chaired the education committee in Essex, we invited marriage guidance education counsellors into our schools. Short courses of that kind before marriage for young people might help too. We want young people to be overwhelmed by the romance of marriage but for that romance to be underpinned by a deep and mutually responsible sense of reality so that couples work positively together to achieve continued happiness. That does not happen by magic.
I believe that children need both parents, a mother and a father. If one dies it is a tragedy which is unavoidable. However, the conflict of divorce, the separation of two loved parents and the difficulty for the children in keeping in touch, particularly when the parents are sparring in an atmosphere of self-justification, must be a terrible strain for the children. If there is a remarriage and a new young family, a difficult teenager can be very unwelcome, just at a time when that teenager needs most support. Exams have to be passed and careers chosen. Teenagers can need help with difficult relationships of their own. All problems seem mountainous at that age. There is need for the patience and time of loving adults to get those problems sorted out.
This is the time when, at the worst, teenagers leave home with disastrous results. Research shows that children from broken homes tend later to have poorer health, lower income and educational attainment, and are more likely to be unemployed and involved in crime. In their loneliness they start an unstable relationship which may break up and result in lone parenthood on low income. Thankfully, these are not always the results, but the danger is there. That may mean considerable public expenditure, as the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, illustrated.
There is no ideal or perfect society. Some marriages are unbearable and need the freedom of divorce. However, I hope that the Government, both fiscally and otherwise, the media, and society, including all religions, as the two previous speakers said, will work towards a more stable and responsible attitude to the permanency of marriage,
"to love, cherish … till death us do part",
as the Book of Common Prayer says. It would be a most worthwhile resolution for the millennium, contributing greatly to the contentment and prosperity of society.
4.2 p.m.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, I would like to add my thanks to those offered to my noble friend Lord Northbourne for initiating this debate. My contribution to it will be brief. I have no special knowledge or expertise in this field, but I can speak from experience. I hope that your Lordships will indulge me if I begin my remarks from an unashamedly personal

1309
point of view. First, my father was married to my mother for over 50 years before he died and my wife was brought up in the same kind of permanent, stable, lasting family relationship.
Furthermore, my wife and I celebrated our own 50th wedding anniversary last year. We were both brought up in a safe and loving environment. Although our only child died very young, our memories of this have enabled us to form close and affectionate relationships with a large, loving assembly of nephews, nieces and godchildren, as other noble Lords will have done. I speak as one who believes that the institution of marriage is an important and cherished element, not only in the context of the family but, as my noble friend Lord Northbourne has said, in the more general context of living in a stable and civilised society.
It may be relevant in passing to mention also that I spent much of my early grown up life serving in an Army regiment, where there were not only strong family ties and traditions going back for 300 years, but also a very real feeling that the regiment itself was a kind of family, providing the reassurance of a permanent and supportive structure.
It is from that background that I venture to offer a few brief comments in support of my noble friend Lord Northbourne. We must, of course, bear in mind that the situation which prevails in this context of marriage and the family in the ancient world was profoundly changed by the influence of Christianity. Among the Greeks and especially the Romans, for example, a marriage could be initiated without any kind of ceremony, or at least without a ceremony prescribed or defined by law. and the relationship between the two parties—known then as the matrimonium iustum—was a free union which could be terminated without formality by either party at any time. Noble Lords will know that as the Christian tradition has evolved, a relationship of this kind, in order to constitute marriage, had to be monogamous, involve a full community of life and be characterised by the duty of faithfulness.
As has already been said, of course, this institution is not universal or prevalent throughout the world. Today, other countries and other cultures have their own attitudes and practices in this special area of human relationships. As the noble Lord, Lord Jacobovits, said, as this country has now become to a very large extent a multi-cultural society, it might be argued that we have to take account of these different cultures in determining our approach to the institution of marriage. However, it is worth recording that in writing a foreword to a recent book of Christian perspectives on a study of the nation, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, offered the following important advice,
"Christians have no right to inflict their values on others but they do have a right in a free democracy to proclaim the values they hold dear as forcefully and attractively as possible".
It is within that cultural context that I would like strongly to support the views put forward at the beginning of this debate by my noble friend Lord Northbourne. The essential characteristics of marriage and family seem to me to involve a permanence of human relationships, a strong commitment among the members of the family and, above all, loyalty, a much
1310
overlooked and despised virtue these days. This environment is a basic unit of a society which provides a stable environment for the nurture of children and mutual support for all members of the family. As I suggested earlier, they ensure the continuity of a society as a whole in which personal values, morality and communal responsibility can be passed on to future generations.
None of this is to suggest that there is only one permissible approach to relationships in this area. Too much has happened in the social and cultural structure of this country, and also in the structure of the family in this country, to be dogmatic or intolerant in this field. It would, indeed, be intolerant to suggest that the Christian doctrine should be the only approach to marriage in a post-Christian, multi-faith society. However, as I have already mentioned and as; the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, has stated, it is important in a free society that we should make our own views and our beliefs clearly and unequivocally known.
It is from that point of view that I strongly support the view of my noble friend Lord Northbourne, especially in his opinion that children need the security of a long-term, committed relationship between their parents. As he said, most children get their best chance to develop their full potential growing up with two parents in a stable, loving relationship. I close as I began by declaring that this is a sentiment which from my own personal experience I can wholeheartedly endorse.
4.9 p.m.
Lord McNair: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, for giving us the opportunity to debate the role of marriage in society. I have an interest to declare in this debate, as other noble Lords have done, which is not just that I am married, but that I enjoy being married and that I am not cynical about it. The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, has chosen the title of this debate carefully because looking at the economic and social roles of marriage raises distinct, although related, issues.
If marriage were the accepted norm and people got married as a matter of course we would probably not be having this debate. Perhaps the way to highlight the need for stability is to look, as some other noble Lords have done, at the picture that presents itself in life and on our television screens and in our newspapers. I believe that last year the Evangelical Alliance published a very worrying report entitled The Roots of Social Breakdown. It is clear that that represents a catalogue of human misery, particularly increases in homelessness and domestic violence. A few years ago in preparing for a debate in your Lordships' House on the situation of young people in inner cities I had occasion to telephone a health authority that covered three south London boroughs. I asked the official to whom I spoke for statistics on births and terminations expressed as a percentage of pregnancies. Then, as now, I could not believe what he told me and I asked him to recheck the figures because I was staggered. He came up with the same answer. In 1991 in those three south London boroughs 36 per cent, of all pregnancies ended in abortion. That is a horrifying statistic quite apart from

1311
the moral issues in terms of unnecessary medical intervention, bodily trauma and anxiety. It would be useful to know whether the declining popularity of marriage is a symptom or cause, or perhaps both, of this aspect of social breakdown.
Those who believe it does not matter whether or not people get married are often themselves living lives based on a moral code even if they are reluctant to admit it. I have heard people say that they reject the moral code by which they grew up but they are living within the agreements that made up that moral code. It is immensely cruel for such people to conclude that moral codes are inherently a bad thing and so deprive their own children, or their pupils if they teach, of any framework of agreement about how to live life.
Based on my own experience, the most important benefit of marriage is stability, although marriage is no guarantee of stability. One of the problems is that in our soap opera culture people tend to pin all their hopes on "their relationship". It is vital for the stability of marriage or a long term relationship that both partners have shared goals to whose achievement both can contribute. That does not mean that the goals should be identical but goals in which each can and does participate. There are many different spheres of pro-survival activity beyond self and marriage. One can contribute to the survival of groups to whom both partners belong, or to the survival of other people around the world. One can support causes to do with animal or plant life, or explore the philosophical aspect of life. I believe that it is very important not to focus solely on "the relationship". It is also important not to take marriage for granted and to remember actively to create the marriage on a daily basis.
4.13 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, in joining with those who have thanked the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, for introducing this debate, I was particularly impressed by the fact that it was not a moralistic or authoritarian intervention about the family but a very sensitive intervention in the context of his general concern for social wellbeing, in particular the wellbeing of the young. In a complex issue of this kind inevitably there is a good deal of subjectivity. We speak from our own experience. I had the good fortune to grow up in a strong family that greatly influenced my whole approach to life. I now have the good fortune to enjoy tremendously, perhaps above all else, the family that my wife and I choose to call "our own". We draw great strength from that. It gives us the base from which to go out and do the other things that we want to do.
However, on such an intricate matter one must be very careful about generalising on the basis of personal experience or generalising at all. For example, in the past a good deal of romantic nonsense has been talked about the family. The family in the past concealed a great deal of suffering particularly on the part of women who were exploited atrociously. There was violence and sexual abuse. There were double standards particularly on the part of men. If we simply ride over that and ignore it, it does not help us in looking to the future.
1312
Sometimes there is over-simplified talk—perhaps I can be accused of having used it myself on occasion—of the family being the basis of a viable, stable and decent society. That can be but is not automatically the case. We know of parts of Europe in which the family has played a very strong part but where that family culture in society has been related to violence and crime. Therefore, one cannot look simply to the family per se as the solution to the problem.
We are going through a period of transition. I do not believe that we should be too depressed about the future; rather, there is great hope in the institution of family. We are moving into the age of what has been described as the democratic family in which women have fuller rights and the father is able to play a fuller and more responsible part than was probably true in the past and enjoy the fruits of it in terms of a closer relationship with children and their upbringing. Children are themselves, while not free of parental authority—I hope that they never will be—more challenging. I believe that that is in itself healthy; certainly it is for me. But as we look to the future we must recognise what has already been said in the debate this afternoon; namely, we now live in a multi-cultural society. I always enjoy and listen with great care to the remarks of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lincoln. But I was troubled that he was so concerned about pluralism in this context. In the debate this afternoon we have heard what pluralism has to offer: the strength in the role and values of the family that come from cultures other than the Christian culture, to which I myself subscribe.
If we look at the underlying issue that concerns all of us, one point on which we all agree is the wellbeing of children. That will be looked to in the context of the family; sometimes it will be looked to in model relationships outside the family. I can think of some that I have encountered. I refer to models of mutual loyalty and caring concern for children. What matters is the quality of the relationship. What also matters is that the Government should do all that they can—I believe that they are endeavouring to do so—to support parents. The first issue is parenting itself. That is one of the most demanding assignments of life. How much preparation do young people get for the responsibility of parenting? There should be far more conscious preparation for parenting. There are also issues involving law and taxation, about which we have heard a good deal of late, the provision of nurseries and creches, working arrangements and hours, not least for men, the pattern of career demands, housing and public transport. A network of issues must be brought together if we want to give substance to the general principles that we seek to underline.
In conclusion, I return to one point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, in his introductory speech. He said that he was not just speaking about marriage but the nature of the society in which we wanted to live. I believe that he is right. The interplay between the two is absolutely essential. That brings us back to responsibility and the social values of loyalty and commitment. The question that I ask myself is: how can these be encouraged in a consumer society that is dominated by competition, self-advancement, instant

1313
gratification, "my rights", and an increasing preoccupation with litigation and blame? I believe that it is right not only to support the family in social policy and to find the right way to generate that support, but that in the whole culture of our society, which we as active politicians should be helping to engender, there should be far greater recognition of service to balance the undue emphasis of late on excellence as an end in itself.
4.20 p.m.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, I cannot begin better than by quoting from my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale during my noble friend Lord Northbourne's debate on the family in 1996, when he said,
'"not for the first time, your Lordships have been put deeply in debt by Lord Northbourne"'. —[official Report, 11/12/96; col. 1113.]
On my noble friend's debate today on marriage, I would say "Snap!". Three years ago, there were three maiden speeches, including that of the noble Baroness, Lady Syrnons of Vernham Dean, and the present and the former noble and learned Lord Chancellors both spoke. Altogether, there were 28 speakers, and today there are also 28. And many of them are the same noble Lords. I think this argues some kind of continuity which, when you think about it, is what marriage is all about.
The Book of Common Prayer puts very plainly the three reasons for which matrimony was ordained. The first is children, and bringing them up right in a secure and happy home. The second is physical joys, which I think I cannot put better than the lady in my hairdresser's did; "keepin' yer ain tae'yersel". The third is for,
"the mutual love, society and comfort that the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity".
The whole of marriage is comprised in these three maxims and, however long I spoke or however much I said, I could not say it better than that. Nor am I foolish enough to try.
Another point which comes out very clearly and powerfully in the preamble to marriage in The Book of Common Prayer is the emphasis that the first miracle at Cana in Galilee of turning water into wine was performed at a marriage. Cousin Albert Baillie, who married us in 1952 and who was Dean of Windsor before the war, always put this into his sermons at weddings—he said it showed the pre-eminence above all of the estate of marriage, that Christ had chosen it for His first miracle—it was not a christening, it was not a wake, it was not just any old hooly; it was a marriage.
I have an interest to declare. I have been happily married for some time, although my husband and I cannot compete with the noble Lord, Lord Jakobovits. We have six children and four-and-a-half grandchildren. My parents celebrated their ruby wedding in your Lordships' House, as did my husband and I some 24 years later. We had bridesmaids, pages and a best man with us though, alas, no Cousin Albert. But children and grandchildren, nieces and nephews, none of whom had been in this world 40 years earlier, were all there. I made a three-tier cherry cake, part of which
1314
Miss McWilliam caught as it tumbled to the floor. Many of your Lordships I know have already celebrated golden and diamond weddings which glow with a starry glimmer of happiness and loving memories shared.
Of course, a happy marriage has to be worked at; it does not just happen. Robert Louis Stevenson said:
"Marriage is like life in this, in that it is a field of battle, and not a bed of roses".
At every wedding anniversary, my father always claimed that he and my mother had had only one fight. "But of course, "he said, "we do have an armistice now and then. "
Last weekend, I was discussing marriage with my dentist, who has been happily married for some time. "The trouble is, "he said, "that it isn't fashionable. Some of my children's contemporaries give up alter a year because they say they aren't happy. "It seemed to us both that happiness is a state of mind which comes from within and is too often confused with the pursuit of instant pleasure. Happiness very often comes from doing something for someone else. I suspect that one reason my husband is such a happy person is because he is always doing things for other people—usually for me.
On Monday the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, gave a party at Richmond House for three war widows who are retiring from their current jobs, although they will still be very much on the strength. It was a lovely thing to do, and I hope it made her as happy as it made all of us. One of these three ladies has found happiness for a second time and got married in the Crypt of St. Paul's just before Christmas. My husband and I and the Reverend Peter Bishop and his wife were the only non-family members, and we felt very blessed. She had asked me to read Shakespeare's sonnet on the marriage of true minds, which I thought I knew by heart and arrived without a crib. Luckily, I did. Elut I shall spare your Lordships.
But perhaps marriage is a fashion that is coming back. Four of our children have got married and we have been blessed with grandchildren. One of my nieces got married in the Isle of Man just before Christmas and our eldest granddaughter was a bridesmaid dressed as a golden fairy. There is much to be said for marriage as a repository for the past, as a joy for the present, as a blessing for the future. As Her Majesty the Queen most notably said, "I'm for it".
4.25 p.m.
Lord Ashbourne: My Lords, I too must thank the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, for initialing this important debate and giving us the opportunity to discuss the family and the central position of marriage within it.
The family was ordained and established by God—
"Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named".
(Ephesians, chapter 3, verse 15).
And a Godly home is a visual image of the spiritual relationship of Christ with his Church, as we learn from Ephesians, chapter 5, verse 21 and chapter 6, verse 4. It is a place to belong, to grow, to find love and acceptance, to feel secure, to make mistakes and be

1315
forgiven, a place to learn about relationships and right choices. When God's order is established in the home, His word honoured and obeyed, the family is strong. When the family is strong, the nation is strong. When the family life of a nation is under attack, the nation is weakened. Today in Britain the family has become a prime target for attack: it is visibly crumbling. The role of the family sits on the intersection between personal freedom and duty to others. Politicians talk about duty and responsibility, but are frightened to limit freedom.
There is a rising tide of juvenile stress and disorder throughout the western world which cannot be accounted for by poverty and unemployment alone. It is more likely to be due to a collapse of social bonds, with family break-up at its heart. Stable family life, whatever its down-side, generally remains the most dependable bulwark against the many uncertainties and insecurities of the modern world. Yet in Britain now there are whole communities where committed fatherhood is virtually unknown.
The tragedy is that all these children from such disrupted backgrounds want to "be there" for their own children when they themselves grow up, but have virtually no chance of breaking the cycle in which they are trapped. The collapse of the family means the erosion of those networks of trust, responsibility and commitment that make up civic society. If these values are not embodied in the family so that they become habits of heart and mind in individuals, there is little chance that these concepts will be applied in turn to the wider society.
The key difficulty lies with the concept of commitment. Commitment is the undertaking that restricts one's freedom of action in the greater cause. But to the individualist any such restriction is, by definition, oppressive. Commitment, therefore, has been redefined as a negotiable commodity. The commitment of adults to each other or to their children lasts precisely as long as it is convenient. It is then redefined to reflect altered circumstances, and so the estranged parent purports to be as committed to the child as when that parent lived in the family. But this "arm's length" commitment by the parent, who may see the child only for a few awkward hours each Sunday, is not commitment at all.
For all its difficulties, marriage remains a near-universal aspiration. But it is fragile and, if it is to thrive, it must be buttressed through a concerted and conscious effort by law, economics and culture. Clearly, marriage and the stable family have been undermined by huge cultural pressures which must be beyond any one agency, such as the State, to reverse. But the state plays a significant part in helping to shape that culture. Religious leaders, too, have a crucial part to play and should display both practical and moral leadership. But government policy also plays a part in underpinning stable families. It must make marriage mean something again by supporting, promoting and giving it privilege over other relationships.
That can be done in a number of ways. Put simply, there should be incentives for behaviour which promotes pro-social outcomes, and corresponding disincentives
1316
for behaviour which does the opposite. So, for example, the tax and benefit system should favour married couples with children over the unmarried. Divorce law should see the re-introduction of the concept of fault, (or reason, as I prefer to call it) which was finally removed in Britain with the introduction of the Family Law Act. It is fundamentally unjust that people who are victims of their spouse's betrayal or irresponsibility should be further penalised by losing their children and their house simply because justice has decided to be blind to personal responsibility. Parents who have walked out on their marriages should have to pay more for the upkeep of their families than spouses who have themselves been abandoned, or those who were never married in the first place, who should nevertheless pay something. The current thrust of family law to promote the equivalence between married and co-habiting couples should be reversed.
What then should be done? Surely we should restore the significance of marriage. After several decades of escalating divorce rates, the effect on children has been well documented. There is now little dispute that children from broken homes tend to have poorer health, lower income and lower educational attainment. They are more likely to be unemployed, commit crime and in due course become divorced themselves.
The Government are able to state that,
"marriage is still the surest foundation for raising children".
Yet in a number of areas public policy actively works against marriage as an institution.
Divorce law is to be further reformed so that pre-nuptial agreements for divorce are more binding than marriage itself. Secondly, a married woman wishing to stay at home and look after her children is disadvantaged in the tax system because her tax allowance is not transferable. Her work is therefore largely unrewarded. Thirdly, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has now decided to scrap the married couples allowance, formerly the only tax break in favour of marriage.
Instead of that, public policy should buttress marriage in a variety of ways including enhancing the legal status of marriage, supporting marriage through the tax and benefit system, and scrapping the pending no fault divorce reforms (or no reason divorce reforms, as I prefer to call them). It is interesting to note that Louisiana, which introduced no fault divorce some years ago, has now decided that the system is not working. No fault divorce is now being scrapped and it is returning to the normal fault system which is so much to be preferred.
I conclude by urging the Government to take vigorous and immediate action to restore the significance of marriage.
4.33 p.m.
Lord Habgood: My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity presented by the debate and for much that has been said. I was spurred to put my name down to speak in the debate by a remark recently on Radio 4 on the "Today" programme. It was said, "It is not the

1317
state's business whether or not two people are married". The Radio 1 version of that would be, "After all, it's only a bit of paper".
There seems to be a deep confusion in many people's minds as to what marriage is. Many people confuse it with a wedding and say, "I cannot get married because the party is too expensive". I hope that the public character of marriage as a permanent and legal commitment to a specific form of relationship is emerging strongly from the debate. Precisely because it is public, the state must in some way or other be involved. Good reasons have been given already as to why the state should be involved: the nurture and care of children; the need for stability; and so on.
Perhaps I may add a sentence. It goes to the heart of what the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said, and refers also to part of what the noble Lord, Lord Ashbourne, said. Mature and responsible personal relationships are the building blocks of a mature and responsible society. One cannot separate the quality of relationships between people and what binds them together from the kind of people that one is producing and the quality of society. Given the fleeting character of so many of the personal relationships within modern society, it seems to me imperative that those fleeting relationships should be counterbalanced by those which are stable, reliable and life long.
One of the great merits of the married family is that the relationships, once chosen, remain given. One of the great maturing influences in the process of growth into adulthood is coming to terms with the "givenness" of relationships—the givenness of children; or the givenness of one's parents. The growth of maturity by making commitments and taking responsibilities is at stake.
I speak in pragmatic terms. I am belying my collar deliberately because it is a public political matter and not simply a religious one. Marriage as we know it in this country is a paradigm for those qualities of stability, reliability, commitment, and so on, as well as an education into them. Of course things can go wrong. We recognise that. That is why we have divorce laws. But without maintaining that ideal, we erode those qualities in public life which make democracy possible.
A further pragmatic reason why it is important is that unless there is a firm and recognised public basis for relationships between people we lay ourselves open to endless fraud. How can one have privileges and responsibilities within family relationships unless those are publicly recognised and registered so that one knows who is married to whom. We are coming nowadays to the terrible situation that we all relate to partners, as though it is an endless sexual game of tennis, and one swaps partners half way through. How does one identify those responsible?
The state has a strong interest in supporting marriage. However, we recognise that the social trends are against it. In reading through some of the research documents prepared for the Lord Chancellor's Department, one finds this typical theme; namely, they map the current flow and then knock down every possible counter measure which goes against that flow. We get into a
1318
vicious circle. We have social trends towards unrestricted choice in all manner of things. That has its impact on the attitudes towards marriage and further enhances the social trends.
That is why we so desperately need markers in our society which demonstrate the social significance of marriage. But we have been seeing the gradual removal of all those markers in our society which make marriage different. What is left? A few property laws. If a man is elevated to your Lordships' House, his wife becomes a Lady. It is somewhat difficult to think of anything else which distinguishes marriage in our public life from other states. The married couple's allowance is the last straw, not because people will be influenced by finance but for symbolic reasons. It removes yet another difference between the marrieds and the non-marrieds. There is desire not to disadvantage those who have chosen alternatives to marriage. But the Government cannot have it both ways. If they are going to support the family, they have to make up their mind whether marriage matters and express that in policy.
4.40 p.m.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, for this timely debate. All speakers have emphasised the importance of marriage and that has been emphasised also in the research. Noble Lords who have spoken have been quite right, in my respectful view, to emphasise that importance.
However, we should just pause for a moment to think about the additional stresses faced by current marriages which did not exist in years gone by. Sometimes there is almost a temptation to think of the halcyon days of, in particular, Victorian times. It is important for us to remember that in Victorian times the average length of a marriage was about 12 years. Why was that? It was because, tragically, many of those marriages ended not in divorce but in the demise of one of the partners. So the opportunity for partners—if I can express the matter colloquially—to get on each other's nerves was much more restricted than in the case of those who look forward to the joys of celebrating 60 years of happy conjugal bliss.
We need to bear that in mind because, there needs to be a sympathy and an empathy for the difficult task which those who enter the perilous seas of marriage now face. They are much more turbulent waters than they ever were.
We must bear in mind also that there is a multiplicity of reasons why many do not share the religious convictions of noble Lords in this House. I confess and say straightaway that I, too, have very strong religious commitments which are cultural, in terms of the nature of the Caribbean island from which I come which is predominantly Catholic, and, indeed, in terms of family background. I am one of 12 children and my parents have been married since 1937 and are still happily so. Therefore, from a premise of total commitment to the institution of marriage I say that we must be extremely sensitive to the fact that others choose different paths, often not because they make an informed choice but because that is what is forced upon them.

1319
We must meet people where they are. There are many who do not have the advantage of two-parent families, not from choice but because that has been foisted on them. Therefore, when we talk about families we must take into account the broader church of relationships which produce children; relationships in which children will be nurtured.
One of the realistic steps that we must take is to recognise how we can best assist those new families who may not have two adult members in them to nurture their children. The research is clear. It tells us that children are best nurtured and cared for by two people living together in harmony on a long-term basis; that fragmentation of that relationship, be it honoured by the bands of matrimony or not, is destructive to children. That is not a moral issue. It is a researched, pragmatic reality that children in this country experience.
However, we need not be too pessimistic because 83 per cent, of young people when questioned and asked about marriage made it clear that they intended to marry or hoped to marry. So I believe that those who worry that marriage is dead do so unnecessarily.
There is an issue as to how we support marriage. This Government have put a great emphasis—and rightly so—on conciliation, mediation, guidance and support. Why have they done that? It is because it is the most efficacious way of maintaining relationships which support children.
The Family Reform Law Act 1996 has in many ways been vilified. People say that it is wrong, but that Act tries to put the emphasis back on conciliation, preparation and thought. Many issues are burdening young families now. I endorse everything said by the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard, in relation to the effect that unemployment has had on families and the individual sense of self.
I wish to say a few words about men. There has been much said to indicate that men are no longer necessary as a part of the family structure and mention has been made that our sons need the example of a father. But our daughters need that just as much. Therefore, the responsibility that we have is to look to see how we can support our young men to become good fathers and contributors, not just in a financial sense but in an emotional, moral and supportive sense so that they can nurture their children, who can be truly proud of them. It is a challenge and when I look around your Lordships' House I am sure that there are those here who are more than able to rise to that challenge.
4.46 p.m.
Lord Thurlow: My Lords, I hope that many of your Lordships agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, that we should not be too pessimistic. But as the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, said, we cannot put the clock back. That implies that we must devote ourselves to trying to think of positive ways in which to go forward.
I dare say that the social trends which have been so negative for so long may perhaps—and I am mildly optimistic—change and the pendulum may begin to
1320
swing the other way. But we cannot put too much faith in that. We must find positive ways in which to go forward.
Your Lordships may recall that in some of the fringe areas of the British Isles—for example, I recall the Outer Hebrides where I served as a young territorial officer many years ago—there used to be a social convention of a trial period before marriage, before children arrived. It was understood generally and, indeed, accepted by the parties that when the children arrived, the alliance would become legal and permanent.
I advocate that we should develop and give legal form to such a trial marriage or, a better word perhaps, introductory marriage. The main cause of breakdown is the attitude with which so many young people enter marriage; namely, that love is blind. All the poets of all the ages have regarded the passion of romantic love as a form of insanity. It passes and the strains of commitment begin to show themselves.
I suggest that we need a social mechanism to enable responsible reconsideration of the commitment before beginning a family. Many years ago, the father of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, advocated a model. He suggested the following conditions: no intention to have children; divorce by mutual consent; and no question of alimony in the event of breakdown—and to give it legal force, I would add the necessary condition that if a child is born, the marriage must become permanent.
No government would wish to take a stance on this kind of subject in advance of a clear demonstration of public opinion. Some Churches would also see difficulties. It is up to individuals and voluntary organisations, supported by the media, to give a lead. I hope that if widespread public support for this concept became manifest, the Government would initiate official investigations and the legal implications would be properly considered and charted.
We cannot put the clock back. We must find ways of going forward. We must deter marriages being embarked upon irresponsibly, without consideration of the strains ahead and the obligations of commitment. I suggest to your Lordships that a legal framework of introductory or trial marriage is one of the ways forward.
4.52 p.m.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, for introducing this subject. We are considering two matters: the economic and social roles of marriage. I propose to say one or two words about the economic role and primarily talk about the social role.
As regards the economic role, the cost of broken marriages to the Exchequer is approaching £5 billion per year. That is quite a substantial economic factor in the breakdown of marriage as we face it today. The cost of marriage support has been running at about £3 million, which is quite a contrast to the cost of breakdown. I believe that this Government will increase that sum in future. Clearly, that would be a worthwhile investment.

1321
Research shows that problems from ill-health, smoking and alcoholism in married couples amount to approximately half those of single people or cohabiting couples. When people are off work, through sickness, become ill through smoking, or suffer problems from alcoholism, that all costs money. Therefore, that is a factor when we consider the economic role.
However, marriage is good for the economy. Research shows that married people tend to work harder, earn more and save more. That all brings in more money to the Exchequer. So, it is very worth while for the Exchequer to support marriage.
I turn now to the social role of marriage. I should like to emphasise the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Habgood, about marriage providing the quality of relationship that society needs. A lasting marriage provides stability in the community, and there is far too little of that at present. I have visited one or two of the worst housing estates in this country and read a book summarising some of the stories concerning such housing estates. Marriage can provide stability in the community, and that is greatly needed.
In contrast to the stability of marriage, a cohabiting couple is five or six times more likely to split up than a married couple. That factor makes me doubtful about the benefits of trial marriages, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow.
Married men are less likely to commit crimes. Certainly, marriage provides the best basis for support and care for elderly and disabled people as well as for children. Commitment to others—spouse, children and extended family—requires work and effort. That conflicts with self-centredness and individualism which, as several noble Lords have said, is a product of today's culture. As the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, stated this is a real challenge.
Perhaps I may say a word about the welfare of children. I was pleased to hear the Home Secretary state, on a couple of occasions, that from his experience and in his view marriage forms the best environment for raising children. One-in-two cohabiting couples with children part within 10 years as against only one-in-eight of married couples with children. I see that some schools even consider broken homes to be a greater problem for children in their schools than anything else today.
There are various things I should like to see happen. I make a plea to the media to do more to portray marriage positively than the bad role models I so often see and hear. I refer particularly to fatherhood, which has been mentioned several times. I should like to see more good father role models being portrayed in the media in "soaps" and suchlike.
We need more education on marriage as well as on parenting, both in adult education and schools. I hope to see more of that in the next few years. More government funding is needed for marriage preparation and for strengthening marriage. We need good marriages. Much of this was started by the Family Law Act 1996, bringing in a whole new field of conciliation work. From that arises much more encouragement to strengthen marriage rather than waiting for the crisis to
1322
come. Churches have submitted information to the Home Office on ways they can help to improve both the quality and stability of marriage. I hope and believe that the Home Office will take up that offer and work as a partnership to strengthen marriage.
I would love to see the Government checking that all policy serves to strengthen, not weaken, marriage. I, too, am optimistic that we can turn the corner and have more good marriages.
4.57 p.m.
Lord Craigmyle: My Lords, on 1st December in your Lordships' House I produced a litany of ways in which a married family helps society better than an unmarried one. Several noble Lords tonight have done better than me, so I shall not repeat it. However, perhaps I did not make clear that the comparisons I made were not between married families and worse-case scenarios, but between married families and apparently stable co-habitees parenting their own children.
There seems to be some confusion on the subject. The Chancellor of the Exchequer wishes to create stability through what he advertises as family-friendly policies. I believe he has missed a vital point in all this. Families do not make stability; families make children. Marriages make stability, but they get a thumbed nose from the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
The mechanics work like this. The contract of marriage, and the promise of stable life that will flow from that contract, induces partners to invest all their efforts and resources in the marriage. The return on investment is huge, not only to those married people but to society at large. As taxpayers, we should all hope that our ageing population is a married population. Married people are more likely to be independent and healthy and not so burdensome on younger citizens. Perhaps I should state an interest!
If the contract is undermined by social indifference, easy divorce and even, as in last November's discussion document, pre-nuptial separation agreements, nobody can expect the same level of investment by partners in their relationships.
So, what are we left with? The chief characteristic of marriage for a modern British couple is financial discrimination. Perhaps I may give as an example the working families tax credit. Like family credit before it, the WFTC fails to recognise the cost of the second adult in the family, except for the purpose of reducing the credit. That leaves us with the extraordinary situation in which a couple may take full advantage of their tax bands while both earning good money, but as soon as they have a child and take on parental responsibilities, not only do they lose one of their incomes, but they pay extra tax if the husband tries to make up the difference. Going back to last November's discussion document, leaving the child in childcare will not help either the child or the marriage.
Let us imagine the situation of a young couple netting £20, 000 a year each—a good wage—who say, "Well, this is all right. We can manage very nicely. Let's have a baby. Of course, we'll lose one income, but we'll be helped with child benefit and the working families tax

1323
credit. The Government support families". So, they have a child. Wow! They do not know what hits them. They expected their income to halve; what they had not reckoned on was that the net equivalised drop would be to about 55 per cent, of the value of that.
So, what happens to that couple? They are not only under huge financial stress (poverty being relative to expectation), but they are riding the roller-coaster of new family life. Worries about child welfare, worries about mother welfare, depression and elation are all subsumed into a fog of sleep deprivation. Do not underestimate those forces. They are probably the greatest internal battleground of those people's lives. That couple ought to be supported. They ought to be supported for many good reasons. But let me be really cynical about this: they ought to be supported because if they split up, the cost to the rest of us will be horrendous.
So many noble Lords have referred to education for marriage. I should like to end by saying something really positive, so here is a suggestion. It arises out of the question: how can young people learn of the benefits of marriage when a growing number of them have never seen marriage at work? With this problem in mind, an initiative has been taken to introduce married couples to volunteering sixth formers who wished to have the opportunity to discuss the institution of marriage. This is called the "Students Exploring Marriage Initiative", organised by the Grubb Institute of Behavioural Studies. I shall quote the words of one of its students:
"Before I decided to participate in the workshop, I had a pretty cynical view of marriage. With most of the adult members of my family divorced, I'd interpreted it as a thing of the past".
That is by no means untypical, yet there is a hunger to learn about marriage. Students at Rochester Grammar School for Girls told their Deputy Head of Sixth:
"that the project was the most useful experience they have had in the school"!
How about that? Forget maths and science!
I commend that project to any government who feel that examples of marriage could help to nurture a climate of stability in the country. It might not address the fundamental problems, but at least it keeps the choice of marriage open—for what we do not know, we cannot choose.
5.3 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Craigmyle, will not think me patronising if I say that I know that we older Members of the House welcome the accession of such a vivid young mind.
I must begin with an apology for speaking twice in one day. Although that is not contrary to the rules of the House, it is not a practice that I recommend. However, I am afraid that it is unavoidable in my case. Having been married for 67 years, when the subject of marriage arises I feel bound to offer a few thoughts. However, I assure the House that I shall speak even more briefly than have other noble Lords.
1324
We have heard some inspiring addresses, beginning with that of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. We have also heard from the former Bishop of Liverpool, the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard, and from the noble Lord, Lord Ashbourne, who is my spiritual mentor. Although we belong to different Churches, I attend a prayer group which he inspired and I follow everything that he said about practical measures.
If I look at the matter more broadly, it does not mean that I disagree with the suggestions made on the practical level. I am talking from the moral point of view. Some people seem ashamed of using the word "moral" and ask, "Why should we say anything about morals?" I shall speak about nothing except morals. If we did not have marriage, but only partnerships, children would be illegitimate. The people who produce those children and are not married are living in sin from the Christian point of view. I think that we should say that more clearly. I am Irish and therefore I do not understand English reticence or the fact that people do not like talking of morals because they think that that is bad form. I wish that people spoke up more plainly. I should like a poll to be taken in which people would be forced to say whether they agree that sex outside marriage is a sin. Sex outside marriage is, indeed, a sin. Once one accepts that, one either has to have marriage or face the human race dying out. There is no argument about the moral point of view, irrespective of the social and economic advantages of marriage.
However, morality is not the only issue. There are the children. Some people have a lot of children. I have had eight, but I hesitate to boast about anything these days. In a railway carriage not long ago, a lady said to me, "How many great-grandchildren do you have?" I said that I had 14. In fact, I have 15, but I had forgotten one. I then added, a shade complacently, that I fancied that that was rather more than most people. The man opposite said, "That's nothing at all; I have 17". So, one must never boast, but I can at least refer to the fact that I have had 67 years of very happy married life. Noble Lords may say that that is entirely due to my wife. That might largely be true and I have been very lucky there.
We know that marriage is a partnership. Although I have been exceptionally lucky, I am sure that I would be lynched if I suggested that other noble Lords have not been equally lucky. We have all been lucky if we have had long and happy marriages. Marriage is the best outcome. It is the only moral outcome otherwise society would come to an end. I support everybody who says anything at all in favour of marriage. I hope that I have made my point plainly enough.
5.7 p.m.
Lord Laming: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, is to be congratulated on initiating this debate on a subject which is clearly by general agreement recognised to be of fundamental importance to the well-being of our society. As many noble Lords have said, there is no doubt that children develop best in a loving and secure family setting. Disruption to family life and to the relationships which children have with the adults on whom they depend usually results in children becoming insecure and fearful of the future.

1325
That often produces a lack of concentration and a regression to earlier, more infantile behaviour. If children get caught up in destructive battles between the adults to whom they look for their security, that can lead to damaging conflicts of loyalty, and to anger and resentment. Such feelings can easily spill over into then-other relationships.
I am sure that we all agree that children are entitled to expect the adults in their lives to be aware of their vulnerability and to conduct their adult relationships in ways which facilitate the good things during the precious early years of childhood. That is particularly important as statistical evidence indicates that adults change their partners more frequently in the age group when they are more likely to have children under the statutory school age. Moving from childhood, through adolescence, into adulthood is difficult enough without children having to cope with the added trauma of parents being at war with each other.
However, I suggest that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, said, we should guard against the notion that we have lost a golden age of marriage and the family which we should now seek to recover. Although the figures on separation and divorce are of significance, they are but one dimension of a complex story. For example, it is interesting to note that the number of children in public care has actually reduced in recent years. Furthermore, we ought also to acknowledge that in the past the apparent stability of marriage was, in many instances, due to the fact that women were economically and socially locked into marriage. Whether the relationship was loving or joyless, tender or brutal, fulfilling or empty, many women simply had no choice and some of them lived in fear of yet another pregnancy.
So we should celebrate that women now have greater control over their own bodies, in particular pregnancy. More women have a greater range of choices in their lifestyles than in times past. More women are now economically active and society is being enriched by their skills and human qualities. There is a long way to go, but steady progress is being made towards genuine equality, even if that causes discomfort among some men. We need to help young men better understand these changes.
We need to recognise the changes taking place in our society. The recent report of Social Trends shows, for example, that half of all pregnancies occur outside marriage and the proportion approaches two-thirds in some inner city areas. The number of children per family is now so much smaller than in the past; and many women are now much older when they have their first child. Great geographical mobility means that far fewer people live their lives in the place of their birth surrounded by a network of supportive relatives and friends.
So what should we be doing in these circumstances? The starting point is to recognise those changes without recrimination or regret. We do not live in a world of "if only", and policies must address the reality of our social situation and be relevant to today's needs. Secondly, it should be emphasised in all that we do that
1326
choice does exist and that pregnancy and parenthood are not to be undertaken lightly. We need it to be clearly understood that adults have choice; but babies do not. Becoming a parent is a huge responsibility. It entails putting the well-being of another person before one's own comfort or convenience. It is not a short-term task, or indeed a long haul; it is a life-time commitment.
I hope that we agree that the state should not interfere in adult relationships, but there must be in place effective ways of helping and supporting parents through difficulties and bad times. In the past the extended family was the source of such help. But that is often not the case today, for reasons that I have touched upon. Help with the techniques of parenting, coping with uncertainty, frustration and tiredness, can often make the difference between success and breakdown. Health visitors and family centres provided by local authorities are of particular importance. The success of organisations like Home-Start, where carefully selected parents voluntarily support other parents, clearly demonstrates the long-standing benefit which can flow from the right kind of help at the right time.
Certainly the state should not be considering taking on the parenting role of other people's children at the first sign of difficulty. But, regrettably, sometimes adults do seriously harm their children and children get caught up in the conflict of adults. In that situation the state must have in place effective systems of child protection where the risk of the safety of the child is a serious matter. There should be no doubting that the clear focus of child protection work must be unswervingly on the well-being of the child. Tough decisions have to be made and actions taken with courage and determination.
Whatever the structure of the family, it will remain the bedrock of our society. It is best placed to provide the proper upbringing of children. But we must recognise that the structure of many families does change and will go on changing. No doubt many noble Lords have experienced that among wider family and friends. But our commitment to the familj', however constituted, should remain resolute. We can do much to reinforce parental responsibility with good support and understanding, whatever the vicissitudes of life.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, for tabling this debate this afternoon. I decided to speak in it because so few ladies were listed to speak. Not only am I in a minority in that respect—in fact, I am listed as a Lord, which I assure the House I am not—but I am also probably one of the few speakers this afternoon who is not able to relate 20 years of happy marriage; I am a divorcee. I do not want to refer to my personal experiences in that regard, except to say that I agree with those speakers who pointed out that outside your Lordships' House there is a very different society. The noble Lord, Lord Sheppard, was correct when he said that not many people would relate to the way in which we are debating this matter this afternoon.

1327
I also echo the view that there never was a golden age of childhood. If we go back 100 years children were up chimneys and working very long hours—that still continues—and many children were at boarding school. That cuts out family life. I had a quick look through Dodds and noted that half the noble Lords this afternoon, including myself, went to such institutions where we certainly did not benefit from the role models of our parents, of nurture and so forth. We should bear all those matters in mind and that at both ends of the social spectrum there has never been a golden age.
Nor has there ever been a golden age of marriage. Noble Lords mentioned the changes that have taken place. Women were free labour in many places. As recently as the 1830s wives were still able to be sold in Britain and it was only in 1870 that the Married Women's Property Act came into being. It is not surprising therefore that women in society feel slightly resentful, now that they are more independent, of being blamed for so many of the ills of society.
I want to turn to the subject of society, because that is where one of the problems arose during the 1980s and we are now reaping some of the difficulties of that time in the way our children and young people behave. When the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, was Prime Minister, she said, "There is no such thing as society".
Lord Milverton: My Lords, did she?
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Dean: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that she did.
The 1980s engendered the "Me first and everything else second" syndrome. Simply blaming marriage failure for the holes in society through which children are falling will not do. The extended family has contracted for a number of reasons. People have greater mobility. They leave their home towns in search of jobs. Lack of housing means that families often have to move far away from the support of grandparents, aunts, cousins and so forth. But housing estate design encourages everyone to think first of their private space and does little to foster neighbourly behaviour and to enable the sort of supportive networks that build up informally through communal facilities. As a local councillor I received phone calls from young single mums, but sometimes from elderly widows or people who were new to the area, about a specific problem but, after talking to the person for a while, the underlying message was, "I am lonely and it is hard to cope on my own". That is very much the case for parents, particularly with young children, whether or not they are single parents (though it can be more so for single parents) if they are isolated and staying at home.
Of course marriage is one way to provide the social framework for love and care, and it is a strong way of providing that. But it is not a panacea for all the isolation, loneliness and fear in our society.
The Government need to take action in a number of areas. Primarily, they must enable the informal support mechanism for individuals to be provided by society. Though this Government have made some moves in
1328
good faith towards that, a number of elements are still lacking. For example, although the measure of best value that is to be imposed on the delivery of so many local authority services will be able to measure statistically many things, will it be able to measure the value of the school nurse, the health visitor or the outreach youth worker? I do not believe that statistics will ever really be able to measure exactly the contribution of those workers to society and the benefits that they can bring.
No one goes into marriage hoping that it will fail. I firmly believe that everyone who has children desperately wants the best for them. No one wishes to fail their children. So although those with long and happy marriages are to be congratulated, we need a strong society which can support those who are single parents, those who are divorced parents and those who are elderly or widowed while still having a role in supporting their own children. Please let us not make people who have failed in their marriages feel failures to a greater degree because failure breeds failure and that will continue to the next generation.
5.20 p.m.
Lord Milverton: My Lords, I am very happy indeed to be able to join in the debate on the Motion tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, and to indicate my absolute support for it on the basic understanding that marriage, secure and stable, is the best foundation for man and woman in society and for the children. Indeed, it can survive difficulties where love is living both real and true.
First, however unpleasant it may be, we have to accept the inevitable collapse and breakdown of marriages and relationships of those living in partnerships and co-habitation when all reality has disappeared so all is unreality. Acceptance, that one has tried the absolute limit in genuine giving of love and compassion, but the inflexibility of the other one has rejected love. So the inevitability of the unreality comes on the scene. In life we know that love can be rejected in many ways.
As we know, love and compassion is two-way, not one way, involving mind, spirit and body (the physical side, the sexual); not just one without the other two. When this happens the parent left with the children needs all the positive help possible, conducted with sensitivity, patience and understanding. That is where, perhaps, grandparents can be of great help and support. The needs of the other parent will be quite different. Firmness may be needed, together with other approaches, if that person is willing.
Like anything of great value and treasure, love has to be worked at. So if one is not playing the game, the other one is put in a most frustrating position: love can be deadened or killed. It is a two-way system, is it not? The value of this sort of marriage is lessened when love becomes warm then cold and colder. Children sense and feel more than we realise. Social and economic matters are affected by the state of marriage, whether it is of the traditional sort or of those in partnership or cohabiting. As a priest, I have, like any other priest, come across

1329
those living in partnership or cohabiting. One has to give credit to some of them because they are conducting their lives with a form of commitment.
Secondly—and this is my main point—many marriages need not break down if people could realise afresh the true meaning of love which is more than just the enjoyment of the physical, the sexual. It involves the joyful exchanges through the mind and spirit, enjoying the mutual respect of one another, and so learning from one another, gaining an increase in knowledge, and understanding the joy of discovery. I often used to tell those couples who came to me for marriage preparation counselling that marriage is an endless journey of discovery where each is helping the other grow in maturity and stature. This love and compassion interchange leads to the healthy physical action which gives the sexual word its true meaning. There are some words which we have abused. "Sex" is one as well as "love".
This is how dignity and worth are incorporated in a personality. A mother especially can give her boy (her son) the lead to respect a woman. There is also the lead of a father to a daughter which enables the daughter to be able to respect a man. Indeed, if I remember correctly, I believe that that was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland. Both of course can help either son or daughter, but I hope that noble Lords will note that I said a father can give special help to a daughter and a mother can give special help to her son.
If a mother finds herself on her own, the task of being mother and father is not easy; indeed, it is tough. If marriage is a genuine giving and receiving between two minds, spirits and bodies, then there is hope for children; but otherwise there is less hope. If the genuine happens, this must help socially and economically with trust and loyalty. That is a sure foundation.
There are other ways to bring up children, but I find it difficult to think of some as being good and healthy. I try to see and understand other ways, but there are natural and unnatural ways if one believes in the doctrine of creation. Surely the unnatural do not help the social and economic pattern of life, do they? Our children need a positive and healthy example. When dignity is present the abusing and/or disorientating of love and sex is checked or prevented. Surely dignity is one thing that true marriages can show and give.
Happy loving marriages are the sure natural foundation for children and for social and economic health. We hope that more and more people will come to understand that. Let us pray and give thanks for those couples who show that, so that more and more people will come to know that joy which, in turn, brings health and joy for the community and indeed the nation.
5.27 p.m.
Lord Burlison: My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to make a few points in this most important debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. Although I am a great believer in marriage as a building block of our society and the bedrock of the family, it is not my intention to moralise on the matters of either marriage or divorce. Nor will I suggest to your
1330
Lordships' House that I have a magic quick fix formula to reduce the trend that has given us the highest divorce rate in Europe. However, we should not forget that the average length of a marriage in mid-Victorian times was 12 years. Death did then what divorce does now.
I do think there are positive things which we can do to encourage the institution of marriage. I know that there have been many suggestions in the past on how practical help can be given to make the role of marriage stronger and easier to manage. Suggestions such as trial marriages and applying penalties have been mentioned in this afternoon's debate. I must say that I am not in favour of those suggestions, but I recognise that the Family Law Act 1996 can greatly improve divorce and mediation. It is my view that governments do have a role to play in strengthening the main elements of marriage. I am pleased to say that we have a Prime Minster and a Government who, I believe, care about and recognise the values which families see as their priorities to establishing high quality family life. They have already started the process of helping to strengthen the main elements of marriage by their recent moves in the Budget with a better deal for families, increased child benefit, child tax credit changes and new tax rates. These changes coupled with the new minimum wage and the minimum income guarantee will produce the greatest help for so many families who are trapped in the stressful low income area. These are some of the positive steps which the Government have taken to help to ease the economic burdens of running a home and at the same time set down a strategy which I believe will result in the strengthening of the marriage base.
There are other important elements which cause concern, put pressure on family life and affect in particular people on lower incomes. I refer to education, housing and health provision. Most parents feel reasonably secure if they can see a future for their children in these areas.
I suspect that like most noble Lords taking part in this debate, I was brought up by two superb parents in a stable marriage who led by example and who steered me through my childhood with limited resources. I was taught clearly what was right and what was wrong and always to lend a hand to those less well off than myself. I hope that my children grow up with similar values. If they do not, I am sure that both my wife and myself will feel we have failed.
When I am away from this House, I spend much of my spare time with my children. However, like many other parents from a working-class background, I am not a schoolteacher, nor do I possess the teaching qualities of one. Therefore, I am deeply indebted to the teachers of Thomas More Comprehensive School at Blaydon for the way my children are being educated. I am confident that if they fail in their education it will not be the fault of their school, which incidentally was recently mentioned in the Telegraph guide to good schools. I have mentioned the education of my children simply to explain to noble Lords how important it is to working parents to know that their children an; receiving a good education and at the same time are being cared for at school. That in itself can lift so much pressure from family life.

1331
Marriage relationships have changed and they are more varied than hitherto, but that is not necessarily wrong. Chores are shared to a greater extent now by both partners, who often work. Modern marriages place much more emphasis on fathers being involved with the children from their birth and with all the other commitments which go with being a parent.
On every variation in marriage one can take a positive or a negative view. I believe, however, that one of the most important points is to support relationships rather than an institution. We should provide more pre-marriage education. We should place greater emphasis on counselling services for when things go wrong and, above all, we should care for children to minimise the damage that is caused to them. Marriage has changed—if it is to be relevant it must change—and so must our attitude to it.
5.33 p.m.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, the longstanding concern of my noble friend Lord Northbourne is mainly for the children of divided families. As I come into that category I have dared to enter this debate. Who can ignore the research published by the Lord Chancellor's department that the number of under 16s who have seen their parents' marriage break down rose from 9 per cent. in 1960—when I was 16—to 20 per cent. in 1979, and over 25 per cent. today? That is one child in every four. My nephew who now lives with us is another child in that group.
This morning I happened to be in Matrimony Place beside St. Paul's churchyard in Clapham and was there reminded of the high Victorian ideal of marriage which few of us—let us face it—can ever attain, even the noble Earl, Lord Longford. With our rising divorce rates and record teenage pregnancies we are a fallen tribe beside our European neighbours.
I come from a generation which has been cool, if not hostile, to the institution of marriage. Although we have been shaken by the statistics today we must recognise how well the institution itself has survived criticism. I believe this is because it is only a framework. It is a formalised relationship. Although it has been questioned by many since the 1960s, I believe that it is now essential to family life. But it will only last so long as the individuals and conditions allow.
I must say as an aside that, having attended a civil ceremony in London recently where I was a witness to a friend's marriage, I believe much could be done to improve the quality of secular marriages. The soupy music and trite statements by the registrar reminded me more of a crematorium service, which is another ceremony we seem unable to get right. In this respect I agree with the Government's proposals to include a more imaginative personal celebration of the couple's commitment within the ceremony. Is this not what religion is all about? Is it at last becoming politically correct to ask the Churches to advise town halls on how it is done?
Any failure in a marriage is not, however, in the institution—however much we improve it, as this Government certainly hope to do—but it is in us, the
1332
individuals and society. As the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, said, there are large numbers of children who could ideally expect to have two parents. I am not someone who holds up the conventional family like a torch, and nor is he, because we all recognise that there are wonderful examples of parenting outside marriage. But as one who suffered from divorced parents and who remembers that terrible sense of pain when the letter arrives and you know that their paths are taking them further apart and further from the children, I personally regret the trend away from formal marriage relationships. I welcome the efforts of this Government to reinforce the family and to strengthen the support systems which enable children, especially very young children, to flourish in spite of the difficult conditions around them, and they are difficult today.
But are we doing enough economically? I warmed to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard, because I remember only too well a night spent in a parish on the edge of a north Coventry housing estate where deprivation, caused fundamentally by unemployment in the automobile industry, is among the bleakest in the country. When you see the boarded up houses and the damage to property caused by excluded young people despite the best efforts of the Churches, the voluntary agencies, the schools and the local council, you know that these are the conditions in which marriages break down and young people are helpless to overcome frustration and apathy. We should remember that the social fabric in inner cities and some rural areas is frail without the active economic initiative which governments should provide with the help of the private and voluntary sector where possible.
I am sure we all support the basic messages of the Home Office consultation document, Supporting Families. It states on page 30 that,
"Strong and stable families provide the best basis for raising children".
It continues,
"Too often parents do not have access to the help … they need".
For my remaining time I wish to concentrate on the question of access, with reference to the work of Save the Children with ethnic minorities. I regret that the primary focus of the consultation paper is on parents and not children. There is, for example, no mention of the impact of the Government's proposals on children, and no mention of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child which protects children, or of its implementation in the UK.
The new National Family and Parenting Institute is to be welcomed if it properly recognises the diversity of communities and the need to communicate effectively with families with different cultural backgrounds. Can the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor confirm that the institute will consult fully with agencies, such as Save the Children, which work closely with the Bangladeshi and Vietnamese communities? They propose, for example, that the institute should devise more effective methods of evaluating local initiatives and of assessing their impact on children. There should be improvements in functional literacy and training for parents for whom English is not their first language.

1333
Children from ethnic minority backgrounds may well be brought up in a more traditional framework—as we have heard—which includes extended families and earlier marriage but these do not, of course, always work in favour of the children.
I have digressed into the wider issues of the family outlined by the Supporting Families document because, like the Government, I am certain that more sensitivity by local councils and agencies to the varied needs of families provides a good part of the answer. However, overcoming prejudice and supporting families are not only a government responsibility. I fully respect New Labour's move away from the nanny state towards better parenting and a society which holds individuals, as well as institutions, accountable for the evils which beset our children.
5.40 p.m.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, for initiating this important debate. The noble Lord closed his opening speech by saying that children need their parents, parents need one another, and we need to re-learn how to live together. I agree with those sentiments but I would argue that parents need to learn from examples of today's successful marriages rather than from the Victorian model of successful marriages.
My noble friend Lord Judd spoke of today's democratic family. I would argue that today's democratic family is different and better than the old-fashioned model of a Victorian family. In some ways my noble friend Lord Burlison made the same point. I would argue that in today's family children come first, quite explicitly, in a way that perhaps they did not in some of the older models. Women have far greater opportunities outside the home. That should be celebrated and women should be encouraged to take those opportunities. I would argue that men are taking a far more active role in bringing up their children. Even now, when we talk about changing nappies, men of only 20 or 30 years find it extremely funny. They regard it as something they would never have dreamt of doing themselves, but it is quite normal for fathers of my generation.
In addition, there is a constant time pressure on today's modern marriages and a constant pressure of money. That is why some two-thirds of mothers go out to work today. That is a good thing but of course it is a question of getting the right balance between work and the home. I believe that the key to the success of a modern democratic marriage is balance and flexibility. I know and believe that the Government are doing everything in their power to try to promote that balance and flexibility. Perhaps I should declare an interest here in that my wife is the chief executive of a voluntary organisation called Parents at Work, which is campaigning specifically to get a better balance in the modern home.
The noble Lord, Lord Habgood, made many important points in his speech, particularly when he said that the modern family is a political issue and that it is concrete policies which matter in supporting today's
1334
family. It is worth very quickly recounting the huge amount that the Government have done to support the family since they came to office. There is the national childcare strategy, nursery places, out-of-school clubs, increased training, early years development and childcare partnership. There has been a huge change in employment rights, particularly for part-time workers, which is of enormous benefit to mothers. There is parental leave, which will probably be unpaid but is at least a step in the right direction. There will be paternity leave, again a step in the right direction. Maternity leave is to be extended from 14 to 18 weeks and there will be family or emergency leave so that people do not have to tell fibs and say that they are ill when they really mean that their children are ill. There is also the working time directive, which I would argue will do much to help today's family.
In addition, there are the tax and benefits changes which have been made in the last two Budgets. These will make a big difference to today's family. There is the children's tax credit, childcare tax credit and the working family tax credit, all of which will be helpful. In addition, the Government are campaigning very actively to encourage employers to understand the business benefits of having flexible working patterns and a family friendly attitude.
Many noble Lords have spoken about their personal experiences and the importance of marriage; all noble Lords, quite rightly, have spoken about how important it is to them. But I, like the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, come from a broken home. That has made me doubly aware of the importance of permanence in bringing up my own family. These types of debate tend to become rather pious unless one acknowledges that families do sometimes go wrong and need to be supported when they do. I am slightly worried about with how much of the generally high-tone of the debate I find myself agreeing. I wonder whether I would have agreed with so much of it before I got married and had my own children.
Finally, the only Peer who is single and who will contribute to today's debate is the noble Lord, Lord Addington. Unfortunately for the noble Lord—or very luckily for the noble Lord—he will be getting married fairly soon, on 27th March. He can take an outside perspective and perhaps a more detached view than many of us who have taken part in the debate.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, I just want to say that the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, very kindly wrote to me and invited me to put down my name to speak in this important debate. I would have done so except for the consideration that your Lordships have heard my views very fully over and over again. I have not changed them and I do not wish to take up your Lordships' time.
5.46 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, how do I start my speech? The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, has rather stolen my opening line by declaring my, shall we say,

1335
imminent interest in the subject of marriage. I think that putting my name down to speak in the debate was a clear case of a fool rushing in where angels fear to tread. But I think it is a good way of acknowledging that every time one speaks about this subject one brings to it a part of one's personal prejudices and history.
The idea of a broken home is one I do not like. I did not regard my home as being broken; I regarded it as not having a father. I hope that in future we will be able to change the language we use in relation to this subject because, let us face it, if a marriage has broken down, having the two people at each others' throats—verbally, physically or in icy silence—will probably be far more damaging to any child and the people in the marriage. There is not much doubt about that precept. If we bear that in mind, it is to be hoped that this debate will go forward in a reasonably coherent manner. Reference has been made to the Victorian model of marriage. It has clearly been shown that the average Victorian marriage lasted 12 years.
I am of the age when the schoolbooks of my first years showed Janet and John waiting for daddy to come home and mummy doing the cooking. That has all changed. Indeed, it was an illusion. For a large part of our history, mothers in the poorer parts of our society invariably worked. It may have been very low status work and for very short periods of time, but throughout most of our history women have worked. They did physically hard work in the home within marriage or they went out to earn extra money. Indeed, in certain parts of our society, for long periods that work was often prostitution. It is often easy to forget that our society has always pushed people down and tried to exploit them as far as the society and law would allow. The biggest change to marriage as an institution is probably the role of women within it.
I am getting married to someone who has a regular job—unlike a regular attender here—and who will probably bring as much economically to the table as I do. Thus, we are forming a "partnership", a very different term. The term "partner", which I agree seems to cover every arrangement one can possibly come across—everything from a business relationship to the person to whom you are married—is probably much more appropriate to a modern marriage.
The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, spoke about having children. Perhaps I may make another personal declaration. I do not regard the act of getting married as acquiring a breeding licence. Surely we have gone beyond that. These days, a man who has children is expected to change the nappies. Indeed, my sister's husband takes great delight in putting one of my nephews in my arms and saying, "Right, you hold him while I do the dirty work". That is something that I am just about managing to do while observing the whole process. I am told, "It gets easier when they're your own". I wait to discover that.
What we are really talking about is the best environment whereby we can put small unit blocks into our society—whether we allow them to develop in a
1336
more traditional way with help from outside in a modern world, or whether we try to cling onto something which probably never existed.
We have heard a series of radical suggestions. One is that marriage could possibly become a series of contracts. To make a further personal comment, I could not have seen myself falling down on one knee and saying: "Will you enter into a five-year renewable contract with me?". It will require some time and customisation to take that on board as a new concept. But it could happen. The idea of people living together in a permanent relationship outside marriage is growing. Indeed, the statistics that have been bandied around during this debate may well change over time as society and people become more used to dealing with that relationship.
Rules will probably be established as to how it should be approached. The legal frameworks that are developing to bring people into non-married stable relationships will become easier to deal with and people will know what is expected of them. Just as children like a stable environment, adults like to know what they are supposed to do as well. We often forget that there is nothing more difficult than doing something new and original. As we establish new codes of conduct, possibly these statistics will change. Such relationships may never be as stable as marriage; or the idea of the renewable contract could be another way forward. We do not know. We are entering a rapidly expanding area of change in our society.
We need to examine the economic and social situation. We need to consider the role of women in marriage as in any other relationship. It is a fact that the economic unit is changing in its diversity. In certain parts of society, the traditional male job no longer exists. The days are gone when a man did a heavy manual job and went home and placed money on the table—or, to be technical, economic purchasing power—and allowed the woman to run the household. As I have said, that was never the totally dominant mode. Unless we can get young males in our society to appreciate that they will have to take on a partnership role, the whole thing is liable to collapse.
The remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, were, as usual, well-considered. The noble Lord demonstrates the value of having thought about a subject deeply before speaking about it. He mentioned the idea of educating people in terms of what to expect from their own marriage and said that we should examine that approach closely. It will be a help if we prepare people for the realities. The same is true of sex education. This country has the highest rate of teenage pregnancies in Europe, probably because we are among the slowest to tell people in straightforward terms exactly what happens. Surely we can combine such education with what happens in marriage. The idea of how pregnancy occurs and knowing how to look after a baby are surely related.
Marriage has survived for many years. Its meaning in social and economic terms has changed fundamentally throughout the centuries, and it will continue to change.

1337
Perhaps I may be allowed one final aside, which I rather inelegantly did not incorporate earlier in my remarks. The noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, commented on recognising the value of the other major religions in their own right. It is a sensible idea. I hope that it will be drawn to the Government's attention in the foreseeable future. It certainly cannot hurt; and it may help.
5.55 p.m.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, this has been a most informative debate. I have greatly enjoyed all the contributions. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, on raising the issue and on his thoughtful, sensitive and detailed outline of society today with its many frightening statistics.
This debate is specifically about family life within marriage, and that is the subject on which I have concentrated my thoughts. I have greatly enjoyed listening to Members of different faiths who have given us their views. I congratulate noble Lords who have celebrated many years of married life and wish the noble Lord, Lord Addington, great happiness as he embarks on a new life. My noble friend Lord Griffiths said that this was not a time for private views. But it is very difficult not to have such views and speak to them. So I ask the indulgence of the House.
During any family crisis when our children were growing up, my husband would always say to me, "Never forget, children grow up in spite of their parents". I found those words comforting because, try as hard as we did, I am sure we made awful mistakes. But we all survived. Being a parent is a tremendous responsibility when there are two parents to share it, but if there is only one, that load must at times become almost intolerable.
I grew up in a one-parent family, as my father died when I was 10 years old. I have often pondered on the difficulties my mother must have faced as she tried to bring us up alone. In addition, we had to leave our home as a consequence of bomb damage, and of course there were all the other worries that families endured in wartime Britain. I am sure that my brother and I must have caused my mother great anxiety, and she had no one with whom to share it. In fact, I wonder how she coped at all. There were so many pressures on her. But throughout it all, she taught us to pull together as a family, whatever problems we faced. That stood me in very good stead.
I quote that experience because I just cannot understand why anyone should want to embark on raising children in a one-parent family situation. I most sincerely believe that children want to grow up in a home with two parents living together under one roof, sharing the care, with its ups and downs, of their offspring. Having a bedroom in each parent's home, and consequently going from place to place with his or her suitcase, is a very poor substitute and must add to the confusion in a child's mind after a family break-up.
Of course I am sure that everyone starts out on the wedding day with high ideals, and "until death us do part" is most sincerely meant. But it is extremely sad to see so many marriages fail at such an early stage. I do
1338
not wish to take a moral stance as I do not feel qualified to do so, but my experience as a magistrate often left me with real sadness as I saw so many lives destroyed.
There is statistical evidence to show that children from broken homes normally do worse than those from stable homes. So I believe that the Government have a duty to support marriage through fiscal and social measures. When I listen to those who advocate mothers of young children under school age being harried into taking full-time employment, I am concerned about the effect on those children when they are, for example, ill or at home for school holidays. Nurseries are fine for a few hours a week, but leaving children there from 8 a. m. until 6 p.m. day after day is a recipe for future disaster.
It is usually for financial reasons that mothers of young children go out to work full-time, so I want to repeat two suggestions which were made earlier. I urge the Government to take two positive measures: first, to restore the married couples' allowance to everyone and not just to pensioners. Secondly, I believe that the married woman who stays at home to look after her young child or children, or a handicapped relative, should be allowed to transfer her personal tax allowance to her husband.
Since coming into office, this Government appear sadly to have abandoned the traditional family, caring more for those who raise their children outside marriage or with a peripatetic live-in lover. Marriage is a very special institution and should be treated as such by government. I am obviously speaking for myself, but I most sincerely believe that if we continue on this course it will create great problems for future generations. I have met so many young mothers who, while working full-time—not part-time, which I support—have been consumed with guilt and at the same time have felt cheated out of the joys of being around with their children during those early years.
We have heard the experiences of families outside marriage and of course I understand the pressure people are under when they are unemployed, lack housing and are forced into bed-and-breakfast accommodation. That is the kind of life no one could wish to continue. What we have heard in many of the speeches today is that people need the commitment provided by marriage rather than by merely setting up home together.
We have heard that there ought to be preparation for marriage from an early stage. One hopes that that would come from within the home, but, sadly, if it is from within a broken home it may not always help. Perhaps schools can help, but as people prepare for marriage I hope that they will realise the enormity of what they are committing themselves to. Children develop best in a loving home with two parents. We should not forget that.
There have been various views about the father's role and I recognise the huge change since I had my sons. I married at the end of an era because, afterwards, except for voluntary work, I did not work again. But I understand that today's fathers, whose wives work part-time or full-time, have a much greater share in bringing up their children. That is much to be welcomed and also enjoyed.

1339
I am sure that some people will say, "It's all right for her, she's happily married". So I am. I was lucky; I believe I chose the right mother, the right family and of course the right husband. But I want more of our citizens to have the same happiness as I had and to believe that raising children is a worthwhile career in itself. I am convinced that if we all felt like that we would be a much happier and more successful society.
6.3 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, let me begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, for introducing this debate and for the quality of his contribution. Over the years, he has been a strong champion of the family and in particular of disadvantaged families and children. For that, but not only that, he is rightly held in high regard in your Lordships' House.
We are often reminded how attitudes to marriage and to the family have changed dramatically. The latest issue of the Government's Population Trends was published only last week. Our divorce rate, though now stable, is still the highest in Europe. We are warned that, if the present trends continue, married couples will become a minority of the adult population within the next 10 years. The noble Lord, Lord Griffiths of Fforestfach, drew attention to that. This compares with 1981, when 65 per cent. of adults were married.
What should the Government do? I believe the role of the state is to encourage, not to compel; to provide practical help, not to moralise. I can assure noble Lords that the Government are certainly not neutral. They have made clear their support for the institution of marriage. I have done so myself on many occasions. I do so again. The consultation document, Supporting Families, emphasises the importance of marriage as a strong foundation for stable relationships and as the most reliable framework for raising children. The paper emphasises that marriage,
"also sets out rights and responsibilities for all concerned. It remains the choice of the majority of people in Britain. For all these reasons, it makes sense for the Government to do what it can to strengthen marriage".
Of course, as the consultation paper also says, supporting marriage does not mean trying to compel people to marry, or criticising or penalising those who choose not to do so. More couples cohabit before marriage and, increasingly, more of them have children without first marrying. Some couples, even with children, continue to cohabit without marrying at all. In a free society, we must respect these choices, not condemn them. We must ensure that the protection of the law is available to everyone in our society on the basis of need, not exclusively on the basis of marital status. Given that around a third of children are now born outside marriage, it would be unacceptable to discriminate against children because their parents are unmarried.
It is clearly just as important that cohabitants and former cohabitants should have protection from domestic violence as spouses and former spouses. Part
1340
IV of the Family Law Act provides that protection and early indications are that those suffering domestic violence in both married and unmarried relationships are making substantial use of the Act.
Support for the institution of marriage is one of the principles underlying the Family Law Act 1996. There has been a torrent of misguided criticism of the Act, aimed at my noble and learned predecessor, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, whose Act it was, and now aimed at this Government. These people claim to believe that the implementation of the Act will make divorce quicker and easier. It is the present fault-based divorce law that makes divorce quick and easy. My noble and learned predecessor's Act, when implemented, will make it slower and more difficult. Let me prove that.
Fault-based divorce today places a premium on fault allegations, encouraging the type of proceedings which are clearly harmful to children and lead to many years of hostility and bitterness following divorce. There is no encouragement or opportunity for couples to try to save their marriages. Divorce and remarriage often take place before arrangements for children and finance are finalised. This encourages an irresponsible attitude to marriage and family life. Good neutral information is not available to enable people to consider their options, to make informed decisions and to stop and think about what divorce will mean for them and their children. Surely, the interests of the children must come first.
Let me digress for a moment and then return to my theme. I agree completely with the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, that the relationship of marriage gains major new responsibilities from the birth of children.
Perhaps I may respond to the points made on the Budget. With effect from April 2000 the married couple's allowance, worth £197 a year, will go, but it will be replaced by a new children's tax credit from April 2001 worth £416 a year. There will also be a 3 per cent. real increase in child benefit from April 2000 to £15 for the first child and £10 for subsequent children. This is in addition to the £2.95 increase for the eldest child announced in the last Budget which takes effect from this April.
I believe that my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer should be applauded for putting families with children first. Children are 20 per cent. of the population, but 100 per cent. of our future and they should be put first. The married couple's allowance is a misnomer. The previous government rightly called it an anomaly and reduced it from 40 per cent. to 15 per cent. It is not an allowance restricted to married couples; it is a tax credit paid at the same flat rate to married couples, single parents and unmarried parents living together. Why? Because it is an additional person's allowance available to anyone with children—that is, an additional person to support. Thus it is paid to single parents and cohabiting parents with children. Perhaps I may gently chide the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, for what she said about the Government's tax proposals in this area. It was a travesty of the facts.

1341
I now return to our divorce practices today. They sanction quick and easy divorces which devalue marriage. Today, 75 per cent. of divorces are quickie divorces granted within a few months of the petition. Let me remind your Lordships of what happens in practice. The petition is sent through the post to the local county court and then a copy is sent by post to the other party who, in the vast majority of cases, will not defend the divorce, but will indicate consent. The district judge in the county court will list about two dozen cases for 10.30 in the morning. He will pronounce in a single sentence that a decree nisi is granted in all cases in front of him that morning. Six weeks after the decree nisi the decree will be made absolute and the marriage terminated. It is only at that stage that the interests of the child are addressed. In theory, the court must be satisfied that the arrangements for the children are satisfactory, or at least that they are the best that can be devised in the circumstances. In practice, the court's scrutiny of the arrangements is often cursory in the extreme. These are the facts of life about divorce in this country today.
My noble and learned predecessor's Family Law Act 1996 introduces a radically different approach to divorce. When Part II of the Act comes fully into force people contemplating divorce will be encouraged, during a compulsory period of reflection and consideration, to consider whether they can be helped by marriage counselling. Where there is no prospect of reconciliation, mediation services will be made available to help couples reach agreement for themselves about future arrangements for the children and property. This new procedure will get rid of the quickie divorce because of the compulsory period for reflection and consideration.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Ashbourne, will consider the points that I am about to make with an open mind. When the Act is implemented there will be a minimum waiting time prior to divorce of 13 months, which in certain circumstances may be extended to 19 months. That will give people the opportunity to stop and think and enable them to make informed decisions. This will help to identify saveable marriages and support them by the provision of state funding for marriage counselling. This will support children by informing parents of the importance of the welfare of the children and helping them to co-operate as parents after divorce. This will reduce conflict by providing mediation as a less confrontational way of resolving disputes.
For all these reasons the Government are committed to bringing their predecessors' Family Law Act 1996 into force. We are now approaching the end of an extensive period of piloting of the new arrangements. Later this year the Government will announce an implementation date.
The principle of support for the institution of marriage is given practical effect by Section 22 of the Family Law Act. This gives the Lord Chancellor power to make grants in connection with the provision of marriage support services, research into the causes of marital breakdown and into ways of preventing marital breakdown.
1342
Since my department took over this responsibility from the Home Office in 1995, we have spent between £3 million and £3.5 million per year on marriage support. This includes strategic funding for the major national agencies and some project funding for research and development. We have published a Directory of Marriage Support Services which has been distributed to public libraries and other outlets throughout the country.
I say to the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, that my own department has agreed to contribute £100, 000 to the Government's funding of the National Family and Parenting Institute to which he referred and in addition to the marriage support grants that we make. I believe that this institute consults widely and that that does extend to the agencies concerned with ethnic minorities.
Professor Jane Lewis of the University of Nottingham has just completed a research project funded by my department. Her report, "Individualism and Commitment in Marriage and Cohabitation" will shortly be published in the department's research series. We have already published two volumes of review papers by One plus One, the marriage and partnership research charity which is funded by my department on the causes of marital breakdown and the effectiveness of policies and services intended to reduce its incidence.
Towards the end of last year I invited Sir Graham Hart to carry out a review of marriage support and research funding to assist my department in developing a more strategic approach to the allocation of resources. Sir Graham, as a former Permanent Secretary at the Department of Health, is especially well qualified to provide advice on this subject. He came to see me last week. He is on course to complete his report and submit it by Easter. It would not be right for me to speculate about his detailed recommendations now. Obviously, I shall need some time to consider his report before I make it public, together with my response. This I hope to do during the summer.
But what I say now—and I am sure that it will be of interest to all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate—is that Sir Graham has told me that he considers state funding of the national marriage support agencies to be a highly appropriate and worthwhile use of public funds. I wholeheartedly agree with him on that and I will be responding positively. I can tell your Lordships that next year's planned funding is £3 million and I will be reviewing the figures in the light of Sir Graham Hart's report. I hope that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lincoln will recognise what I have just said as the positive statement that it is intended to be.
This has been a valuable debate. I have enjoyed the contributions of all your Lordships. The whole debate will serve to inform the development of policy by the Government.
6.19 p.m.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, first I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Addington. I hope that this debate on the Order Paper has not applied any pressure on him to commit himself. I am enormously grateful to all noble

1343
Lords who have spoken this afternoon and I am humbled by both the number and quality of the contributions.
I was very happy to hear Christians, Jews and Moslems all singing from the same hymn book, as it were. All confirmed one another's views about marriage. I leave all of them and noble Lords with the thought that although most, if not all, of the major religions support marriage I suspect that as an institution it probably pre-dates all the religions that we know today.
I leave the House with one thought. Let us go forward in thinking about structures within and without marriage and, as a society, let us consider how we can better live together, and support one another and our children, both within and outside marriage. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Persistent Juvenile Offenders
6.21 p.m.
Viscount Tenby Viscount Tenby rose to call attention to the problems of dealing with persistent juvenile offenders, in the light of the report by the Social Services Inspectorate on the Medway Secure Training Centre; and to move for Papers.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I imagine that some Members of this House believe that a disproportionate amount of time is spent in discussing prisons and prison policy. That may be so, but the whole area of crime and its effect on our society is, surely, one of the most pressing and fundamental problems with which we are faced today. Accordingly, I make no apology for treading this well-worn path once again, but I ask noble Lords to bear in mind that what I very much hope will be a constructive and helpful debate is pitched at the precise target of young repeat offenders and how we can best deal with them, not the subject of prisons and offenders in general.
It is perhaps timely to have this particular debate today not only because of the recent publication of the report about events at Medway but because the youth justice Bill has just ended its journey through this House. I confess to a small frisson of triumph akin to winning the lottery, and with approximately the same odds against, since it is not always possible (to put it mildly) to anticipate the parliamentary timetable with any degree of confidence. This time I appear to have picked the lucky number.
The peg on which this debate is hung is the recent publication of the report by the Social Services Inspectorate of its inspection of Medway Secure Training Centre which took place largely in September of last year. Noble Lords will recall that the concept of secure training centres (STCs as they shall be called henceforth) was promoted by the previous administration against a chorus of disapproval from many quarters. In today's changed circumstances one may say that some of it was embarrassing. The concept
1344
of locking up in one place the worst 12 to 14 year-olds, inevitably in some cases far from their homes and local communities, and subjecting them to a strict but fair regime, coupled with what can only be described as a crash course in citizenship, certainly appealed to the tabloid tendency and also offered popular and political appeal. Offenders committed to STCs must have been convicted for persistent offending of a serious nature, in the majority of cases burglary and theft and aggravated car theft. Sentences might be anything from six months to two years, although in reality over 12 months is rare. Half the sentence is spent in an STC with the second half in the community under supervision.
In answer to a Written Question from the noble Lord, Lord Acton (I am pleased to see that he is to take part in the debate) who inquired whether previous experience in working with difficult and delinquent children would be a pre-condition for success in the tendering process, the then Home Office Minister referred to the advertisement that had been placed which required,
"potential bidders to give details of any work undertaken in the previous three years demonstrating capability in the provision of services for young people". —[Official Report, 29/2/96; WA 113.]
On this and other criteria Rebound, a subsidiary of Group 4, was appointed, although as reported by the press its subsequent surprise at the warmth of the reception that it received from some inmates might have given rise to reservations in official quarters about the precise depth of knowledge in this field that it had claimed to possess.
Be that as it may, Medway opened in April 1998. The sorry tale of the ensuing months is detailed in the report of the inspectors: two senior managers and 30 per cent. of operational members of staff left in the first months; the cost of damage repair following rioting stands at £150, 000; two inmates escaped; there was no detoxification programme in place; there were incidents of bullying and self-harm; a so-called restraint squad had to be brought in; and neck and wrist restraints were used on at least 135 occasions. That is an interesting development in view of best medical evidence that such methods should not be used in the case of youngsters and the fact that only 12 per cent. were there for offences of violence.
It is a catalogue of incompetence which, to its credit, the company has largely admitted. It must also be stated that there was fault on both sides and that some of the official specifications—for example, for doors and windows—were contrary to what Rebound believed was appropriate for the task. In short, it has become clear that there was insufficient grasp on both sides of the enormity of the task which faced any pioneering company in this minefield. If there is any comfort to be had it is that Onley, which is due to open in May, will not be given the go-ahead until the Government are satisfied that it will be run properly. That promise was made in another place by the Minister. In defence of the Government, there were contractual obligations that made the opening of Medway and Onley inescapable. That may well also be the case with Hassockfield, which is due to open in the autumn under other, and as yet untried, management. Accordingly, is the Minister

1345
satisfied that this company is competent to run an STC and that it, too, has taken on board the lessons of Medway?
I come to the last two, Sharpness and Ranby, for which the Government have applied for outline planning permission; in other words, they have accepted the concept of STCs and so the road to Ranby has become their road to Damascus. Therefore, the STCs are with us. Those who try to calculate how many additional places in secure local accommodation could be created were, at the very least, those last two projects to be cancelled, must go on dreaming; just as those who believe that to take the really bad eggs out of national colleges of crime and disperse them throughout the country in small units, although marginally a little more expensive on a per capita basis, nevertheless provides the best answer to the problem, will never have the chance to find out—at least in the foreseeable future.
Before finally leaving the subject of STCs, I must quote from the Government's response to last year's Home Office Comprehensive Spending Review:
"and in anticipation of the Detention and Training Order, to allow these centres (STCs) to accommodate juveniles of all ages".
What exactly do those ominous words mean? Do they include children perhaps as young as 10? If such is the intention will there be appropriate facilities for them within the STC? Who determines who goes to an STC? Is it the Secretary of State or his nominee; that is, the Youth Justice Board? Will the juvenile court have any jurisdiction in the matter or will it merely sentence juveniles to a period of custody, leaving where that is in the air?
If they do have this discretion, how will they know whether there is a place available were they minded to commit to an STC? The answer may be, "Well, it's only the trouble of a phonecall from the court after all. "But what happens if it is early evening in a court which is far away from any of the five STCs? Will the court have to ask for a bed for the night from the nearest available secure local accommodation? I should be grateful if the noble Lord the Minister would answer some of these questions when he winds up the debate.
I believe it is fair to describe the final years of the last administration as being a period without a coherent national strategy to deal with persistent juvenile offending. Measures were seemingly brought in on an ad hoc basis, often in response to tabloid pressure or to reassure party activists. Much has changed since then and I, for one, congratulate this Government and the noble Lord the Minister, whose caring credentials I know to be as good as anyone's in this field, on finally coming to grips with this immense problem.
Having said that, we now appear to have gone from famine to feast. The late Baroness Faithfull, whose indomitable spirit surely hovers approvingly over this debate, would undoubtedly be pleased by our discussing these matters. However, at the risk of pouring a little cold water over the proceedings, I have to say that the rapid succession of Acts, reports, advices, responses and the like over the past two years is inclined to make the establishment of what is or is not the exact penalty,
1346
sentence and its administrative execution a little confusing, although some of the Minister's answers to this debate will no doubt clarify the situation.
Perhaps it is too much to hope that we could have the plethora of Acts introduced over the past few years finally consolidated into one all-embracing Act. These, however, are relatively minor considerations when set against the implementation of a country-wide strategy, which takes account of all the problems relating to juvenile crime, attempts to deal with them sensibly and, most important of all, seeks to include those members of our community most intimately connected with them— namely, the police, magistrates, teachers and the social services—in their solution.
While on the subject of a grand strategy, I refer to the general in day-to-day charge of the campaign. I must record how grateful I am to the noble Lord, Lord Warner—I do not think he has made it yet—for coming all the way from an important engagement in Sheffield today to take part in this debate. As chairman of the Youth Justice Board, his contribution will be of very great value indeed, and I hope he arrives in time.
The board will play a central role in the constructive fight against juvenile crime nationally. The new detention and training order being implemented in April next year, together with the setting up of youth offending teams, are the foundations of the Government's strategy. A comprehensive survey of the juvenile secure estate will precede the assumption of the responsibility by the board for all secure accommodation for those under 18 years old. This will be complemented by the Prison Service's review of its juvenile estate. Thereafter the Youth Justice Board will act as the purchasing body for all forms of secure accommodation for juvenile offenders. I must here own up to the fact that though I can understand the theory and the economic and administrative rationale for this initiative, I am still puzzled as to how it will work in practice. Perhaps the noble Lord the Minister, or the noble Lord, Lord Warner, will be able to help in this respect. Together with monitoring the relevance of sentences, the board will determine the constructive execution of those sentences. In other words, it will ensure that all the constituent players in the correct discharge of a sentence fulfill their responsibilities—a matter of particular importance in the second, non-custodial part of the sentence.
Let me take this thought a little further, if I may. The first STC, as we have heard, has now been in existence for nearly a year. If the directorate, despite all the problems identified by the inspection, has achieved some sort of success with the inmates—particularly, let us say, in education—and despite the report's observation that the quality of education provision was unsatisfactory, it will be vital that that success story is continued in the non-custodial part of the sentence. After all, it is no good making a breakthrough at Medway if the ensuing local programme is unimaginative and limited in its horizons. The need for the national monitoring of local individual programmes, presumably the responsibility of the Youth Justice Board, will thus be of immense importance. It is

1347
comforting to know that pilots are already in hand at Werrington and Huntercombe, and perhaps the noble Lord the Minister will tell us how long they are planned to last and exactly who will be involved in them.
I turn briefly to the question of accommodation. Whose is the responsibility for the maintenance of national standards in secure local accommodation where there is more than one provider? Is it the Prison Service or the social services departments of local councils? Also, as seems only reasonable and desirable, will the Youth Justice Board have the last word in the setting and evaluation of these standards, irrespective of who the providers are? For years I have gone on about the need to have specific national standards for secure local accommodation in view of the inevitable disparity between the perceptions of one council and another, to say nothing of the budgetary considerations affecting all of them. Consequently, I welcome wholeheartedly the promise, implicit in the Youth Justice Board's remit, of across-the-board inspections and standards.
I know that other noble Lords will have their own concerns which they will wish to air. Shortage of time has precluded my mentioning the place of girls in this new order and of the urgent need to remove them completely from senior prison service accommodation. I would also have wished to have talked more about the need for meaningful education programmes as a means of giving youngsters the chance of a new life.
What of the future? It has been suggested that a halfway-house solution, as between a totally secure and a non-secure unit might be worth consideration but, at the risk of being labelled a pessimist, I cannot enthuse over such a suggestion, certainly not at the present time. No, I would rather look to the Youth Justice Board and the youth offending teams together with the promotion of the fast track approach aimed at nipping trouble in the bud. If there is one ray of light in all this, it is that behavioural patterns in the young can change almost overnight and often for no discernible reason. I am sure that the parents among us can confirm this, and although I would not exactly build a mountain of hope on this observation, to some extent it has to be true of criminal behaviour as well.
This Government have embarked upon a major initiative to replace a system which was chaotic, irrational and unable to deliver a constructive answer to juvenile crime, let alone to stop its excesses, and to replace that system with a comprehensive range of proposals involving all relevant sections of the community. Some may work and some may not but I, for one, wish them well, for if they do not succeed the implications for our society and for future generations will be grave indeed. I beg to move for papers.
6.37 p.m.
Lord Acton: My Lords, I should like to congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, on introducing this most timely debate. I should also like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Warner, who has arrived with the bloom of Sheffield on his cheek.
1348
The inspectors' report on Medway above all invites caution for the future. I suggest that the inspectors return to Medway forthwith to see whether it is still "facing a crisis". They could assess how many of their 38 recommendations have been successfully implemented, and make further necessary recommendations. Remembering that Rebound is supposed to open Rainsbrook STC in May, the inspectors could report whether Rebound now seems competent to run an STC. If and when the inspectors approve launching Rainsbrook, I would advocate a precautionary inspection there within three months of opening.
The third site, Hassockfield, is due to open in September. Can the Minister say what experience its contractor, Premier Prisons, has had with difficult and delinquent children? Again I would suggest a precautionary inspection within three months, and then further regular inspections of all STCs.
I come to the last two proposed STCs at Sharpness and Ranby. After the experience with private contractors at Medway, I wonder whether caution does not suggest to the Government that secure training centres are not an appropriate field for the private sector and therefore that they should abandon plans for the final two privately run STCs.
I turn to last July's Home Office document on secure accommodation for juveniles. Dealing with medium-term objectives, it states that the Youth Justice Board,
"would then commission a particular number of places from the providers of such accommodation—central government, local authorities and the private sector".
I emphasise "and the private sector".
In its preliminary advice to the Home Secretary of 17th December the board goes further. At paragraph 100 it states:
"Over time there should be a different balance within the juvenile estate between prison and non-prison service providers. The aim should be to encourage a wide range of providers such as not-for-profit organisations and private providers to become more involved in the juvenile secure sector".
The paper gives no explanation for that recommendation. Given Rebound's record, I am puzzled by that advice. Why does the board advocate private providers? Surely caution says stick to, improve, and expand the Prison Service juvenile estate and the local authorities' secure units.
As an example of private enterprise, the board states at paragraph 75:
"In addition Prime Life plc, venture capitalists, have said they intend to build 5 secure units of 48 beds. The first is planned to be in place by early 2000".
What is that company's experience with difficult and delinquent juveniles? And where is it building its first secure unit?
Having voiced my special concern about the private sector, perhaps I may stress in general how much I welcome the Government's attempt to bring coherence to the key area of secure accommodation for young offenders. Perhaps I may stress how grateful I am to the Minister for the announcement on 8th March in an Answer to a Written Question concerning girls in prison

1349
under the age of 17. He made a promise, and he has indeed done it. The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, will take up the matter. However, I wish to repeat how grateful we are to him for making that promise.
6.42 p.m.
Lord Carr of Hadley: My Lords, I, too, wish to thank the noble Viscount for bringing this subject before us today. It is timely that we should have this discussion. I welcome also the questions that he put to the Minister. I shall not take up any of my six minutes in repeating them. In the latter part of his speech, the noble Viscount referred to the survey about the problems and needs of future developments for treating young offenders. In my six minutes I feel it necessary to concentrate on the rather narrow field of the problems raised by the special training centres.
I was one of those—was it three years ago?—who met the suggestion with considerable scepticism and, to be honest, severe criticism. It was not a party political matter. I was among noble Lords from all parts of the House. I believe that this first report confirms that our fears were well justified. I do not wish to spend time saying "I told you so", but we must consider carefully the principles on which the decision was based.
I do not wish to criticise the policy of secure training orders. I said at the time, and I repeat now, that in principle the sentence is a good one. Unlike some, I accept that, while we should do everything possible to avoid custodial policies, in particular for the young, there is a small but nevertheless significant number of young children for whom, sadly, custody is necessary. What I objected to then in prospect, and object to even more strongly now in the light of experience, is custody in institutionalised groups in training centres holding 30 or 40 people. That always was a dangerous policy. I believe that our fears about it being a fatal policy have been confirmed.
In addition, many of those young children are taken miles away from not only their own homes—some of their homes are bad—but also from schools and institutions in the home area which might have some influence on them. I believe that that is a wholly wrong policy. Our experience from these first centres proves it.
I very much hope, although it seems a forlorn hope, that the Government will now pause and consider before opening any further centres as at present planned. With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Acton, I am not interested in whether those centres are in the public or private sector. They are wrong in principle and should not be developed. It is a waste of good money—money which could be spent more effectively on treatment for the avoidance of crime.
I accept the need for custody. However, when custody is necessary it must be in very small numbers indeed on a local basis. Therefore at the heart of the problem is the urgent need to spend money and undertake administrative organisation—there are difficulties about that—to build a larger supply of good, small, local custodial facilities.
Another part of the sentence which I like is that half of it is to be spent in supervision in the community. If the custodial part is in small numbers locally and the supervision in the community is also in the same locality, then we might get somewhere. But to continue along the
1350
present approach, no matter who owns or builds the centres or however much we approve them, is wrong in principle and should not be pursued—inconvenient and difficult though it may be to start in another direction.
It is a huge subject and one could continue for long time, but I must not do so. I conclude with this germane point. It refers to the general approach to crime in this country. Most of us involved in politics get fed up with the tabloid approach whereby one is either soft on crime or tough on crime. That is absolute nonsense. What matters is to be effective in tackling crime. Effectiveness must be brought into the front line. I repeat: I think that the sentence is a good one. However, it will only become effective if the custodial part is undertaken locally, in very small numbers, followed by good local supervision. If we pursue those lines, we shall get somewhere.
We foresaw the practical difficulties and, alas, our fears have proved correct. I hope that we can now turn away from the concept. If those sentences are to be effective, we have first to catch people. While nine out of 10 know that they will not be caught, any other deterrents are nonsense. We must be effective in catching them, effective in punishing them and effective in reforming them. The special training centre is the wrong approach in principle. It must be stopped, even if it is expensive to do so.
6.50 p.m.
Baroness Linklater of Butterstone: My Lords, to many of us who have been involved in one way or another with young offenders, the setting up of the Medway Secure Training Centre was an initiative which was doomed to failure. That was because it was a strategy which all evidence and past experience have shown could not have a successful outcome in terms of reducing reoffending rates or of impinging on the causes of persistent offending behaviour.
What we are discussing today is children whose behaviour is anti-social, extremely challenging, disruptive, often violent and difficult in the extreme; but children nonetheless. They are children whose lives are almost always completely chaotic, with "disproportionate experiences of loss", as one report puts it—a phrase I find quite heartbreaking—as well as the predictable poor relationships with parents or step-parents, or no parent at all, exclusion from school, heavy involvement with drug and alcohol abuse, as well as exposure to sexual and other abuse. It is this knowledge which must inform decision and strategies on how to deal appropriately with them.
We are also discussing a very small group of children whose behaviour makes a disproportionate impact on the people and areas where they live but whose activities have as a result caused lurid headlines and a demonology created around them.
The facts about Medway have been well catalogued: excessive use of force, which only served to justify the children's own aggressive and destructive behaviour; unsatisfactory education provision; inadequate numbers of inadequately qualified staff; a lack of effective, experienced managers; programmes which were

1351
designed to tackle offending behaviour which had "simply failed"; some locked up without exercise or fresh air for 24 hours a day. This experience is likely to make the children even more criminal in their attitudes. It is an horrific catalogue of failure for a regime which would not have been tolerated in an adult prison, yet here we are talking about children.
Before Medway was built, we knew that community-based options had the greatest chance of success in terms of reoffending rates, as well as being significantly cheaper: it costs £2, 400 per week to keep a child in Medway, whereas in a community-based project I know in Scotland called Freagarroch, it costs £330 per week. We knew that local authority secure units are smaller, more professionally run and have better outcomes. We knew that strategies involving families, local agencies and programmes well focused on offending behaviour were the only ones that had some hope of effecting change—something which is especially true for children. The Lisnevin Training Centre in Northern Ireland, which takes 10 to 17 year-olds, a rough equivalent to Medway, was found to have reconviction rates as high as 100 per cent. in the secure unit, whereas in Freagarroch the reoffending rate is less than 40 per cent., and yet four more STCs are planned to open.
Furthermore, there are important statutory duties that we must not forget regarding the welfare of the child and a duty to ensure that penalties are proportionate both to the seriousness of the offending and the age and circumstances of the offender. The serious anomaly is that while local authority units must comply with the Children Act, STCs or YOIs in the prison service do not.
I have had the privilege of serving as a panel member on a children's panel in Edinburgh for eight years. This system ensures that children remain the responsibility of the local authority at least until they are 16, and if they are already on a supervision order, that responsibility can be extended to 18. In this way children are for the most part prevented from finding their way into a penal establishment, although occasionally 15 year-olds have been held in YOIs for very short periods. Never has a 12 to 14 year-old been held in Medway-type custody.
The provision of local authority run secure accommodation, however, has always been an important resource, the problem being inadequate numbers of places, which currently in Scotland are about 90 in five establishments. Attached to them are some close support units which offer an extremely effective half-way house, as alluded to by the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby.
The overriding objective is to address the child's need, to involve the family and all relevant agencies as a matter of course and to do everything possible to keep a child out of the courts. I have used secure provision on several occasions when it has been manifestly needed and a child has indeed needed security. I have been greatly impressed by what has been achieved for the child and society in this way and have witnessed very successful outcomes, sometimes in a short space of time. Those children are very persistent offenders. I am without doubt that a Medway regime would have been
1352
wholly inappropriate in each and every case with which I have had to deal. Why the children's panel system was not adopted in England continues to baffle me.
Like the noble Viscount, Lord, Tenby, I hope to dream that the Government, will reconsider their approaches to the problems presented by this small group of very difficult children and avoid unnecessarily compounding the misery and unhappiness they both experience and inflict on others.
6.57 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Tenby for bringing to your Lordships this problem of all problems—the persistent juvenile offender. The Medway Secure Training Centre makes one ask whether it is wise to open more secure training centres until Medway is improved and able to do its job with satisfactory results or whether damaged and difficult youngsters are going to be made worse in unsatisfactory conditions.
How many persistent juvenile offenders who commit numerous offences are we speaking about? The increasing numbers of children between the ages of 12 and 14 and even younger who are persistent offenders should be a considerable concern to the whole country.
This debate, following the previous debate on marriage, is pertinent. Children who offend characteristically have disrupted and chaotic lifestyles, disproportionate experiences of loss, truancy or exclusion from school, heavy alcohol and drug use and poor relationships with parents or step-parents. Many may have been battered and abused.
The social services inspectorate found a catalogue of problems when undertaking its report, which includes excessive use of force applied towards children, unsatisfactory education provision, inadequate numbers of staff, inexperienced and incompetent staff who have not been adequately trained, and a lack of effective and experienced managers. Programmes designed to tackle offending behaviour had simply failed. Some children had virtually no access to fresh air and exercise, leaving them in an enclosed environment for 24 hours a day. It concluded that:
"The combination of the excessive use of force and ineffective treatment seemed to strengthen the criminogenic behaviours and outlook of the trainees".
Will the Minister comment on the Bridges Project in Sheffield set up in 1995 as a community alternative to a secure training order? It has shown success in reducing the offending of 60 per cent. of the children in its care. The project was established by a partnership of the police, social services and probation in Yorkshire. It was a direct response to the proposals to create the secure training order and takes children who would otherwise be subject to such an order. It costs just £10, 000 per year per child as opposed to the secure training centre annual cost of more than £110, 000.
The project provides a highly structured and individualised programme as part of a supervision order lasting for between two and three years. A child attends the programme five times per week and the staff work

1353
to establish a structure for the child's life as well as tackling the offending behaviour. That enables the children to understand the impact of what they have done to the victim. That would often include reparative work involving the victim, where appropriate. Education is accessed and project staff support the child; for instance, by taking him to school, helping with homework, and so on. Where possible, parents are involved but, as so often is the problem, there is conflict with their children. Project staff try to help families resolve such conflict. Volunteers are used to help with leisure activities.
The effectiveness of the programme is due to the fact that it supports the child and family over an extended period of time, unlike custody which simply removes the child only to dump him or her back into the same problems on release.
Unfortunately, the programme is due to close because of lack of funding. Local authorities are reluctant to pay for an expensive community sanction. If a child goes to a secure training centre, the Home Office pays the bill. So there is no incentive for the local authority to keep the project open, despite its encouraging results. For the children who do not have a loving, united family, surely we need a variety of projects to see which would have the better results.
I have always been made aware that violence breeds violence. We must do all we can to avoid a more violent society. We need to catch these youngsters before they get deeper and deeper into crime. I hope the Government will look very positively into the training of teachers and all staff involved so that they are equipped to deal with this problem, as so many of the parents are not suitable role models. I thank the Minister for releasing the 15 and 16 year-old children from adult prisons. As prison Minister, he has done exceedingly well.
7.1 p.m.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate: My Lords, having spent most of my working life as a police officer dealing with young offenders, I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, for initiating this important debate. The problems caused by juvenile crime need to continue to be addressed. It is the duty of the state to defend citizens, whether from attack outside or, indeed, from attack by criminals inside.
Juvenile crime is the seedbed of criminality for the future. Anything that can be done to stem it at a young age is to be welcomed and is in everybody's interests. It has been estimated to cost something in the region of £3 billion per year and causes tremendous problems.
I was delighted to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, mention victims for the first time. It is the police officers, at the sharp end, who deal with victims and their wrath. The noble Lord, Lord Carr, mentioned "the tabloid tendency". That, of course, generally reflects the views of the average chap in the pub, the one who bends the policeman's ear and demands action on various issues, not least the one we are discussing.
1354
I am from the north-east of England. Northumbria police had a particular problem in that area; I do not know why. Perhaps juvenile criminals in the north-east are of a peculiar type. I know not; but we had a series of offenders who were given nicknames by the tabloid press: "Blip Boy", "Rat Boy" and "Boomerang Boy". For some reason, they all seemed to be from my neck of the woods.
Northumbria Police conducted a survey of 35 juveniles under the age of 17 who had committed 1, 300 crimes and had been arrested 639 times. That was extremely frustrating for the police officers at the sharp end and, of course, even more frustrating for the victims.
Parental responsibility is very important. We know that the background and domestic life of many juvenile offenders make it virtually impossible for them to have a normal existence, as we would understand it, as part of growing up. I recall visiting the homes of juveniles as a police officer. I was able to tell, simply by the home environment and the response from the parents, whether the youngster would be coming to the police station again in future.
I began my police service in a small town of which noble Lords have probably heard called Jarrow. Even now, I read the newspapers in the north and recognise the names of offenders—relatively young people—as being from the same criminal families I dealt with as a young detective two generations ago.
In many circumstances it is extremely important to remove youngsters from that sort of environment. It is easy to say that detention centres and training centres are universities of crime. However, the very environment in which such youngsters are brought up, including some housing estates, are equally universities of crime. There is a balance to be struck. As the noble Lord, Lord Carr, commented, we are talking of a small but nonetheless important minority of youngsters and quite often the ones who will, unfortunately, graduate to far more serious crime in later years.
The Crime and Disorder Act is important and brings the right approach. For far too long police would caution youngsters time after time. They would go before the courts time after time. The perception would arise, not least among the youngsters, that nothing would happen to them. Those youngsters were not stupid. Word got round. We would see them on television galavanting around in balaclava helmets, challenging authority simply because they knew that nothing could be done; no one could touch them. There was no secure accommodation. We had a phrase for that in the north-east: "Revolving door justice". The police would arrest them and they would be released into the community almost immediately to continue reoffending. That gives rise to the view quite often taken that it is not the punishment that deters but being caught. That is not true. It clearly is both. As the noble Lord, Lord Carr, rightly said, we have to catch them first. However, if word gets out that once they are caught nothing will happen in consequence, they will take that as a licence to continue to pillage and reoffend. That is the last thing that any of us in this House would want.

1355
I conclude by saying that I believe the way forward is by training and education, whether local, national, private or public. I am no expert, but one thing I do know: for this small nucleus of offenders that has to be in secure accommodation.
7.7 p.m.
Lord Windlesham: My Lords, yesterday at the Third Reading of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Bill, we debated a novel disposal for young offenders and one which, in the general view of the House, deserves to succeed; that is, the power of a magistrates' court to refer young first offenders to a youth offender panel.
Today we are debating what was another novelty in its day but one that has clearly failed. The secure training order, although enacted as long ago as 1994, was not brought into force until April 1998. Its failure was widely forecast. When the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 was in Committee in the House of Lords, Baroness Faithfull, whose name has already been mentioned by the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, moved to delete completely the clause containing the secure training order. In a memorable speech, she stated:
"History, experience, and research have proven that incarceration in residential secure units, far from the parents, the home, and the community, fails in its objectives". —[Official Report, 25/4/94; col. 459.]
I thought perhaps I should refresh my memory today. I recalled being present at that debate. Indeed, I spoke and voted for Lady Faithfull's amendment. I believe that some other noble Lords, including the mover of this debate, did the same, but none was more emphatic in his denunciation of the proposal for the secure training order than the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, speaking from the Opposition Front Bench. I simply mention that lest there is any risk of deviation from the line taken previously when the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, replies to this debate.
The report of the inspectors on the Medway Secure Training Centre makes sorry reading. There is no need to repeat again what has been said already in this debate about the acute problems caused by the behaviour of some of the most difficult and disruptive inmates; nor about the excessive force used by inexperienced and inadequately trained staff in restraining them.
In the interests of time, I shall confine myself to making only one other point. I refer to an issue that has come up often in our debates on penal matters. I refer to the differentiation, or to the alternatives, of concentration and dispersal. It is sometimes argued that the most disruptive and the most dangerous inmates, and those in custody who are the most likely to attempt to escape, should be concentrated together in conditions of maximum security, with a harsh regime. The noble Lord, Lord Carr, will remember Lord Mountbatten's report after a spate of escapes in the 1960s. He recommended a single fortress into which all of the most difficult and high risk inmates could be put. Although it sounds attractive in a way, the practical experience and evidence (and not just in this country) do not support
1356
such a proposal, whether the inmates are adults or juveniles. All the evidence is in favour of dispersal. Whether the perspective is from the standpoint of internal control and external security, or of training and the prospects for rehabilitation, the policy of dispersing problem prisoners has proved the more effective.
The secure training orders will have had a mercifully short life. They came into effect only last year and they will be superseded by the new detention and training orders in a few months' time. Perhaps I may put a question to the Minister. Once the secure training orders are replaced by the detention and training orders, why will there be a need for any further secure training centres? The custodial element of such an order covers only a short period. When no further secure training orders are passed, why should there be a need for four or five centres, each holding 40 people? It would be helpful to those of us taking part in this debate to have an answer to that question, of which I give due notice so that the noble Lord will be able to obtain a reply in good time for the end of the debate.
7.13 p.m.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for introducing this debate. He is aware of the line I intend to take, and has been good enough to encourage me even though he has heard me take it on a number of occasions in recent years. I wish to draw attention to the growing body of evidence linking the diet of persistent offenders with their criminal behaviour. In so doing I am bound to cover a bit of old ground.
One of the problems in this whole area, I believe, lies in an unspoken assumption. It is that psychosocial behaviour, such as we have seen at Medway, will have had psychosocial causes. There is no reason why this should be the case, but the reality is that this has been an area for social services, for the police and the courts, for psychiatry, and for education. None of these admirable and hard-pressed professions has training in nutritional approaches to health, whether mental or physical, nor do they read the relevant literature. Even doctors have largely lost sight of nutrition in this age of high-tech medicine. So that while the evidence continues to mount, people have been slow to see and accept it. Besides, there is always an element of territorial resistance to an innovation which might threaten existing practice.
There is no difficulty with the notion that alcohol can affect behaviour; similarly drugs, both medical and recreational. What has become clear in the past 20 years is that so too can many other things that we take by mouth. I have spoken before of the boy who lived just down the road from me in Oxford who was driven literally berserk by contact with wheat, milk or sugar: he beat up his mother, started fires, stole and smashed up cars. Similarly, there was the young man in Cumbria with a bizarre history of offending: after the 14th time of taking heavy goods vehicles without consent—always between the hours of 10.30 in the evening and three in the morning—and driving them all over the country, the courts uncovered his no less bizarre pattern of eating. This involved no food before tea-time, no vegetables

1357
ever, and about 100 teaspoons of sugar a day. This was enough to scramble his brain pretty thoroughly; but as soon as he was given a probation order contingent on a change of diet he became a different person and did not reoffend. I am told that the cost to society of a lifetime's delinquency is about £ 1 million; this man's treatment cost £ 4 a week.
I also wonder whether my noble friend's observation that behaviour can change overnight, as he put it, for no discernible reason, may possibly find its answer in that kind of direction.
Those examples are from the extreme end of the scale. Of more help to policy-makers are the published studies, mostly from America, showing, for example, a 45 per cent. reduction in antisocial behaviour among prisoners given an additive-free whole-food diet, and a 44 per cent. decrease in offending in Los Angeles which led to a city-wide ban on highly processed foods in juvenile institutions. The Home Office has been involved in a study, not yet published, at Aylesbury Young Offenders Institution whose results, based on giving simple nutritional supplements to a group of persistent offenders, seem to confirm the hypothesis in striking fashion.
I hope that the noble Lord the Minister may refer to this when he winds up. We have corresponded on this topic in the past, particularly over what the evidence appears to show. It is a complex matter involving allergies, toxic influences, and lack of nutrients needed for proper brain function, but by now there is enough that is relevant to the problems my noble friend is addressing in his Motion today to offer possibilities for further studies along the lines of those already published.
I should like briefly to refer to the problem of childhood hyperactivity. At a conference two years ago of the Allergy Research Foundation, we heard that two-thirds of the major criminals in Britain and the USA appear to meet the criteria for hyperactivity in childhood. A prison governor once said to a friend of mine:
"Practically all my prisoners are hyperactive".
I am convinced by what I have heard and read, first, that this is a condition that responds well to dietary intervention—leading practitioners reckon that about three-quarters of children benefit—and, secondly, that many of today's hyperactive children become tomorrow's criminals. And yet apart from a landmark dietary study published in the Lancet in 1985, there is little professional work being done on this front, while the use of the drug Ritalin with its unknown long-term side effects rises alarmingly, and psychosocial treatments make limited headway.
The only body consistently active in restoring children of the Medway age-range and younger to normality by nutritional means is the Hyperactive Children's Support Group, which has had a track record of success culminating in the recent confirmation of its theory about the deficit of essential fatty acids in the brain. The Home Office could do a lot worse than give positive backing to an effective group which has operated for years on a shoestring and is now in danger of having to close.
1358
The report on the Medway Secure Training Centre speaks of drawing lessons from research, but, alas, not this research. The nearest it gets is in reference to meeting dietary requests which have nothing here to do with nutritional quality, and the need to help with detoxification; but the notion of weaning off a junk diet is not considered. Perhaps the training centre itself has a junk diet: I do not know! The POST Technical Report 92, Treating Problem Behaviour in Children, does only marginally better.
I believe we have here a possible solution to some of the problems of juvenile offending which is reasonably simple, low-technology, and almost absurdly cost-effective compared with the alternatives. This is not of course "the" answer to crime. But for quite a lot of offenders, and especially young offenders, it appears to be part of the story, and I very much hope the Home Office will put its weight behind further trials and will give some support to those struggling charities such as Natural Justice and the Hyperactive Children's Support Group which are doing such sterling work in the face of considerable discouragement.
7.19 p.m.
Lord Warner: My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Viscount for creating this opportunity for us to debate issues concerned with juvenile secure facilities. I am grateful, too, for him letting me know in advance what he was going to say in case our great and glorious privatised railways did not get me back from Sheffield in time. I am not sure whether what I ate on the train would necessarily have met the stringent requirements of the noble Earl in his final remarks.
Although there are some important lessons to be learnt from the experience of Medway Secure Training Centre, I want to address my remarks to some of the wider problems concerning those young offenders who the courts have decided need to be locked up. I should like to inform the House of a little of the thinking on this issue by the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales, which I chair.
I accept that things went wrong in Medway. I suspect that Group 4 under-estimated the difficulty of the young people it would be dealing with. It probably decided too many things before the centre's manager was appointed. There were certainly centre design and staffing problems. But we have to remember that this was the first such centre in the country and it was receiving very difficult young people from all over the country. Though there was excessive use of restraint, the usage was properly documented and there were Home Office monitors on site.
I do not believe the evidence suggests that secure training centres cannot work well, particularly if, as is intended, their age range is increased from 12 to 16 and there is a better distribution of the facilities so that the young people placed in them are closer to their home areas. It is a delusion to believe that there are not some 12, 13 and 14 year-olds who need to be trained so one can work with them on the deep-seated problems which contribute to their offending.

1359
The trouble with concentrating too much on Medway is that it is only a small part of the juvenile secure estate. At any one time, there are nearly 3, 000 young people under 18 locked up in secure facilities. Around 2, 500 of them are 15 to 17 year-olds in prison establishments. That is almost double the number held in prison in 1993. The big increase in that number, I am glad to say, occurred before this Government's term of office. Fewer than 100 of those young people are female, so we are talking about a problem largely relating to young men. Approaching 300 young people are in local authority secure accommodation and only around 60 or so in Medway and the Department of Health's Youth Treatment Centre at Glenthorne. It is the young people in all those facilities about whom we should be concerned, not just those in Medway.
There is little point in mincing one's words about the present arrangements; they are a mess. Those are not just my views; they are the views of the Youth Justice Task Force, the Home Office Comprehensive Spending Review and Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons. The position was put well in Sir David Ramsbotham's thematic report, where he said,
"It is the plight of children that alarms us most, not least because of the conditions in which they are held in prison service accommodation … More damage is done to immature adolescents than to any other type of prisoner by current conditions. The vast majority of young people in custody need individual attention given to the problems, which produced their criminal behaviour. If all they get is akin to being stored in a warehouse, then the chances of their re-offending, creating yet more victims, is very great".
Those remarks have nothing to do with Medway.
The juvenile secure facilities have been bedevilled by four key problems areas. First, the absence of a clear aim for those working with young offenders; secondly, the lack of clarity and purpose about the sentencing framework for those in custody; thirdly, the poor linkage between custody and community supervision of young offenders and, fourthly, the huge disparity in funding and performance of the different facilities. I am glad to say that those issues are now being tackled.
First, with the principal aim for all those working with young offenders, including those in juvenile secure facilities, we now have the prospect as laid down in the Crime and Disorder Act that people working with those youngsters will have a clear focus for their work. Secondly, for convicted young offenders there will be a clearer sentencing framework. People have already drawn attention to the improvements that will be provided by having the new detention and training order. I am glad that the Home Secretary accepted the recommendations from the Youth Justice Board that the DTO should come into operation in April 2000 when the local structure of youth offending teams is brought into effect nationally. That should ensure a fairly short life for the secure training order.
Thirdly, the DTO and youth offending teams provide the opportunity radically to improve the linkage between secure facilities and community supervision. There will be scope to shift the balance in the DTO between community and custody. Half the sentence will normally
1360
be spent in community facilities and half in custodial facilities, but there will be an opportunity for people who co-operate and make progress in their custodial setting to move to community supervision faster.
Fourthly, an issue which will not go away is the disparity of funding and performance in different institutions. The Government asked the board to provide advice on regimes, placement arrangements and how the board might take on the role of commission and purchaser for all juvenile secure facilities. That provides us with an opportunity to make real changes in this area. That is why the board will be moving quickly to provide advice on national standards, which we hope will change the culture of many juvenile secure facilities.
Before closing, I want briefly to respond to the point made by my noble friend Lord Acton as to why, in our advice to the Home Secretary, we drew attention to a venture capitalist organisation. We were not trying to say whether it was a good or a bad thing; we were drawing attention to the fact that other people were interested in providing these facilities. It is important to approach this issue on a non-doctrinal basis. We are interested in having competent providers, whether they come from the public, private or not-for-profit sector. We need people who can meet the national standards and provide regimes in their facilities that will change behaviour.
I am grateful to the noble Viscount for raising this debate and look forward to changes coming about in these facilities which will change the behaviour of young offenders.
7.27 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Viscount for raising this compellingly interesting subject. I am glad to welcome much of what the present Government are doing in addressing the juvenile crime problem, which is different from what was done under the last administration. I am tempted to speak about that, but as long as secure training centres are seen as a part of the solution to the problem, it is necessary to look closely at the report and at how it follows on from what so many of us predicted three years ago. I was one of those who spoke and voted against my own party on every possible occasion on this issue, and I remain convinced that this is not the solution to our problem.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, said in a moving speech, we are talking about children, the oldest of whom (and there are only three) are only 15; 37 are 14 years old and the youngest, 12. But they are highly disruptive children and anyone who has taught such children will realise that the effect of concentrating them in one place is the same as the effect of concentrating nuclear active elements in one reactor; they reinforce each other and a dangerous situation arises. It can be controlled by expert and experienced staff, but we read at paragraph 6.1,
"A major theme running through this report is about what we judge to be the inadequacy in numbers and competencies of the staff group".
The result of that can rapidly be seen in the way in which, within six months, those children had almost entirely wrecked the expensive new accommodation and

1361
equipment. The bedrooms and living areas of this establishment, particularly in four units, had been subject to major vandalism which left unacceptable physical conditions in the units. We saw destroyed beds, cupboard doors off their hinges, security cameras torn from their seatings, windows smashed and graffiti. There was a programme of work underway to refurbish.
At this point we must pause to realise that we are not talking about an experiment in a laboratory, but about people doing jobs. I am very anxious that what is said during this debate should not have a completely demoralising and debilitating effect on the staff still working in the establishment. There are people there who are doing a good job. Indeed, some of the teachers have been warmly complimented, as has the chaplain. No doubt that also applies to others in their respective lines. I would not want them to think that they were being thrown out, as it were, because they are in crisis. However, crisis is what they are in.
I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, referred to what I regard as the "killer" paragraph in the document. I have to find it because there is a word there which she found very difficult to pronounce and it is one that I shall find impossible to pronounce unless I actually see it in written form. The paragraph says:
"We concluded that the combination of the excessive use of force and ineffective treatment seemed to strengthen the criminogenic behaviour and outlook".
That means that they were being reinforced as criminals. This huge amount of money is spent on setting up a building which they destroy and then they emerge from it more committed to crime than they were when they went in. That cannot be a rational or a compassionate answer to the situation. It seems to me to be the result of the logic of the whole system and not simply the breakdown of an organisation quite unprepared to cope with it. If you concentrate malefactors of this ingenuity youth and energy in one place, you will make it impossible to reform them, which is what this is for. Therefore, however much it costs, these places should not merely not be added to; they should be closed.
Having said that, I have said what lies closest to my heart. However, I add to it a plea that the Government again remember how much more effective it is to reach children before they get to this stage and divert them from offending. The more we study, the earlier that moment of intervention appears to be. You can go down to two years old and predict a criminal if he or she is denied certain essential nurturing. This is a big problem.
I have one minute left to speak. I welcome the Government's effort to get all the aspects of the control of juvenile criminal offending together across the departments, across the disciplines and across the local and other authorities concerned. However, I beg of them to think of these children with compassion and put such resources in as early in their careers as they can. Not only will they salvage many lives and turn them into happy and constructive experiences which can support others, but they will also save vast amounts of government money—that means taxpayers' money.
7.33 p.m.
Lord Laming: My Lords, perhaps I may also thank the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, for initiating this debate. I should declare an interest in that I was the former chief inspector of the Social Services Inspectorate. For that reason, I will not draw in detail on this inspectorate report but rather I should like to make a few brief comments about persistent juvenile offenders. As is well known to your Lordships—and this was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie— criminal statistics show that a small number of young people are responsible for a very high proportion of offences. Even when not committing criminal acts, some young people can be menacing in their behaviour to the general discomfort of the public.
It is therefore important that we all take seriously offending and unacceptable behaviour by young people. I am sure that the Minister will agree that everything should be done to speed up the process between apprehension and investigation and the process of prosecution. Time delays in these processes can be taken as a signal of lack of concern or that society is willing to tolerate or excuse anti-social behaviour. That is not so.
It is a coincidence that the earlier debate today concentrated on,
"the economic and social role"
of the family. During that debate reference was made to the need for young people to experience the security and well-being which flows from being part of a loving and stable family unit. Sadly, many young people do not enjoy those advantages. Many of them have been let down by the adults in their lives and they experience considerable disruption and uncertainty. They have poor role models and poor experiences during their early years. In such circumstances it is perhaps understandable that many of these young people become suspicious and angry and very challenging in their behaviour, especially to those people in authority. They lose self-confidence and often fall behind in their education, which simply compounds their lack of self-esteem.
To understand some of these matters is not however to seek to excuse unacceptable behaviour. Rather, it is to provide us with pointers about how to approach the remedial task. There is no denying that, as we have already heard, some of these young people can be very destructive of property, of other people (even those who are there to try to help them) and of themselves. Some are very aggressive and some are dependent upon alcohol and drugs.
It is the case that many young people in secure accommodation experience for the first time in their lives a structure in daily living. Therefore, this framework can provide a focus for a range of purposeful activity aimed at helping the young person to become better equipped to live successfully in society.
The deprivation of liberty is the punishment. It is not sufficient simply to contain young people as, sooner or later, they will return to live in the community. It is for this reason that security and safety need to be matched by a programme of activity which is both active and remedial and which challenges in a constructive way

1363
inappropriate attitudes and unacceptable behaviour. Helping young people to manage their anger and frustration and to overcome their poor self-image requires great skill, courage and determination. I agree with the previous speaker that the staff who work in these centres deserve our support.
Does the Minister agree that in the best secure units there is an individual assessment of each young person and an individual care plan devised which has achievable goals set for each young person where achievement is celebrated and deteriorative behaviour confronted in a positive manner? The programme of activity in these centres is designed to help each young person to face the reality of his circumstances and to face up to his behaviour in ways which help him develop his potential. This is important because for many of them the facade of aggressive bullying behaviour camouflages what in many instances is the fearful child within, unable to cope with the demands of living successfully in the community. Helping these young people develop better ways of coping—and greater self-esteem—can be among the greatest benefits of time spent in a secure unit. That is as much in the interests of the young person as it is in the interests of society.
Some young people do need to be in secure accommodation, but I hope that the Minister will agree that the time spent in these units should be put to good effect. For that reason, I hope that the Minister will be able to continue to support inspections by the Social Services Inspectorate and other inspectorates in order that we can learn from the experience that we are gaining in helping these young people, and most of all ensure that money spent in these units produces a good result for society in general and a good result for young people in particular.
7.38 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I, too, should like to congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, on having introduced today's debate. I believe that the analytical and challenging way in which he made his speech this evening puts a case which has to be taken very seriously by us all, not least the Government. As always in these debates, I have to declare an interest in that I am national president of the YMCA and we work with young offenders. I should also like to associate myself very strongly with what the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, said. I believe that we have a Minister who listens and acts. Therefore, I hope that anything I say in the few moments available to me will encourage him to continue to listen and act in the way that he is so commendably already doing.
My noble friend Lord Warner was quite right to emphasise to us all that there will always be some young people for whom secure accommodation is essential in order that work can be done in depth on the problems which surround them, and often on the psychological problems of which they are victims. However, I am sure my noble friend would agree with me that we have to be satisfied that the emphasis is on that work and not on the custodial dimension. I am sure he would also
1364
agree with me that there is a public education job to be done as regards the meaning of the word "secure". I believe that sometimes that word is interpreted by people in a way that I do not think most of us who are participating in this debate would understand.
I hope that my noble friend the Minister will forgive me for being blunt about why I wanted to speak in this debate this evening. There are some of us who still see a yawning gap in what drives penal policy between what seems to be responding to a public, popular, press-fed demand for tough action, and what really produces results. So often the two are in contradiction. We in the YMCA certainly find this. We find that repeatedly the youngsters with whom we are dealing come from the most appalling social backgrounds, have overwhelming social and personal difficulties with which to contend and, as has been said tonight, live in the most unfavourable environment. What is necessary therefore is to provide these youngsters with an opportunity to start to build their own characters; to start to discover themselves and to be able to move towards positive citizenship. From the experience of our work we suggest that this is best done in a total context rather than in a limited context of custody, because one has to work with the community from which these youngsters come.
People may say that is all very idealistic stuff coming from the YMCA working with a small programme among young offenders. However, I was struck by the excellent briefing that I received from that highly respected organisation, the Howard League for Penal Reform. That briefing appears to coincide almost exactly with what we are discovering ourselves. The Howard League points out that,
"The most authoritative research available, commissioned by the Home Office Research Planning Unit, found that children arrested 3 times or more in one year represent less than 10 per cent. of the population of young offenders. This suggests that the persistent offender as portrayed in the media exists only rarely and that the planned 200 places in new secure training centres are unwarranted".
I should be glad if the Minister will deal with that point when he replies to the debate.
My noble friend Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate, with all his unrivalled experience, talked of "Spider Boy", "Rat Boy" and "Blip Boy". I hope he would agree with me that the trouble with this kind of language— which, again, is fanned by the press—is that it stigmatises young people and leads the public demand for incarceration and tough action that I have described, rather than a demand for appropriate action. It denies the logic of looking at the situation in a social context.
I was also struck by the following point in the Howard League briefing; namely, that the evidence of the effectiveness of community-based programmes is pretty convincing. The briefing states,
"Studies of the Intermediate Treatment Initiative run between 1983 and 1989 showed that two-year re-conviction rates were significantly better at 45 per cent. and 55 per cent. compared with those of between 70 per cent. and 80 per cent. where the young people had been sentenced to custody".
That is hard evidence. Again, I should be glad if the Minister would address that evidence when he replies to the debate.

1365
The other point on which I think we need some reassurance from the Minister is the issue of cost. Why are the Government committed in their future programme to these new centres which are so formidably expensive when the practical evidence shows that for a fraction of the cost much more constructive work can be done in more locally based accommodation with the right people working with young people? It seems to me that all this illustrates a contradiction. I hope that my noble friend will not regard me as incorrigibly unreconstructed. However, I believe that in public policy there is a balance to be struck between public service and the private sector. I would be the last to suggest that the private sector has no contribution to make here. However, how far can profit driven—that must be what the private sector is about, for if I am a shareholder I want to be sure that my company is producing good results in terms of profitability—private sector provision in this most sensitive area of social policy, of rehabilitation and not just punishment and custody, have an appropriate role to play? What real, hard-headed analysis is being done in depth within his department on the relative merits of public service provision and private sector provision in this work?
7.45 p.m.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, I have worked with young people from housing estates in Camden, Southwark, Greenwich, Kensington and Chelsea, and Westminster. I have worked in an intermediate treatment centre, an educational establishment for under 17 year-olds who have been expelled from normal schools.
Why do some young people and children offend repeatedly? Repeated, extremely anti-social behaviour is symptomatic of an underlying illness, malaise or problem. The young person is trying to send a message. That message may be that he or she has been ignored, his existence has not been acknowledged by his carers or his parents. He may be sending a message that he needs to be listened to, to be looked at, and he needs to be made to feel that he matters. He may be sending a message that he has been maltreated and that he needs to make others realise what it tastes like to be physically or sexually abused. Or, there may have been an expectation among the young person's teachers, school mates or parents that the young person will always do badly, and that nothing he can do is good. Or, again, the young person may not have experienced any rules in his life. He may have experienced parents or carers who say one thing but do another. He may have been told one day that he is making too much noise, that he is talking too much, and then asked the next day why he is so sullen and silent.
The beliefs of such young people may not be rooted in reality. Things may not be as bad as they believe, but they start to believe that they will always be bad and that they will always be ignored. These beliefs need to be challenged or they will blight a young person's life. He will be like a person who perceives sunshine only as revealing that the streets are dirty. These young people cannot articulate these messages to themselves or to
1366
others and consequently they mime out their messages in crime. The people who work with these young people need to be tuned in to hearing these messages so that they can respond appropriately and can reassure the young people that there is both good and bad in them, and that if they ask for attention in an appropriate way they will receive it. They need ears to hear and they need to be able to develop close relationships to build up trust and to enable the young people to experience good treatment. In my experience if young people experience good treatment, they respond to affection and kindness and will take on board rules and instructions and will behave better.
Challenging, interesting and varied activities are important. They are a good way to build self-confidence. Learning to read, to write and to count are good for the self-worth of young people. Of course it is good for their job prospects later.
Finally, let us consider what these young people need. They need care. The lack of care has been mentioned. That leads to immaturity in these young people. They are hard on the outside but soft on the inside. They may perform acts that many adult criminals would blanch at, but for 14 year-olds they are very childish. Although there are many alarming aspects to the report, I am particularly worried that the majority of staff have not had previous experience of working with young people. I am concerned about the use of disproportionate force to control the young people; that the bullying of these young people is not prevented; and that so many of them come from the north-east and have to come down south and are separated from their families and their home areas, to which they have eventually to return. I know that many experts believe that that is quite wrong.
As far as concerns looking after young people, small is beautiful. A family-sized group would be ideal; certainly not a group the size of a prison. In small groups young people can learn to trust and to experience understanding from those who work with them. Can the Minister say whether an attempt is being mads; to set up smaller groups within the secure training centres, something perhaps slightly akin to the house system in public schools?
I hope that the Government will watch over this model of a secure training centre to ascertain whether these are more than teething problems. It would be a good idea for SOVA, an organisation of volunteers who work with young people and young offenders, to continue to work with these young people in the community when they return to it. I hope that consideration will be given to that.
7.52 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, will forgive me when I say I have an almost morbid interest in his development. I told him on an earlier occasion that I admired his father so much; the only socialist at Eton, a school of a thousand boys. The noble Earl knows that already. But what has that led him to? It has led him to idealism. So let us call him Mr. Idealism.

1367
Having visited the Medway training centre, I wish to speak in a slightly more practical way. I have been there; I wonder how many other Peers have been there. It was very interesting, although I did not spend a long time there. I was very lucky. I was entertained by a most gifted man who knew the whole scene of youth training, youth work, youth welfare and youth crime; he knew as much as anyone could possibly know. He looked after me, he took me round and I met other people. So I have had first-hand contact with the place we are talking about and I can only say that I was very much impressed by him.
I am not going to bother to question whether these people are the perfect people to run the centre. Perfect people to run such centres do not exist. If I may say so, perfect people to run the House of Lords do not exist either. Putting aside the idea of perfection, the centre is run by good, idealistic people; 100 of them for 30 patients or inmates, whatever one wants to call them. That is an extraordinary ratio, but people tell me that in youth centres it is not abnormal. It would be a very strange ratio in a school. I went to Eton where there were 1, 000 boys—there will be more than that now— but, at the same ratio, there would be 3, 000 masters. It is unbelievable. The whole idea of 100 people looking after 30 boys makes one think.
I am not going to bother about questions of qualifications; there are good people running the centre. But is it worth while; is there any point at all in this place? I am told that similar places will be set up. It is not a question of whether these people are doing a good job, but whether there is any point in it at all. That is the issue. I will of course leave that subject because it will not be settled tonight.
I hope that people will not say that the setting up of the centre was obviously right because the previous government decided on it. The Government are not usually slavish in their adherence to such matters, but a commitment had been made. They were under contract to set the centre up and they did so—and they are left with the situation of 100 good people looking after 30 not-so-good young people.
The man in charge, who introduced me, was exceptionally well gifted. He was from Group 4. The director was not there, but I am told he is beyond criticism. But I am not bothering with individuals, I am talking about the whole set up. The question is: what is its point? I know that the Minister, who is a former chairman of the Bar Council, will produce an answer, but it will not be an answer to satisfy me. Of course I will pay attention to him, but what is the point of this place and similar places?
While I was there, a young man—the only one I met—was selected to talk to me. He was just 15; he had been there for three months; he would be leaving three weeks later. Someone told me that he had committed 100 burglaries—somebody told me that I had wrongly thought that he had committed 140—but even 100 burglaries make him a congenital young criminal. He was sent there for three months and three weeks— and no doubt he is being well looked after—but when
1368
he leaves he will go back to Nottingham. The place we are talking about is in Kent and this fellow came from Nottingham. When he goes back to Nottingham, the people in Kent will not be able to do anything for him apart from some sort of nominal contact. The idea of taking someone from Nottingham and sending him to Kent for three months—at enormous expense—and then sending him back is ludicrous. My frank opinion is that the whole idea should be abandoned. In theory, it should be abandoned, but I fear we shall have to put up with it. But for heaven's sake make sure that something is done about these young people when they leave this centre so remote from their homes.

Business
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, if noble Lords will forgive me, I wish to make a Business Statement. Later this evening, my noble friend Lord Gilbert will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on Kosovo. The exact timing depends on proceedings in another place. If further details become available in time, they will be shown on the annunciators.

Persistent Juvenile Offenders
7.58 p.m.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, for introducing the debate. Its timing is interesting, as it follows the debate on marriage. Undoubtedly, as many noble Lords have said, the breakdown of marriage and the family is often a root cause of youth offending.
First, I wish to make one or two comments on the report. I attempted to find out from the Home Office whether there is any update on the extent to which the criticisms in the report have been met. I was told that there was no information at all on progress. Perhaps the Home Office was concealing the information from me in order to give all the ammunition to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, when he replies. I certainly failed to find out anything about action that has been taken as a result of the report. I hope the noble Lord will tell the House what progress has been made. I shall not set out the criticisms as they have already been referred to.
The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, referred to the use of volunteers. I wonder whether volunteers are coming into Medway to build relationships with the young people there. I appreciate that they are there for a maximum of one year, but it is important for them to be able to build a relationship with an outsider, particularly as many are a long way from home.
Secondly, I wish to touch on the question of education. Clearly it needs improving at the STC. But what interests me more is the problem of the lack of education that so many young offenders have experienced. I wonder whether in the STC sufficient attention is paid to the learning aptitudes of the young

1369
offenders. Perhaps the noble Lord will tell the House whether an assessment is carried out to check whether each young offender is an abstract conceptualiser; a concrete experiencer; an active experimenter; or a reflective observer, or whatever combination of learning aptitudes they may have. That will clearly affect the education programme in the STC for different individuals there.
Paragraph 9.3 of the report refers to the fact that many of the offenders have been out of school for considerable periods of time. Perhaps I may quote John Harding, Chief Probation Officer for Inner London. He said:
"We know that two thirds of school aged offenders sentenced in youth courts had either been excluded from school or had significant truancy records. Attention needs to be focused at the onset of behaviour disorder in schools by the youth offending teams so that an action plan is drawn up by the team, the school and the parents that ensures the pupil is still in receipt of full time education and the family supported through the crisis".
I have a daughter who works as a primary school teacher in the field of special needs. She deals particularly with violent children younger than the age of those in the STC. That is the age when it is crucial for such children to be helped. If they are not helped in school when they are below the age of 12, they will run into the youth offending climate.
But schools do not have the money to pay for special needs teachers to deal with violent children in particular. I am delighted that the Government are planning to reduce the amount of exclusion from schools. Please will they provide more financial help for special needs teaching? It will save them money in the long term. Money needs to be spent in that area in order to stop offending before it starts, as my noble friend Lord Elton vividly portrayed.
My third point relates to mentors for these young people. They so often need role models. We have talked about visitors, volunteers coming into STCs. But I want also to raise the question of mentors on a wider basis, before young people offend and also during the period of community service. Many of these young people lack fathers, a point that was mentioned particularly in the previous debate. They do not have the role models, whether they are boys or girls, that fathers provide when they are living in the home. There is an excellent scheme under which local people are used as volunteers to offer time to single parents with hyperactive children. There are also mentors from business who work with welfare-to-work trainees. I read of a magistrate offering her home. Are the Government planning to encourage the further use of mentors and foster homes in the future?
8.5 p.m.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I, too, extend my thanks to the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, for introducing this debate. It was also a great pleasure to listen to the very positive contribution of the former Home Secretary, the noble Lord, Lord Carr of Hadley.
This debate is not only about the Medway Secure Training Centre. As many noble Lords have demonstrated, it is about much more than that. It is about how we treat persistent young offenders who commit a disproportionate number of crimes and often wreck the lives of many law-abiding citizens.
1370
We often delude ourselves that by locking up such youngsters we shall solve the problems caused by youth crime. That may create a temporary respite. But unless we have clear objectives about the purpose of secure training centres, we might as well admit defeat now.
We also delude ourselves that prison works. That was central to the thinking of the previous government. I am surprised that it still finds favour with the present Government.
We have begun only recently to address more fully the reason why so many youngsters offend and why some persist in re-offending again and again. Many of them have never had the right to a decent childhood. They are the products of chaotic and disturbed family lives. Many are still to be found among the poor, the unemployed, the homeless, those who come from homes where people have never worked, those who under-achieve in schools and those excluded from schools, and victims of violence and physical and sexual abuse.
Against that background we welcome the many initiatives of the present Government in which they are attempting to address the problems. Only yesterday the passage of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Bill was completed in this House. The Bill has at its heart for the first time provisions to address offending behaviour.
The crime reduction strategy announced last week by the Home Secretary deals with major reform of the youth justice system. Targets are now being set to give local people the means to monitor the effectiveness of the police and local authorities in reducing crime and disorder in their area. There is also the new anti-social behaviour order under the Crime and Disorder Act which will commence on 1st April 1999. No one, irrespective of their political affiliations, can fail to appreciate the positive measures introduced by the Government. They have the general support of all parties in this House.
We now have time to rethink some of the false assumptions that we made in 1994. We must accept that we have been wrong in looking to instant solutions in eradicating offending behaviour. We have only to look at our history of borstals, approved schools and detention centres. It is no exaggeration to say that within a short period of their release a large number of youngsters offend again; 60 to 70 per cent. of youngsters fall within that category.
When the legislation creating secure training centres was going through this House in 1994, the House carried an amendment with all-party support which could have given the courts an alternative power to sentence 12 to 14 year-old offenders to be held in local authority secure units instead. This amendment had official Labour Party support as well as the support of the Liberal Democrats and many Conservative and Cross-Bench Peers. It was reversed by the then government when the legislation returned to the other place Line after line of the recent report by the social services inspectorate on the Medway Secure Training Centre justifies and reinforces the view that the House took in 1994.

1371
First, the report found, as has been cited by many noble Lords, that there was an,
"absence of an experienced, highly skilled staff group".
It may be that this was the first possible experiment to be carried out, but why were inexperienced people appointed? The report spoke of the extreme difficulty of trying profoundly to alter the outlook of some of the most challenging young people in the country with a largely unqualified and inexperienced staff. Yet it was always obvious that putting the care of difficult young offenders in the hands of private companies which had no experience of childcare provision was an indefensible way to deal with disturbed and vulnerable children. Such young people would be far better off dealt with in secure units run by local authority social service departments and staffed by trained care workers.
Secondly, the report found that the quality of education at the Medway centre was unsatisfactory. It said:
"Half the lessons observed were less than satisfactory, with unfocused discussion, lack of suitable resources, and a poor learning environment. Teachers lack specialist knowledge and skills in the subject".
There can be no doubt that these young people would have received a better standard of education in local authority secure units. Even before the 1994 legislation was passed, Home Office research comparing local authority secure units with Prison Service young offender institutions had shown that the former provided more and better quality education, gave more help and advice with young people's problems and equipped young people with more qualifications, training and work experience.
Thirdly, the report on the Medway centre found that:
"Other major matters such as diversion from offending programmes, an element of the establishment's work which is fundamental to its success, have simply failed".
One of the reasons for this failure was the trainees' reaction to the use of violence, which has been spelt out again and again by a number of noble Lords.
Stripped of the jargon, it is quite simply that the experience at Medway had made these young people even more criminal in their attitudes and even more likely to re-offend than when they first arrived. In contrast, the Home Office research study referred to earlier found that local authority secure units had a significantly lower re-offending rate than Prison Service young offender institutions for serious young offenders. Local authority units would be more likely to succeed with 12 to 14 year-olds than a 40-place mini-prison like the Medway centre.
Up to a point it is understandable (although wholly wrong) that inexperienced and inadequately trained staff should react with excessive force to the difficult and disturbed behaviour of these children. The inspection team encountered,
"numerous instances when good order had broken down".
The report is full of references to,
"the very disturbed behaviour, abusive language and challenges which the trainees present".
1372
One result was that,
"The level of damage to living units, the education block and the dining room was such that safety features were compromised".
It was a vicious circle, with the inspectors observing that:
"The breakdown in the care system is leading to reinforcement of cycles of deprivation".
It has been pointed out, and I reiterate, that what we found in the Medway centre report is that the youngsters found that the inside world very much replicated the outside world from which they came. All this underlines the folly of the whole idea of placing as many as 40 disturbed and difficult children in one institution. Local authority secure units hold many individual children who are as difficult as the Medway's trainees, but these units are not plagued by the problems which have arisen from placing so many repeat offenders in one centre.
Secure training centres are too big and run by the wrong organisations. They are also in the wrong place. Even when all five planned centres are built, many young people will still be held a long way from their homes. This makes it difficult to maintain close links, through regular visits, with families and social workers from their home areas—links which are vital for the young persons' eventual resettlement when they leave the secure institution.
The secure training centre policy is a blight on the Government's otherwise largely admirable youth crime policy. The positive and constructive elements of this policy include the establishment of inter-agency youth offending teams in every area; a requirement placed on local authorities to produce youth justice plans and provide a range of diversion and supervision programmes for young offenders; increased financial support for the development of bail support schemes; supervision programmes and preventive work; and new sentences such as reparation and action plan orders which could help to steer many young people away from re-offending.
I have no hesitation in strongly supporting the vast majority of the Government's plans to tackle youth crime. However, the decision to press ahead with the previous Government's plans for secure training centres was a serious mistake. It is not too late to halt the plans to build more secure training centres. If the resources which would otherwise be spent on these centres were used instead to provide more local authority secure places and intensive community supervision programmes, this would do much more to reduce juvenile crime.
Is it not time that we discontinued plans for other secure training centres? There are better ways of spending £120, 000 per child per year and this debate has highlighted that. No one disputes that a small number of people commit a disproportionate amount of crime. The point at issue is that secure training centres have done little to address their behaviour. It is time we looked at other alternatives.
8.15 p.m.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, I too wish to thank the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, for initiating this debate. His experience in juvenile magistrate work is second to none.
As noble Lords know, the secure training centres were instituted under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 and they represented a laudable and imaginative initiative by the last Government to steer a balanced course between the frankly penal short sharp shock regimes and the wholly community-based ones. If one reads the specification in the appendix to the report, one sees that the accommodation, education, vocational, health and recreational standards are high. I will come to that in a moment.
I feel that several noble Lords have not done justice to these centres, for two reasons. The first is that they are designed to be part of a package: the custodial punishment basically in the first half of the sentence, and the rehabilitation under close supervision in the community in the second. We have very little experience of the second half of that and I shall welcome any news that the Minister can give us on it. I also hope he can say whether the proportions of the custodial and rehabilitation aspects can be varied. Presumably in serious cases, the second half could be eliminated altogether.
The defects of the Group 4/Rebound experience have been chronicled by several noble Lords. I find it easier, even with the privilege of this House, to refer to them, simply because they have been largely acknowledged by the contractors. It is clear that there was a total underestimation, on their own admission, of the problems posed by the trainees. They underestimated the difficulties of obtaining staff and training them in matters like staff communication, reporting, simple procedures like fire drill and dealing with violent trainees, leading inevitably to bullying. They should have known about that. We know that two managers departed, which left the management structure largely in tatters. The staff were badly fazed by two escapes, which made them possibly over-concerned with security. There were obvious mistakes on the Government's side in that the specifications were not nearly robust enough and that led to the most terrible vandalism. There should have been provision for more imaginative security which would have avoided some trainees being virtually denied fresh air.
Perhaps I may return to the trainees themselves. They come from the most difficult section of juvenile society. The report gives statistics showing that the average number of previous convictions is seven; the average time spent out of mainstream education is four years; and 25 per cent. arrive with criminal charges outstanding and with histories of great violence. I wonder whether local authority secure accommodation, referred to by many noble Lords and with particular knowledge by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, is suitable for this class of young offender.
1374
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie, that surely there must be no alternative to taking these children out of society even for a short time.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for giving way. This is a fundamental question. What is the point of taking a young offender from Nottingham and giving him a few months in Kent?
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Longford, for that intervention. The regime is designed to provide a combination of custody and imaginative treatment.
As your Lordships know, the trouble had been there from the beginning and reached its climax in June when there was, in effect, a riot. I congratulate the Government on taking prompt steps to set up an inquiry team composed of highly qualified individuals from Ofsted, H. M. Inspectorate of Prisons and the social services. The inquiry took place in September and October and reported in January. The recommendations are clear, fair and constructive. Many of your Lordships will have received briefing from Rebound indicating that it is taking steps to address the criticisms.
We are dealing here with very small numbers. It is an experiment which deserves to be given further time. It should be treated as a pilot scheme. I very much hope that the Government will continue Group 4's contract. The intentions which Group 4 and Rebound have shown are very worthy and should be given rein. It gives them the opportunity to put right many of the matters subject to criticism. We welcome other initiatives in connection with youth offenders and in particular the creation of the youth offender panels under the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Bill which has just completed its passage through your Lordships' House. It has the support of these Benches. It is not an easy problem, but I believe that the Government have taken the right course in identifying the problems through the SSI inquiry and addressing the criticisms and recommendations. They have our support in that. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
8.23 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Tenby for giving us this opportunity and all other noble Lords for the contributions that have been made. I believe that the tone of our discussion has been similar to that of a seminar. I did not detect any hectoring or point-scoring of any sort. It is sometimes difficult to disagree with what is said by almost every speaker. Of course there are differences of emphasis. I do not believe that our fundamental views and aims differ from whatever part of the House the contribution has been made.
I have been given by generous business managers 20 minutes in which to reply to this debate. In that time I cannot even answer all the questions that have been legitimately put to me. In the usual way, I shall respond in writing to those points that I cannot deal with orally this evening. I shall put copies of my replies in the

1375
Library. I hope it does not sound too pompous, but I have the duty of dealing with the questions which have focused particularly on Medway. The public has a right to know what is happening, which will mean that the wider questions, which are relevant, of great interest and fascination, cannot be dealt with entirely without ignoring Medway.
The noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, is quite right. A disproportionate amount of crime is committed by young people. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Elton. We have to deal with offending children with early intervention. I do not believe that the noble Lord is exaggerating when he says that the indicators of likely criminal behaviour can be detected in the very young. It is a deeply depressing point to recite, but it is true. I am making no party political point because it is unworthy and it never works—which is an unworthy comment of itself.
We have now begun to adopt a rather different approach to crime. I caution your Lordships against placing undue focus on the secure training centre or the new detention and training order. We are deliberately, consciously thinking this out as part only of the changing spectrum that we intend to introduce. Although it is a public duty for your Lordships to look at what happened at Medway and to discuss what went wrong there, one needs to bear in mind that that is only part of the picture.
It is our aim to have swifter and earlier intervention; to achieve the swifter administration of justice; more effective early intervention in the community; to look to restorative justice, to reparation for victims and to the reinforcement of personal and parental responsibility. I believe that we discussed all those themes in some depth and length when debating the Bill which passed through your Lordships' House on Third Reading yesterday.
I entirely agree with what noble Lords have said, but it is a melancholy fact that some young offenders are among the most difficult children to deal with, if not the most difficult. There will have to be a custodial option available for some children. The aim ought to be, not simply cosmetically recited, to limit that number to the absolute minimum.
It was genuinely helpful to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Warner. I shall not go over the material with which he dealt. This evening he has been able to describe exactly the developing thinking of the Youth Justice Board which he chairs. If we have secure places, we have to provide security and a constructive and ordered regime. I have always believed, and continue to maintain, that these young children require as an absolute necessity a sense of order and, if one can introduce it, some degree of calm in lives which have been violent. I do not mean necessarily physically violent. What the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, said is perfectly right in many ways.
I did not take my noble friend Lord Judd to be chiding me but, as always, I took what he said in the constructive way in which it was offered. In the Home Office we are concentrating more and more on—it is a
1376
jargon phrase, but a useful one—evidence-based practice. In other words, rant and shibboleth have no part in the formation or development of policy. The noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, was quite right in saying that the secure training centres were set up by the previous government to provide custodial facilities for persistent young offenders between the ages of 12 and 14. The contract was signed in March 1997 and the centre was opened in April 1998. More than 150 secure training orders have been made so far. As the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, rightly pointed out, by April 2000 the secure training order will have been consigned to history. We shall then have a more flexible sentence, a detention and training order designed for offenders between the ages of 12 and 18 years.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, it is very important to underline that the placement of those who are committed to secure training orders will include the opportunity to go to local authority secure accommodation. The reason that we are continuing with these secure training centres—I refer to the particular question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham— is that local authority secure accommodation and secure training centres will be part of the new juvenile estate to deal with the relatively small number of young children who are sentenced to these new orders. The critical factor is that the new juvenile estate is to be overseen by the Youth Justice Board. That is extremely important.
For some young children who offend local authority secure accommodation will be more appropriate than secure training centres. The opposite is also true. The noble Earl, Lord Longford, asked the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, what was the point of sentencing a child from Nottingham to go to Kent? In some circumstances there may well be a point. Not every child is best served by remaining in the immediate locality of its home, bad influences and the location of the commission of the crime.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, since the noble Lord has referred to me perhaps I may intervene. I asked what was the point of sending a child there for three months or three weeks? He will not have his whole life corrected by that, will he?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I do not believe I ever suggested that he would have the whole of his life corrected by that. I deal with the particular point that, as long as it is done with care and discretion—I have in mind the words "compassion and thought" used by the noble Lord, Lord Elton—in some circumstances it may well be in the best interests of a young child not to be kept in secure custody in the immediate locality of its family. That may be unpalatable to the noble Earl but it is a fact. In the case of the young man to whom the noble Earl referred, he is going back to his home area and his supervising probation officer is from that area. The duty of the supervising officer is to manage his return back to the home area. I do not believe it is possible simply to ask blunt questions of the kind posed by the noble Earl or expect the whole matter to be resolved with what are perhaps sometimes over-simplistic questions.

1377
I return to Medway. Difficult offenders have been there. It is true that the SSI report discloses a lamentable catalogue of failure. The company that runs Medway does not dispute that. Plainly, it is a reproach to everyone who has had any responsibility for it. I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Laming, that no one can suggest that any punches have been pulled. I believe that a good piece of work was done there. But it is now for me to bring your Lordships up to date. Serious shortcomings occurred. The recommendations provide the opportunity for a constructive framework. Improvements in management, the implementation of good practice in care and control and the raising of standards of education and training were required. I do not believe that it necessarily depends on whether the mismanagement was in the public or private sector. The point is that the centre was mismanaged. A comprehensive action plan has been drawn up and agreed between the contractor and the Home Office.
I return deliberately to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Laming, because I regard it of critical importance. This is something about which the public are entitled to know. First, the SSI is closely monitoring progress against an agreed timetable; secondly, the director is required to provide monthly information on performance; thirdly, the SSI is to undertake a further inspection shortly to evaluate progress. It is to evaluate the effectiveness of the action already taken. That further report will go directly to the Home Secretary. I believe that that reflects some of the concerns raised by the noble Lord, Lord Acton, right at the beginning; in other words, continuous monitoring and reporting of those who have responsibility in this matter is required. I return to one of my hobby horses: unless there are in place the structural mechanisms for monitoring and reporting, systems cannot be trusted. The report also revealed that there was insufficient staff.
Lord Elton: My Lords, can the Minister say whether, when the report goes to the Secretary of State, it will be published?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, curiously enough, that was a question that I put to officials this morning because it was a matter of interest to me. No final decision has been taken upon it. The report is to be an unannounced one. Although I announce it today, I do not announce the date of it. For my part, I believe in publication as opposed to secrecy because that is one of the disciplines that improves performance. As much as can usefully be put into the public domain will be; if not, I am certainly always available to deal with the discussion and disclosure of reports with any of your Lordships on a private and confidential basis. Sometimes, but not usually, confidentiality is justified. I am happy to adopt that approach.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, is there to be a strict policy on bullying? Bullying is fiendish and sometimes it is the younger element who bully most.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I agree that that is a particular feature. I return to the words of the
1378
noble Earl, Lord Listowel. Quite often those who bully other children are deeply damaged and fragile and— I hope that this is not jargon—their way of expressing that wounding of themselves is to bully others. I entirely endorse that. That is a very important feature of the report and the action plan.
I do not believe that it is helpful for me to recite the criticisms. It is quite apparent from the debate that your Lordships have studied the report, which makes for gloomy reading. Certainly, there was a wholly unacceptable over-emphasis on physical restraint and what was in reality—there is no point in mincing words—the use of violence against young children many of whom regard it as a natural form of expression. There is a lot still to be done. Offending behaviour programmes are to be installed. The centre got out of control. I hope that when the new SSI report comes out it will show continuing improvement. All I can say is that there were significant failures that cannot be excused. We have a moral obligation to put matters right and I hope that we shall discharge that duty.
I turn to some of the questions posed during the debate. I am conscious that I have only a few moments left. The noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, asked about supervision in the community following the custodial part of sentences. Plainly, experience is limited. Social services departments now prove willing to play an active part in drawing up training plans which extend beyond the date of release from the STC. As to that I am in agreement with the noble Viscount. There are some difficulties in providing mainstream education for the reasons that so many noble Lords have touched upon: we are dealing with serial truancy or exclusion from school for other reasons.
The noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, referred to outside visitors to Medway and mentoring generally. We support the activities of voluntary mentors. Recently I had a most interesting meeting with SOVA to which another of your Lordships made reference. The chaplain at Medway has been active in encouraging outside visitors to that establishment. He makes arrangements, if young people desire it, with contacts in the outside world. Representatives of the Voice of the Child in Care meet those at the centre regularly to help them with any particular concerns or difficulties. Volunteer mentors are extremely important. We want to develop this idea on a co-operative basis with those who are willing to give their life in service in that way.
The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, asked about breaking down the larger units. I think it is unreal to talk about mini prisons. We are talking about 40. However, he asked an important question about smaller units. At Medway young people do live in smaller units of five. They have their educational and other aclivities in small groups.
The noble Lord, Lord Judd, focused my mind on what actually works and how one demonstrates it. We are now monitoring closely a number of persistent juvenile offenders. We are reviewing further demand for places from this group. Plainly the cost of secure accommodation is very high: I take his point. The cost of secure accommodation at Medway is actually a little

1379
less than local authority secure accommodation— perhaps about £400 less: not the £2, 900 but perhaps the £2, 500 that has been spoken about. I think it is too early to comment on reconviction rates because I do not have the material. That research is continuing. I agree with what the noble Lord implied, that we have been a little late in the day—that is to say, I think the Home Office generally has been late—in beginning that research.
The noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, asked particularly about nutritional supplements, which he correctly differentiated from diet, as one normally speaks about it. I know of research which has been carried out on the effects of nutritional supplements on the behaviour of young people in detention. He rightly points out that one of the organisations carrying out that work is the charity Natural Justice. That was carried out at Aylesbury Young Offender Institution and it demonstrated some positive effects on the behaviour of the young offenders who took the supplements. In order to see whether that effect can be replicated, I have recently agreed that Natural Justice can approach a number of other prison establishments where young people are housed to repeat the research on a wider scale. I know that the noble Earl has raised this subject over a period of time and I think my answer today has been more positive than what he might perhaps have regarded as the rather lukewarm approach that I have been able to give him in the past— so I hope I have at least one satisfied customer this evening.
The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, mentioned a number of valuable points and, in particular, the Bridges Project. Of course we support alternatives to custody for a large number of reasons. They can be more effective, undoubtedly so in terms of cost, and very often they are helpful in a way that custody cannot be for individuals. However, I am afraid that we come back to my earlier melancholy proposition, that for some young offenders custody in a secure environment is necessary.
We want the new orders to be much more positive, partly training assistants in secure conditions; but we also want the ability to work towards restoring the individual back to the community so that restorative justice has a dual context and a dual aspect. That is really what the new structure is intended to give. I cannot dispute the proposition put by many of your Lordships that this is an extremely expensive remedy. We have obviously—your Lordships have spoken of it—a duty to the public purse to make sure that we get value for money. If these schemes do not give value for money, we obviously have a constant duty, even on that basis, to review them.
The noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, asked who determines who would go to a secure training centre. In the first instance the sentence is given by the court. Under the detention and training order, the new order, the precise details of the placement will be dependent on the arrangements which will derive from the proposed commissioning and purchasing role which the Youth Justice Board has, as described by my noble friend Lord Warner. The noble Viscount also asked about Huntercombe and Werrington. We have in fact given both institutions a total of £1 million extra in this
1380
financial year. That is specifically directed, I hope to your Lordships' approval, to the improvement of regimes for those who are held in custody.
The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, asked about persistent young offenders, and the figure I have for 1997 is that according to our definition there were 8, 400 persistent young offenders in that year, who between them would have been responsible for about 43, 000 criminal offences.
The noble Lord, Lord Carr, was the most brusque in saying that these sentences would never work. This is a very new initiative. It has not actually been going even for a year yet. I think we can learn from what has gone wrong at Medway. There were significant mistakes: if we have an opportunity to develop and learn from those mistakes it may be that the noble Lord, Lord Carr, has been too gloomy in his prognostications.
A technical point was raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, about the consolidation of a large number of statutes. There is a continuing consolidation exercise being carried out by the Law Commission and we hope that will result in a powers of criminal courts Bill. I imagine that all those who have to deal with these matters will welcome that consolidation. I am glad to be able to give the noble Viscount a positive answer there.
The noble Lord, Lord Acton, asked about the contractor at Hassockfield. I am able to reassure him that the contractor has already appointed key staff who have considerable experience of dealing with difficult, challenging young people.
The noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, also asked about national standards. I can assure him that this will be part of the remit of the Youth Justice Board under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Warner. I do not think I need to say anything further because what I have had to say about 15 or 16 year-old girls not being kept in prison service accommodation has been welcomed. I knew when I said it last year that my neck was firmly on the block. I did it deliberately, being then young and innocent—and sometimes it is worth it, not being young and innocent but actually promising something.
I am conscious of the fact that I have trespassed on your Lordships' patience and I know that I have not answered some of the questions that have been raised. I should just really like to return to my earlier gratitude for the way in which we have dealt with these things. It is impossible to do justice to the topic, the themes and the contributions in this very brief reply of 23 minutes. What does hearten us all who work together—and I say this to all your Lordships in this field—is that, whatever contribution we have to make, I believe that the tide has changed. I believe that we have an opportunity for a new beginning and I do believe that we must constantly scrutinise ourselves with objective standards and objective tests, so that we can discharge what all your Lordships have rightly described, impliedly or explicitly, as a moral duty to deeply fragile young children who, although they are criminals, are, as the noble Baroness said, essentially children.
8.49 p.m.
Viscount Tenby: My Lords, I rise to express my warm thanks to all those who have taken part in this debate. When I started, I said that I hoped the debate would be constructive and helpful, and the fact that the noble Lord the Minister described it as similar to a seminar gave me immense pleasure. I hope that both he and the noble Lord, Lord Warner, have been heartened by the support they have received for what they are doing from all quarters of the House.
Perhaps I may make two very small points. First, I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie, that in no way am I against the use of custody. As a magistrate of many years' standing, I can assure him that that suggestion is right out! Secondly, I would say that this debate has not been about the individual staff at Medway, whose personal commitment in very difficult circumstances, then and now, has not been questioned. I am conscious that I have asked the noble Lord the Minister very many questions—a whole bucketful in fact—to add to his angst. I may say that this is a running joke between us—but I certainly do not propose to add to it at this late hour of the evening. I therefore beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Gulf War Illnesses
8.50 p.m.
Lord Morris of Manchester Lord Morris of Manchester rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what progress they are making in their investigations into the undiagnosed illnesses of service men and women who served in the Gulf War.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, of all the duties it falls to parliamentarians to discharge, none is of more compelling priority than our bounden duty to act justly to men and women who were prepared to lay down their lives for this country and the dependants of those who did so.
We are met in this debate to discharge that duty to many hundreds of men and women who served in the Gulf War over eight years ago. They were then fit and well. Today they have debilitating illnesses—some very severely disabling—and look to us for support. Hundreds more have already died from illnesses that were never diagnosed and went to their graves with a deep sense of injustice.
On 2nd February, 1998 my noble friend the Minister of State reported that by then there had been 400 deaths among Gulf War veterans. I hope he will be able to update that figure in replying to this debate and to say whether and to what extent it included any unverified deaths. I shall be grateful also to know, first, how many of the deaths were suicides, and, secondly, how many of the suicides were those of veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder. It will be helpful, too, if this evening, or by letter, my noble friend can identify the causes of all deaths of veterans of the conflict and say whether the rate for suicides among Gulf War veterans is higher than the norm for ex-service personnel.
This further information would clearly be of value to Professor Simon Wessely's continuing study of Gulf War illnesses. As my noble friend will know, some of the media coverage of Professor Wessely's interim findings and of the report of the MoD's Medical Assessment Programme (MAP) on its first 1, 000 patients caused distress to veterans trying to cope with their illnesses and deep concern to the Inter-Parliamentary Gulf War Group whose members include parliamentarians of all parties and of none. Like the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, and the noble Countess, Lady Mar, I am a founder member of the group. Its members also include Michael Mates MP and Paul Tyler, MP; representatives of the ex-service charities; Major Ian Hill and Flight Lieutenant John Nicol from the veterans' associations; and both senior doctors and nurses.
Negative media coverage both of Professor Wessely's interim findings and the MAP's report has masked their significance: namely, that while veterans of the Gulf War have complaints similar to those of other conflicts, they are affected significantly more often by disorders of unknown cause. The reporting of both studies was mainly to the effect that they discounted the existence of a "Gulf War syndrome".
Understandably, many Gulf veterans felt that headlines about this obscured the extent and complexity of their undiagnosed illnesses. They were also dismayed by the decline in public interest that followed the media coverage of the two studies, and particularly that of Professor Wessely's interim findings, despite his having gone on record as saying that they require "explanation and action not complacency".
This has given renewed urgency to the ex-service community's call for a public inquiry into all aspects of the handling of Gulf War illnesses. A motion calling on the Prime Minister to commission a public inquiry was unanimously approved by last year's annual conference of the Royal British Legion and Brigadier Ian Townsend, the Secretary-General, asked the Prime Minister to give it urgent effect in a letter dated 11th June 1998. The request was passed by the Prime Minister to the Minister for the Armed Forces to investigate but as yet the only response has been an acknowledgement. Naturally I hope very much that my noble friend can respond this evening to a request that was urgent when it was made over nine months ago and, for those afflicted and bereaved by the Gulf conflict, has become ever more urgent since then.
Doug Henderson, Minister for the Armed Forces, for whom I have high regard, published a report last Friday on the use in the Gulf conflict of depleted uranium (DU). In an accompanying statement, he said:
"The paper sets out in detail the risks associated with it and the circumstances in which exposure could be harmful. As the paper makes clear, in the context of the Gulf War, these risks were small. I am not aware of any UK Gulf veteran who is suffering from a depleted uranium-related illness. "
But many Gulf veterans are unconvinced. They point out that, in sharp contrast to the paper's finding that risks were small, the US Office of the Special Assistant for Gulf War Illnesses now accepts that thousands of troops could have been exposed to the effects of this

1383
radioactive and toxic material. And the MoD's paper itself notes that the US authorities are inviting personnel in certain categories of exposure to enrol in a specialised DU medical evaluation programme. What the MoD's paper does not attempt is any estimate of the combined and interactive effects of exposure to DU and of all the innoculations and injections that were administered to those who served in the Gulf.
In Britain veterans with undiagnosed illnesses have been paying for themselves to be tested for harmful exposure to DU and a report I have seen from Professor Hari Sharma, Professor Emeritus in the Department of Chemistry at Canada's University of Waterloo in Ontario, shows that 30 British Gulf War veterans have tested positive to depleted uranium oxide. I am passing the information sent to me about this to my noble friend and I know he will want to respond to me about it at the earliest possible date.
A further reaction from Gulf War veterans to the MoD paper's finding that the risks of harmful exposure to DU were small has been to recall the reply of the then Minister for the Armed Forces to a parliamentary question put to him in another place in 1996 about a possible link between the undiagnosed illnesses of some Gulf War veterans and the destruction by US troops in March 1991 of ammunition bunkers at Khamisiyah in Southern Iraq. UNSCOM inspectors later identified the site as an Iraqi chemical weapon storage plant and found there ammunition containing chemical agents. The Minister's reply to the question—which I myself tabled—was that only one British serviceman was deployed in the area of fall-out plume when the bunkers at Khamisiyah were destroyed and that his health was unimpaired.
That reply, which later had to be drastically revised upwards, continues to damage the credibility of official statements about the risks our service men and women faced in the Gulf. In truth, there is still uncertainty about the numbers of British service personnel who could have been contaminated by fall-out at Khamisiyah and I shall be grateful to my noble friend for any more precise details he can give us tonight. The paper on depleted uranium that was published last Friday is the outcome of one of two official studies. The other relates to the implementation of the anti-biological warfare vaccines, and any information my noble friend can provide on the progress of that study will be helpful. I know he will at least want to indicate tonight when he expects it to be published.
Meanwhile I wish to mention a helpful note given to me this afternoon by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall. He wanted very much to be here this evening but unfortunately a commitment made before the date of this debate was decided makes this impossible. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, asks me to say that what he cannot understand is:
"… why tests were not done as soon as possible after the conflict into the effect of the cocktail of innoculations and injections given to our service men and women who went to the Gulf, all administered at the same time, on the human immune system. Or why if tests were done the results have never been published".
1384
I know how highly my noble friend respects the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, and that he will take careful note of his comment to me. In this regard my noble friend will be aware of the belief of Professor Malcolm Hooper and others that the greater degree of sickness suffered by Gulf War veterans compared with other veterans is related to the vaccinations that they were given.
Other issues of continuing concern among Gulf War veterans include the seeming lack of official interest here in the very serious effects of the Gulf conflict on the health of the civilian population in Kuwait, not least the effects of setting the oil fields on fire. It is estimated that the 600 burning oil wells released into the atmosphere 50, 000 tons of sulphur-dioxide, 100, 000 tons of soot and 85, 000 tons of carbon-dioxide every 24 hours. Air samples detected the presence of carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxide and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons together with benzine, cadmium copper, molybdenum, nickel, lead, vanadium and zinc in "above average" concentrations.
Philip Congdon, then a squadron leader in the RAF, who led the training team sponsored by the British Government that went to Saudi Arabia soon after the invasion of Kuwait to train expatriate, Saudi Arabian military and civil defence personnel in chemical and biological warfare defence writes:
"Everybody who was present in the Gulf will remember the smoke cloud generated after the oil fields were set on fire. The result was not a fog but rather the pollutants, held by ugly thick smoke, rose into the atmosphere producing a dirty sable black dome that extended from horizon to horizon over Kuwait and often drifted well into Saudi Arabia. Within this dome a mist of oil particles would occasionally precipitate. We now know that the atmosphere was saturated with pollutants of the most profoundly life-destroying type".
It was an atmosphere described by Philip Congdon as "passive smoking of the most deadly type" and it was shared with the Kuwaitis by British personnel. Anyone who thinks exposure to pollution on that scale was but a passing inconvenience for those affected ought to speak to public health officials in Kuwait.
After visiting Kuwait seven months ago and talking at length with Ministers, including the Minister of Health, I was left in no doubt that much could be gained from increasing our knowledge of the effects of the Gulf conflict on public health in Kuwait. I hope this, too, is something my noble friend may wish to comment on when he comes to reply.
I turn now to the processing of war pensions and complaints made to me and others of preventable hardship to Gulf veterans. One case referred to me, about which I tabled a Parliamentary Question on 23rd February, is that of Richard Pruszynski's claim for a war pension in relation to his service with 32 Field Hospital, Wadi Al Batin, during the Gulf conflict. His unit was confirmed to be under the gas cloud from the destruction of the ammunition bunkers at Khamisiya and his health was seriously affected by conditions for which eight other veterans who served with him, including Dr. Colin Purcell-Lee, had already been pensioned.
Richard Pruszynski's case was raised not only by me, but previously by the Royal College of Nursing, the Royal British Legion and the National Gulf Veterans and Families Association. I am glad to say that it was resolved by the granting of a pension on 1 st March.
Another case—one raised with me and the Royal British Legion—is that of Christine Lloyd whose original war pension application was made in November 1994. She is now awaiting the outcome of an entitlement appeal and has been informed that, as a female ex-officer, her appeal must be heard by another female ex-officer and that this will further delay the already lengthy appeal process. Meanwhile I am told that supporting evidence from Group Captain Coker, the former Head of MAP, has been "totally ignored" by War Pensions Agency medical advisers. I shall be grateful if Christine's case can now be urgently further reviewed and similarly if my noble friend can also arrange for the cases of Richard Turnbull and Desmond Dodd, two other Gulf veterans whose difficulties have been raised with me by the Royal British Legion, details of which I am sending him to be looked into again.
I know that my noble friend shares my view and that of noble Lords in all parts of this House and those afflicted by the Gulf War must be spared the hurtful indignities that accompany long delay in dealing with rightful claims. There was no delay in their response to the call of duty eight years ago. Nor must there be any preventable delay now in meeting in full our debt of honour to them. That is the best way of showing our regard and admiration for those who served us with such distinction and gallantry in the Gulf.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, before the next noble Lord speaks, I remind noble Lords that in this debate, speeches are limited to 12 minutes.
9.2 p.m.
The Earl of Effingham: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, for raising this very important subject in your Lordships' House.
The initiative by the former Minister for the Armed Forces, Dr. John Reid, Gulf War Veterans Illnesses: A New Beginning, the commissioning of new research and the more open approach to the disclosure of information were all widely welcomed by veterans and the Royal British Legion alike. Yet progress has been painfully slow and a year a half later, there is still no sign of relief for those suffering from illnesses that were attributed to their Gulf War service.
The legion continues to provide the leadership for the inter-parliamentary group, as the noble Lord, Lord Morris, has already mentioned. It also continues to advise those suffering from possible Gulf War-related conditions to ensure that they receive treatment and, where appropriate, a war pension and/or compensation.
As has been stated by the noble Lord, Lord Morris, the only tangible progress to date has been the publication of the King's College report by Professors Anthony David and Simon Wessely, and two weeks later, the Ministry of Defence's medical assessment programme report on their first 1, 000 patients.
1386
There are two major issues which I would now like to address. The first relates to Dr. Patricia Doyles's study into the effects of the wartime conditions in Kuwait, on the reproductive systems for male and female veterans. Dr. Doyle is attempting to contact all of those who were deployed, but is experiencing various difficulties. First, for serving personnel, there are problems identifying the present location of individuals, thereby slowing down the initial inquiry aspect of the study. Secondly, for those who have left the service, problems are being encountered relating to the constraints of the Data Protection Act which is, again, delaying work. Will the Minister inform the House what action is being taken to overcome these difficulties?
With regard to war pensions, delays are occurring in either awarding or uprating pensions for some veterans who are very seriously ill and distressed. The Legion is also particularly concerned, that some are finding it difficult to present their cases. Would the Minister inform the House what procedures are in hand to hasten these actions?
Like the noble Lord, Lord Morris, I would now like to cite an example. Hilary Jones is a 49 year-old retired major, with regular service in the Queen Alexandra's Royal Army Nursing Corps, from 1972 to 1988, and reserve service from January to March 1991. The latter period resulted in active service during the Gulf War.
Following her discharge from service in March 1991, she experienced immediate health problems, which deteriorated rapidly and forced her to leave full-time employment in late 1994. Symptomatic Gulf War illnesses included memory loss, confusion, bone pain, persistent infections, excessive tiredness and lethargy, insomnia, bladder problems, severe depression and immuno breakdown, possibly contributing to the onset of breast cancer in 1997.
She presently receives a 40 per cent. war disability pension with a war pensions mobility supplement. A deterioration claim is in the process of being actioned and the war pensions mobility supplement is due for renewal. Because of her symptomatic health problems, Hilary Jones displays severe limitations with mobility and depends heavily upon a vehicle to remain independent and fulfil most of the basic day-to-day functions, such as shopping and doctors' appointments. Her existing vehicle is 10 years old and has been without an MOT since last year as she cannot afford the test and any repairs required. She has, therefore, become almost housebound.
Because the war pensioners' mobility supplement is generally awarded for a period of two years, it is difficult to fund the purchase of a new vehicle through Motability, especially as the contract requires regular reviews after each two-year cycle.
The award of the mobility supplement for life would allow Hilary Jones, and other war pensioners with a similar predicament, to purchase a new vehicle through Motability and guarantee their continued independence. There exists an anomaly with the corresponding disability benefit; the disability living allowance, at the higher mobility rate, which is usually awarded for three years, up to a life award. This allows greater flexibility

1387
when purchasing suitable vehicles through Motability or other vehicle finance. Would the Minister please comment on this anomaly?
I should add a caution. I understand that the Government are planning to implement the removal of life awards for disability benefits. However, in practice a life award does not really exist as all benefits are subject to periodic review. Any extension of the existing restriction of the term of the war pensioners' mobility would be a positive step in providing war pensioners with greater flexibility of choice when meeting their mobility needs.
Finally, Territorial Army and regular reserve personnel, who volunteered for Gulf War service, were told by the Ministry of Defence that should they become a casualty, they or their spouse would receive the same benefits as a member of the regular forces, under the provisions of the attributable benefits for reservists scheme. This advice was factually incorrect and, due to an anomaly in the regulations, those who became ill and injured on embodied service would not qualify.
Can the Minister inform the House how many reviews have taken place and how many subsequent awards of a pension, under this scheme, have been made?
Gulf War veterans have been waiting for years to have their cases reviewed. The Legion acknowledges the need for research, but time is of the essence, if these veterans are to be still there, to benefit from the results.

Kosovo
9.10 p.m.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Gilbert): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to repeat a Statement which is in the process of being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister. The Statement is as follows:
"Earlier this evening four British aircraft, together with missiles from the submarine HMS "Splendid", attacked targets in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia as part of a co-ordinated NATO airstrike. Two other aircraft flew supporting missions.
"Honourable Members may have heard the Prime Minister's remarks from Berlin earlier this evening. He said,
'I want to pay tribute, at the outset, to our forces. We owe a huge debt to them for their courage, and their professionalism. Tonight, there are families in Britain who will be feeling a real sense of anxiety. They can feel too a real sense of pride at the contribution their loved ones make to peace and stability in Europe'.
The House will wish to join me in echoing these sentiments.
"Attacks were mounted by seven United States Air Force B52 bombers from Fairford in Gloucestershire. The strike in which they participated was a very significant one, involving both air-launched and sea-launched cruise missiles and manned aircraft
1388
from the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Canada and Spain. A number of other allied air forces flew supporting missions.
"The targets being attacked in this first phase were mainly elements of the Yugoslavian air defence system but also included a number of Serbian military facilities related to the repression in Kosovo.
"The NATO military action, which has the full support of all 19 member states, is intended to support the political aims of the international community. It is justified as an exceptional measure to prevent an overwhelming humanitarian catastrophe. It is, and will continue to be, directed towards disrupting the violent attacks being committed by the Yugoslav army and Serbian special police force and weakening their ability to continue their repressive strategy.
"Two United Nations Security Council resolutions, 1199 and 1203, underpin our actions. Both demanded that Serbs cease all actions against the civilian population and withdraw the security units used for civilian repression. Milosevic has been in breach of every single part of these resolutions.
"As the Prime Minister said yesterday, 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 last month, and no fewer than 25, 000 in these days since peace talks broke down. Families are being uprooted and driven from their homes. There are disturbing reports of the destruction of whole villages. Over the past few days we have all seen harrowing and unforgettable images on the television and in newspapers. The scenes are more reminiscent of the Middle Ages than of Europe on the eve of the 21st century. I would remind the House that the decision to initiate air strikes was taken last night only after it became clear that the final diplomatic effort in Belgrade had not met with success and that all efforts to achieve a negotiated, political solution to the Kosovo crisis had failed.
"Over the past year the international community, with Britain at the forefront, has made intensive efforts to seek a peaceful resolution. Milosevic has either rejected these approaches or entered into undertakings on which he has subsequently reneged; notably, his blatant failure to observe the limits on army and special police numbers in Kosovo. Military force is now the only option.
"NATO's position is clear, and was set out in its statement of 30th January. We seek to bring an end to the violence in order to avert a humanitarian catastrophe and support the completion of negotiations on an interim political settlement.
"Three demands were made at the time, all of which Mr. Milosevic has so far rejected. He has not ended his use of excessive and disproportionate force in Kosovo. He has broken the undertaking he gave last October to reduce Serb forces in Kosovo to pre-February 1998 levels; and he has so far refused to accept the interim political settlement which was negotiated at the peace talks in France earlier this year.
"Tonight, NATO—19 nations of which 13 flew their aircraft tonight—has backed its words with action. It has hit hard and it will continue to hit hard until its military objectives are achieved.
"What happens next is up to Mr. Milosevic. It remains open to him to show at any time that he is ready to meet the demands of the international community. The demands are reasonable: they are an autonomous Kosovo within Serbia and an international military force to underpin the settlement. We hope that the Yugoslavian people will understand that this is the only practical basis of moving forward without further bloodshed.
"I take this opportunity tonight to address a warning to those in the Yugoslav army and other forces who may be in receipt of orders to repress the Albanians in Kosovo. Do not assume that you can carry out such activity with impunity. You have a personal responsibility not to exceed the bounds of international law. You run the risk of being prosecuted by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia at The Hague if you do so.
"I also address the Kosovar Albanians. You have had the courage to commit yourselves to the path of peace. It is imperative that you remain committed to that approach and refrain from provocative actions in the days to come.
"Neither NATO nor the United Kingdom is waging war against the people of Yugoslavia. We will make every effort to avoid civilian casualties. Our objective is to reduce the human suffering and violence against the civilian population of Kosovo. We seek to bring to an end the human tragedy now unfolding.
"We know the risks of action, and we salute the bravery of our servicemen and women who are undertaking these operations on our behalf. To the families of the brave men and women of our Armed Forces involved in this action—and, indeed to the British people as a whole—I would say this. We should remind ourselves that history has proved time and time again that standing up to aggression is the only way to stop brutal leaders like President Milosevic.
"As the Prime Minister said to the House yesterday, 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, as fellow Europeans, cannot contemplate, on our own doorstep, a disintegration into chaos and disorder.
"This is a grave moment. Those who have doubted NATO's resolve have been shown to be wrong. We are prepared to see this through.
"We do not expect that air attacks will lead to an instant end to the brutality in Kosovo—Yugoslavia has a substantial military machine and is under the control of a ruthless man. But our attacks will make
1390
it clear to President Milosevic and his security forces that if they continue to use excessive force in Kosovo they will pay a very high price indeed. "
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
9.20 p.m.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, I sincerely thank the noble Lord for repeating the Statement made by the Deputy Prime Minister in another place.
This is an extremely gloomy moment. I feel, as I am sure many other Members of this House feel, that we could well be in the situation of 28th June 1914 when the Austrian Crown Prince was murdered in Sarajevo. There is no doubt that the Balkans have been the centre of so much of the trouble that we have faced in Europe over the past 100 years. Let us hope sincerely that the next six weeks will be less sad, less desperate than were the six weeks over the month of July 1914.
As I understand it, we are to have a debate tomorrow on the situation. I have no doubt that by then it will be a little clearer than it is tonight. Your Lordships will be most grateful to have been told all that the noble Lord has been able to tell us, repeating from his right honourable friend. But hour by hour the situation will develop and we shall know more tomorrow. His right honourable friend the Prime Minister quite rightly congratulated the British and other NATO forces on their action, their bravery and their devotion to service in the Balkans. From these Benches we totally support everything that he said.
However, we must express our concern that the Prime Minister seems to be relying on air warfare only. I do not believe that I am overstating it when I say that there seems to be a slightly gung-ho atmosphere in what the Deputy Prime Minister said. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to reassure the House that all the British aircraft, which were Harriers operating out of Gioia del Colle in Italy, returned safely. I understand that that is not true for the American aircraft. I am not certain of that; that information is being given to me as I speak. But I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us a bit more about that.
The Serbians have an airforce. Our forces on the ground in Macedonia are beyond the range of our cover from Italy and they must be in severe danger of attack from Serbian forces. I hope that the NATO forces involved in this campaign will not underestimate the strength and determination of the Serbian armies. This is not an Iraq. This is a strong, determined and fighting people. If we are to face up to them, it must be done with the utmost resolution. Inevitably, we will find that it cannot be done by air power alone; that we shall have to use forces on the ground.
It is difficult to know what the Government could have done. But I hope that all those concerned will realise that within Serbia there is a great deal of support for President Milosevic and that we are facing grave difficulties. Let us pray for a quick determination and that the Serbians cannot face up to the united, moral forces of the rest of the world. Let us hope that they and

1391
the Kosovars can come into a position in which they can at least see peace and—it is to be hoped—a settled life on their own.
9.25 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place. We on these Benches entirely agree with the action that the Government have taken. We believe that NATO had no option other than to use military force against the Serbians in view of the fact that Milosevic was continuing and even intensifying the acts of oppression against the people of Kosovo, causing massive loss of life and huge displacement of civilians from their homes. Indeed, as the noble Lord said, the number already amounts to a quarter of a million. People have been bombed and shelled out of their houses. They are living on the hillsides with nothing but a few pots and pans, hardly anything to eat and nothing to cover them in this very cold weather.
We entirely agree that the latter was a flagrant violation of Security Council Resolutions 1199 and 1203 and that action had to be taken to enforce the will of the Security Council, even though we recognise that tomorrow may be an awkward day for us in the council with the objections that are bound to be raised by the Russians, and possibly the Chinese, to the action that we have taken.
We are told that the objective is to reduce the Serbian capacity to kill civilians and to destroy their property but that we are also hoping to get Milosevic to adhere to the promises which he made last October. Can the Minister say what will happen tomorrow morning if we find that Serbian tanks and artillery are still bombarding the villages of Kosovo and, indeed, if the same thing happens the day after? If the bombardment continues for several days and after thousands of tonnes of explosives have been dropped on military targets we find that Serbian capacity has only been degraded by, say, 30 per cent. or 40 per cent. and their political will has not been broken, what do we do then? Is it not essential to have plans ready to deal with a situation in which there is no prospect of getting Milosevic to sign the Rambouillet Agreement? Would it not be right to say publicly that, if there is no deal, we shall work towards the establishment of an international protectorate over the territory of Kosovo and the forfeiture of Yugoslav territory?
The warning that was given to the Yugoslav forces that if they continue military action against civilians in Kosovo they risk prosecution before the international criminal tribunal on the former Yugoslavia is obviously perfectly correct in international law. However, is it not also correct to say that Milosevic himself risks prosecution? Did not Louise Arbour say at one point in an interview that no one was exempt from the proceedings of the international tribunal, including a head of state? Could that message be given clearly to Mr. Milosevic along with the message that has been given to the armed forces of Yugoslavia?
Finally, we on these Benches wholeheartedly endorse the tribute which was paid by the Deputy Prime Minister to our Armed Forces. We join in the congratulations
1392
expressed to them on their heroic action and their professionalism in this hazardous operation. We wish them every success in the essential task of destroying the Serbian forces and deterring those who remain from the vicious oppression of the people of Kosovo.
9.28 p.m.
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I am very much obliged to both the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, and the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for the tributes that they have also paid to the courage and skill of our men and women in uniform who are engaged in these activities in the former Republic of Yugoslavia.
The noble Lord, Lord Burnham, said that he thought the Prime Minister was relying on air warfare only. I want to make it absolutely clear that the military decisions that are being taken are not exclusively the property of Her Majesty's Government; indeed, they are NATO decisions. Therefore, on reflection, the noble Lord may realise that it is not just a single decision by the British Prime Minister in this respect. I regret that he thinks there is a gung ho atmosphere. I am sure that if he were at the Ministry of Defence, as I was today, he would appreciate that there is far from being a gung ho atmosphere. There is a mood of apprehension, of seriousness, of determination and of resignation that we are forced to do what we are doing. There is anxiety with respect to our air crews.
I regret to say that I am unable to confirm whether all the British aircraft have yet returned safely. If I was speaking an hour or so later I might have that information, but as of this moment I do not have it. I checked the situation just before I entered your Lordships' Chamber. Your Lordships should not infer from that that anything has gone wrong; it is simply that I do not have the information at my disposal one way or the other.
The noble Lord, Lord Burnham, asked whether the forces in Macedonia were in danger of attack from the Serbian air force. Most of the Serbian air force does not have the most modern equipment and the amount of flying it does is extremely limited. I was told that it averaged about 25 hours a year. That will hardly keep the pilots in a condition to perform serious military operations. I assure the noble Lord that should NATO forces be attacked by the Serbian air force while in Macedonia, the response will be immediate and ferocious. I quite agree with him that we are not dealing with another Iraq when we are engaged in conflict with the forces of Serbia. However, I point out to him that it is a conscript army that Mr. Milosevic has at his disposal and it remains to be seen how its morale will or will not hold up under the kind of bombardment it may anticipate in the next few days. I say it may anticipate that but I believe that probably one of the reasons we have reached this situation is that Mr. Milosevic is quite unaware of the depth of air power that he faces and the vigour with which his military personnel and assets will be attacked.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for recognising that NATO had absolutely no option in these circumstances. It is not only a question of the huge

1393
loss of life. Everyone in your Lordships' House will have seen the most distressing pictures of refugees seeing their homes burning when they have committed no crime whatever except that they lived where that was inconvenient to Mr. Milosevic. I remind your Lordships that he is responsible for nearly all the trouble that has occurred in that unhappy country in the past few years. In addition to the figures I mentioned a few moments ago, we now find ourselves with about 1 million refugees from Yugoslavia in the EU. The blame for most of that, but not all of it, can be laid, in my view, at the door of Mr. Milosevic.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked me what would happen in the Security Council tomorrow. We had better wait to see what happens. There will, of course, be intense diplomatic discussions with our Russian friends. We hope to persuade them and the other Permanent Members of the Security Council who are not involved in these operations of the inevitability of what we had to do in order to prevent a greater human catastrophe.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked me what will happen if Serbian tanks are still bombarding on the second day and the third day. The answer is that they will continue to receive the kind of treatment that we have just started to mete out to them. As the Prime Minister made clear, we are absolutely resolute that we shall continue until the job is done. Our military objectives are perfectly clear. They are twofold. The first one is to frustrate the present operations of the Yugoslav army and special police forces and, secondly, to curb the ability of Mr. Milosevic in the future to carry out that kind of operation. As the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, rightly remarked, it is perfectly true that President Milosevic, like every member of his armed forces, is liable in the fullness of time to face charges at the international tribunal.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I believe that the House would very much welcome it if, before the end of the debate in which we are involved, he had any further information with regard to the return of British and NATO aircraft, he could pass a message to his noble friend so that he could give that information to the House.
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I am happy to accede to the noble Lord's request.
9.34 p.m.
Lord Shore of Stepney: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for repeating what must be a difficult Statement. Yesterday I had the opportunity when we had a Statement on Kosovo to express both my unhappiness at our being forced to resort to the military option but also my understanding and support for the Government in the action that they have taken. Since then, 24 hours later, two events have occurred and it is on them that I wish to ask my noble friend questions. One favourable event is, of course, that we have got the 19 NATO countries to agree to the policy that is being pursued. I would like to think that that is also the resolve of all the members of the European Union meeting in Berlin at the present time.
1394
Secondly, and negatively, I had thought when we heard the Statement yesterday that Primakov was en route for Washington, if he had not already arrived. Not only did he not arrive, as we know, but he was recalled. Since then we have had President Yeltsin's very urgent public plea on Russian television. I ask and urge my noble friend not to abandon the efforts, which I am sure he thinks are well worth while, of trying to explain this action to the Russians and engage them in and associate them with it. Historically they are the protectors of Serbia and they have a very strong connection there and much influence. It would be tragic if we did not explore every possible way of getting at least Russian acceptance, if not approval, of what we have done.
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I am much obliged to my noble friend, particularly for his earlier remarks of support. As far as concerns the members of the EU who are not members of NATO, all I can say is that I have not heard of any dissenting voices from Berlin. Frankly, knowing the countries which fall into that category, I would be very surprised indeed were we to hear any such remarks. I certainly associate myself with my noble friend's views on the need for us to continue to try to engage the Russians in this matter.
The tragedy is that the Serbs are a very great people. What is unfortunate is that they are under the sway of such a brutal individual. Those of us who are old enough to remember the Second World War know perfectly well how bravely the Serbs fought on our side during that conflict. We fully understand the emotional commitment that the Russian people have to the Serbian people. These are very difficult times for the Russian leadership and the Russian people. I assure my noble friend that Her Majesty's Government are fully seized of the importance of that and of his remarks.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am sure the whole House will agree that when British troops go into combat they deserve and should expect the support of both Houses of Parliament. However, I wonder whether the Minister can give me any instance in recent years in which bombardment, however heavy, has led to the subjugation of a proud people. We have just finished discussing the pride of the Serbian people. If the noble Lord agrees with me that there is all kinds of evidence to suggest that very often bombing has the opposite effect, would he therefore agree also that it is quite likely now that we will be forced to follow bombardment with an invasion, at least of Kosovo? If that is so, does he further agree that, assuming its success, such an invasion would have to prepare for an almost permanent presence of troops occupying Kosovo, just as we have experienced in Cyprus and I suspect we shall continue to experience in Bosnia? Does the noble Lord think that we have enough troops to envisage that commitment, particularly if we are to see an unfortunate increase in tension in Northern Ireland?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Viscount for his remarks about the valour of our forces engaged in these operations. He asked whether I could give an example of when—and I noted his words with

1395
care—bombardment had ever led to the subjugation of a foe. Subjugation is not what this operation is about. I wish to make that absolutely clear. I repeat, this operation is about frustrating what the Serbian army and special police forces are currently engaged in and curbing President Milosevic's capacity for continuing that kind of operation in the future. It is in no way about the subjugation of the Serbian people.
The noble Viscount is right: bombing often has an opposite effect from that which was intended. I believe, however, that he may have in mind the bombing of towns and cities and of civilian populations. We are choosing only military targets. The increase in the accuracy of our precision weapons, and I speak for the alliance as a whole, has been remarkable, even since the Gulf War of 1991.
We have no intention of invading Kosovo. We have no intention of fighting our way in there. Had that been our intention we should have needed many more forces on the ground. I refer not only to the United Kingdom but to the alliance as a whole. The noble Viscount is quite right. That is no part of our policy.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I, too, wish to associate myself with those who have congratulated the Government on their resolve, and I congratulate them on the statesmanlike and measured language in which they have expressed that resolve. It is difficult to think of a period in recent history when our government, together with others, have striven more consistently and hard to try to find a peaceful solution to a dreadful problem. I, like others, recognise that there was now no alternative.
It seems to me that we have to be positive in our reaction and say that it is not just that there was no other option, but that we have now demonstrated that NATO is serious about the principles and values on which that alliance is based and is not going to let those principles and values become eroded and lost in the morass of endless wordgames.
I am sure we all agree that tonight our thoughts and prayers are with all those who are responsible for the action, all those who are engaged in the action, and all those inevitable victims, on whatever side, who are victims as a result of the intransigence and ruthlessness of Milosevic.
I wish to ask my noble friend two questions. First, does he agree that all recent experience demonstrates that wherever military action is taken there must be absolute clarity about the political objectives within which that military action is being pursued? Can we be assured, therefore, that the Government, together with their allies, will take every opportunity to spell out how they see the way forward in terms of the developing situation towards what I presume and hope is still the objective; namely, a peaceful and sustainable solution, not only for Serbia but also for Kosovo?
My second question is this. We are one of five Permanent Members of the Security Council. We therefore have a special responsibility for the credibility and integrity of the United Nations in its responsibilities for collective security. My noble friend assured us that
1396
we are at pains to explain that the action flows from the resolutions already endorsed by the Security Council. Can my noble friend assure us that we will continue to emphasise the legitimacy of the action within the context of the United Nations Security Council and not from some other source? The danger is that if we do not do that, some other member of the United Nations at some future date will take a subjective interpretation of what is necessary and what is not necessary on humanitarian grounds and take action of which we might not approve.
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his comments, particularly his endorsement of the fact that Her Majesty's Government have tried hard over many months to find a peaceful solution to this terrible situation.
I am glad also of his recognition that the actions we take today and may have to continue to take for some time yet demonstrate the seriousness with which NATO takes its principles. As he rightly said, our thoughts are with the victims and also with our pilots and other air crew and the men in Her Majesty's submarine. It is lonely being in the cockpit of a military jet aircraft in the dark, with missiles and other anti-aircraft ordnance coming at them. These young men must be frightened and brave at the same time and we owe them a great deal.
My noble friend said that Her Majesty's Government had to be absolutely clear about their objectives. I totally agree. I hope that I have spoken with as much clarity as I can. Our military objectives—and I repeat them so that there is no possibility of a misunderstanding—are to obstruct and disrupt the activities that the Serbian military forces and special police forces are currently engaged in in Kosovo and to curb President Milosevic's capability of continuing to prosecute such a campaign of atrocities in the future.
My noble friend asked about legitimacy. We are perfectly confident that we have a good legal basis for our action. I quoted the relevant Security Council resolutions. This is the view not only of Her Majesty's Government but one that is shared by all the other 18 members of NATO. The justification rests upon the accepted principle that force may be used in extreme circumstances to avert a humanitarian catastrophe. I am afraid that we have already seen a humanitarian catastrophe and wish to ensure that it does not continue.
Lord McNair: My Lords, I wish to make a rather broader point. I discussed it with the Minister's noble friend, the Leader of the House, after the Statement yesterday and perhaps it might have been better made yesterday than today.
The point I wish to make is about the phase of the Balkan problem which started in the late 1980s and early 1990s. I feel that we should not forget the psychological warfare aspect of the conflict. I think we would all agree, looking back to the Bosnian conflict, that Radovan Karadzic is a pretty evil person. We should not forget his training as a psychiatrist which he put to good effect in inciting and inflaming the Serbs in Bosnia. He took over the baton of leading the misnamed

1397
Serbian Democratic Party from another psychiatrist, Raskovic, who had written a book which was instrumental in inflaming the passions of the Serb people there. The point I wish to make is that there is evidence—certainly allegations—that at one time Mr. Milosevic was a patient of Radovan Karadic.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I have a difficulty. I am trying to be reasonable. The noble Lord must make a brief point or question in order to enable other Lords to speak.
Lord McNair: My Lords, I believe that I am being more brief than some other noble Lords who have spoken. The point I am making—
Earl Attlee: My Lords, the noble Lord is making a speech. He is not asking a question of the Minister.
Lord McNair: My Lords, I am making a point in a far shorter time than other noble Lords made their points. My point is that in President Milosevic we may be dealing with someone who has had his Serbian nationalism artificially inflamed. I am simply asking Her Majesty's Government to bear in mind this aspect of the conflict and the fact that if our troops encounter Serbian militia or troops they may find that the Serbian forces have had their ferocity enhanced, as in Bosnia, by being given mind-altering drugs. There is a lot of evidence for that. I ask the Government to bear that in mind.
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I have no difficulty in agreeing with the noble Lord that it is not only Slobadan Milosevic who has incited Serb nationalism. He clearly bears by far the greatest proportion of blame. I shall let the matter rest at that.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, I understand that the independent media has been closed down in Belgrade. What will NATO be able to do to impact on public opinion in order to ensure that it receives accurate information?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, the noble Lord raises a very good point. These days, it is virtually impossible in Europe to prevent people getting accurate information. They can listen to the BBC, ITN or CNN. They can listen to radio from outside their borders. Mr. Milosevic has engaged on an impossible task if he believes that he can prevent his citizens from finding out what is going on and why.

Gulf War Illnesses
9.52 p.m.
Debate on Unstarred Question resumed.
Lord McNair: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, for enabling us to debate the undiagnosed illnesses of servicemen and
1398
women who served in the Gulf War. I should like to start by focusing on the word "undiagnosed". I hope that I can provide a little help or illumination on that score.
If one accepts that these servicemen and women are indeed suffering from illnesses, we have to ask why they are undiagnosed. There are two possible reasons which occur to me for this situation. The first concerns the state of medical understanding. It is possible that the agents which have caused the illnesses may be individually, or in combination, unfamiliar though not unknown to medical science, as poisons or contaminants.
The second possibility is that there are political reasons why these illnesses have not been officially diagnosed. I admit to a degree of scepticism when the noble Earl, Lord Howe, as Minister for Defence, found himself having to carry out a classic partial retreat to a new defensive, if not indefensible, position, although I do understand the difficulties both in terms of revealing sensitive military information and laying the MoD open to large claims for damages.
However, I felt that the previous government plumbed the depths of cynicism when they appointed a committee to investigate this matter whose numbers comprised, I believe, two vets and one psychiatrist.
I return for a moment to my first point about the state of medical knowledge. Several times in previous debates I have pushed the Department of Health, the arbiter in such matters, to be more open to holistic and complementary approaches to health. In this case, it is very important to explore all the possibilities to research to extend the frontiers of knowledge to help the servicemen and women who are suffering from what is currently called the Gulf War Syndrome.
We all owe a tremendous debt of gratitude to the noble Countess, Lady Mar, for her assiduous and persistent pursuit of the truth. This pursuit, born of personal suffering, has resulted in our understanding of the links between the illnesses of servicemen and women and those of agricultural workers affected by organophosphates. Incidentally, it has also highlighted the very probably link between organophosphates and BSE. We should all be very grateful to her.
In line with my long-standing interest in complementary health, I should like to speak about one initiative that has already greatly assisted two American Gulf War veterans and holds out the promise of great benefit to others on both sides of the Atlantic who may care to avail themselves of it. Over the past three to four years, nutritionists have been using a procedure that comprises food supplements, exercise and long periods in a sauna at lower temperatures than are used for recreational purposes greatly to reduce the body load of a wide range of chemicals, including some forms of radioactivity. I am aware of this because the two people involved in the initiative are friends of mine. David and Sheila Gaiman, who so far have taken about three years' sabbatical leave from their company G & G Food Products, have formed a non-profit-making organisation called Human Detoxification Services International. They have established detoxification centres in several Russian and CIS cities and a great deal of work has been

1399
done in Khazakstan. Noble Lords will be aware that the pollution and contamination problems in those countries are enormous.
The success of this programme over a number of years has fully validated the procedure. I have spoken to the noble Countess, Lady Mar, about this matter and she has passed on a very generous offer by Human Detoxification Services International to supply a group of British Gulf War veterans with the food supplements needed for a three to four-week programme and also to train doctors to supervise it. The noble Countess tells me that, unfortunately, so many veterans suffer from ischaemic heart disease they are fearful that the programme may be too much for them. This serves only to underscore the tragedy that has befallen those who have faithfully served their country and its people and have paid a price that no one anticipated.
I cannot accept that this is the end of the matter. The offer of help remains open. The quality of life of the American Gulf War veterans has improved immeasurably. I hope that some British servicemen and women suffering from Gulf War syndrome will feel able to take advantage of this offer. I add that I have no interest to declare in respect of HDSI, except that I support and encourage its desire to help in this distressing situation.
9.57 p.m.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Morris, for asking this Question. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord McNair, for his kind words. I have prepared a speech but, having listened to the Statement this evening, it is now sitting on the Bench. We heard from the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, words that echoed those used in 1990 about the bravery and courage of our troops, the pride in which we should hold them and our gratitude to them.
Tonight we are speaking about the very same troops to whom we have exhibited very little, if any, gratitude. They came back from the Gulf ostensibly uninjured. Within months they began to report symptoms. They were told that they were wimps. I have heard noble Lords in this House say that they fought in the desert between 1939 and 1945 and suffered far worse than those in the Gulf but came back with no injuries. I believe it is now accepted that these men are not wimps but have genuine illnesses and that, in spite of denials by governments on both sides of the Atlantic, any of the pollutants, vaccines or other medications to which the Gulf veterans were exposed could have caused illnesses.
I had a paper only yesterday about the effects of oil well fires. We are told that the American Government did some tests to prove that the effects of the oil well fires would have been negligible on the Gulf soldiers. Those tests were conducted in the summer when the desert winds were blowing and the oil plumes were much higher in the atmosphere. The noble Lord, Lord Morris, has spoken about soldiers reporting about day being turned into night and oil raining on them. This report—and I hope that the Minister might be interested
1400
in it—indicates that in fact Kuwaiti oil is particularly toxic and that there is a specific emphysema associated with it.
I note that the noble Lord, Lord Morris, quoted the name of Richard Turnbull in relation to war pensions. Richard Turnbull has a specific sort of emphysema, but nobody has bothered to find out what has caused it. I remember when the noble Earl, Lord Howe, announced that a Medical Research Council panel had been set up to look into Gulf War illnesses and I asked him about causal research. He said to me that the MRC had said there was no need for causal research. How can we treat an illness if we do not know the cause of it? Here I will go back to my speech, because it contains one or two quotations that I should like to give. This is in relation initially to the report on the first 1, 000 Gulf War veterans from the medical assessment programme.
James I. Moss of the University of Florida writes:
"In spite of the author's implications"—
this is Group Captain Coker et al—
"and the suggestions by the BMJ, I saw nothing in this article that addressed possible 'cause(s)' of the illnesses. How can one represent to the readers that no causes are identifiable when no evidence of the search is presented?"
Per Dalen, a retired psychiatrist, writes on the same subject:
"Among their 'key messages', Coker et al included the following: 'From the clinical standpoint the variety and multiplicity of symptoms makes it unlikely that any single cause will be found to underlie Gulf war illness'".
Dr. Dalen goes on to give several examples to show that this conclusion is unwarranted. He cites the 70 listed side-effects of the drug indomethacin and goes on to say:
"Each of these is of course 'diagnosable' in a broad sense, but the correct, causal diagnosis cannot be arrived at unless the physician knows about the exposure to indomethacin".
I have quoted these two responses because I am only too well aware from my personal experience of exposure to organophosphates that the wrong treatment can at best be ineffective and, at worst, give rise to an exacerbation of the symptoms. The right treatment can prevent suicidal thoughts. The wrong treatment can cause suicide. We are seeing at the moment two suicides a month among the Gulf veterans. Two of the Gulf veterans are responsible for running the Gulf veterans branch of the British Legion, of which I am patron. They often spend two or three nights a week talking Gulf veterans out of suicide.
This is not the responsibility of already sick Gulf veterans. The Ministry of Defence or the National Health Service should be providing the counselling for these Gulf veterans, who feel that they must commit suicide. I had a talk with one of the two veterans the other afternoon. He had talked a young man who was standing on a stool with a rope round his neck out of hanging himself. An hour later he found that the young man had taken 100 Brufen tablets. From Newcastle he had to get through to the ambulance service in Kent. They had to patch him through. There were only paramedics in the ambulance and the man could not be admitted to a psychiatric hospital without a doctor's

1401
permission. Another patch was put through to the Gulf veteran who then had to persuade his colleague to go to hospital.
Think of the stress that that caused to an already sick Gulf veteran. Is this the way we should behave to these men in whom we have so much pride, who were willing to give their lives for our country in 1990 and 1991? No, it is not, my Lords. We should be looking at the real causes of their illness. We should be doing our utmost to find out what treatments work for them. I know from OP poisoning that there is a treatment. Hundreds of farmers around the country cannot afford the treatment I found. I would not be standing before your Lordships today if I had not received that treatment.
We have just heard that there are treatments for certain aspects of Gulf War illnesses. We should be offering those to our Gulf veterans. We should stop giving them the run around for war pensions, which the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, described. I receive messages about it every day. We should make sure that any insurance policies that the MoD has persuaded them to buy cover them in the case of sickness. Men and women are losing their homes because their mortgage payments cannot be kept up.
It is a disgraceful way to behave. We have done it with veterans from the Crimean War, the 1914–18 war, the 1939–45 war, the Korean War; and now with the Gulf veterans. I hope to God that we do not do so with the veterans of what I fear will be another war.
I most sincerely implore the Minister to ensure that his right honourable friend the Prime Minister obtains a response to the request for a public inquiry into the way in which British Gulf veterans have been treated; and that that public inquiry will be run on the same basis as the BSE inquiry. To leave a request of 11th June 1998 without reply is nothing less than a disgrace. What happened to the Prime Minister's code, of which he is so proud, of a response within two weeks?
I conclude on that note. These men deserve our care and concern and we should do everything possible to ensure that they have it.
10.7 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, we are all much indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, for introducing the debate, and for all the work he has done in the past in support of the Gulf War veterans.
There is no easy answer to the Question he asks: what progress are the Government making in their investigations? The short answer perhaps is that the Government are not making much progress, but that it is not through lack of trying. It is an immensely complicated subject fraught with epistemological problems, and those who expect an answer to such questions as the causes of Gulf War illnesses are bound to be disappointed.
I think that the Government have to be given credit for taking the issue seriously. In July 1997, they announced a three-pronged policy which has been followed since then: that veterans should have contact; that there is medical advice from the medical assessment programme that appropriate research should be carried
1402
out into veterans' illnesses and factors which might have a bearing on those; and that the MoD will make available to the public any information it possesses which is of potential relevance to the issue.
On that subject, I wish to refer to the Ministry of Defence's website which gives veterans and others some, but not all, of the information they need to find out the nature and extent of illness affecting war veterans and what is being done about it.
There are very few links on that site with other relevant material and, as far as I can see, no links to any US sites at all. Therefore, that the user will be unaware, for example, of the work being done at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention at Atlanta University; or of the strong interest by the US Congress in this subject; or of inquiries undertaken by Congress representative Christopher Shays, as Chairman of the National Security and Veterans Committee of Congress, who I understand is to be in Britain next week visiting the Ministry of Defence and Porton Down. Will the Minister look at that and, in any event, will he ask the web master to include a link to the US Department of Defense Gulf War page which has an immense amount of very useful material?
Reference has been made by several noble Lords to the two studies which have been published recently— first, the MAP programme. The 1, 000 veterans who took part in that study were self-selected and therefore, as the authors make clear, they may not be representative of sick veterans as a whole. The MAP programme was not designed for research purposes and cannot be used for precise conclusions about the additional ill-health suffered by Gulf War veterans as a whole, compared with service personnel in other theatres, or those who remain in UK postings. It shows that Gulf War veterans have suffered from an enormous variety of illnesses, some of which are disabling, but, as the BMS expressed the matter in the editorial discussing the findings, they do not seem to constitute a unique illness.
The second important study which has been published relates to a random sample of Gulf War veterans and investigates whether there is a relationship between ill-health and service in the Gulf by comparing the experience of 4, 300 veterans of the Gulf conflict with an equivalent number who served in Bosnia and a third group who served during the Gulf War but were not actually deployed in the Gulf itself.
The conclusion of that survey was that service in the Gulf War produced health problems in addition to those found among personnel who had been deployed in other unfamiliar hostile environments. The study found also— and this is of great importance—that there was an association between multiple vaccinations and the poorer health which was specific to the Gulf cohort. Vaccinations between biological warfare were unique to the Gulf cohort and the servicemen who were vaccinated against the biological warfare agents were more likely to report long-term symptoms.
Here I come to the speech of the noble Countess, Lady Mar, who said that we should carry out more research on the causation of Gulf War illnesses. There is only one study of which I know which is being

1403
undertaken into the effects of multiple vaccinations. That is an MoD-funded study looking at the effects of the combination of vaccines and nerve agent pre-treatment set and NAPS tablets which were given to service personnel during the Gulf conflict. That study is being conducted at Porton Down.
On the other hand, in the US a great deal of work has been undertaken concerning the exposure to combinations of drugs used in the Gulf War. One example is the work done by Mohamed Abou-Donia and Robert Haley of Texas Southwestern Medical School looking at the combined effect of three chemicals on chickens: DEET and Permethrin, which were used to protect soldiers against diseases, and pyridostigmine bromide, an acetylcholinesterase inhibitor used against nerve gas.
That research found an explanation of why the three compounds together may have caused harm to the patient, while any one of them alone was harmless. An Israeli study by Friedman et al also found that that agent, pyridostigmine bromide, which normally does not cross the blood-brain barrier, can be made to do so in animals under the influence of stress, and it may have been responsible for the greater than three-fold increase in the frequency of central nervous symptoms among Gulf War veterans.
Should we be doing more of that kind of work or can we simply rely on what is being done in the US? The Presidential Advisory Committee on Gulf War veterans' illnesses concluded that research should be pursued in areas of uncertainty, such as the long-term effects of low level exposure to chemical warfare agents and the synergistic effects of exposure to pyridostigmine bromide and other risk factors.
We should ensure that we are plugged into that research. It would be interesting to hear from the Minister on the mechanisms for co-ordinating British and US work to ensure that we complement each other. Did anybody from the UK attend the Research Planning Conference, "The Health Impact of Chemical Exposures During the Gulf War" held in Atlanta, Georgia, from 28th February to 2nd March sponsored by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)? Has the Minister looked at the background document on Gulf War-related research produced for that conference? If not, I strongly commend it to his attention and suggest that a link to that document be added, among other US links, to the Ministry of Defence web page on Gulf War illness.
The noble Countess, Lady Mar, referred to the demand made by the Royal British Legion for an independent inquiry into Gulf War illness. One difficulty with that approach would be that further research now under way, both here and in the US, is likely to extend our knowledge of the subject for several
1404
years to come. I am not entirely sure that a public inquiry is the best mechanism for dealing with a situation where the evidence is constantly unfolding—
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. It is not an inquiry into Gulf War illness but an inquiry into the handling of the Gulf War illness problem.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I take the point that there are differences between the handling of the illnesses and the illnesses themselves. I was going on to agree with the noble Countess that there are some matters which need to be looked at, such as the difficulty of accessing service medical records and the requirements of the Data Protection Act which she mentioned. However, those are not so much questions of policy as of procedure. Can the Minister reaffirm that in accordance with the Government's policy of being completely open and honest with Gulf War veterans, they will make their medical and other records available to them? Coming from such a source, the proposal of the Royal British Legion needs to be discussed.
I echo the question put by the noble Countess as to why Ministers have not invited the Royal British Legion to a meeting with this item as the only item on the agenda before they reach a decision, which was promised soon in answer to a question from my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones last October. The secretary of the Royal British Legion wrote to the Minister of State on 28th February reminding him that this matter had been outstanding since its annual conference in May 1998, as the noble Countess pointed out, and his letter to the Prime Minister shortly after that. I agree with her that this is not good enough and that they should have received some kind of reply by now. Preferably, they should have been invited to such a meeting so that they could have discussed their concerns and gone over them with Ministers.
Finally, it has been established, as we have heard, that Gulf War veterans suffer from an excess of ill-health over what would have been normally expected from service in a conflict zone, whether Bosnia, the Falkland Islands, Northern Ireland or any other theatre of operations where our Armed Forces have been engaged in recent years. Yet, the Government are still saying, in effect, that none of this is the responsibility of the Ministry of Defence. Only if the victims can prove a causal relationship between the package of medications they were ordered to take and the ill health they subsequently endured would compensation be considered over and above the no-fault system of payment already made under the war pensions scheme and the Armed Forces pension scheme.
Is it not time to accept the findings of epidemiological studies, as in cases of industrial harm from substances such as alpha naphylamine, asbestos, or mono ethyl chloride? Do the Government accept that for hundreds of ex-servicemen who consider that they are entitled to some recompense for the illnesses they suffer, the additional stress of dealing with legal matters could make them worse, and that because they are receiving legal aid, the taxpayer is already bearing some

1405
expenditure? I believe that most people would prefer to see money going into the pockets of the Gulf War veterans than into the pockets of lawyers. Will the Government enter into discussions with the veterans' representatives with a view to designing a scheme of compensation based on the observed deterioration in the quality of life of Gulf War veterans?
10.19 p.m.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, I mean absolutely no disrespect to the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, when I say that for reasons that we fully understand I am sorry that he is to reply to this debate. However, for the past 22 months the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, has been involved closely with Gulf War illness matters and— I say this again with no disrespect to the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle—he would probably have had a more intimate knowledge of some of the problems. Nevertheless, I have no doubt that we shall get some answers.
This is an old song which the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, and the noble Countess, Lady Mar, are singing, but it is a very sad song—and the trouble is that nobody really knows the words. I pay tribute to both the noble Lord and the noble Countess for all their work. This evening the noble Countess gave us the most hair-raising tales of the troubles of at least a number of Gulf veterans.
However, I do not really accept it to be true that either this Government, or the last, ignored the problem. There were never any easy answers and it would be easier if we knew the questions. I find myself startled in that I agree with almost everything said by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury.
I am concerned, however, that what we are being told is not always consistent. I went to Washington with the noble Lord, Lord Morris, nearly three years ago. There was no doubt that a great deal of work was being done there and that there was close liaison between the Department of Defense and the Office of Veterans Affairs in Washington, and the Ministry of Defence here. Nevertheless, in reply to a Question in another place on Monday, Mr. Doug Henderson twice said:
"We want to enter into discussions with the US Government to determine how best we can combine our research resources". — [Official Report, Commons, 22/3/99; col. 6.]
On the face of it, this looks as though we were only now thinking how to discuss the problem with the Americans. Luckily, I do not believe that, as I know that a great deal of work has been done by both nations, separately and together.
Certainly the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, answered a question from the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, last June by saying that there is a full and continuing exchange between our two governments. That exchange is fortunate, since the number of members of the British Armed Forces in the Gulf is so small as to render it difficult to provide a meaningful sample of every one of the number of symptoms from which only the veterans may show themselves to be suffering. Almost the only thing that can be said and established is that there is no such thing as one Gulf syndrome.
1406
Even so, the number of Britons suffering from one problem or another is sufficiently large to be extremely worrying not only for those who are suffering the problems now, but for those who might have to deal with similar problems if we have another desert war.
It is interesting to note that the work of Professor Simon Wessely shows that the pattern of illnesses in this country is broadly similar to those in the United States. All the more reason why the two sets of research teams should work closely together.
Even for this country, the figures are frightening. As I understand it, there have been 2, 762 applications for pensions and 1, 448 have been awarded. Compensation has been applied for by 1, 769 and, if my figures are right, there have been 381 deaths. The noble Lord, Lord Morris, said 400, but that seems much the same. Quite rightly, the question is: why? why? why?
One of the reasons why liaison with the United States is so vital is that the Americans have been able to carry out a controlled experiment with a similar number of servicemen who did not serve in the Gulf. What is the norm for those illnesses in a body of young men (and a few women)? It seems too that in America the reserve forces in the Gulf suffered worse than the regulars; the back areas were worse than the sharp end—
Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. It was my noble friend Lord Gilbert who gave the House the figure of 400 deaths. That was speaking last year. My suspicion is that there were a number of unverified deaths in his figure, but I have asked tonight—and I await the reply from my noble friend who will wind up the debate— for an updating of that ligure and for other important information to the ex-service community.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Morris, for that intervention. My figure of 381 comes from his and my non-noble friend, Colonel English of the British Legion.
As I said, the American reserve forces in the Gulf seem to have suffered worse than the regulars; the back areas were worse than the sharp end. And in France nobody suffered at all. The French did not have MAPPS tablets and were almost all members of the Foreign Legion. It may be, therefore, that they were more familiar with desert conditions. Is that significant? None of those factors concern the epidemiological studies and I am sure that it is with those that we should be most concerned today. I am glad that Professor Harry Lee has been appointed to head the Gulf War Medical Assessment Programme as last summer it was found difficult to find a successor to Colonel Bhatt and the situation was very worrying. I have heard good reports of the work that Professor Lee is doing.
Concern has been expressed on many sides that there has been no public inquiry. Like the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, I am not certain that would benefit anyone except possibly the lawyers, and would merely divert the workers in this field from their important research for the sole purpose of presenting a public face. It would only be necessary if Gulf disease was in danger of being

1407
ignored, and that is certainly not the case. I do not believe it ever was, though it is undoubtedly true that the scale of the problem was not realised for some time.
Any public inquiry would take an inordinate amount of time. Not unnaturally almost every sufferer would wish his individual case to be considered in detail. In common, I am sure, with many other noble Lords, I received this week an 1-page document on one case. The man whom it concerns has now sadly died and I express my deepest sympathy to his relatives and to the relatives of all others who have suffered. But if there is to be an inquiry into all of them it would not be possible to get any other work done.
The writer of the letter to which I refer is himself a Gulf veteran and is complaining that he has been unable to get possession of his blood samples which were taken at the time of the conflict. He has been told that they are being held at Porton Down, but the suggestion was that they might no longer be valid. In a Written Answer last summer, the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, confirmed that blood samples were generally available and that they were being held at Porton Down. Can the Minister confirm that they are being used in epidemiological studies? If so, will the results be published; and will they be published on an individual basis?
Much has been made of the use of depleted uranium. I asked questions about its use last summer and was entirely convinced by the reply of the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, that there was no fallout of DU dust except in a very restricted sense, as there would be if you hit a tank with any other piece of hard metal. The noble Lord wrote to me in terms that I considered served me right for asking the question—they were incomprehensible. I beg leave to suggest that the reply did not come from his personal knowledge of the subject, but the arguments made were very convincing.
However, I shall be grateful to the Minister if he will confirm that there has not been any reassessment of the dangers of depleted uranium and that none of the research conducted so far has shown it to be responsible for any of the Gulf illnesses. I suspect it is the word "uranium" which generated folklore on the subject. I should like to think that a categorical answer from the noble Lord would erase the subject completely from consideration. But I fear it will not.
Oil pollution is another subject which is, I hope, being examined. This is something which will have affected the Kuwaitis themselves even more than the servicemen in the Gulf, and the views of the Kuwaiti Health Minister, who is himself a doctor, are very much of interest. At the time I was told by the first lieutenant of a frigate in the Gulf that they were having to clear their filters many times more than normal, but I was told also that the nature of the oil pollution did not too seriously affect the lungs. I doubt that that now reflects current thinking. The "plumes" to which many people referred must present a serious health hazard.
During the course of this debate noble Lords have asked a number of questions. The noble Countess has had her nose to this particular grindstone for many years and has worked desperately hard and effectively in this
1408
respect. Indeed, that has been demonstrated by the number of Questions that she has tabled. Can the Minister now give the House a situation report of how we stand at present? I hope that we will be satisfied with what he has to tell the House. I also hope that we will have another debate before the hereditary Peers bid farewell to the rest of your Lordships so that the Minister can keep the House informed and demonstrate how much progress is being made in the interim period.

Kosovo
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, before I reply to the debate tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, perhaps I may deal with a question that the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, asked my noble friend Lord Gilbert in relation to the planes. I can tell the House that all our planes have returned safely, but we cannot confirm that a plane from another allied air force has not returned.

Gulf War Illnesses
Debate on Unstarred Question resumed.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, as noble Lords are aware, I must first apologise for the absence of my noble friend Lord Gilbert, who has been undertaking very important work as regards the grave Statement which he repeated to the House tonight. I should begin by congratulating my noble friend Lord Morris of Manchester on ensuring that once again your Lordships' House has an opportunity to consider the complex issue of Gulf veterans' illnesses at length.
It is true that from time to time we deal with particular aspects of this subject during Question Time. However, it is also valuable that we have been able this evening to have the opportunity to take a broader and deeper view of the matter.
My noble friend Lord Morris asked me about the number of deaths among Gulf veterans. Late last year my noble friend Lord Gilbert explained to the House that the Ministry of Defence was aware of approximately 400 deaths among Gulf veterans since the 1st April 1991. As a result of work undertaken by the MoD, the Minister of State for the Armed Forces was able to announce in another place that, as of 5th March, 381 of the 53, 462 members of the UK Armed Forces who were deployed on operation "Granby" or to a state in the Gulf region at some time between 1st September 1990 and 30th June 1991 were recorded by the MoD as having died since 1st April 1991. However, information received by the MoD in respect of a further 17 Gulf veterans who have been reported as having died is currently in the process of being validated. I hope that those figures satisfy the House.
I must also point out that, separately, the MoD is funding a specific mortality study as part of the wider work that is being undertaken. So we are trying to get the figures as specific as we possibly can. I regret that,

1409
as yet, we have no verified data on the causes of death. I know that that includes suicides, to which reference has been made tonight.
No one present in the Chamber tonight could have heard the speech of the noble Countess, Lady Mar, without being very moved not only by the way that she addressed the subject but also by the way that she has undertaken the campaign on behalf of the Gulf veterans right from the beginning. The noble Countess again posed some questions tonight. Those I do not answer, as is the case with other questions, I shall deal with by way of letters.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked two questions that I can answer tonight. However, I shall write to him in regard to the rest. He asked about the MoD putting hot links from its Gulf site to other relevant web sites. My understanding is that the MoD's Gulf veteran illnesses web page already has hot links to other relevant sites. That includes the parliamentary site and the US Department of Defense Gulf link site. I assure the noble Lord that the MoD will be pleased to consider the suggestions he has made tonight.
The noble Lord also asked whether anyone from the UK attended the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention conference in Atlanta. A number of officials from the Ministry of Defence with responsibility for Gulf veterans' illnesses participated in the conference and we are now considering the various papers arising from it. As has been said tonight, there has been collaboration, and rightly so, with the research that is being carried out in America.
The Government want to understand why some veterans of the Gulf conflict are now ill, and there have been some important developments in this regard in recent months. The publication in January of results from the King's College study has for the first time compared a population of UK Gulf veterans with a comparable group of their contemporaries in the Armed Forces who did not serve in the Gulf conflict. From that we have been offered two important hypotheses: first, that our Gulf veterans are reporting up to three times more ill health than the control groups; secondly, that this is not a manifestation of one single illness. Taken together these hypotheses represent an important step forward.
Gulf veterans may with some satisfaction point to the fact that the first finding confirms their longstanding belief that there is something different about their state of health. The second finding is equally important, if less reassuring to the veterans, because it suggests that there is unlikely to be a simple answer to the question: why are some Gulf veterans now ill? In fact many commentators, including some of those who have been most critical of successive governments on this issue, have long suspected this was the case.
Let me make it quite clear that the fact that the scientific evidence does not support—the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, mentioned this—a unique Gulf War syndrome does not diminish our determination to deal with these illnesses properly. The Government were pleased that, as a result of the hard work of individuals associated with the MoD's medical assessment
1410
programme, it is now possible to see for the first time a diagnostic profile of the clinical findings from the first 1, 000 patients to attend that programme. These results, which were published in the British Medical Journal, provide a profile of the ill health being suffered by some Gulf veterans, and I believe these data will be useful to those working with Gulf veterans and responsible for their healthcare.
We have brought in outside experts, the King's Fund, to conduct a management audit of the medical assessment programme with a view to establishing what we should do to ensure that it meets with best practice. We expect to be able to publish the report of that audit quite shortly. A clinical audit will follow, as will arrangements for a rolling programme of audit in the future.
The MoD has appointed two new doctors at the medical assessment programme within the past six months and we are now looking forward to a period of stability there because we are acutely aware of past criticism. It is also perhaps appropriate to mention here that much of the work we have heard about this evening has been carried out by public servants with a daily commitment to the Gulf veterans and their welfare.
As more research results emerge during the course of the year, the Government will be considering with the Medical Research Council how best to take forward our research programme in the light of these findings. I understand that the Manchester University team under Professor Nicola Cherry, which is carrying out one of the two MoD funded epidemiological studies into the health of Gulf veterans, currently expects to submit the first results from the study for publication at about the middle of the year. We believe that the other study, being undertaken by a team from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine under Dr. Pat Doyle, is the largest survey of military health ever carried out in the UK. United Kingdom Gulf veterans—more than 53, 000 people—and an equally sized control group are being invited to participate by returning a questionnaire.
In answer to my noble friend Lord Morris, the MoD has made considerable efforts over the past 18 months to assist the various research teams to contact the UK Gulf veterans and control groups who are essential for the success of these studies. We share the concerns that have been expressed about the current response rates and we will be looking again at the obstacles to contacting veterans, including the workings of the Data Protection Act. As in other areas, we are open to suggestions for, or offers of assistance in, improving these response rates.
So far we have spent approximately £2 million on research into Gulf veterans' illnesses and we expect that completing our research programme would cost a total of £5.9 million. Nevertheless, we continue to receive proposals for new research from time to time and the Government have made it clear that we will find funds for any additional work that the Medical Research Council recommends to us as being necessary.
The MoD has also set out a programme of reviews into historical aspects of the Gulf conflict that are of particular interest to veterans. A paper describing the

1411
implementation of the anti-biological warfare agent immunisation programme in 1990–91, based on the field work of a fact-finding team last year, is in an advanced stage of preparation. We aim to release this paper as soon as possible.
We are committed to providing comprehensive information from the MoD's records and from interviews with those who took part in the Gulf conflict, written up in a way which is readily understandable. This can take time. It may be appreciated that the more successful the MoD is in finding relevant information, the longer it takes to complete each project.
One of the topics of current interest which has been mentioned in the debate is depleted uranium. The MoD published last week a paper setting out in detail the scientific advice it has received on this subject. The paper is entitled Testing for the Presence of Depleted Uranium in UK Veterans of the Gulf Conflict: The Current Position, and copies were placed in the Library of the House last week.
One important issue is to ensure that Gulf veterans receive the financial benefits to which they are entitled. We know what a source of concern that remains. I understand that the War Pensions Agency is making considerable efforts, following meetings with Gulf veterans' representatives, to improve the service that it provides to the veterans. However, I will ensure that the points that have been made on this issue are conveyed to my colleagues.
1412
The MoD has been undertaking a review of the Attributable Benefits for Reservists Scheme. The review is taking a long time because there are many different categories of reservists. Nevertheless, my honourable friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces has undertaken to complete the review as soon as possible.
The outstanding request for a public inquiry was raised again during this debate. The Minister of State for the Armed Forces is giving careful consideration to the issues involved and I will draw his attention to the points made about the time that this matter is taking. I understand that my honourable friend expects to reply to the Royal British Legion very shortly.
The Government are committed to listening and learning on this subject. I have taken close account of the points raised during this debate. I will respond in writing on those points that I have not been able to address in my reply.
I believe that we are making real progress. Again I thank all who have participated in this interesting debate. I apologise for the length of my response. I felt that it was important to deal with as many points as I possibly could from the Dispatch Box.

City of Westminster Bill [H.L.]
Commons amendments considered and agreed to.
House adjourned at a quarter before eleven o'clock.

  Derbyshire Police: "Outreach"
  Derbyshire Police: "Outreach"
  Immigration and Nationality Directorate
  Immigration and Nationality Directorate
  Stephen Lawrence Inquiry
  Stephen Lawrence Inquiry
  VAT Threshold
  VAT Threshold
  Central Government Corporate Tax
  Central Government Corporate Tax
  Petrol Taxes
  Petrol Taxes
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
  Sixth VAT Directive
  Sixth VAT Directive
  NESTA
  NESTA
  Iraq
  Iraq
  Defence Mission Statement
  Defence Mission Statement
  Medicines: Safety for Children
  Medicines: Safety for Children
  Beef Exports, Northern Ireland
  Beef Exports, Northern Ireland
  Artificial Insemination Regulations
  Artificial Insemination Regulations
  Genetic Modification in Agriculture
  Genetic Modification in Agriculture
  Enemy Property Claims Assessment Panel
  Enemy Property Claims Assessment Panel