Sitting of 10 May 1999

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

DEATH OF A MEMBER
2.33 pm
Madam Speaker: I regret to have to report to the House the death of the right hon. Derek Fatchett, the Member for Leeds, Central. I am sure that Members on both sides of the House will join me in mourning the loss of a colleague and in extending our deepest sympathy to Derek's family and his friends.

Oral Answers to Questions
  DEFENCE
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  DEFENCE

    Defence Procurement Contracts
    Mr. Gordon Marsden: What plans he has to use the experience and data acquired from the current air campaign over Yugoslavia to assist in the drawing up of criteria for future defence procurement contracts. [82578]
    The Parliamentary UnderSecretary of State for Defence (Mr. John Spellar): Decisions about our future equipment programme, and the best way to procure that equipment, are based on a wide range of information, including data drawn from operational experience. We are taking steps to acquire accurate data from the current air campaign to provide a sound basis for future analysis. The results of that analysis will be used as a guide in the determination of future capability requirements.
    Mr. Marsden: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that one of the lessons of the current conflict is the need for our forces to be at the cutting edge of technology, collaborating as much as possible with our European partners, and that that applies to air-to-air missiles as well as to air-to-ground missiles? In that context, may I especially commend to him the programme currently being developed by British Aerospace for the Meteor missile? I believe—as do many of my constituents who are employed by British Aerospace—that that programme will give Eurofighter great capacity; it will give us air strength, and enable us to carry forward our cutting-edge technology in defence procurement.
    Mr. Spellar: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his campaign on behalf of his constituents and the most important work that they undertake for our defence needs. He will be aware that proposals were received in May 1998 on the BVRAAM—beyond visual range-air-to-air missile—capability. We are holding discussions with our potential partners in Europe—Germany, Italy, Spain and Sweden—on those proposals, and we are holding separate discussions with the United States. A contract to proceed to full development and production is expected to be awarded towards the end of 1999. All factors—operational, financial and industrial—will be taken into account in reaching our decision.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the experiences that has been learned from the campaign in

    3
    Yugoslavia is that air power alone is not an effective way to induce an adversary to relinquish territory? Moreover, it kills many non-combatants.
    Mr. Spellar: First, we go to inordinate lengths to avoid collateral damage and civilian casualties. The experience of the war clearly demonstrates that. Secondly, the right hon. and learned Gentleman should not talk down the effect of our air campaign, which has significantly degraded the military capability of the Yugoslav armed forces and their armed police and paramilitary assistants. We have made a considerable impact on their operational capability, communications and command and control. That is starting to have a significant impact.

    Troop Deployment (Macedonia)
    Helen Jones: How many troops are currently deployed in Macedonia. [82579]
    Mrs. Linda Gilroy: How many troops are currently deployed in Macedonia. [82585]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Robertson): As at 10 May, about 5,700 British Army personnel and about 100 RAF personnel are deployed in Macedonia.
    Helen Jones: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer. Will he join me in taking this opportunity to congratulate our forces in Macedonia on the humanitarian work that they have undertaken to ease the plight of the Kosovo Albanians? Does he agree that their plight demonstrates that, despite the tragic events of last weekend, NATO must maintain its resolve to ensure that those people can go home and rebuild their lives?
    Mr. Robertson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I certainly join her in congratulating British forces in Macedonia. In fact, Lieutenant-General Mike Jackson, the commander of the Allied Rapid Reaction Corps—the NATO force—was in London this morning and shared the rostrum with me at our Ministry of Defence daily briefing. I made clear to him—as did all my ministerial colleagues—how proud we are of the British forces and of all the troops under General Jackson's control for the outstanding work that they have done to deal with that flood of humanity tipped over the borders of Kosovo into Macedonia. With civility, decency and huge individual skill and sacrifice, the troops have looked after those human beings. We must continue to listen to what the refugees are saying about the horrors that they have experienced; we must not be put off by anything in our determination to get them home.
    Mrs. Gilroy: In addition to echoing my right hon. Friend's tribute to our troops in Macedonia, may I invite him to pay tribute to the men and women on board the Devonport-based HMS Somerset in the Adriatic? Macedonia and other front-line countries face a significant challenge in the way in which they accommodate troops, as well as the huge influx of refugees. What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to help them meet that challenge?
    Mr. Robertson: My hon. Friend is a doughty champion of the Royal Navy and especially of those ships that sail from Plymouth, and I too pay tribute to HMS Somerset. I visited the Adriatic last week with the shadow Defence Secretary, the defence spokesman for the Liberal Democrats, the Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence and the shadow Foreign Secretary. We all visited Gioia del Colle, where RAF pilots are in action on a regular basis, and HMS Invincible, where we were joined by members of the crew of HMS Newcastle. All of them are doing a job that is in the interests of international law and order, and we expressed the country's pride in their actions.
    My hon. Friend is right to point to the huge sacrifices being made by the people of Macedonia and Albania, both in absorbing the large number of refugees who have been forced on them by Milosevic's genocidal violence, and in playing host to the large number of NATO troops who are there to implement the eventual settlement. We are doing much to ensure that aid, support and back-up are given to the Governments of those small countries, which have had to bear so much of the burden arising from the brutality of President Milosevic in Belgrade.
    Mr. John Maples: Would not the position of our troops in Macedonia be greatly enhanced when they eventually enter Kosovo were they do so pursuant to the terms of a United Nations Security Council resolution? Last week, the Government secured the agreement of Russia to seeking such a resolution, but has not that now been made almost impossible by the bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that that incident showed a quite unacceptable degree of incompetence, given that the address of the Chinese embassy is apparently in the Belgrade telephone directory? Does he agree that that act not only sets back the achievement of NATO's war aims, but means that we have succeeded in seriously damaging relations with both Russia and China within one month?
    Mr. Robertson: There was no targeting of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade—it was a huge and terrible mistake, and expressions of regret have been made by NATO and other Governments. However, given that some 18,000 sorties—6,000 of them strike sorties—have taken place, the few mistakes that have been made, every one of which is bitterly regretted, have to be seen in proportion.
    I do not believe that we have made it impossible to get a Security Council resolution when a settlement has been reached, and that would clearly be our objective when it came to putting our forces or any other forces that were required into Kosovo. In the short term, that task has been made more difficult, but no interest of either China or Russia is served by allowing Milosevic to get away with the sort of ethnic cleansing that he has been carrying out until now. When I stood yesterday at the newly erected memorial to the 27 million citizens of the then Soviet Union who died in the second world war, the Russian ambassador made it clear that the diplomatic track had to go on and that those efforts should be intensified. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will express the same message when he makes his statement on Kosovo later this afternoon.
    Mr. Crispin Blunt: Does the Secretary of State for Defence recall telling the Defence Committee some 10 hours before the bombing began:
    "Our military objective—our clear, simple, military objective—will be to reduce the Serbs' capability to repress the Albanian population and thus to avert a humanitarian disaster",
    and further stating:
    "I would like to stress that whatever action is taken, that action is taken on behalf of all NATO allies with the aim—the clear and, I believe, justified aim—of averting a humanitarian disaster."?
    Will the right hon. Gentleman report to the House his assessment of the effectiveness of that strategy in delivering that aim?
    Mr. Robertson: That was of course our aim, and it is still our aim to avoid the humanitarian catastrophe that would occur if all those refugees who have left Kosovo were not to go home, and to avert the humanitarian catastrophe that would occur in many other parts of the world if Milosevic were to get away with his ethnic cleansing.
    The campaign could have been over in a few days if Milosevic had recognised that our determination was absolute and that international opinion was against him, but his obstinacy and his genocidal instincts in respect of the Albanian members of the Kosovo population have led him and his country down a suicidal path. Our objective remains to disrupt the violence that may still be going on, in which we are being progressively more successful every day, and to weaken the military machine that is causing that violence. With every day and night that passes, we degrade and weaken that military machine. Ultimately, Milosevic will have to recognise that he cannot defeat NATO and that international decency will prevail.
    Mr. Tony Benn: Given the fact that the American Senate has voted overwhelmingly against the commitment of ground troops, is it not clear that the air war of itself cannot achieve the objectives set? Will the Secretary of State tell the House how the indiscriminate bombing of Yugoslavia, including the bombing of a hospital and a market with cluster bombs, and the bombing of refugee camps and the Chinese embassy, contributes in any way whatever to the restoration to the refugees of their rightful homes in Kosovo?
    Mr. Robertson: I hope that sometime, when my right hon. Friend is listing the handful of bombs that have gone astray in Kosovo, he will mention the thousands of bombs that have landed accurately on military targets in accordance with the objectives that we set out. The air campaign is successful, but there are clearly limitations. If we believe in international law and in high standards of conduct, and if we are targeting military installations and trying specifically to avoid civilian casualties and damage to civilian buildings, we will be at a disadvantage compared with someone who is brutally, ruthlessly and mercilessly directly attacking civilians and civilian property. Yet we have had enormous success: the machine is substantially weaker than it was. Day after day and night after night, we are targeting the military installations inside Kosovo that are causing the violence. Ultimately, Milosevic must recognise that and comply.
    Mr. Tom King: Since the only personnel on the ground who might give any immediate help against
    6
    persecution by the Serbian paramilitaries are in the Kosovo Liberation Army, what is the Government's and NATO's present view on supporting the KLA's activities within Kosovo?
    Mr. Robertson: Quite simply, we are prohibited from supporting the KLA either with arms or other resources. A specific United Nations Security Council resolution limits the military assistance that can be given in that theatre, and we are bound by its terms. Therefore, that is the answer to the right hon. Gentleman's question.
    Ms Diane Abbott: I join in congratulating the NATO forces that are engaged in humanitarian work in Macedonia. However, I ask the Secretary of State: are there no maps available to NATO forces showing them the sites of foreign embassies in Belgrade? If plan A—which is to bomb Milosevic into submission—fails, is the Secretary of State prepared to share with the House what is plan B?
    Mr. Robertson: First, I thank my hon. Friend for the congratulations that she has offered to British troops engaged in Macedonia. They have shown their usual professional skill and dedication in carrying out their humanitarian work, and I am sure that my hon. Friend's commendation will comfort them enormously.
    Facetious comments about targeting, however, are not very appropriate in the present tragic circumstances. A tragic mistake was made, and NATO is attempting to discover how that happened and what can be learned from it. Some 6,000 strike sorties have taken place, a small number of which have tragically led to a loss of civilian life on the Serb side. Against that, I ask my hon. Friend to examine carefully the testimony of thousands upon thousands of Kosovar refugees who say universally, credibly and believably that atrocities are continuing inside Kosovo.
    Plan A, to which we have subscribed from the beginning, involves air attacks that will disrupt the violence in Kosovo and weaken the killing machine that is perpetrating that violence. We believe the air campaign is proving successful and that the resolve in Belgrade is weakening by the day. We are confident that our plan will succeed.
    Mr. Martin Bell: The Secretary of State speaks of the need to return the refugees to their homes. Can he explain to the House how exactly that will be done without the use of ground troops? Is he aware of the dismay felt in the country that the greatest military alliance on earth seems in certain respects to be like the gang that cannot shoot straight?
    Mr. Robertson: I do not think that there will ever be an armed conflict involving so many people against such a ruthless opponent which will not involve mistakes. NATO, which certainly is the greatest military alliance in the world, is made up of 19 democratic countries. That is, on the one hand, its greatest strength, and on the other—at the moment—one of its key weaknesses. Another of its key weaknesses is also its towering strength: it acts according to international law. We take care. Mistakes will be made, but however tragic, they are small in comparison to the systematic genocidal violence being perpetrated by Milosevic against the civil population of Kosovo.

    7
    We chose air strikes as the best means in the circumstances of disrupting the violence and weakening the killing machine. We still believe that they are the best means, but following the summit in Washington, NATO is re-examining all the options in the light of the past six weeks' military activity.

    Land Command
    Dr. Julian Lewis: What proportion of the Army's Land Command is currently committed to operations. [82580]
    The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. Doug Henderson): We estimate that 56 per cent. of Land Command personnel are currently committed to operations.
    Dr.Lewis: Given the magnitude of that commitment and the possibility of future commitments for the Army in Kosovo, Will the Minister reconsider plans for decimating the Territorial Army at such a time? Before he falls back on chanting the ususal mantra about the cuts made in the early 1990s by the Previous Government, may I point out that there is all the difference in the wolrd between reductions at the end of a cold war and cuts Proposed, incredibly, at the Possible start of a hot War?
    Mr. Henderson: The hon. Gentleman would contribute more to the discussion if he resisted the temptation to make party political points and considered the task that the British armed forces have to carry out and how they will ensure that they do so, which was the subject of the strategic defence review. The review aimed to put our forces in a position in which they could be deployed, with the necessary impact, in situations such as that in Kosovo.
    The hon. Gentleman probably knows that Territorial Army commitment to such deployment would be relatively minor, and where the TA is required, it must be organised so that it meets the particular needs in question. It is a matter not only of having bodies to reinforce the regular forces, but of applying the right bodies with the right skills in the right way. That is the policy that the Government are implementing in the strategic defence review.
    Mr. Ronnie Campbell: Has my hon. Friend any plans to use the Royal Marines?
    Mr. Henderson: Our marines are an important part of our armed forces and they will be deployed as necessary with our Royal Navy and our other forces in circumstances that demand their commitment and expertise.
    Mr. Robert Key: Overstretch in front-line forces remains unacceptable, but what proportion of the operational strength of the British Army, and our NATO allies, in Albania is now devoted to planning the development of the Albanian infrastructure, such as the port, roads, airfields and health care? Who will prepare long-term plans for that infrastructure? What will happen to Albania's economy when NATO withdraws, or is our current effort part of a long-term, open-ended commitment by the Ministry of Defence?
    Mr. Henderson: At the moment, a small number of our forces are involved in those activities. Those key
    8
    People are Planners, who are making a major contribution to NATO's effort. The hon Gentleman raises important issues, which will have to be dealt with in the long term, but it is somewhat premature to ask what detailed plans there will be for rebuilding the economy and social structure of the Balkans, including Albania. The hon. Gentleman will know that such condiserations are one the key principles incorporated into last week's G8 statement, and more will need to be done as time passes.

    Strategic Defence Review
    Sir Sydnety Chapman: What plans he has to review his strategic defence review following NATO military action in Yugoslavia. [82581]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Robertson): I have no plans to review the strategic defence review in the light of current events in the Balkans. The MOD's new strategic planning process ensures that there is now a policy-led re-evaluation of defence plans every year.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: In the light of the recent strategic defence review, is the Secretary of State satisfied that our armed services can currently sustain two medium-level operations for more than a six-month period, or more than two medium-level operations for up to six months? In the light of recent events—not least in south-east Europe—does he agree that that is the minimum requirement around which our defence policy should be framed for the future?
    Mr. Robertson: The key point is that the strategic defence review was designed to look forward at the kind of threats that we would face in the future, rather than endlessly looking at the enemies we had in the past. It was designed so that our forces will be able eventually to deal flexibly with the sort of problems that we face in Kosovo today. I say eventually, because it is less than a year since the strategic defence review was published and its implementation was started, but I am confident that it will give us that flexibility. Kosovo has shown us how valuable and important that exercise was. However, the planning assumptions to which the hon. Gentleman refers are planning tools intended to guide the development of our long-term force structure: they were not intended to provide a template for specific operational commitments. As we explained at the time of the review, we may choose to do more or less, depending on the circumstances.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: May I offer my thanks to the Secretary of State for inviting me to accompany him on his recent visit to the Balkans? As someone who supported both the process and the policy conclusions of the defence review, may I urge him to be realistic about what is necessary for United Kingdom defence in the light of the current and inevitable future commitments in the Balkans? Does he accept that the 3 per cent. annual efficiency saving, which is incumbent on the Ministry of Defence, is not just "challenging"—as it was publicly described by the Chief of the Defence Staff—but is in truth unachievable without an enduring impact on defence capability? Does he further understand

    9
    that the Government should feel no embarrassment in reviewing the defence budget, but should take the opportunity to demonstrate sound common sense?
    Mr. Robertson: The defence review demonstrated sound common sense. The 3 per cent. efficiency target is challenging, but it is not unachievable, because it is already being met. In the event of a Liberal Democrat Government coming to power—that is a long-term vision for the House—and if the right hon. and learned Gentleman held my job, he too would strive for savings and efficiency. He too would seek better value for money and would wish to ensure that in defence we did not throw money at problems, but tried to get the best that we could out of our budget.
    Mr. John Maples: No doubt when the Balkan conflict is over, the Secretary of State will wish to examine how we and our allies respond to future conflicts. Yesterday, Mr. Prodi suggested that the European Union should have an army, and the Government apparently immediately rejected that call. However, is not Mr. Prodi's call wholly consistent with Government policy, especially paragraph 3 of the St. Malo agreement with France, which calls for
    "the EU to have recourse to military capacity either within NATO or multi-national means outside the NATO framework."?
    What else can
    "multi-national means outside the NATO framework"
    mean if it does not mean what Mr. Prodi said?
    Mr. Robertson: First, let me emphasise what the hon. Gentleman skated over—the fact that the British Government have dissociated themselves from the concept that Mr. Prodi put forward. In terms of the development of reasonable military capability inside Europe to deal with situations in which NATO may not wish to become corporately involved, or in the event of the United States of America and Canada not wishing to be involved in European-based operations, I refer the hon. Gentleman back to the Petersberg tasks. They were adopted by NATO for use through the Western European Union and foresaw precisely that form of European-based operation taking place.
    The initiative that we took, which was underlined in the St. Malo agreement, related to focusing the minds of all the European countries on the fact that, first, the common foreign and security policy of the European Union will require better decision making; and secondly, if we in Europe want to do anything about the decisions that we take, we must have much better and much more effective defence capabilities. We have directed attention to those two key components; I should have thought that everyone in the House would have supported them.

    Nuclear Weapons
    Mr. Chris Mullin: What discussions he has had about a new generation of nuclear weapons; and if he will make a statement. [82582]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Robertson): I have not had any discussions about a successor system to Trident. We concluded in the strategic defence review that no decision on any possible successor system would be needed for several years.
    Mr. Mullin: Does my right hon. Friend recall that two previous Labour Governments—those of Lords Attlee and Callaghan—embarked on the development of nuclear weapons without consulting even the Cabinet, never mind the British public? Can he give the House an assurance that the Government will not begin the development of any new generation of nuclear weapons without first taking the public into their confidence?
    Mr. Robertson: I thought that my hon. Friend had become so venerable and so distinguished that he had given up the conspiracy view of history, including any such view regarding the present generation of Labour Ministers. I do not have to make some defensive statement on the subject. I simply say to my hon. Friend, read the strategic defence review and see there probably the most transparent account of our nuclear forces and reserves, and all aspects of our nuclear policy, that has ever been disclosed in this country. That is the model for open government on those critical issues. So open have I been, so much detail have I given, that most people have not even noticed that that account has been published yet.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: Does the Secretary of State share my concern about the proliferation of nuclear arms between India and Pakistan, and the proliferation generally of ballistic missiles? Does he think that the UK should consider—perhaps with its international partners—the need for an eventual ballistic missile defence system for the UK in future?
    Mr. Robertson: We are very concerned about nuclear proliferation; in fact, that was one of the key subjects of the NATO summit in Washington two weeks ago. We take very seriously the manufacture and deployment of ballistic missiles by countries that previously did not have them, and such proliferation is part and parcel of the thinking that is going on and should go on at the moment.
    We are not in favour of developing ballistic missile defence systems. We are in favour of the anti-ballistic missile treaty, which was one of the pioneering forerunners of arms control legislation.
    Mr. Malcolm Savidge: With nuclear non-proliferation negotiations taking place in Geneva this coming fortnight, may I ask whether, despite the difficult international climate, especially in regard to our relations with Russia and China at present, Her Majesty's Government will do everything possible to give fresh impetus to the nuclear non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament process, both at Geneva and in other forums?
    Mr. Robertson: Most countries that have examined what we proposed in the strategic defence review—very serious reductions in our stockpile and in the number of nuclear weapons that we have deployed—will have seen that we are not just engaged in arms control discussions for the sake of appearances. We believe in arms control. We have shown by example what other people can do

    11
    about it. Therefore, we shall bring to these arms control negotiations a considerably greater sense of urgency than previous Administrations did to previous negotiations.

    Weapons Systems Equipment
    Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: What assessment he has made of the availability of weapons systems equipment to British forces in the Balkans. [82583]
    The Parliamentary UnderSecretary of State for Defence (Mr. John Spellar): UK forces deployed on NATO operations in the Balkans have the right equipment for the job.
    Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I am delighted to hear that, but I have to bear in mind that, further to the question put to the Secretary of State for Defence by the right hon. and learned Member for NorthEast Fife (Mr. Campbell), the Government must also consider the 3 per cent. efficiency savings. Can the Secretary of State confirm—he may not be able to give us a cast-iron guarantee, although I would like that—that nothing will stand in the way of supplying new, up-to-date and more efficient equipment, designed to suit conditions in the Balkans, so that equipment will not compromise the efficiency of the British armed forces serving there?
    Mr. Spellar: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman is pleased to hear that our forces have the equipment that they need. After all, the previous Conservative Government bought most of it. The basis of the SDR was to re-equip and realign our forces to meet the new post-cold war environment. We have an on-going major programme of re-equipping our forces, with many examples of new equipment, some of which have been mentioned today.
    Mr. Frank Cook: Would the Minister care to comment unequivocally on claims in the press, on the internet and through e-mail channels that the Royal Air Force is using cluster bombs and runway-denial weapons involving sub-munitions that are identical in character to landmines, and that British personnel are involved in training the Kosovo Liberation Army to deploy landmines, something that would clearly be in contravention of the Ottawa agreement? Is my hon. Friend able to give an unequivocal response to such accusations?
    Mr. Spellar: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity firmly to deny all those rumours, which, as he said, are coming through a variety of media. I confirm that we are using RBL755 cluster bombs, which are not prohibited under the Ottawa convention or under the Landmines Act 1998.
    Mr.John Wilkinson: Is it not the case that weapon systems are only as effective as the training and the commitment of the crews who have to operate them? Should we not pay tribute to our aircrews in the Balkan theatre, but realise that thet always need the most modern navigation and attack systems and the most modern weapons and defensive aids? When the
    12
    Minister is procuring sophisticated aircraft, will he ensure that there is that full complementarity that makes systems fully effective?
    Mr. Spellar: As I said earlier, we are continuing to make further investment in the equipment that is available to our forces. I obviously join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to the skill and dedication of our forces. In some instances, there has been an argument about whether they have been able to hit certain targets. They make an enormous effort in that regard. On a number of occasions, they have not bombed a target because conditions did not give them the assurance that they would be able to hit it. That is a tribute to their professionalism and the success that they have had, and to the very limited collateral damage that has been inflicted.
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: What in heaven's name is the justification for using cluster bombs against targets such as the centre of Nis?
    Mr. Spellar: We are not, as my hon. Friend says, using cluster bombs against the centre of Nis. That was a mistake. We are using cluster bombs as effective munitions against the military concentrations of those troops who are committing the most appalling atrocities in Kosovo. We are degrading their ability to do that and taking out a considerable part of the Yugoslav forces and the armed police. I would have thought that to be a legitimate objective, and one that the great majority of hon. Members would endorse.
    Mr. Keith Simpson: The Minister is aware that, both outside the Chamber and inside it, a number of reservations have been raised about the effectiveness of the air campaign to fulfil NATO's political objectives. Most recently, General Naumann, the retiring chairman of the NATO military committee, raised some deep reservations about the campaign. Can the Minister confirm that the United Kingdom chiefs of staff and the Chief of the Defence Staff had no such reservation when they advised the Government about the air campaign prior to 23 March?
    Mr. Spellar: Yes, General Naumann's comments were taken very much out of context. As I have said, the air campaign has had a major effect in degrading communications, the ability to move and quite a bit of the materiel of the Serbian forces. This is a policy of the Government and of the armed forces, who are pursuing it extremely effectively. Given the hon. Gentleman's previous experience, I am slightly surprised that he seems to be trying to drive a wedge between service chiefs and the Government on the matter, when we are united in pursuit of the objectives.

    Nuclear Weapons
    Mr. David Chaytor: What discussions have taken place between his Department and the Foreign Office on the longterm implications for the international nuclear disarmament process of NATO's decision not to redefine the role nuclear weapons play in NATO's new strategic concept. [82586]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Robertson): My Department and the Foreign Office maintain close dialogue on all aspects of nuclear policy. At the Washington summit, NATO's strategic concept was endorsed by all 19 members of the alliance.
    Mr. Chaytor: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, and welcome the small signs of progress at the Washington summit in the redefinition of nuclear weapons policy. Could not the very slow pace of the progress towards the objective of reducing nuclear weapons worldwide put at risk the negotiations on the non-proliferation treaty taking place this week, as well as the long-term future of the comprehensive test ban treaty?
    Mr. Robertson: I hope not. By reassessing our own nuclear stocks—we now have the smallest stockpile of nuclear weapons of any of the five nuclear weapons states—and through the confidence-building measures that we have introduced—the reduced state of alert of our nuclear submarines, and the fact that our missiles are detargeted—as well as through the other measures in the strategic defence review, we have given a clear idea of the direction in which we believe that the world should go. Therefore, our commitment to retaining Trident, which was the policy on which my hon. Friend and I fought the last election, should be, as the manifesto stated, accompanied by a greater degree of urgency in arms control negotiations. In that respect, we have shown by actions, not by words, that we mean business.
    Mr. Desmond Swayne: Does the Secretary of State agree with the estimate by the CIA that, by 2015, almost any country will be able to deliver an intercontinental ballistic missile? Does he therefore follow the argument that, in addition to the ability to respond with nuclear force, we need to invest in a credible defence mechanism?
    Mr. Robertson: I do not think that the CIA was suggesting that every country would have its own intercontinental ballistic missile by 2015. However, the matter of ballistic missiles causes concern across the world, and that is why it is kept under constant examination. As and when the technology is available to deal with that threat, we will examine it carefully. In the meantime, we must step up the discussions on arms control, so that countries will not feel the need to acquire such weapons systems.
    Mr. Harry Cohen: Did my right hon. Friend read the communique of the strategic concept summit, which stated that the characteristic of nuclear weapons is that
    "they prevent coercion and any kind of war"?
    Surely whoever wrote that was not paying attention to the fact that there is a war going on in the Balkans, and that nuclear weapons were doing nothing to prevent it. That does not give much confidence in the seriousness with which NATO countries regard the role of nuclear weapons. Should that not be addressed in the not-too-distant future?
    Mr. Robertson: Nobody is pretending that nuclear weapons can prevent all conflict, but the deterrence value of our nuclear weapons is proven and is supported by the
    14
    vast majority of the British people. As I said before, the strategic concept and the language in it, over which there were long and sometimes painful discussions, were subscribed to by the Governments of all 19 countries.

    Kosovo
    Mr. Michael Fabricant: What contingency plans NATO has made for the stationing of British land forces in Kosovo. [82587]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Robertson): It was agreed at the NATO summit that the Secretary-General of NATO and the military planners should update their planning. In the meantime, a build-up of NATO forces is taking place in Macedonia in anticipation of deploying into Kosovo to implement a peace settlement and ensure the safety and security of refugees returning to their homes. As at 10 May, there are 5,700 British Army personnel and about 100 Royal Air Force personnel deployed in Macedonia in connection with those plans.
    Mr. Fabricant: The Secretary of State has said nothing about the amount of time that troops might have to be in Kosovo. Perhaps he is quite right to do so—it could be an indefinite commitment. If we are to maintain troops in Kosovo, and also in Bosnia, we will need about 30 new regiments and battalions if we are to achieve a 24-month gap between operational tours. Is that not the case and, if we are to make a commitment in Kosovo, will the Government either commit themselves now to increasing the number of operational regiments or will he admit that the gap between operational tours will have to decrease?
    Mr. Robertson: I hear the grinding sound of a great military mind at work. I do not know how the hon. Gentleman comes to that conclusion, which I have never heard from anybody else, about 30 new regiments being required for the British Army. The discussions that took place at Rambouillet about that suggested that we should be looking at a troop commitment by this country in Kosovo for three years after a peace agreement was arrived at. We have an early burden to carry, because we are the framework nation of the Allied Rapid Reaction Corps, and Lieutenant-General Jackson and his people are doing their job with enormous skill.
    The view of my military advisers is that we can sustain what we are doing and that we, along with other elements of the international community, can bring peace back to Kosovo within a reasonable period, but, clearly, that will depend on the outcome of the conflict and the nature of any settlement that is reached.
    Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: We can see different brigades and regiments going in during the build-up of British troops, but there has been no mention of the Yugoslav navy, which is a threat to our Royal Navy, or to the possibility of Marines being deployed. Can my right hon. Friend tell us what has happened to the Yugoslav navy in this conflict?
    Mr. Robertson: There is a Yugoslav navy—my hon. Friend is absolutely right—but it has not ventured very far out of any of its harbours. If and when it becomes a threat to NATO forces in the area, action will be taken.
    Mr. Julian Brazier: In the light of the Secretary of State's plans for Kosovo, deployments to

    15
    other parts of the Balkans and to Northern Ireland and other possible threats, I again urge him to reconsider the plans to run down the Territorial Army in the next few months and the horrifying decision to break up the centre of excellence—5 Airborne brigade—on 1 September. Before he gives me the same glib answer as the Minister for the Armed Forces gave my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis), may I remind him that, when the Conservative Government found themselves faced with a crisis in 1982, Margaret Thatcher put her strategic defence review straight on to hold and cancelled the decision to sell HMS Invincible?
    Mr. Robertson: The difference is that those previous defence reviews were reducing the size of our forces. Our strategic defence review increases the regular strength of the British Army by 3,300 troops and creates a sixth deployable brigade, which is precisely what the British Army was asking to be able to deploy in such circumstances.
    I say to the hon. Gentleman, who has a fixation with the modernisation of the TA, that we set about modernising tshe TA so that it could be used more and could be more relevant, and so that it would, in circumstances such as those that we might face just now, be more involved. That is what the modernisation was all about; it is being successfully put into practice at present and we believe that it is also improving morale inside the TA. The changes suggested in the strategic defence review are designed specifically to allow this country's forces to be able to deal flexibly with situations such as those thrown up by Kosovo.
    Mr. Ben Bradshaw: Can the Secretary of State assure the House that he has not changed his mind about the fact that President Milosevic has no veto over any NATO action? Does he agree that it might be necessary for ground troops to go into Kosovo in an atmosphere that is not completely permissive?
    Mr. Robertson: President Milosevic will have no veto over what we do in relation to getting the people evicted from Kosovo back safely to their homes. The NATO authorities are, on the instruction of the Secretary-General, re-visiting all of the assumptions that were made earlier this year. There is no question about a forced invasion of Kosovo, but it would be prudent and reasonable for us to look at all the options again in the light of the damage that has been done by Milosevic to Kosovo and the considerable damage done by NATO to the Serb military machine.

  The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—
  CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

    Church Schools
    Mr. Peter L. Pike:If he will make a statement on the role of the commissiners in respect of Church schools. [82613]
    Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): Responsibility for the management of Church of England schools lies with the individual governing bodies of the schools, supported by diocesan boards of education and local education authorities. Nationally, they are represented by the Church of England Board of Education, which, working with the National Society for the Promotion of Religious Education, provides a range of support services for dioceses and schools.
    Mr. Pike: My hon. Friend will know that there are some 5,000 Church schools in England, and about one in eight of our children attend Church of England schools. Lancashire has more Church schools than any other county in England. Can my hon. Friend tell me how value added tax on repairs is dealt with differently in Church schools and county schools?
    Mr. Bell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing the House's attention to the number of Church schools in Lancashire. The current estimate of the Church's contribution to capital works in Church school buildings is £20 million a year. A significant proportion of the work undertaken is subject to VAT. Equivalent work in county schools is not subject to VAT, and I hope that the Government are listening to the campaign of the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) to get rid of VAT on Church repairs.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Madam Speaker: I shall have to call the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh).
    Miss Anne McIntosh: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that no VAT is charged on the building of new Church schools or new churches? Does he agree that the Government should apply for the new derogation that is about to be agreed by Finance Ministers, which would allow for VAT not to be charged on Church repairs for up to three years?
    Mr. Bell: Yes. I support the hon. Lady's campaign in relation to VAT on Church repairs. I have pointed out to the House that, since 1972 at least, successive Governments have ignored any pleas on that issue. The hon. Lady raised the issue of the Council of Ministers in Europe and a new derogation. I am sure that the Church Commissioners would like to support that, and see what the Government have to say.

    Ethical Investment
    Mr. Gerald Howarth: What plans the commissioners have to dispose of their shares in GEC. [82614]
    Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): None. The Church's ethical investment working group, which makes recommendations on ethical investment policy, has made no such recommendation. The hon. Gentleman has no doubt seen inaccurate press reports, which the newspapers have since corrected.
    Mr. Howarth: I am most grateful for that answer, but the hon. Gentleman knows that the Church has a policy of not investing in companies that manufacture arms. I hope that he can assure the House today that, although the Church fully supports the concept of the just war, it also supports the excellent British people who work for a first-class British company such as British Aerospace, which is in the front line of the defence not only of the freedoms of the people of this country, but of the war against aggressors overseas. Does he agree that there is every reason why the Church should invest in such an honourable company? Moreover, had it invested in British Aerospace earlier, it would have made much more money to fund the stipends, the bishops and the clergy.
    Mr. Bell: I will not be tempted to go down the route of the stipends, the bishops and the clergy at this moment. I have visited British Aerospace factories and can testify to the sterling work done there and the contribution that British Aerospace makes to the nation. The Church accepts the right of nations to defend themselves and engage in peacekeeping activities. It therefore accepts the legitimacy of an indigenous defence industry supplying equipment under Government licence. The national Church investing bodies, however, have never held shares in British Aerospace.

    Millennium Celebrations
    Sir Sydney Chapman: What plans the Church Commissioners have to celebrate the millennium. [82615]
    Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): Among other things, hundreds of local congregations are making plans for activities and events under the three themes: "a new start with God", "a new start at home" and "a new start for the world's poor". Every parish in England will be encouraged to distribute millennium candles to their parishioners. There is a schools arts project called JC2000, which was originated by the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe). The Open Churches Trust is encouraging every church bell in the land to be rung on new year's day, followed by a time of prayer. That will be a joyful message and a joyful occasion.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: I welcome all those initiatives. Will the Second Church Estates Commissioner say a little more about his involvement in trying to secure funding for a Christian section of the spirit zone of the millennium dome? Does he agree that Christianity should, at the very least, form the core and substantial part of that spirit zone?
    Mr. Bell: I am pleased to announce to the House—where all good announcements should be made—that, under my guidance as Second Church Estates Commissioner and that of Sir Tim Sainsbury and others, a number of Christian sources have provided the majority of the funding for the zone. An official announcement will be made by the New Millennium Experience Company in the near future. Those who visit the zone will be impressed by its thoughtful but inspiring vision of Christianity, and it will dovetail with all the other millennium celebrations that the Church is planning.
    Mr. Bill O'Brien: It is right and proper that the millennium should be a Christian celebration, and that, as my hon. Friend said, the Church Commissioners are organising events. What co-operation has there been with people in the many communities who, as well as the Churches, are planning to celebrate the millennium? The Church Commissioners and the parishioners should liaise with local authorities and other community groups who are organising millennium celebrations. We should bring the Christian and local dimensions together in those celebrations.
    Mr. Bell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing attention to the fact that we are not an exclusive society. We have a strong Christian ethic—this is a Christian society—and we fully recognise the major faiths of other communities, as they recognise ours. There has been great co-operation between all faiths, certainly on the spirit zone of the millennium dome. That co-operation is being repeated up and down the land.
    Mr. Andrew Rowe: I know that the hon. Gentleman shares my delight that more than 12,000 schools in the United Kingdom have signed up to the millennium arts festival for schools, JC2000. Does he also share my slight concern that, so far, the parishes and other elements of the Church of England either have had little opportunity to assist us in this work or, if they have been given the opportunity, have not availed themselves of it?
    Mr. Bell: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his campaign for JC2000. It has at least 10,000 schools behind it, and that number is increasing by the day. Local education authorities up and down the land are being encouraged to participate. The hon. Gentleman must bear in mind the fact that there is a massive organisation for the millennium celebrations, and assets and funds will have to be shared out carefully.

    Ethical Investment
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: If he will make a statement on the ethical investment policies of the Church Commissioners. [82616]
    Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): The Commissioners try to invest in companies that will successfully develop their business in the interests of their beneficiaries, but that also have responsible employment practices and are conscientious about issues of corporate governance, environmental performance and human rights, and are sensitive to the communities in which they operate.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: That is a clear statement of their ethics. Does it not follow that the Church will have to take some hard decisions on large companies, especially firms such as GEC? The Church will have to measure its desire for profit against the actions of companies that manufacture arms.
    Mr. Bell: The Church Commissioners have £29 million invested in GEC, which has our strong support. However, when it hived off a division making equipment for offensive rather than defensive action, we made a clear statement that we would not take up the new shares in
    20
    British Aerospace. The Church understands the varied views held by its membership on this difficult situation. As my hon. Friend says, it is clear that wholehearted support for every defence stock would be unacceptable to many Church members.

    Kosovo
    3.30 pm
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): With permission, Madam Speaker, I shall make a statement on recent developments in Kosovo. Before I do so, however, the House would expect me to say a few words about the tragic death of Derek Fatchett. Along with all the workers at the Foreign Office, I am shocked at his sudden loss. Our thoughts today are first for his wife and family. I spoke this morning to Anita, who told me how proud she had been of what Derek had done. She and her sons had every right to be proud of him. Over the past two years, he had proved himself to be an effective and creative Minister—from the early days, when he helped to broker a ceasefire to provide relief during the famine in Sudan, until last month, when he paid a brave visit to East Timor. His early death cruelly deprives the whole House of a Member who had so much more to give. It robs many of us of a friend whom we will always remember as cheerful, whatever the difficulties.
    Last Thursday, I attended a meeting of the G8 Foreign Ministers in Bonn. That meeting reached agreement with Russia on the principles on which any settlement of the Kosovo conflict must be based. They parallel the objectives that NATO requires to be met as a condition of ending the military campaign: the withdrawal of Serb military, police and paramilitary forces from Kosovo, an international interim administration for Kosovo, a political process on the basis of the Rambouillet peace accord, and the free return of all refugees under the protection of an international security presence, capable of achieving our common objectives.
    From the start of the conflict we have maintained regular dialogue with Russia, and have made sure that the door is kept open to Russia. The agreement on common ground between us exposes as a lie the repeated promises of Milosevic to his people that one day Russia would come to their rescue. Work can now proceed this week between officials of our countries to turn those principles into the draft text of a Security Council resolution.
    On Friday night, the Chinese embassy in Belgrade was destroyed during a NATO attack on sites in the city. It appears that the missiles hit the building on which they had been targeted, but the building had been wrongly identified in the targeting plans as the federal directorate of supply and procurement for the Yugoslav army. The review continues into how the error could have occurred, and the procedures that gave rise to it. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has written to Zhu Rongji, the Chinese Premier, expressing our deep regret at the error, and assuring him that there was no deliberate intent on the part of the allies to attack the Chinese embassy.
    Mr. Alan Clark: Did he enclose a cheque?
    Mr. Cook: That was a very tasteless remark about what is a very grave and serious situation.
    Yesterday I spoke to our ambassador in Beijing, who confirmed that the embassy had been blockaded by demonstrators who had hurled stones through the front windows of the embassy building. I am pleased to report that no member of the embassy staff has been injured, and
    22
    we are not aware of any other British citizen in China having been attacked. We have amended our travel advice in respect of China to recommend against all non-essential visits to China at the present time.
    My noble Friend Lady Symons saw the chargé d'affaires of the Chinese embassy this afternoon, and recorded our concern about the safety of our officials and other nationals in China. We welcome the appeal by the Vice-President of China, Hu Jintao, for the demonstrators to behave peacefully, and the apparent increase in the efforts of the Chinese police to protect the embassy.
    On Saturday, after the news broke, I spoke to the Russian Foreign Minister, Igor Ivanov, who confirmed that Russia was firmly committed to the principles that we had agreed in the G8, and that there would be no let-up in the search for a settlement. We continue vigorously to pursue any opportunity for progress on the diplomatic track. After this statement I shall meet Carl Bildt, who has been appointed by the Secretary-General of the United Nations as his special envoy. Tomorrow Viktor Chernomyrdin, the special representative of President Yeltsin, is meeting Mr. Talbot, the United States Deputy Secretary of State.
    Our best hope of success on the diplomatic track is to keep up the military pressure. If Milosevic felt any reduction in our air campaign, or sensed any weakening of our resolve, there would be no prospect of his agreeing to meet our demands.
    On the ground in Kosovo over recent days, we have destroyed tanks, heavy artillery, military convoys and command posts. In total, we have eliminated within Kosovo the equivalent of the weapons and equipment of an entire brigade, but we cannot ignore the fact that the Serb forces in Kosovo are controlled and co-ordinated from Belgrade. Striking at their command headquarters in Belgrade is vital to breaking their military capability in Kosovo. On Friday night, we destroyed in central Belgrade the Hotel Yugoslavia, which had been taken over as the war room for Arkan's paramilitaries, who have killed, burned and raped their way across Kosovo. By any test, that war room was a legitimate military target and could not be ignored if we were serious about reversing the ethnic cleansing that was planned from there.
    We want a settlement and we would welcome a diplomatic solution, but we will not accept a settlement at any price. It must meet our objectives—in particular, it must provide for the Kosovo refugees to go home under our protection. Anything less would condemn the refugees to a life in exile and refugee camps, and would reward President Milosevic for the butchery and brutality with which he has evicted them.
    Fresh evidence continues to pour in of that brutality. In one single day last week, we received reports from refugees of three further atrocities. At Djakovica, 19 people, mainly women and children, were found by the Serb forces hiding in a basement. They were all shot in that basement and the house burned over them. At Kotlina, Serb police threw 20 villagers down a well and then threw hand grenades down after them. At Suva Reka, around 100 residents were herded into the shopping centre and shot. None of those people was killed as a result of tragic error. Every single one of them was murdered at close range, deliberately and callously.
    I understand and share the concern of hon. Members on both sides of the House at the loss of civilian life when there is a tragic error in our bombing campaign, but I

    23
    cannot understand those who focus on the tens who have been casualties of NATO's military campaign, to the exclusion of the tens of thousands who have been butchered by Milosevic in Kosovo.
    I invite hon. Members to visit the exhibition space at the Foreign Office, where they can see on display drawings by children from the refugee camps. I defy any Member not to be moved to discover that the children have often drawn the guns bigger than the people and the tanks bigger than the many burning houses. It is not just the dead who are the victims of ethnic cleansing; the living also are traumatised by what they have had to see. The least we can do is enable them to return and to rebuild their homes in safety. We will continue and intensify both military and diplomatic campaigns until we succeed in doing so.
    Mr. Michael Howard: First, may I associate myself with the Foreign Secretary's comments about the tragic and most untimely death of the Minister of State, the news of which will indeed have shocked the whole House. Whatever our political differences, he will be greatly missed, and our thoughts and sympathy are with his family.
    As the Foreign Secretary is aware, the Opposition have throughout supported the decision to take action in response to the atrocities of the Milosevic regime. Likewise, we supported and continue to support the original objectives of the action taken by NATO. Nevertheless, he will appreciate that it is our role to scrutinise, to question and, where necessary, to criticise the actions of the Government. Rarely is that role more vital than during times of armed conflict.
    Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade was not only a tragic mistake, but an act of gross incompetence? Can he confirm that almost any street map of Belgrade clearly shows the location of the Chinese embassy? Will he tell us whether NATO has a list of targets to be avoided? If there is such a list, why did the Chinese embassy not feature prominently on it?
    Will the Foreign Secretary also tell the House what measures are being taken to protect the lives of British citizens and British property in China? What consideration is being given to the wider diplomatic implications of the latest events for our relationship with China, and with Russia?
    Are there not a number of other aspects of the planning and implementation of the military action that give rise to grave disquiet?
    How can the Foreign Secretary reconcile the original objectives of the action stated at the start of the campaign with last week's fudged G8 Foreign Ministers' communiqué, which—in relation to the peacekeeping force, for example—contained no reference at all to NATO?
    How can the Foreign Secretary justify the fact that it was not until five weeks into the air strikes that the NATO Heads of Government asked for advice on whether an oil embargo could legally be imposed? Will he confirm reports this morning that NATO is now backing away from threatening the use of force in its proposed
    24
    visit-and-search regime, and intends instead to rely on a naming and shaming of countries that do not co-operate with a voluntary embargo?
    What response does the Foreign Secretary have to General Naumann, the outgoing chairman of NATO's Military Committee, who has lamented the inability of NATO to use surprise or sufficient force, as a result of which, he said, the campaign has "undoubtedly" been prolonged? Does the Foreign Secretary agree with Air Chief Marshal Sir Michael Graydon that
    "any failures cannot be laid at the feet of the military",
    but have their root in the political parameters that were set?
    Will the Foreign Secretary also clarify the position on the number of refugees that Britain has agreed to accept. Other countries have specified the total number to be admitted; will the British Government provide a similar figure?
    Do not all those unanswered questions give the impression that action is being made up as we go along and has not properly been thought through?
    The Foreign Secretary will be aware that there has never been any doubt in our minds that it was right for NATO to take action to deal with Milosevic's atrocities. The Opposition supported that decision, and we support it today. The international community must do all that it can to bring the unspeakable suffering in the region to an end. However, does he accept that the strength of our conviction on that matter makes us all the more concerned at the apparent lack of clarity in NATO's objectives and in the means employed to achieve them? Does he agree that clarity and consistency are now required more urgently than ever?
    Is it not most regrettably the case that, seven weeks into the military action, we appear to be no nearer to achieving the primary objective set out by the Prime Minister, that of averting a humanitarian disaster? Indeed, is it not unhappily the case that the humanitarian disaster—the responsibility for which, of course, rests firmly and unambiguously with Mr. Milosevic—gets worse with each day that passes?
    Mr. Cook: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for associating himself with my comments about Derek Fatchett. It may be of some help to his family to know that respect for Derek was felt on both sides of the House.
    I have already said to the House that what happened was a tragic error, and that there must be a review of what happened and of whether procedures have to be changed to ensure that it does not happen again. However, the right hon. and learned Gentleman went on to share criticisms that have been expressed about what he described as "the political parameters" of the bombing campaign. The political parameters of the bombing campaign are there precisely to seek to minimise the risk of civilian casualties and of other non-military properties being destroyed.
    The right hon. and learned Gentleman cannot have it both ways. He cannot, on the one hand, insist that we should be more careful to avoid civilian casualties, and, on the other hand, suggest that we should lift the political parameters that very clearly try to minimise those casualties by focusing on military targets.
    The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked for clarity. The NATO objectives could not be clearer. We require some clarity in the Opposition's support for them.

    25
    We have repeatedly stressed those objectives: first, a ceasefire; secondly, the withdrawal of Serb forces; thirdly, the return of the refugees; fourthly, a credible international presence to protect those refugees, which will have a NATO core; and finally, a political process based on Rambouillet. Those objectives have been stated clearly, repeatedly and in the same terms for seven weeks. I wish that the Opposition would not keep shifting the basis on which they express their support for them.
    The right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to General Naumann. He is behind the times. General Naumann followed the statement that the right hon. and learned Gentleman quoted by saying, when he met President Clinton, that he could not think of any change that he would make to NATO's military campaign.
    Mr. Keith Simpson: Holding on to his pension.
    Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman says that General Naumann was hanging on to his brief. He resigned the next week because it was his retirement date. He was not speaking to hold on to office. The hon. Gentleman should know who he is speaking about, because I understand that he claims to be a defence spokesman. General Naumann retired at the agreed date with his consent and that of the allies. He could speak freely and he said that he would make no change to the military campaign, which was achieving its objectives.
    We are fighting an immense and great evil in Kosovo. It would have been helpful if the right hon. and learned Gentleman had endorsed any of the statements that I made about the nature of that evil. [HON. MEMBERS: "He did."] With the greatest respect, there was not a single reference in what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said to the immense burning, looting, killing and raping that we have witnessed throughout Kosovo. We are determined to show the necessary resolve to ensure that those policies are reversed and the refugees return. It is disappointing that it has taken seven weeks, but I can think of nothing more feeble than if our resolve and determination ceased after seven weeks. We are determined to continue until we reverse the ethnic cleansing. I ask all those in the House who share our concern to support us in seeing that through.
    Mr. David Winnick: Is it not clear that the intelligence community, particularly in the United States, will have to be far more accurate than it was over the bombing of the Chinese embassy? I hope that the allied Governments, including Britain, will make that clear. On the wider issue, while every effort should be made to find a diplomatic solution, and Russia is to be congratulated on its efforts, was there not a simple choice at the beginning of the allied military campaign? Either we accepted the ethnic cleansing, the crimes and the rapes that were taking place in Kosovo, or we took action. If we had not taken action and merely accepted the situation, it would have been a shame and humiliation for this country. As a Labour Back Bencher, I make no apology for supporting what has been done.
    Mr. Cook: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his clarity. There is a review of what went wrong and of the
    26
    procedures. If improvements can be made to the procedures, they must be implemented to minimise any possibility of such a tragic error recurring.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: May I begin by associating myself with the remarks made by the Secretary of State about his colleague Derek Fatchett. In opposition and in government, he had a sure touch on foreign affairs, and his family's loss is our loss.
    Does not the incident involving the Chinese embassy reveal certain blunt but unpalatable truths? First, there was a simple but inexcusable error. Secondly, as a result, we have handed to Mr. Milosevic's regime an unparalleled propaganda opportunity. Thirdly, we have offered a public and, to some, persuasive justification for the Chinese Government's opposition to NATO's actions in the Balkans. Finally, regrettable though the incident was and sincerely though we must apologise for it, does not the catalogue of atrocity that the Secretary of State has just read to us confirm that we have no option but to see the matter through? If no settlement can be achieved, if necessary we will have to do so by deploying ground troops in a hostile environment.
    Mr. Cook: I agree absolutely with the right hon. and learned Gentleman about the need to pursue the matter. All of the mounting evidence from those who have spoken to any of the refugees who have left Kosovo over the past seven weeks confirms the importance of continuing with our campaign. We cannot allow such evil to triumph. We will at every possible opportunity seek to minimise civilian casualties and to make sure that we minimise the opportunity of ordnance going to the wrong target.
    However, I must be blunt with the House; one cannot wage a military campaign of this intensity without mistakes. There have been 6,000 bombing sorties over the past seven weeks, and very few have resulted in the wrong target being destroyed. However, it would be dishonest of me to stand at the Dispatch Box today and promise the House that there will never again be any mistakes. If we were to make that a condition of the military campaign, we could not wage a military campaign of the intensity and duration that is necessary to secure Milosevic's agreement to our objectives.
    Ann Clwyd: Is not it the case—as my right hon. Friend has clearly said—that the way to end the war is for Milosevic to meet the conditions that my right hon. Friend has spelled out this afternoon? Was not the way in which the Opposition behaved this afternoon a clear case of their trying to undermine the Government's resolve, in exactly the same way that right-wing opposition in the United States Congress and Senate has tried to clip the wings of the President at a time when he personally—like the British Government—would prefer to commit ground troops? Would it not be the worst of all worlds if the refugees were to return to Kosovo without the situation being properly and finally resolved?
    Mr. Cook: I associate myself with most of my hon. Friend's comments. May I clarify a point in relation to ground troops? We have always been committed to providing ground troops to underline a ceasefire and to make sure that any agreement would stick. That remains our position. The whole of the alliance in Washington—not just one member—agreed to task Javier Solana, the

    27
    alliance's Secretary-General, with reviewing the circumstances in which it might be appropriate for our forces to enter and to escort the refugees back in security.
    Sir Alastair Goodlad: We on the Back Benches would like to associate ourselves with what my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) said about Derek Fatchett, who was a greatly respected and admired colleague in the House.
    Is the Foreign Secretary aware that, at the moment, the Prime Minister's expression of regret for the bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade has not been reported in the Chinese media and that, in China, it is universally assumed to have been a deliberate act? The talk there is of an acknowledgement of a breach of international law, and of compensation and apologies to the families, who will be receiving the bodies tomorrow. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House that his mind is not entirely closed to a further gesture—perhaps by way of an apology from NATO—to improve what is a dangerously fissile situation in China?
    Mr. Cook: My mind is certainly not closed to anything that would help us to reassure the Government of China that what happened was not a matter of any deliberate intent. I am aware, as the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, that that is a view widely held within China, although we are not convinced that it is a view necessarily believed by the Government of China. Nevertheless, we will seek to do anything we can to get that point across and to rebuild bridges with China. NATO has already recorded its deep regret, and we would be happy to consider what further statement might be of assistance. However, let us be clear: this was a tragic error, and there was no deliberate intent on our part. It should not deflect us from our intent and objective, which is to secure the return of the refugees to Kosovo.
    Mr. George Galloway: I will visit the exhibition that the Foreign Secretary has staged of drawings by Kosovar children. I would have liked hon. Members to be able to visit a similar exhibition by Iraqi schoolchildren, except that that exhibition was banned by none other than the Foreign Secretary some months ago.
    Can the Foreign Secretary not see that when in a hole, in politics as in life, people should stop digging? Whatever one's view about this war and about whether it should have been started in the first place, is it not clear that we are all now in a very deep pit? All of us—the Yugoslays, the Kosovans, the Chinese and NATO—are in a deep hole. Is it not obvious that a settlement is within sight, based on the G8 agreement? Would it not be sensible to have a pause in the bombing—even if it is only in case any further disasters occur that make the G8 negotiations invalid or unobtainable? Would it not be wise to have a pause in the bombing and a return to the negotiating table at the United Nations, based on the G8 proposals? I feel sure that those who are following this matter closely realise that that is the basis for a settlement. If we continue bombing, we may bomb that possibility to smithereens.
    Mr. Cook: I point out to my hon. Friend that none of us entered this conflict lightly; nor did we enter it without
    28
    exploring every other possible way of resolving the crisis in Kosovo. We put two months into the Rambouillet-Paris peace talks. The talks were followed up by a special visit to Belgrade by Richard Holbrooke. The reason that we are currently engaged in a military campaign is that every other possible avenue was closed off by Milosevic.
    We are trying to turn the G8 proposals into a resolution at the Security Council; that work will continue this week. However, no one would be happier than President Milosevic if we were now to suspend the military campaign. That would enable him to refuel and resupply the troops in Kosovo, and to strengthen, once again, those units in the field that have been weakened by our bombing campaign. That would not assist a solution, but would ensure that it would be longer before we could secure the only solution that will bring justice to Kosovo—the return of the refugees under international protection. Until we can secure that objective, it would be foolish of the House to suggest that we should cease the bombing campaign.
    Mr. Andrew Rowe: With our war aims set out, I well understand that it is extremely difficult to talk much about how long the refugees will be in the camps. However, is it not realistic to believe that a substantial number of refugees will be there for a very long time? Will the Foreign Secretary reassure us that the Government are working hard to ensure that the refugees' shelter against the cold of the winter and the heat of the summer is what they actually need? Can he assure the House that the camps will not become recruiting grounds for the Kosovo Liberation Army, as the refugee camps in the Congo became recruiting grounds for the Interahamwe?
    Mr. Cook: I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are anxious to ensure that those camps do not become armed camps, as the camps in the Congo were. However, it would be foolish for anyone to deny that there will be many young refugees who will be interested in working for the KLA. We have to face the fact—as must Milosevic—that his behaviour and his brutality are the best recruiting sergeant for the KLA. That army has grown in strength during the period in which he has claimed to be wiping it out.
    As for the future of the camps, it must be said that they are not prepared for winter. We must not necessarily prepare them for winter, but we must ensure that we provide a tolerable standard of life for the people in the camps until we can take them back to Kosovo. That is why, especially in Albania, we are encouraging refugees to go down to the coast where it will be easier to provide for them than it is in the mountainous border area. I stress to the House that, when we secure our objective of entering Kosovo and taking the refugees back, a large task of reconstruction will remain before they will have homes in which they can live through the winter. Whether inside or outside Kosovo, a major task of reconstruction lies in our hands.
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Whatever the reasons—or lack of them—for the bombing of the Chinese embassy, is it not now clear that the Russian embassy to the Yugoslays to seek a solution will be made doubly difficult? Are Her Majesty's Government prepared to put urgent and immediate support behind the widening of that embassy and the involvement of the

    29
    United Nations in the war, so that action can be taken that will make it clear that we seek an equitable and honest solution?
    Mr. Cook: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend on that point. The last information I had before leaving is that the Germans expect that the visit to Beijing will go ahead; that in itself is encouraging. I hope that that visit and the many other contacts that we are making with Beijing will help to ensure that we can achieve a common way forward in the diplomatic process.
    Sir Peter Tapsell: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that he is keeping in mind the war powers resolution of both Houses of the United States Congress, which applies equally to ground, sea and air forces, and which requires that if, after 60 days, Congress has not declared war, authorised the use of armed forces or given a time extension, the President must withdraw the American forces from the war zone? As it appears highly unlikely that the current Congress will pass resolutions in that sense, what will happen when 60 days of NATO bombing is completed on 26 May?
    Mr. Cook: It is a brave diplomat who tries to tread in the relations between Congress and the White House, but we have had repeated exchanges with President Clinton over the past few days, including the period since that resolution was passed, and we detect no slackening of resolve on the part of our major ally. I believe that many of the Congressmen and Senators on the hill, including those whom I met only two weeks ago when I attended the Washington summit, understand full well what is at stake and would not want America or NATO to abandon the Kosovo refugees.
    Mr. Malcolm Wicks: I put it to the Foreign Secretary that, now that the going has got rough and tough in the former Yugoslavia, our democracy has to be clear on one fundamental point, which is that there is no comparison to be drawn, either militarily or ethically, between the accidental bombing by NATO, tragic though it was, and the callous, systematic and repugnant policies of the Serb regime, which involve organised rape and mass killings. Ministers do not need this advice, nevertheless, I urge them to keep their nerve and to listen to decent British public opinion, not to those on both sides of the House whose words—however well meaning or sincere—can only give comfort to the planners of mass murder in Belgrade.
    Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend raises an important point, in that we have to weigh carefully what we say, for in an open society, our words are openly and freely reported and are then prone to being abused in Belgrade, where there is not the same open and free access to the media.
    As for my hon. Friend's other point, I understand that public opinion will be concerned about what happened to the Chinese embassy, just as the Government and the other Governments of the alliance are concerned. However, public opinion would be even more outraged if the public were to sense that we had betrayed the Kosovo refugees and abandoned them to a life in the camps. The public would be even more outraged if they felt that there was to be no justice in respect of the atrocities and crimes committed in Kosovo. I am quite confident that public
    30
    opinion would want us to continue until we can secure the return of the refugees and access by the International War Crimes Tribunal to Kosovo.
    Mr. Tom King: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept my clear view that, although he is entitled to seek the widest possible support in the House for the Government's current position and the action that they have taken, there are genuine public concerns about certain developments in respect of those events and that, in our parliamentary democracy, the Opposition have a duty to raise such concerns? I appreciate the pressure he is under, but does he recognise that it does not help when he tries to disparage the Opposition when they discharge part of their duty?
    Mr. Cook: I entirely agree that there are concerns and that those concerns need to be expressed. However, if the right hon. Gentleman reflects, he will accept that the NATO objectives are clear and that it does not help us to show resolve and determination behind those objectives if it is suggested that there is any lack of clarity in them. They do have clarity. Although the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) referred to the lack of clarity of NATO objectives, I believe that that is a false charge which does not enable us to show the resolve and determination that are necessary for success.
    Mr. John Home Robertson: I have just been elected to the new Scottish Parliament. Will my right hon. Friend take it from me that one of the clearest messages that citizens in every part of Scotland sent in that election was their rejection of a party that had criticised the military action taken against the ethnic cleansers of Kosovo? Furthermore, does my right hon. Friend agree that the Kosovan refugees who arrived in my East Lothian constituency last night will be made very welcome? Surely the most important duty of the House and of the Government must be to create the circumstances that will allow those people to return to their own country safely.
    Mr. Cook: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his election to the Scottish Parliament. I think that there are many reasons why the people of Scotland rejected independence as an option last week.
    I am confident that the local authorities that we invite to assist us in accommodating the Kosovar Albanians will rise to that challenge. My hon. Friend has a long record and experience of providing help to the people of Bosnia, and I am sure that both he and his constituents will rise to the challenge of helping the people of Kosovo.
    Mr. Andrew Robathan: At the end of April, I and other members of the International Development Committee had the good fortune to be briefed by two British NATO generals in Albania and Macedonia. I think I speak for Committee members from both sides of the House when I say that we were very impressed by both the generals and the good humanitarian work carried out by NATO troops in those countries. However, does the right hon. Gentleman accept that there is a growing body of opinion to the effect that, although there is no problem with the armed forces' prosecution of the war, there is a problem with the political direction and a lack of understanding on the part of our political leaders? Is he

    31
    aware that informed opinion in this country lacks confidence in our political leaders—indeed, there is a growing conviction that the political leadership both in Washington and in this country has no idea what it is doing?
    Mr. Cook: I cannot say that I regard that contribution as immensely helpful in demonstrating to Belgrade our unity, resolve and determination. It is very easy to make that kind of open criticism. If the hon. Gentleman is genuine and serious about trying to find a way forward, and if he has thought of some approach that has escaped the 19 members of the alliance and its military command, we would be grateful if he would express his views rather than simply criticising what is being done.
    Mr. Tony Benn: Is the Foreign Secretary aware—he must be—that no one in the House is an apologist for President Milosevic or the crimes that he has committed? Is he aware that those who know war know that it is bloody and indiscriminate? When NATO decided to make war, it knew that many innocent people would be killed—and that has happened. Is the Foreign Secretary also aware that the impression is being created that the Government have lost contact with reality? The American Senate—which, unlike the House of Commons, has some power over matters of peace and war—will not support ground troops. The air war will not succeed. Therefore, the best hope for the refugees is to take up the Russian proposal at the Security Council where there is an opportunity to find a solution. Bombing and insult, in equal proportions, are getting us nowhere. The invasion will not be allowed and the danger is that the Government are misleading the refugees into believing that this policy will enable them to return home.
    Mr. Cook: With respect to my right hon. Friend, I said in my statement that we are now working with Russia in order to take forward a Security Council resolution. I hope that we may be able to produce a draft of that resolution before the end of the week. It is certainly our objective to work on it as fast as we can.
    The obstacle to a resolution in the past seven weeks has not been us, but Russia and the threat of a Russian veto. I welcome the fact that we have achieved common ground upon which we can take forward the resolution. However, the House must be clear: we have secured a political agreement with Russia, and that is very different from a settlement with Belgrade. There is no evidence that if we back off and relax the military pressure, Belgrade will suddenly decide to do what it resisted doing throughout the Rambouillet peace talks. I do not, therefore, believe that we are selling the Kosovo refugees an honest prospectus if we say that there is a way forward that does not involve a military campaign.
    Mr. Nicholas Soames: It is unfitting and unsuitable for the Foreign Secretary to question the Opposition's resolve and motives because they choose to question and draw attention to the monstrous and unforgivable incompetence of the bombing of the Chinese embassy. One would have hoped that if NATO truly thought that the Chinese embassy was the federal
    32
    procurement executive, it might have taken action some time beforehand to remove the executive and troubled to find out exactly where the Chinese embassy was.
    Much more work needs to be done by NATO and others involved to prepare for the reconstruction of Kosovo. What steps were taken at the G8 meeting to prepare for efforts to rebuild the houses that will be needed to shelter the hundreds of thousands of poor refugees, who will return to scenes of total devastation? I urge the Foreign Secretary, instead of posturing at the Dispatch Box, to give us straightforward answers without irrelevant criticism.
    Mr. Cook: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I could not have made clearer to the House my concern about what has happened to the Chinese embassy and the difficulties that the events have caused us all.
    On the reconstruction of Kosovo, we committed ourselves at the G8 meeting to an interim administration under an international authority, which we anticipate will be achieved through United Nations endorsement and a resolution. That interim administration will need to call on all the resources of the international community, including the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, the European Union and the UN, as well as NATO. Reconstruction will be a major task.
    At my meeting, after this statement, with Carl Bildt, the special representative of the UN Secretary-General, I hope to explore how he and his fellow envoy, Eduard Kukan, can work together to prepare plans for what happens after we go into Kosovo. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the preparations for that need to start now. We face the task of rebuilding a whole country.
    Dr. Phyllis Starkey: I welcome the agreement with Russia, not as an alternative to NATO's military action, but as a complement to it. In planning for the eventual international peacekeeping force under the direction of the UN, are special steps being taken to widen participation as much as possible, particularly to involve the Governments of Muslim countries? Is my right hon. Friend aware, for example, that the United Arab Emirates has made substantial aid available to Albania to provide a field hospital, an airport and several camps, and would be willing to participate in an international peacekeeping force?
    Mr. Cook: I welcome my hon. Friend's question. It is true that several Muslim countries are anxious to help, and some are already doing so. We have always made it plain that although any international military force must have a NATO core to be credible, it need not be exclusively NATO. I would welcome Russia's involvement in such a force, and I hope that Muslim nations will also be involved, to ensure that we demonstrate a full international presence.
    Mr. Alan Clark: It was not the Royal Air Force that smashed up the Chinese embassy, and as the Foreign Secretary is speaking in the British House of Commons, why does not he say so? That action was taken by the USAF, whose general and habitual standard of inept targeting and gung-ho opportunism must have been responsible for the deaths of many hundreds of civilians. In the last war, the alliance had the habit of issuing

    33
    communiqués at the end of almost every day, saying what had happened and which units within the alliance had been tasked to take the action. Why cannot we introduce that procedure, and then at least some degree of responsibility for these repetitious outrages would be easier to attribute?
    Mr. Cook: I can confirm to the right hon. Gentleman that UK aircraft were not involved in the attack on the Chinese embassy. He is the first Member to ask that specific question, and I am happy to give that specific answer. However, I stress that we are operating as an alliance. It would not help us to continue to prosecute the war together as an alliance if we were to get involved in individual recrimination, and I have no intention of doing so.
    Mr. Bill Rammell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that had Labour Front Benchers during the Falklands or Gulf wars made the sort of criticisms that we have heard from Conservative Front Benchers today, there would have been howls of outrage from the then Conservative Government? Does he also agree that when the wrong target has been bombed, as happened with the Chinese embassy, the whole House is concerned, but that to try to pretend that such mistakes will not be made in a military conflict is naive in the extreme and undermines the original intention of the action?
    Mr. Cook: I agree absolutely with my hon. Friend. If there is to be a military campaign of the intensity necessary to make its mark on President Milosevic, it will unavoidably, on occasions, contain errors. That is why it is so important that we rightly express our concern about such errors, seek to learn lessons from them and try to prevent them from recurring. However, that should not divert us from our central resolve to see the campaign through.
    Mr. Graham Brady: The Foreign Secretary has told the House that a review will take place to consider the procedures that allowed the bombing of the Chinese embassy to take place. I invite him to give the House more details of that review, especially how long it will take and when any new procedures will be implemented. With the bombing proceeding every day, it is a matter of urgency to learn what lessons we can and to put new procedures in place.
    Mr. Cook: I am sure that if changes are to be made, they will be introduced as a matter of urgency for
    34
    precisely the reason the hon. Gentleman gives. It would not be appropriate for me to give a specific time scale to the review, but it will proceed as urgently as possible.
    Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: May I join my right hon. Friend in expressing my condolences on the death of our dear friend, Derek Fatchett, whom we will all miss?
    The simple truth is that the wise old men in Peking who run China will know that what happened was an accident. They are not stupid and, in the pragmatic way for which they are internationally renowned, they will not overreact, as have many people in the House of Commons today. Will not those wise old men wish to keep on course the rapprochement with the west that has been their policy for the past 15 or 20 years? They will want to put the whole murky business behind them.
    Mr. Cook: It is perhaps worth recalling that we have achieved major improvements in our relations with China in the past year. The visit of Zhu Rongji to London was a great success. We are sure that China will not wish to throw away those gains, but will want to build on them. Nevertheless, nobody should understate the magnitude of what happened on Friday or the importance of working hard to ensure that we can put it behind us.
    Mr. Howard: May I remind the Foreign Secretary that in the course of my earlier questions, I several times condemned the atrocities of the Milosevic regime and ended my questions by saying that the responsibility for the humanitarian disaster in Kosovo rested firmly and unambiguously on Milosevic. Will the Foreign Secretary now withdraw the remarks in which he falsely alleged that I had failed to condemn those atrocities?
    Mr. Cook: If I have misrepresented the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I withdraw those remarks.
    Mr. Crispin Blunt: Apologise!
    Mr. Cook: Well, if I have misrepresented the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I withdraw those remarks and I apologise, because that would be right in those circumstances. However, I invite him, the next time he discusses this matter in the House, to reflect on the balance of what he says. If he examines the balance of what he said on this occasion, he will find that for every criticism of Belgrade, there were five criticisms of NATO and the alliance for what has happened. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell) who made the point earlier that during the Gulf war, the Government received great support from the Opposition. I hope that we can look forward to similar support from the Opposition on future occasions.

    Points of Order
    4.19 pm
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Doubtless the Northern Ireland (Location of Victims' Remains) Bill raises matters of importance, but those can hardly be as important or as urgent as the matters we have been discussing. Therefore, I ask whether you would be prepared to hear an application for a debate under Standing Order No. 24 so that the matters can be further discussed later tonight.
    Madam Speaker: No, I am not prepared even to contemplate a Standing Order No. 24 application at this stage. I think that the Foreign Secretary has given us a proper explanation of developments over the weekend, and we have had good questioning. I have followed very closely those Members who have put questions on this. I am very keen that all Members are called at some time or another to put a question to the Foreign Secretary. I know that the hon. Gentleman has not been called today, but he is never usually deprived on such occasions, and I will look favourably at him on another occasion.
    Mr. Dalyell: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. This is not a complaint that I was not called, because actually I have been treated extremely well in questions. The argument is rather different.
    It is all very well to hear reports of what has happened. The issue is whether the House of Commons should be able to give its opinion—and in many cases, from both sides of the House, informed views—in a way that cannot be done by the most succinct among us from the Back Benches in the form of questions. The issue for a Standing Order No. 24 application is that the House of Commons should be able to ask questions, for example, about what happens to the environment if the bombing goes on and on. Mercury, phosgene, ammonia and benzene are all spewing out. What happens, for example, to the nuclear facilities at Vinca? If one can bomb the Chinese embassy, one can bomb the nuclear core, with God knows what reaction. All those matters should be aired in debate.
    Madam Speaker: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will put his point to the Leader of the House and perhaps it could be arranged, between the two Front Benches, that a date might be set aside for such a debate, but I am not prepared to accept an application under Standing Order No. 24.
    Mr. John Bercow: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In light of weekend statements by Mr. Romano Prodi supporting the creation of a single European army and a single Government for Europe—policies to which the Prime Minister claims to be opposed—I wonder whether you have had any indication from the Prime Minister that he would like to come to the House in order personally to withdraw his support from Mr. Prodi as President of the European Commission.
    Madam Speaker: That is not a point of order for me; it is a matter of argument.
    Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I heard the reply that you gave to
    36
    my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), declining to take his Standing Order No. 24 application; I can understand that. However, I am sure that you must understand that an awful lot of people feel very concerned and wish their Parliament—this elected Parliament—to have a debate and an opportunity to take a decision on British participation with the NATO forces in Kosovo.
    What indications have you had from Ministers about how frequently they intend to make statements to this House? What pressure can you bring to bear, as a representative of the House, to ensure that the House has an opportunity to debate, on a substantive motion, the issue of the present bombing of Yugoslavia?
    Madam Speaker: These are questions which are usually raised on Thursdays at business questions with the Leader of the House, who always gives a very substantive reply. I do not arrange the business of the House. I am quite prepared from time to time to consider a Standing Order No. 24 application. At the present time, I am not in a position to hear such an application.
    Mr. Bowen Wells: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Are you aware that the International Development Committee will be issuing a report on the Kosovo refugees on Thursday, and that that might be the right occasion on which to hold a full debate on these issues?
    Madam Speaker: That is a point of information, not a point of order.
    Mr. Tony Benn: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. If I may say so, you have been very generous to those who have taken a different view from Ministers on this issue, and I have no complaint. I have never believed that the Speaker determines the business of the House.
    The problem that my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) raises is that the Crown is preventing Parliament from discussing the subject. Your famous predecessor, Mr. Speaker Lenthall, has gone down in parliamentary history for insisting that the House of Commons took precedence over the Crown. In my opinion, the Crown's powers are being grossly abused by taking this country to war when its elected Parliament is not allowed to decide.
    I am not asking you to respond now, but I believe that you are being asked by the House to consider very carefully whether there is not a moment when you, as Speaker, should make it clear that those of us who represent service men and their wives and the country as a whole really must be allowed, like the American Congress, to reach a view on whether the bombing and the war should continue. For otherwise, we are spectators of our fate and not in any sense shapers of our future.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg rose—
    Madam Speaker: Order. We cannot continue in this way. These are not points of order, but points of opinion, about which I am perfectly understanding, but to which, in many instances, I cannot respond.
    Mr. Hogg: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am sorry to follow on from what the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) said. However, there is a great deal of anxiety in the House about the fact that we have never been asked to authorise or approve what is going on. We have had an opportunity to discuss it and we have had an opportunity to ask questions, but we have not been given the opportunity to give our authority. That is a lacuna in the processes of the House and it would be enormously appreciated, Madam Speaker, if you could give urgent consideration to how the Speaker can ensure that the House has a substantive motion to address.
    Madam Speaker: For the past three or four Thursdays when I have been in the Chair, numerous Members on both sides of the House have put this matter to the Leader of the House, asking for a debate on a substantive motion, which if necessary can be amended, and a vote. The response of the Leader of the House is there for all to see. Right hon. and hon. Members must continue pressing the occupants of the two Front Benches if they are seeking a debate on this matter.

  Northern Ireland (Location of Victims' Remains) Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  4.26 pm
  The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Ingram): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Before commenting on the Bill, I wish to acknowledge the reason why the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) is not on the Opposition Front Bench as shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman is attending his father's funeral. I am sure that the entire House would wish to echo me in offering condolences to him and his family.
  It is right to begin by acknowledging the prolonged suffering that has been endured by the families of "The Disappeared". The families and friends of "The Disappeared", as they have become known, have suffered the loss of those they loved and have had to endure many years of agonising uncertainty of not knowing what happened to their loved ones and the pain of not being able to lay their bodies to rest. This is a basic human right.
  I have met representatives of a number of these families on several occasions, most recently today, and I have been deeply moved by their stories and by the remarkable courage that they have shown in the face of such adversity. More than anything else, it is their suffering which the Bill seeks to address.
  The Bill's overriding purpose is to ensure that the remains of these victims can be located and that, for the sake of these victims and their families, funerals can finally take place.
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: I support the Bill in principle. However, the Bill makes information and evidence inadmissible in criminal proceedings. I can well understand why that is so. The Bill also places restrictions on the forensic testing of human remains. What are those restrictions?
  Mr. Ingram: I intend to deal with that later. The Bill is not exactly the same as the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997, but it is not too dissimilar, either. The same type of concepts are contained in that measure.
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I think that we all support the aim that my right hon. Friend has set out. However, has he had an absolute assurance that if the Bill is allowed to go forward, funerals will take place and it will not set rather an unfortunate precedent for the future?
  Mr. Ingram: I am sure that my hon. Friend is only too well aware, being a long-standing practitioner of the art of politics, that there are no such things as absolutes. We are dealing with a sensitive and difficult subject which we must address in the best way available to us. As for setting

  39
  precedents, the Bill deals with a specific set of circumstances and it is not for me to determine what may evolve or develop on its back. We do not know what else may arise. At present there is no intention to change or develop the Bill. It is aimed at a specific objective, which I was setting out.
  Mr. Ken Maginnis rose—
  Mr. Ingram: I have hardly said very much about the Bill. It might be useful to set the scene for it, if I were allowed to do so.
  Mr. Maginnis: On that point—
  Mr. Ingram: I will give way—
  Mr. Maginnis: On that point—
  Mr. Ingram: The hon. Gentleman is usually insistent, and he gets his way by shouting and not listening to reasoning such as I was trying to present.
  Mr. Maginnis: Let me assure the House that, unlike some people who will be nameless at this stage, I do not let my liver override my brain.
  What the Minister has just told us is that he is reacting emotionally to the demands of the IRA, and he has not thought out the consequences of what he is proposing. That is what I gathered from his answer to his hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody).
  Mr. Ingram: I do not want to enter into a dialogue on that. We have had to introduce a considerable amount of legislation as the peace process has developed, based on the circumstances prevailing at the time. It would have been better if we did not need legislation, but if that is the way in which we achieve the objective, the Government must introduce it.
  For the sake of roundness of argument, may I refer to what the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) said in relation to similar legislation, the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Bill, in 1996. It would be useful if, having intervened, he would listen. On that Bill, which dealt with armaments, he said:
  "I welcome the Bill and I shall explain why it is essential."—[Official Report, 9 December 1996;Vol.287,c.66.]
  We are dealing now with a similar piece of legislation, and I should like to hear him welcome it in the same way. He will have that opportunity when he makes his contribution to the debate.
  I was saying that we seek to ensure that victims' remains are located so that funerals can take place. This objective is particularly apt as we, the British Government, together with the Irish Government, and the parties seek to implement the Belfast agreement. One of the key aspects of the agreement is a recognition by all parties that we must acknowledge and address the suffering of the victims of violence as a necessary element of reconciliation.
  40
  Action on the issue of "The Disappeared" was specifically mentioned in the report of the international body, the Mitchell report, on page 17, paragraph 52, in the chapter on "Further Confidence Building", which listed the
  "provision of information on the status of missing persons"
  among the factors that
  "would demonstrate a commitment to peaceful methods and so build trust among other parties and alleviate the fears and anxieties of the general population".
  Furthermore, Sir Kenneth Bloomfield, in his report entitled "We shall remember them", on page 38, paragraph 5.38, dedicated a paragraph to "The Disappeared" and "Exiles". Sir Kenneth voiced
  "a fervent appeal, on behalf of those whose loved ones have disappeared without trace, that those who can offer information about their fate and where bodies may lie should do so now".
  The Bill provides the most effective and speedy response that the Government can give to this tragic issue.
  The background to the Northern Ireland (Location of Victims' Remains) Bill is the tragic disappearance of a number of people during the 1970s and 1980s. It is believed that those people were abducted and killed by terrorist organisations although, to date, none of the bodies have been recovered.
  On 29 March this year, the Provisional IRA made a public statement, declaring:
  "We believe we have established the whereabouts of the graves of nine people … information regarding the location of these graves is now being processed and will hopefully result in the speedy retrieval of the bodies".
  In response, the Government, together with the Irish Government, announced their intention to introduce legislation in both jurisdictions to ensure that any evidence that emerged as a result of information given to help to locate the remains would not be used in subsequent criminal prosecutions. T0he Bill is the culmination of that commitment.
  Mr. Desmond Swayne: Is not the practical effect of that self-denial the granting of an amnesty for those crimes and those criminals? Would not it have been better, and more honest, to create a commission such as that presided over by Archbishop Desmond Tutu rather than to cloak the effect in such a way?
  Mr. Ingram: It would have been better if the hon. Gentleman had read the legislation; it is not an amnesty any more than the decommissioning legislation is an amnesty. I say it again: I shall explain the background to the Bill and the purpose underlying it.
  Sir Kenneth Bloomfield referred to the concept of a truth and reconciliation commission in his detailed, heavyweight report on the question of how we deal with victims. It is for the whole of society in Northern Ireland—not only for the Governments or, indeed, the political parties—to determine whether it wants to move forward in such a way. The issue belongs to the whole of society and has to be handled in line with its wishes.
  Such a conmiission has not been ruled out, but communities have to come together and define what they seek to achieve. If I read the remarks of the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) correctly, he said that

  41
  we should not be proceeding in this way in respect of the information that the Provisional IRA has said that it is prepared to provide to the Governments, through the commission that will be set up, and that we should leave the issue on one side until such a body is established. It may never be established and, on that basis, the remains of the victims may never be recovered. That would be a matter of great regret.
  The Bill is the culmination of the commitments that we gave in response to the Provisional IRA statement. The Irish Government published their equivalent Bill at the end of April. Together, the two Governments have shown their willingness to respond quickly to achieve a resolution of this issue.
  The two Governments have recently signed an agreement to establish an independent commission which would facilitate the location of the victims' remains. I can announce this afternoon that Sir Kenneth Bloomfield has agreed to take on that role on behalf of the Government, if the Bill is approved by both Houses of Parliament.
  Elements of the longer statement made by the Provisional IRA on 29 March caused further hurt and grief to the families, because of what it said and what it did not reveal. Many families were expecting to be informed that their relatives were on the list given by the Provisional IRA. The fact that they were not caused deeper pain—pain on top of what they have had to endure over the long years since their loved ones were taken from them. The unfounded allegations made against those on the list were a cruel blow to families who had already suffered too much.
  It is worth while putting on record the fact that those listed by the Provisional IRA in its statement—Seamus Wright, Kevin McKee, Jean McConville, Columba McVeigh, Brendan Megrew, John McClory, Brian McKinney, Danny Mcllhone and Eamon Molloy—had not been charged with any crime, were not judged in a court of law, were not given the right of a fair trial and were not given the right to appeal against the summary injustice served on them. They were probably beaten and tortured before they were killed. In short, they were denied their fundamental human rights.
  There is no international call for an independent inquiry into their tragic deaths, the human rights lobby is silent on their treatment and, of course, they have lain in undisclosed sites—some of them for nearly 30 years. I want to make it clear that the measure before us does not condone any of that; it is not a concession to terrorism or barbarism—it is a wholly humanitarian gesture that has been made because the Government genuinely care about the families, who have borne so much grief and hurt over all those years with quiet dignity.
  I do not speak for the families, but I know this: it is their right to know where their loved ones are buried and no one with any humanity in his heart has the right to deny the families the right of laying their loved ones to rest with the dignity they deserve. The humanitarian need to introduce this legislation with such urgency is therefore obvious.
  The plight of the families of "The Disappeared" is at the forefront of our minds. Their suffering still strikes a deep chord. It has gone on for too long. However, it is not within the Government's gift to deliver the final objective—namely, the location of the remains. That can
  42
  be done only if those who know their whereabouts come forward with the information. I take the opportunity today to call on them to do so as a matter of urgency.
  The Provisional IRA must demonstrate its good faith by delivering on its publicly stated pledges to the families. I urge those who have information about the remaining victims to do likewise. Those families have already suffered too much. It is time for this issue to be dealt with once and for all.
  I emphasise that the Bill does not grant immunity from prosecution. It is not an amnesty. These were vicious and cowardly crimes and, if evidence is obtained from other sources, it will be used to seek to bring those responsible to justice. However, just as it is absolutely right that the efforts to obtain justice should continue, it is equally important that we consider the needs of the families and do all that we can to alleviate their suffering.
  Mr. Ernie Ross: The Minister named the various civilians who were tortured and murdered by the IRA and whose remains are covered by this legislation. What about the body of Captain Robert Nairac? Is that also covered, and is there any indication from the Provisionals that they will surrender those remains?
  Mr. Ingram: We have no information on that. Once this legislation is in place, it will hopefully remain in place after the remains of the nine who have been listed by the Provisional IRA have been located and given a burial by their families. Thus the legislation could be used for any further information that is brought forward. Hopefully, it may encourage those who have those details to give it to us.
  It is not just Captain Nairac; others are on the list of known victims who have disappeared over the years. The total number is not precise—a figure of 20 has been quoted. It is about collating information from a variety of sources, and the best estimate on which we are working is in the region of 16. Only nine victims have been identified, so there is still some way to go to deal with all the families who have lost their loved ones in this way over the years.
  As I said, this measure is about alleviating suffering. It is a humanitarian gesture. That is why the two Governments have decided to proceed with legislation enabling those with information to come forward and the location of the bodies to be disclosed. Like so many issues in Northern Ireland, this is a difficult one. However, I believe that the Bill succeeds in striking the right balance between taking vital steps to alleviate some of the suffering that has afflicted many families in Northern Ireland for many years and ensuring that the scheme is workable in practice.
  Before I deal with the detailed provisions of the Bill, I should like to acknowledge the difficulties that the Bill's timing has posed for a number of right hon. and hon. Members who had intended to travel to north America with the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has written to the Committee on this issue. It is unfortunate that the two dates clashed because some hon. Members would have wished to participate in this debate. I am grateful to those who have taken the opportunity to be here today. Their presence is noted, and I look forward to their contributions to the debate.

  43
  I am also grateful that the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) was able to travel to the United States, albeit with a somewhat depleted delegation, on what should prove to be a very worthwhile venture. What the delegation is investigating and examining is of importance to Northern Ireland.
  The Bill provides the legislative framework for a commission, which will be an independent organisation established by the agreement signed on 27 April by the British and Irish Governments. The agreement was laid before the House on 5 May in accordance with the practice known as the Ponsonby rule. It is hoped that today's debate will give hon. Members an opportunity to express views on the agreement if they so wish.
  Both Governments are doing all they can to ensure that the commission can begin its work as soon as possible. We are confident that in proposing to agree with the Government of Ireland on an early date for the agreement to enter into force—before the 21 days required by the Ponsonby rule have elapsed—we are acting with the will of the House.
  The Bill makes supplementary provision for the commission and the commencement and duration of the provisions relating to the commission, and enables certain immunities and privileges to be conferred on it. The commission will facilitate the location of the remains of persons killed before 10 April 1998 as a result of an unlawful act of violence committed on behalf of, or in connection with, a proscribed organisation.
  The Bill further provides three types of protection for information provided to the commission about the whereabouts of the remains of the victims. First, clause 3 provides that relevant information provided to the commission, or evidence that comes to light as a result of that information, shall not be admissible in evidence in any criminal proceedings, except if that evidence might, in some circumstances, be helpful to the defence of an accused person.
  Secondly, clause 4 places prohibitions on the forensic testing of the remains or other items found, subject to limited exceptions, in particular for the purposes of determining the identity of the deceased persons and how, when and where they died.
  Thirdly, clause 5 provides that information provided to the commission will not be disclosed except for the purpose of facilitating the location of the remains. However, the Bill leaves the commission with a discretion to pass certain information to the family of the victim.
  Finally, the Bill makes provision for the grant of warrants authorising entry and search of private premises in the special circumstances to which the Bill relates.
  I shall return to the theme with which I began: the pain and suffering of the victims' families, which we can only begin to imagine. The Bill will not lessen their loss, but in some small measure the location of their loved ones' remains and the opportunity to lay them to rest will at least enable them finally to close this chapter of their lives and to begin to move on. We must afford them that opportunity. I commend the Bill to the House.
  4.47 pm
  Mr. Malcolm Moss: I should like to begin by passing on the apologies of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay), the shadow Secretary of State, who is unable to be here today to open the debate for the official Opposition as he is attending his father's funeral, as the Minister graciously acknowledged. We thank the Minister for his expression of condolence.
  I am grateful to the Minister for setting out the main provisions of the legislation and some of the background to it, which includes some of the most gruesome events that have occurred anywhere in these islands in the past 30 years. The Bill deals with some of the most callous acts of barbarism imaginable: acts of almost unspeakable evil. They are a deep stain on the history of Ireland.
  I should state at the outset that Conservative Members believe this to be an odious Bill, and we deeply deplore the fact that it is necessary to introduce it. Frankly, it sticks in the throat that we should have to bargain with terrorists to locate the bodies of people whom they have killed. The fact that we have to introduce the Bill tells us a great deal about the real nature of terrorist groups in Northern Ireland—in this instance, the Provisional IRA. The Bill shows once again the depths of depravity to which they have so often stooped in terrorising the people of Northern Ireland.
  I should like to pay tribute to Seamus McKendry, whose organisation Families of "The Disappeared" has been bravely campaigning on this issue for the past five years, to Church leaders and cross-party groups such as New Dialogue, and to Sir Kenneth Bloomfield's victims' commission. They have made a huge contribution by drawing political and public attention to the plight of the victims' families. They have put pressure on terrorists to come clean and identify the burial sites of "The Disappeared", and to show, for once, an ounce of humanity.
  The facts about "The Disappeared" speak for themselves. Between the early 1970s and the early 1980s, about 14 people were abducted, tortured and then murdered, mainly—although not necessarily exclusively—by the IRA. Some of the bodies were then dumped in unmarked graves on both sides of the border, and some, it is rumoured, in Scotland. It is widely believed that others suffered an even more gruesome fate.
  The victims were people like Jean McConville, a 37-year-old widowed mother of 10 from the Divis flats in Belfast, who disappeared from her home on 7 December 1972, never to be seen again; people such as Kevin McKee and Seamus Wright from Andersonstown, who were abducted and murdered in October 1972; people like Brendan Megrew, who was taken from his home in Twinbrook, Belfast, in 1975 by a nine-member IRA gang, and Columba McVeigh, aged 17, from Dungannon, who in the same year was abducted and killed, again by the IRA. And let us not forget Captain Robert Nairac, who was dragged from a pub in South Armagh in 1977, tortured and killed. Like the others, his body has never been found.
  Imagine the anguish, imagine the heartache, imagine the desolation of simply not knowing what happened or where those bodies are. Imagine also the anger of people who, in many cases, live in the same districts as the killers

  45
  of their loved ones, and who in many cases see the suspected killers day after day. Imagine the anger of knowing people whose information, while not necessarily wiping away the pain, could at least have eased it.
  Let us take the case of Margaret McKinney, whose son Brian was abducted in 1978. I had the privilege of meeting her in the House at lunchtime today. She describes the past 21 years as
  "Hell; the darkest corner of hell".
  She has suffered heart attacks, and for years would sleep in her son's bed wrapped in his coat. Frequently she would see the men who had taken Brian, but remained powerless to do anything, such is the fear and intimidation endemic in the communities that the IRA controls.
  For years, relatives have pleaded with the terrorists to give them the information that would allow them to give the victims decent, dignified, Christian burials; for years the terrorists and their supporters have flatly refused. Indeed, for nearly 20 years the IRA denied that it was responsible. For its own vile ends, it has chosen to remain silent for all that time. That puts in stark perspective the IRA's hollow claims to be the defender of its community. In fact its members are the terrorisers, the intimidators and the real enemies of the communities that they claim to represent.
  Nothing illustrated the sickening nature of the IRA more graphically than the announcement of the results of its so-called 18-month investigation of the whereabouts of "The Disappeared", for which we were all supposed to be grateful. On 29 March, the IRA said that it had been able to locate nine people's graves—as if they are not aware of the fate of the others—stating:
  "We are sorry that this has taken so long to resolve and for the prolonged anguish caused to the families".
  Having made its announcement and raised the hopes of the families, the IRA then prolonged the anguish by demanding that the British and Irish Governments pass legislation granting immunity from prosecution before it would reveal any further information. Helen McKendry, the daughter of Jean McConville, said:
  "I am really, really angry with the IRA. I thought when they made their statement a fortnight ago, all our suffering was over. They raised our hopes, knowing full well they had no immediate intention of delivering the bodies".
  Mr. Swayne: Will the suffering and anger to which my hon. Friend has referred be expiated by the Bill, the effect of which is to make it more difficult to secure a conviction against the perpetrators of those awful deeds?
  Mr. Moss: I hear what my hon. Friend says. It was a question that he put to the Minister of State. I will come to it a little later, if he will be patient.
  In reality, the announcement had precious little to do with the victims' families. It was a propaganda stunt that was aimed at boosting Sinn Fein during the Hillsborough talks in the week before Easter, taking the pressure off the organisation over its refusal to decommission its illegally held arms and explosives. As Mr. Seamus McKendry of Families of "The Disappeared" said:
  "I'm an out and out nationalist, but I feel terribly ashamed to call myself Irish tonight. We're being used as pawns here".
  46
  Then there was the staggering hypocrisy of Sinn Fein's chief negotiator, Martin McGuinness, who stated that he hoped that an end was in sight to the "misery" being suffered and that
  "we are hopeful that the plight of these families can now be alleviated".
  Does he expect anyone in Northern Ireland, or elsewhere for that matter, to believe that the organisation responsible for that misery is any other than the one to which his party is inextricably linked: the Provisional IRA? What organisation could seek to gain credit and gratitude for finally disclosing the whereabouts of people whom it has murdered other than the Provisional IRA? That is a disgraceful state of affairs, but one, sadly, with which we are going to have to live.
  That rather sums up our attitude to the Bill: it is a necessary evil. There should be no need for such a Bill. If we were dealing with reasonable people who were truly committed to peaceful and democratic means, there would not be such a need—but then, that is not the IRA's way.
  As the Minister of State has explained, the Bill covers three main areas: to make provision concerning the commission established by the agreement between the British and Irish Governments on 27 April; to provide various protections for information provided to the commission and any evidence that might come to light as a result about the whereabouts of the remains of the victims of violence; and to make provision in relation to the entry and search of premises where remains are likely to be found.
  The most controversial parts of the Bill are clause 3, dealing with admissibility of evidence in criminal proceedings, and clause 4, which deals with restrictions on forensic testing. I hope to come soon to the section of my speech that answers the important question put by my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne).
  On admissibility, having studied the Bill, we are satisfied legally that it does not amount to a general amnesty, or immunity from prosecution in connection with the original offence of murder. If any other evidence comes to light other than that covered in the Bill, it could be used in a criminal proceeding. I note, however, a distinction between the Bill as drafted and the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997. That legislation contains a much more explicit reference. As section 11 states:
  "Nothing in this Act shall prejudice any power or discretion exercisable apart from this Act in relation to the institution or conduct of criminal proceedings."
  That makes it clear, as Lord Mayhew said at the time, that
  "apart from the Bill's provisions, the institution or conduct of criminal proceedings is unaffected."—[Official Report, 9 December 1996;Vol.287,c.27.]
  We would have liked an equally clear statement in the Bill. We ask the Minister, between now and Committee and Report stages on Wednesday, to ask his people to look at that section.
  Whatever the legal position, in practice it is difficult to see how any prosecution in such cases could be successful without the ability to carry out a forensic test on a body. In such circumstances, the reality is that the Bill does, in effect, amount to an amnesty for people who have committed the most appalling and savage acts of murder.

  47
  If a prosecution for any of those crimes were successful, the individuals concerned would be eligible for the accelerated release scheme and would, under the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998, therefore serve only a few months. Most right-thinking people would find that totally unacceptable.
  We have carefully examined the restrictions on forensic testing, which are very wide in their application. We believe that clause 4(2) just about satisfies the legitimate concerns about post mortems, and enables the relatives to establish not only an individual's identity but how, when and where he or she died.
  The Bill seeks to bring some belated comfort to grieving families and relatives of "The Disappeared", and to encourage the IRA—having announced that it has located nine graves—finally, and after many years of waiting, to tell the families. Whatever our misgivings about the Bill, the families' wishes guide our approach to it—their wishes must be paramount. They want no more delay. As one family member recently put it:
  "We have been making funeral arrangements for three decades".
  On that basis, despite our deep reservations about the Bill, we shall do nothing today to impede its passage.
  5.1 pm
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: I promise that I shall be brief.
  Last week, I was told by a man in Northern Ireland whom I regard highly that one consequence of the Bill, intended or unintended, would be to give some protection to a senior IRA member who was involved in some of the killings and who is still active.
  I agree with much of what the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) said. He was absolutely right to say that the victims suffered the most horrendous torture and callous murder by brutal murderers claiming to be freedom fighters or defenders of the Union. Those freedom fighters and defenders were and are terrorists, because they conduct their so-called military campaigns in a mature and parliamentary democracy.
  This afternoon, together with the hon. Gentleman, I met Mrs. Margaret McKinney and another lady, whose father was brutally abducted and murdered and whose remains may well be located somewhere south of the border. If I had any doubts about the Bill—here is where I part company with the hon. Gentleman—they were dispelled when I met those two ladies. The Bill's objective, as the hon. Gentleman said, is to help families to give their loved ones a Christian burial.
  I told Mrs. McKinney that, as I come from a fishing family that has lost at sea family members whose bodies were never recovered, I have a glimmer—but only a glimmer—of their heartfelt wish to recover the bodies of their loved ones, so that they may provide them with a Christian burial. They want to place their loved ones in a family plot, so that they may visit the graves. I have some understanding of that supreme wish.
  I said that I would speak only briefly, and I shall honour that promise. However, I want to ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State a couple of questions. On the Bill's financial effects, the explanatory notes state that the commission will be allowed an upper limit of
  48
  £100,000 for its members to pursue their laudable objectives. I tell the Minister—my hon. and old Friend from the other side of the Clyde—that I should not want any type of financial restriction to be placed on the commission's activities.
  The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire repeated an allegation, which I have heard back home, that more than one victim is buried in Scotland. Can any credence be given to that? If so, I hope that the commission will receive every co-operation and assistance from the Scottish Office and others who may be able to help.
  In some ways, I find it difficult to support the Bill, but I remember what I heard at the meeting this afternoon about the needs and wishes of the people directly concerned. We have an obligation to those poor distressed people. We honour that obligation by passing the Bill.
  5.6 pm
  Mr. Ken Maginnis: I wonder whom the Bill is meant to benefit. I have the greatest sympathy for those who have lost loved ones and who, for two or three decades, have failed to discover the whereabouts of the bodies. I should very much like them to have their minds put at rest.
  To echo what the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) said, people in my family have been killed in time of war and the bodies have never found their way back to the local churchyard, but they are not forgotten. "The Disappeared" will not be forgotten either, but I have deep reservations that we are compromising the fundamental law, which is meant to protect society as a whole, to deal with a specific and tragic problem. I am even more concerned that those who will benefit most are those who have held society to ransom for the past 30 years.
  This is a moment to take stock. We are not considering the IRA exclusively, but it has the people with the information on the location of the bodies of "The Disappeared". We should look at their performance and response to all that society has tried to do over the past four years in particular. First, we had the Mitchell commission, which lasted for a year and produced a report. That was followed by two years of negotiations. Since the Stormont agreement was signed on 10 April 1998, another year has elapsed. Do Ministers believe that the measures that we are being asked to endorse will bring us one step closer to stability in Northern Ireland?
  I am not the only one to have grave reservations. Monsignor Denis Faul—a member of the Catholic community for whom I have the highest regard and to whom I refer not infrequently in the House—suggested at the time that he was not convinced of the sincerity of the announcement that nine bodies had been located. The activities of Sinn Fein-IRA since then make me suspect that he was probably wise to have had those deep reservations. With virtually everything that Sinn Fein-IRA have promised, or intimated, that they might deliver over the past four years, little has come to fruition. That deeply concerns me, and society as a whole in Northern Ireland.
  It is no secret that I am a wholehearted supporter of the Stormont agreement. If it is implemented in the spirit in which it was derived, Northern Ireland ultimately will be

  49
  a better place. However, I must acknowledge that many of my friends do not believe that, as I do. Many of us who believe and support the agreement have sacrificed the support and sometimes even the friendship of those who have been colleagues in the past. That is why I view what is happening here today with such gravity. If we are to pass a Bill which, in political terms, benefits exclusively Sinn Fein-IRA, we should examine the performance of that organisation—both the terrorist, active side and the paramilitary-linked political party, Sinn Fein.
  When George Mitchell examined the likelihood of peace being brought to Northern Ireland, he looked at the question of disarmament and posed a question that reflected his concern about republican and loyalist paramilitaries. He asked whether there was
  "a clear commitment on the part of those in possession of such arms to work constructively to achieve"
  —he did not use the word "address"—
  "full and verifiable decommissioning."
  He answered his own question by saying that he was convinced that that was the case, and that it was conditional only upon it being
  "part of the process of all-party negotiations."
  That report was available for everybody to see and there was no misunderstanding of the meaning. Sinn Fein-IRA knew exactly what Senator Mitchell meant. However, nobody could have given him that assurance about the paramilitaries except the paramilitary-linked political parties, Sinn Fein, and the various loyalist parties such as the Progressive Unionist party and the Ulster Democratic party. It was on that basis that those people sat within the negotiating process and were tolerated by those of us who found their presence disturbing, to put it mildly. However, we got an agreement.
  I do not believe that Senator Mitchell would have indulged in the nonsense of proposing that any party should commit itself to achieving disarmament or any other matter that was beyond the competence of that party. Yet from the time the agreement was signed a year ago, we have been through the mill again and again, trying to convince people nationally and internationally that disarmament was an integral part of the agreement.
  Members of Sinn Fein, who expect to put the godfather of godfathers—Martin McGuinness—in an Executive position, do not agree; they have argued that there was no obligation to disarm. In fact, a year ago they implied that they would disarm by 22 May 2000—two years after the referendum. We are halfway there now, but they are careful not to mention that date at present. Instead, they tell us that they were led to believe that all they had to do was to call a ceasefire and they would be admitted to Executive authority in the Government of Northern Ireland. They certainly were not led to believe that by any Member whom I have heard speaking in this House. That is not the case; it has never been the case—it was made clear, not only by Members of this House, but by people in the Irish Government and elsewhere, that guns could not be on the table, under the table or outside the door of the chamber of democracy.
  Through this Bill, we are pandering to Sinn Fein. Let me tell the House what the attitude of Sinn Fein was yesterday at its conference in Dublin. Francie Molloy, a
  50
  district councillor and senior Sinn Fein negotiator, gave a warning that republicans would not accept exclusion and would not hand over their weapons. He said:
  "If the SDLP, Dublin government and the Unionists think they can go about this"—
  that is the government of Northern Ireland—
  "without us, then we will make the six-county statelet ungovernable."
  Mr. Andrew Hunter rose—
  Mr. Maginnis: Francie Molloy is the same person who told us that, if members of the IRA did not get their way, they would go back to doing what they do best. I give way to the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter).
  Mr. Hunter: The hon. Gentleman has just made the point I had intended to make.
  Mr. Maginnis: It is always good to know that I answer questions before they are asked.
  The reality today is that we must consider whether to make a deal, even though its conditions are not properly defined, with the IRA. Have the Government received a total and unequivocal commitment from the IRA that, when this legislation is passed, those nine bodies will be delivered to their families? I do not believe that the Minister can give me an unequivocal assurance on that point.
  At present, many things are happening in Northern Ireland. We have a commission—led by Chris Patten, a former Member of the House—to consider the future of policing in Northern Ireland based on normality. His original mandate was based on what policing in Northern Ireland would be if normality were achieved. What has that been changed into? It has been changed into a demand by Sinn Fein-IRA that dominates our press: that the RUC should be disbanded. Everything we have heard from the IRA supports that view, including the ultimate of all statements from Father Desmond Wilson, who said that if one existing member of the RUC was recruited to a new police force, that police force would be unacceptable. What sort of accommodation, realism or concern for society as a whole does that display? None; nothing.
  I went to one of the public hearings of the Patten commission and I listened to the families of those who had committed the sort of atrocities that led to the deaths of "The Disappeared", and I heard them tell how their family members had been murdered—people who were killed carrying out a bomb and gun attack on Loughgall police station. I began to wonder whether I lived on the same plane as those people—I probably do not. They wondered why the police, if they knew that Loughgall was to be attacked, had not walked up, tapped the attackers on the shoulder and taken them into custody for their own safety. In effect, that was the view expressed. We all know what happens to our soldiers when they confront terrorists, because so many have died as a result of doing so.
  However, I suppose there was some virtue in all that, for during those hearings, the IRA overplayed its hand and revealed the nonsense of its arguments, not prior to the agreement but in its wake, when people were supposed to accommodate one another for the good of society. Society's interests had been discarded within the short

  51
  few months between the signing of the agreement and those public hearings. Sinn Fein-IRA recognised that they had oversold themselves and pleaded for the commission to hear them in private. Speaking on behalf of the Ulster Unionist party, I did not require or request a private hearing, but gave my evidence to the commission in public and made myself available to be questioned by the commissioners in public. Why did Sinn Fein-IRA need those private hearings? That must be carefully considered when Patten finally reports.
  Having oversold themselves, did Sinn Fein-IRA go away and rethink their obligation to society—not to Ken Maginnis or the Ulster Unionist party, but to the society they claim to represent and care for? On that subject let me ask, is there any evidence that Sinn Fein-IRA care even for their own tradition? I discovered quite recently that during the troubles, 190 IRA activists had been murdered—not killed carrying out illegal acts, but assassinated. Having heard a great deal about collusion, I expected most of them to have been killed by loyalist paramilitaries. Surprise, surprise, I found that although loyalist paramilitaries were responsible for murdering 26 of them, other IRA members were responsible for murdering 164 of those 190 IRA activists.
  Let us look at other figures that are available. Of the 1,543 Roman Catholics killed—I am ashamed that many were killed by people from my tradition who call themselves "loyalists"—381 were killed by republican paramilitaries. The combined total—which comprises the innocent and the guilty—killed by the RUC, the Ulster Defence Regiment, the Royal Irish Regiment and other Regular Army units was 316. In other words, more Roman Catholics were killed by republican paramilitaries than by the Army, the RUC and other legitimate forces combined. As we know, most were killed by the legitimate forces in their actions against terrorists.
  Mr. William Ross: Is my hon. Friend aware that Brendan "Speedy" Fegan, who was shot dead in Newry yesterday, would appear to be another addition to that total? As he lay dying, the alleged drug dealer said, "It was the Provies, it was the Provies."
  Mr. Maginnis: My hon. Friend is probably right: very few illegal activities in Newry are not controlled by the Provisional IRA. While I do not want to jump to conclusions, I have no doubt that Mr. Fegan would have known and been able to identify his attackers.
  I mention these issues, which are not related directly to the Bill, because of the specific understanding that somehow, those who are connected with militant republicanism can behave normally and can assimilate back into society. Many of us wish that such people were willing to do that and that we could move towards the new millennium in the way in which we have dreamed about for the past three decades. However, I hear nothing but propaganda from Sinn Fein-IRA. Having tried recently to pervert the work of the Patten commission—I am confident that they will not succeed—those same people are now claiming that the RUC and others are in collusion.
  I have been associated with the Royal Ulster Constabulary since about 1958, and I know that it is, and has been, in possession of very specific details about
  52
  militant terrorist activists on both sides of the community. If the RUC had colluded even half-effectively with one terrorist group or another, one might expect to have seen the top terrorists removed from society. We would have expected to see many terrorist leaders killed in the past 30 years. However, the figures that I have cited show that that is not so: in fact, few top terrorist leaders have been assassinated by the opposing side. The same is true of loyalist paramilitaries. About 30 per cent. of loyalist activists were killed by republicans and two thirds by their own loyalist paramilitary colleagues.
  One case that is receiving a great deal of publicity at the moment is that of a solicitor, Pat Finucane. I have dealt very publicly outside the House with Pat Finucane and the implications of all the activities of the Finucane family. Rather than go over that ground, I want to draw to the attention of the House the fact that during the terrorist period in Northern Ireland, a considerable number of people in the judiciary and the legal profession have been murdered.
  Three judges have been killed: Lord Justice Gibson, Judge Rory Conaghan and Judge William Doyle. Three resident magistrates have been attacked: William Staunton and William McBirnie were killed, and Mary Travers was killed while protecting her resident magistrate father, Tom Travers. Rory O' Kelly, a constituent of mine and a Crown prosecutor, was murdered, as was Edgar Graham, who was a friend of mine, a law lecturer and a very active member of my party. Last, but not least, solicitor John Donaldson was killed. I know that Rosemary Nelson was horrifically murdered recently, but I am referring to past murders, the last of which occurred in about 1987.
  Those nine murders were carried out by the IRA, yet I have not heard any of that band of professional, middle-class solicitors, who are now highlighting the Finucane case, ask whether there was any collusion when Lord Justice Gibson was killed on the very border while crossing from the Irish Republic into Northern Ireland. I have not heard any cry about whether Superintendents Breen or Buchanan, returning from a conference with the Garda Siochana, were killed as a result of collusion. In neither case am I questioning the integrity of the Garda Siochana—and just as I exercise that discretion, so I believe society must exercise discretion and judgment when people point the finger, in an organised and malicious way, at the Royal Ulster Constabulary.
  Those matters concern me when we propose to introduce a Bill that is tantamount to, if not technically, an amnesty for those who have committed murder. It is understandable that, in our sympathy for those who have suffered, we seek a solution, but we must do that not emotionally or in isolation, but while considering the interests of society as a whole.
  There will be those who will say to me after I have spoken, "Well, you agreed to the release of prisoners." Reluctantly, I did so, but those prisoners have been brought before the courts and convicted, their sentences have been determined and those who are released early will serve the outstanding part of their sentence on licence. Murderers are on licence for the rest of their lives. That is an accommodation. I believe that the Bill is a travesty and it would be wrong of me not to point out those facts to right hon. and hon. Members.
  I remember that in that past, we heard a great clamour to get Sinn Fein-IRA back on our television screens. People told us that if only they were back on the air,

  53
  the presenters, the interlocutors and those who produce programmes would put Sinn Fein-IRA to the sword, would test them and would reveal the true nature of terrorism. Where have all the people who said that gone? The terrorists are treated by Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office with greater courtesy than elected Members of Parliament, and the same is true of presenters on television. There is no reality attached to the enormity of the crimes that those terrorists have committed.
  There is no real need for the Bill except that Sinn Fein-IRA have the knife into society in Northern Ireland and further afield, and if they can twist it further they will do so. [Interruption.] The Minister will excuse me if I tell him that I would prefer it if he did not mutter his obscenities under his breath. If he wants to intervene, he may do so.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is an experienced Member and he knows that we do not tolerate that sort of thing in the House. There was no question of obscenities.
  Mr. Maginnis: I think it is obscene when a Minister thinks more of those who have committed crimes against society than of his colleagues in this House, who are elected and who seek to represent the views of their constituents. Muttering under the breath is irksome, to say the least, but I take your point, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  We are none of us experts in forensic science, but hon. Members know enough to know that if the IRA were genuine in wanting to meet the needs of those families who have suffered, we would not require this legislation. What possible forensic evidence could be gleaned after 30 years? Well, we might get some details about the extent to which the victims were tortured, their limbs broken and their bodies disfigured before they were disposed of.
  Dr. Godman: I have listened to the hon. Gentleman in silence and I have not been muttering. Does he intend to divide the House on the Bill? He mentioned all those terrible murders of legal representatives by members of the IRA, but does he accept that there are profound differences in the circumstances surrounding the murder of Robert Hamill and the dreadful murders of those legal representatives?
  Mr. Maginnis: My apologies; I am not sure that I picked up everything that the hon. Gentleman said to me. I shall try to answer him in so far as I heard what he said.
  I believe that every killing is wrong. I believe that murders often take place in widely differing circumstances. The death of Robert Hamill—about which I shall provide the hon. Gentleman with a great deal of detail in the not too distant future—had nothing to do with neglect by the RUC of its duties. The RUC extricated Robert Hamill from where he was being beaten by a mob of loyalist thugs and saw him off to hospital, where his injuries—I need to be fairly careful what I say—would not have led to his death if they had been properly diagnosed and treated. I do not want to enlarge on that now, but that is the reality, because on the same night, a son of a councillor colleague of mine was beaten up and much more severely injured and, thanks to good medical care in the same hospital—
  Mr. William Ross: At the same time.
  Mr. Maginnis: Indeed, at the same time. Thankfully, he survived. Therefore, we need to be very cautious about
  54
  believing the republicans' propaganda tales. I believe that if someone—the Minister could do it—obtained and made public the radio messages that were passed by the police that night, a great deal of light would be shed on Mr. Hamill's tragic death.
  I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde touched on the points that I made about lawyers who were clamouring for an inquiry.
  Dr. Godman: One question that I asked was whether the hon. Gentleman intended to divide the House on the Bill.
  Mr. Maginnis: I do not intend, if but a handful of Members are prepared to vote against the Bill, to divide the House. In fact, I certainly do not intend to do so. I gather from what the Conservative spokesman has said that the Conservatives intend to abstain. I had hoped, in so far as they have quite vociferously condemned the release of prisoners, that they would give us a lead on this—I believe much more serious—issue. If they gave us a lead, I would be happy to vote against the Bill, but, as the hon. Gentleman knows, there is not much point in the small number of Northern Ireland Members of Parliament pitting themselves against the serried ranks of Labour Members.
  I had hoped that there might have been a little bit of sympathy for society as a whole, instead of the self-satisfied looks on the face of one or two members of the Government. The Government know that they can force the Bill through Parliament by weight of numbers, without any serious opposition. I had hoped that they would have considered the implications of what is being enacted as carefully as I am trying to consider them.
  I have made my feelings clear. For 30 years the House has sought to make accommodation with those who cannot and will not be accommodated. I sought to do that as a publicly elected representative. I have hoped against hope that at some time people would realise the futility of it all. However, I believe that we won part of the argument. There is now little doubt that the Irish Government have on many issues, including disarmament, a conviction not far removed from mine. On this issue, however, I believe that they are wrong. They are creating an accommodation for Sinn Fein-IRA that will be hurled back in their teeth.
  I will be delighted if the victims of violence, the families of "The Disappeared", are able to give a Christian burial to their family members as a result of the Bill. However, I must caution again and again that accommodation with those who will not accept accommodation is a futile exercise and merely brings demands for more and more, which is not in the interests of society as a whole. Further demands merely help those involved to keep their evil grip on areas within Northern Ireland where they have dominated by gun, bomb and threat for three decades.
  5.46 pm
  Mr. John McDonnell: In the short time that I have been a Member of this place and listened to debates on Northern Ireland, I have become accustomed to the wide circuit of issues that we go through despite whatever we are debating. I understand that. It is part of the process of coming to terms with the

  55
  future and part of the process of coming to terms with the past and securing peace. However, sometimes I wish that we were not reliving every day the vendettas of the past.
  I shall refer specifically to the Bill and to its implementation, and especially to clause 5. I shall be brief. I am concerned to hear from my hon. Friend the Minister concretely what he envisages as the next steps in the implementation of the Bill. Sometimes these debates become not heated, but perhaps angry. Throughout debates on Northern Ireland over the past two years, and especially during the most difficult period, the Minister and the ministerial team, far from muttering obscenities, have been courtesy itself to right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House and to all sections of the communities of the Six Counties. As a result of that skilled diplomacy and courtesy, we have been able to weld together the peace process so far.
  On clause 5, and with regard to the next stages, who will be the agents of the Independent Commission for the Location of Victims' Remains? We are to establish it, as my right hon. Friend the Minister has said, with a budget of about £100,000. We need to consider carefully who will be responsible for the detailed undertaking of the implementation of the commission's wishes.
  The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) has raised allegations of collusion in the past, allegations which have some currency and in some instances some accuracy. It is important that, as we implement the proposed legislation, we guard against any potential for even an allegation of collusion that may put lives at risk.
  What powers will the commission have over its agents, the staff who will be implementing the detail of the legislation, and what security will be in place, particularly for the protection of information that will be supplied as a result of this measure? I am concerned about clause 5 because the security of the information given is important. The providing of information may put further lives at risk on all sides. I am anxious under clause 5 because, there are no penalties for those who disseminate information who have no authority to do so, or who may wish to undermine the process on which we are embarking. This is not a sectarian point, because information may be forthcoming from all sides of the different traditions within the Six Counties. Therefore it is important that we give security to those who provide information. We must ensure that those who are charged with implementing the legislation are properly controlled and managed, and that, where necessary, penalties are levied against them. On all sides there is the danger of collusion.
  It is important that we put aside recriminations and past vendettas. The question has been asked about the prime motivation for the Bill. As my right hon. Friend the Minister said, the prime motivation is to ensure that those people who have lost loved ones will now be able to bury them, further come to terms with their grief and their loss, and move forward in their communities. Those families are the prime beneficiaries, and there may well be secondary beneficiaries, as we have heard.
  I support the Bill and wish it good speed. It is an important step forward in the peace process, and one of the confidence-building measures to which we have
  56
  looked forward for so long. However, it is critical that we hear from my right hon. Friend in detail how security will be provided to all sides when the Bill is implemented.
  5.51 pm
  Mr. Andrew Hunter: I profoundly disagree with the conclusion of the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell). I shall return to that in a moment.
  I listened with interest to the contribution of the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis). I regret that he and I have not entirely agreed on every aspect of Northern Ireland affairs in recent months, but on this issue we can find appreciable common ground.
  I appreciated the Minister's comments on the fact that the debate clashed with the visit of the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs to the United States. That was most unfortunate. I was one of the members of the Committee, and the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) is another, who decided to be present for this debate, rather than go to the United States. The Committee understands that the Government felt obliged to keep to a strict timetable. I do not agree with that, but I accept that it is a legitimate position for the Government to take and acknowledge the reason for the Government proceeding with the debate at this time.
  I listened carefully to the Minister introducing the Bill. He said that the Government were motivated with good intention and that the Bill was a wholly humanitarian gesture. With respect, I disagree with the right hon. Gentleman. I believe that his intentions are misdirected, mistaken and misplaced. I fear that this is an obnoxious and dangerous Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) used the word "odious". I would not quarrel with him in that respect.
  The Bill is the antithesis of many of the values that the House exists to protect and promote. Under the provisions of the Bill, the political wish of the Executive further compromises and undermines the independent operation of the judicial process. The House should not accept that. Moreover, the fact that the Government are introducing the measure and that the Government of the Republic of Ireland are shortly to introduce a similar measure is a stark and gruesome illustration of the truth that the process of appeasement corrupts the appeasers.
  Civilised society is underpinned by core values, which we compromise or abandon at our peril. We are doing so with the Bill. Those values include the absolute rule of law, a judicial process that is free from political interference, and genuinely accountable democratic structures. Each of those values has been compromised in Northern Ireland as a direct consequence of Government policy and is being further compromised by the Bill. With the Bill, I fear, we plumb new depths.
  Northern Ireland is now a society in which morality and justice are twisted in the cause of political expediency. We delude ourselves if we think that a stable society can be built on such foundations. The Bill draws us deeper into the moral vacuum that we have created in Northern Ireland. It marks further inroads by the state into what should be the independence of the judicial process.
  Mr. Ingram: The hon. Gentleman is expressing his strong opposition to the Bill. If not through the Bill, how

  57
  would he bring about the return of the victims' bodies to their families? What measures would he prefer to be put in place, if not this measure?
  Mr. Hunter: I gave way to the Minister because of his Front-Bench position, and I note what he says. If I had a say in the matter, we would not be where we now are. My answer is that the process of law must operate independently of political interference, and in no case should politicians create circumstances that diminish the likelihood of prosecution. That is what the Bill, as I see it, achieves.
  Mr. Ingram: Can the hon. Gentleman then tell the House why he did not oppose the Bill on the decommissioning of illegally held weapons? That was a similar measure containing similar precepts. He did not oppose that Bill, but he is arguing strongly against this one. If I remember correctly, he supported the then Government—his Government—on that measure.
  Mr. Hunter: The Minister's observation is factually correct, but he may not be aware of the internal debate that accompanied that Bill—the attempts to dissuade that I and a number of my colleagues made. However, that Bill passed, and as the right hon. Gentleman correctly says, I did not vote against it. He will also acknowledge that on other measures, I did. Perhaps he is aware of the complexities of trying to influence Government.
  Let me make a comparative and illustrative point. Some of us have consistently argued that there is no justification whatever for the early release of terrorist prisoners. We maintain that it is morally wrong for others to argue that acts of violence are less serious if they are committed with political motives, and their perpetrators therefore can be treated more leniently. Early release, we maintain, has undermined and continues to undermine the rule of law, the bedrock of civilised society.
  Terrorism triumphed when the two Governments advocated early release and the political parties signed up to it. With this Bill, as the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone said, the Government are trying to go a stage further. Until now, they have asked us to accept only that terrorists who have been convicted of murder and other hideous crimes should be released early. Now the Government ask us to accept that in specified circumstances use will not be made of certain evidence that might help to secure the conviction of terrorist murderers.
  With this Bill, the Executive seek to acquire further powers to tamper with the judicial process. The Executive—in addition to the powers that they already have to disregard, for political reasons, sentences passed by the courts—now, also for political reasons, want powers to ensure that, in specified circumstances, incriminating evidence, which might secure the conviction of terrorist murderers, cannot be used. That is an intolerable intrusion by the Government and one that the House should resist. Parliament should not grant the Executive such powers.
  I see the Bill as merely the latest obscene landmark that the Government have placed in the way of a process that was publicly launched with the Downing street declaration in December 1993—a process that I supported under the Conservative Government. After the then Prime
  58
  Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), had made his statement on the Downing street declaration to the House, I asked him, with precisely such developments as the Bill in mind, for an assurance that there would be
  "no let-up in the hunt for those that perpetrated terrorism".—/,[Official Report, 15 December 1993; Vol. 234, c. 1080.]
  He gave such an assurance. The Bill is yet another example of how the present Government's policies towards Northern Ireland have departed from those of the previous Government and why some of us have little, if any, confidence in their handling of Northern Ireland affairs.
  I, too, have the deepest sympathy for the families, relations and close friends of "The Disappeared". I understand their grief. I certainly understand the wish of many of those people that the remains of "The Disappeared" should be transferred to consecrated ground and reburied with religious rites, but that desirable end does not justify these means.
  In Northern Ireland, democracy, decency and justice have been sacrificed for an agreement that does not remotely excise from society the belief in violence or the practice of violence. This measure corrodes and corrupts further; it further undermines the rule of law; it further extends political intervention in the judicial process; and it goes some way towards absolving murder and thereby diminishes the value of human life. That is not the route to follow if we want to establish stability and lasting peace in the Province.
  6.2 pm
  Mr. Peter Robinson: The hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) referred to the Downing street declaration. My views on it are on the record of the proceedings of this House, but I have often contended publicly that one aspect of that agreement made common sense: if terrorists want to be part of the democratic process, it is up to them to leave violence behind, to enter the democratic process on the same basis as everyone else, to be exclusively committed to peaceful and democratic means and to end their violence permanently.
  That is what paragraph 10 of the Downing street declaration said, but, in the months and years that have passed, the terrorist has not come to play by the rules of democracy. The democrats have had to lower their standards to the level of the terrorists. Today, the House once again finds itself introducing unprincipled, dangerous and —as the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) said —odious legislation.
  May I enter part of the discussion that has been taking place? I do not think that the Minister is taking a giant leap from the release of prisoners and decommissioning legislation with this Bill. Its underlying principles are very much the same and, if one only looks at the short-term outcomes, one could even argue that it might be less problematic than the others, to the extent that there could be an upside —the long agony of those who have been waiting to hear something about the discovery of the remains of their loved ones might be lifted.
  Each of us would find it difficult to understand the anguish of people in such a situation, but I ask the Minister to think again about the long-term danger of this kind of appeasing legislation. The Bill clearly sets a

  59
  precedent, though I know that people will say, "Only for Northern Ireland." There will be a precedent none the less within Northern Ireland. Effectively, we are saying that there will be an amnesty —albeit in this limited area —for those who have carried out offences that have resulted in the death of individuals in the Province.
  I remember the signing of the Belfast agreement in April 1998. When pressed about the long list of concessions that were being made to Sinn Fein-IRA, the Prime Minister told us that the concession process was at an end, but, ever since, the concession process has been prominent in this so-called peace process. We are told by the Government that they are creating the necessary conditions for peace, and the Minister has told us that again today. Much of the apologia in the documentation handed out by the Government —the notes on clauses and so on —says that all the concessions may be hard for us to stomach, but they are necessary if we are to build a credible peace process.
  Can anybody show me where is the reciprocity within this process? What has Provisional IRA —and its fellow traveller, Provisional Sinn Fein —given to this process? Are we to thank them because, in name, they have called a ceasefire? As the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) said earlier, the dying words of a man last night identified the Provisional IRA as his killer.
  The Provisional IRA clearly has not lived up to what was expected by its fellow signatories to the Belfast agreement. The Government are creating evidence of the success of the terrorist organisations within Northern Ireland —effectively, they have been rewarded for their violence and can get away with murder. We have a terrible situation in which all we need to hear is a threat from the leader of a terror gang or one of his political spokespersons and the Government are running to appease them.
  Churchill was right when he said that an appeaser is a person who feeds a crocodile in the vain hope that it will eat him last. Over the past number of days, the Prime Minister has seen the teeth of that crocodile as it begins to move towards his hind quarters. His concessions to the IRA are appeasement of the worst possible kind —short-term payments to the ransom demands of the IRA. They will not build real and lasting peace, they cannot buy peace and they are destroying the genuine hopes of Ulster people for a peaceful future.
  Look at what has happened in Northern Ireland over the past 12 months: the Government have sought to create the conditions for peace by letting terrorist killers and bombers out of jail, by reducing the number of British troops in Northern Ireland and by turning a blind eye to the callous and multiple punishment beatings in Northern Ireland carried out by the terrorist organisations —and turn a blind eye they have. The Secretary of State has a power to stop prisoner releases if she considers that any of the organisations that the Chief Constable has publicly said are carrying out those punishment beatings are guilty of such crimes.
  The Government have also been establishing an international policing commission, which has effectively demoralised RUC members and will undoubtedly undermine the RUC when it eventually gives the results of its findings. They have established a human rights
  60
  commission, which consists of nationalists, their political representatives and those sympathetic to the republican and nationalist cause. None of its members represent the Unionist community.
  The Government have never insisted that the IRA decommission in order to be part of a Northern Ireland Government. I understand that today, a German magazine quotes the Prime Minister as reassuring republicans that words alone will be enough to satisfy him of their commitment to peace. Last year, the Prime Minister pledged that he would not let armed gunmen into the Northern Ireland Government. At the weekend, we were told that it is expected that the leader of the Provisional IRA, its supremo, who sat around a table while many of the odious deeds referred to in the Bill were carried out —everybody knows that he was the commander of the IRA —will be a Minister if Sinn Fein find entry into the Northern Ireland Government. He will be a Minister without ever having apologised for the Provisional IRA's deeds under his leadership, and without the least apology to the people of Northern Ireland for the decades of mayhem that they have had to endure.
  Today, we have before us another act of appeasement to the IRA. It is being bandied about as another confidence-building measure, a necessity on the road to peace. However, the Bill is nothing less than an up-front payment of another instalment in the IRA's ransom demand.
  The Belfast agreement promised us a "new beginning" and told us that peace was on the way. We were told that concessions to the IRA had all been worth it because the promised peace was here at last, yet just a year later, the British Government are engaged in another round of concessions to the IRA. The Belfast agreement is no doubt the master, but like all masters, it has slaves. The Prime Minister is undoubtedly one of those, slavishly devoted to a master plan that is not bringing about peace, but is capable only of bringing about IRA demands for a united Ireland.
  The Government must stop the pretence that they have a peace deal and face the reality that they must cease the endless conveyor belt of concessions to terrorism. Whether the Minister wants to face up to it or not, the Bill is an amnesty for those terrorists who were never caught, whose files remain open and who want accreditation from the Government that they will never face prosecution for their terrible crimes against humanity. Indeed, I note from paragraph 9 of the notes on clauses that the Government talk about the Bill providing protection for those people. Thus, this is a Bill to provide protection to terrorists, murderers and those guilty of the heinous crimes that we have seen throughout the decades of troubles.
  The irony of the Bill is that it comes at a time when this nation is engaged in a war in the Balkans. The Government tell us that we are there for "humanitarian purposes". The Prime Minister says that those who have breached the human rights of the Kosovo refugees face prosecution, yet in his own back yard, he asks us to agree to legislation that will expunge the guilt of those who murdered men, women and children in Northern Ireland, who kidnapped and who destroyed life, and who unceremoniously dumped bodies in unmarked graves, perpetrating an anguish untold on the families of so many in Northern Ireland.

  61
  How often have we been told over the years from the Dispatch Box that the Government will make every possible effort to ensure that people are brought to justice? They have said that terrorists will be hunted down. It is now abundantly clear that they have changed their minds.
  Mr. Ingram: The hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) did not answer the question that I posed to him about how we could recover those bodies and help those families if not by means of this Bill. Can the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) address his mind to that point? If not by means of this Bill, how, other than by his rhetoric, will he recover those bodies?
  Mr. Robinson: That question shows the moral decline of the Government. It assumes that it is society's responsibility to put right the wrongs of the terrorists. It is the terrorists who are responsible for "The Disappeared", so it is for them to say where the graves are. It is not for society to make concessions to the terrorists in order that they might do so. The question shows how the Government have declined over the past years and are now pandering to terrorists —give the terrorists what they want in order that they might give something back to society.
  Mr. Ingram: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that we should just continue to hope that the people who carried out those murders will eventually own up to their crimes? They have not done so for 30 years and they are unlikely to do so now. It is also unlikely that we could make them amenable to their crimes because we do not have the evidence. If the hon. Gentleman has evidence that would allow those people to be made amenable, he can, of course, pass it to the RUC. It does not stop any one of those who have carried out those acts being brought to justice. I urge the hon. Gentleman to address his mind to that. This measure deals with limited immunity; it is not an amnesty.
  Mr. Robinson: That is the same nonsensical principle that the Minister enunciated in terms of decommissioning. He argued that we could not get the guns off those people unless we had this kind of legislation. The reality is that we did not require the terrorists to give up their guns. If the terrorists wanted to enter the democratic process, they should have abided by the rules of democracy, otherwise they should have been left outside the process and should not have had it both ways.
  Again, the Minister asks what we are to do to discover the graves of "The Disappeared". The finger of responsibility points directly and only at the terrorist organisations that are responsible. It does not point towards the rest of society. The rest of society has a duty, if it has information that could lead the security forces to the unmarked graves, to pass it on. Indeed, the Minister must accept that even if the Bill is passed, even after the knee-jerk reaction, we shall still need information in order to discover the location of the bodies of "The Disappeared". After its so-called 18-month investigation, the IRA has been able to indicate only a limited number, and time alone will tell whether information comes forward.
  However, there is no guarantee and this is a futile stab in the dark. The Government are acting like a puppet on a string, being pulled and pushed this way and that by the
  62
  IRA, while the IRA laughs and guffaws at the Government's weakness and ineptitude. Look at the lies that the IRA has already told. One moment it claims to have divulged information and the next it retracts it. This legislation exonerates the terrorists. It contains no punitive measure, no condemnation and no punishment for their now sanitised "unlawful acts". The commission that will be established is just a sop to the Provisional IRA. The lawful security forces are not even to be entrusted with, or given control of, these matters. Another so-called independent agency is to be established that will cost taxpayers thousands of pounds for endless searches and blindfolded goose chases. Look at the millions of pounds of taxpayers' money that has already been wasted on the arms decommissioning body, and for no tangible benefit. The Government are throwing good money after bad.
  The spokesman for the official Opposition, the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire, said earlier in our debate that the Bill tells us much about the inhumanity of the terrorists. I have to say that it also tells us a lot about the depths to which the Government are sinking in terms of appeasing the provisional IRA.
  It is exceedingly difficult truly to understand the torment of the families of "The Disappeared". They should never have been put in that position. Let the House be very clear: it is the IRA's responsibility to undo the evil that it has done —it is not the responsibility of the House or of society.
  6.20 pm
  Mr. Lembit Öpik: I apologise for my slightly late arrival for the debate. A certain little local difficulty in Cardiff has been occupying my mind, and it continues to be a labour of love.
  The Liberal Democrats cautiously support the Bill. Like many hon. Members, we have some reservations about it. I am uncomfortable about some of the restrictions that the Bill will impose. Its approach is similar to that taken on forensic testing for decommissioned weapons, so a precedent exists. Many people did not like that approach, but it was required to move the peace process on, and the work on decommissioning is still in progress.
  It is paramount that the remains of the victims are found and returned to their relatives. That is what the families want, and it is the humane thing to do. The fact that the legislation is needed shows how cynical the paramilitaries have been about "The Disappeared", and about the peace process in Northern Ireland as a whole. The location of the graves should have been divulged long ago without any need for legislation. That would have ended many decades of anguish, pain and heartache for the families, and would have been seen as a confidence-building measure by the paramilitaries.
  The IRA showed its contempt by releasing a statement at the end of March in which it said that it had located the graves of nine people who had been murdered by the organisation, but did not reveal the location of the remains. It seems to think that its cause is more important than the feelings of people in Northern Ireland. It was a bitter and cruel blow for the families to have their hopes built up and then dashed again.
  We are not trying to appease the terrorists: we are trying to do something for the families. The paramilitaries could have ended their suffering if they had wanted to. The fact that the British and Irish Governments found it

  63
  necessary to introduce this legislation is a sad and damning indictment of the cynical attitude of the paramilitaries.
  Mr. Swayne: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise the contradiction inherent in his position? He accuses the terrorists of being cynical, yet he supports a measure that rewards their cynicism. He said that the return of the bodies was paramount. However hard a truth it may be to accept, does he not realise that the rule of law and righteousness is paramount?
  Mr. Öpik: The hon. Gentleman's point is at the heart of the argument about which side one takes. We are not granting a victory to the paramilitaries. We are trying to right a terrible wrong and to alleviate the continuing suffering of people who want to know where their deceased relatives have been buried or where their remains are located. We could take the intransigent position described by the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) that this is solely about whether the paramilitaries gain a victory. I choose not to take that position. As the Minister explained in his introductory comments, the Bill focuses on the victims rather than on the paramilitaries.
  The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) questioned the sense of hoping for any act of good faith from the paramilitaries. I understand his scepticism, not least because he is well versed in the feelings of people who have experienced loss and unbelievable suffering at the hands of the paramilitaries. I do not belittle his position, but I beg the House to remember that the people at the centre of this issue have given the strong impression that they support what we are trying to do.
  It is my understanding that the families of "The Disappeared" have welcomed the Bill. They have said that they would agree to a great deal to get the victims' remains back. It depends on what one thinks is more important: the return of victims' remains to their families so that they can be given a proper burial and the long suffering can be put to an end, or the potential for a conviction and the avoidance of any hint of a precedent being set. My judgment is that the families of the victims are more important than the tenuous justification of not setting a precedent. Other hon. Members are entitled to take a different view: I am expressing the view of my party. I ask those who take a different view to consider seriously whether they have understood the feelings of the families who want the return of the victims' remains.
  The hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) said that appeasement corrupts the appeasers. I am not sure whether I agree with that in general terms, but I do not think that the Bill constitutes appeasement. It could more accurately be said of the Bill that the process of conciliation empowers the conciliators. The Bill is not about appeasement; it is about compassion. It is not about the killers, but about the victims.
  I take issue with the hon. Member for Basingstoke, because, as other hon. Members have implied, the approach that he is taking is different from that taken by the Bill. The evidence suggests that his negative attitude towards the peace process has not been vindicated.
  64
  Although enormous difficulties are still ahead of us, there has been some degree of success. Some of the doubts expressed in the House have not been borne out in practice.
  The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) said that the Bill was unprincipled and dangerous. I doubt whether it is easy to characterise it as unprincipled. I have to believe in the Government's good intentions. I do not see what unprincipled motive could be ascribed to them in introducing the Bill. Perhaps it is a little dangerous and perhaps there is a risk, but we must recognise that there are risks for both sides as we move forward with such measures.
  There must be some give on both sides. I agree with the hon. Member for Belfast, East that there has been precious little give by the paramilitaries. The Bill provides them with an important opportunity to show a modicum of humanity by releasing the information so desperately wanted by the families of the victims. We may be proved wrong, and if no action is taken as a result of the Bill, hon. Members who doubt that the Bill will do any good will have been proved right. We must let history decide, and I am willing to take a risk and lay the responsibility entirely at the door of the paramilitaries.
  The IRA has kept the locations of the victims' remains to itself and has disregarded the human rights of the relatives. The Families of "The Disappeared" group has welcomed the Bill, because it hopes that it will bring an end to the great suffering. The families have suffered a terrible injustice. Not knowing where one's relatives are buried is something that I would not wish on anyone. I can hardly believe that there are people who think that that promoted their cause or did anything other than condemn the organisations that carried out the killings. Let us remember that we are doing this for the families of "The Disappeared". They have been clear that they want us to respect their wishes.
  The Bill is not the ideal outcome, but nothing is ideal about the subject that we are debating. I should have liked the paramilitaries to act without any pressure and any conditions. The Bill should not be necessary, but we must deal with the real world and take the opportunity that we have before us. Without some movement by us, there will not be much chance of movement by the IRA, which will continue to hold the victims' families to ransom. That cannot be allowed to happen.
  The Minister said that this was a "wholly humanitarian gesture", and that is probably a genuine and correct aspiration on the Government's part. I do not think that there is anything for us to celebrate in the Bill, which we debate to the distant beat of a funeral drum; but I feel that a grief that, perhaps, we must all merely say we respect without being able to appreciate it fully is sufficient justification for us to act, even if that involves the small risk of a precedent that could prove problematic in the future.
  As the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) rightly said, we are discussing gruesome acts, and what tragedies and crimes are concealed in the soil of Northern Ireland hardly bear thinking about. What a step it would be, however —albeit a small step —for us to pass the Bill, if it will end so much suffering in Northern Ireland. Another small step would be taken if, following the Bill's passage, the paramilitaries responded in kind and ended that great suffering. In effect, they have robbed

  65
  people of the opportunity to grieve. I accept that risks are involved, but perhaps after this debate the paramilitaries will find the decency to give them back that opportunity.
  6.31 pm
  Mr. William Ross: The divisions of opinion in the House, which are widespread, have already been made fairly clear.
  The Minister said that the Bill's purpose was to facilitate location of the remains of people who have been tortured and murdered by the IRA and buried in secret, and to restore them to their relatives so that their concern might be alleviated. My hon. Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) said that that was the responsibility of IRA-Sinn Fein in any event. He also said that the IRA was simply twisting the knife. I note that the IRA is twisting the knife and being well paid for it —rather better paid than the soldiers and members of the RUC who were active in Londonderry on 30 January 1972, to whom no prospect of immunity will be available should they give evidence against allegations that are now widespread.
  Bereavement is, of course, always a painful experience, and those who are closest to the deceased always experience a sense of emptiness and desolation. That is what happens when a loved one passes away. The misery is multiplied when the death is unexpected, and there is no time to prepare for the loss of a family member or close friend. Most of us must come to terms with such an event at some time in our lives, but, when the unexpected tragedy is the consequence of an accident —and, above all, when murder has been the means of removing a family member —bitter anger is added to the grief. Such horrors have been visited on literally thousands of families in Northern Ireland and, indeed, Great Britain during the past 30 years by terrorist organisations which, in the pursuit of political and constitutional change with the aim of dismembering the kingdom, have used murder as the principal means of intimidation.
  Those of us who have the honour of representing Northern Ireland constituencies have visited many homes that have been torn apart by this wickedness, and have observed —indeed, on occasion have partaken in —the suffering of the families concerned. We are, therefore, not unaware of the feelings of men, women and children in such circumstances. The misery that has confronted us in such homes will live with us for the rest of our lives. Following our visits, bereaved relatives have come to us for help with compensation and other payments, and with numerous problems that have flowed directly from the murders that have torn their families apart.
  When I came to consider the Bill, I had those experiences —gained over 25 years as a Member of Parliament —to guide me to my conclusions. Furthermore, I have always lived in an area that is predominantly Roman Catholic, and, over the years, I have visited the homes of adherents of that religion as well as my own when friends and neighbours have died. The House will know —and, given your background, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you will know better than most —that Irish wakes, in Great Britain and further afield, have acquired the music-hall image of alcohol-imbibing parties; but that is far from the truth. Such events provide an opportunity for neighbours and friends to express sympathy and regret to the family, and, in the homes of deceased Roman
  66
  Catholics, to offer prayers. It is the religious element that pervades those dwellings between the death and the funeral, no matter what caused the death.
  I am also well aware of the importance that the Roman Catholic population attaches to the attendance of a priest at the time of death. When I read that the family of one of the unfortunates who have been tortured and murdered by the IRA are desperate for the remains to be returned so that they can give them a decent burial, I feel sure that the lack of the rites of the Church at the time of death is one of the factors that weigh most heavily with those relatives. To members of the Roman Catholic Church, that is an important aspect of their religion. As a member of the reformed tradition, I would attach much less importance to the attendance of a churchman at the death bed.
  It is against that background that I come to the Bill: a background of knowledge of members of the faith, many of whom have been employers and employees of my family in the past with whom I have grieved over the death of a loved one. I must say immediately that I consider this to be, in many respects, the most offensive Bill that I have ever seen.
  I ask the House to consider the circumstances in which the people now known as "The Disappeared" died. The term "Disappeared" is, I believe, of South American origin, and refers to the victims of regimes there. The root of the term is that those who died were killed by the Government and their agents, and that those killed and buried secretly in unknown graves were democrats seeking relief from the excesses of South American regimes.
  That does not apply to the victims of the IRA. Indeed, nothing could be further from the truth in their case. With the exception of Captain Robert Nairac, they have all been civilians who angered the IRA for one reason or another. The IRA, of course, is a terrorist organisation committed to the destruction of the United Kingdom, and to using violence to achieve that. According to the IRA, all those victims were arrested, questioned, tried and executed for crimes allegedly committed against the IRA and its objectives. The first three terms, however, are simply euphemisms for being kidnapped, being tortured in the most foul and brutal fashion—in some cases, until death —and being brought before a kangaroo group of vile thugs, and at best being informed that they were guilty of crimes against the Irish nation. There was no defence lawyer and no independent jury, and there were no independent witnesses. Fourthly, the victims were sentenced to death without appeal, then taken out and murdered, or possibly simply shot on the spot. When that was over, their mutilated bodies were taken away and buried.
  Those are the vilest of crimes, which deserve the condemnation of every citizen —and, indeed, have been condemned by every citizen except members of the IRA and their apologists. Moreover, I believe that those who committed such crimes should be pursued to the end of their days in an effort to bring them to trial and impose just punishment. That is the normal standard in this country, and in every civilised state. If such crimes were committed in the United States, it would not be a question of Congress passing legislation to get the perpetrators off; they would be on death row, and would stay there until they were executed. Not only is that the normal standard in this country but the House of Commons, with the

  67
  enthusiastic support of the Labour party, created a law which allows us, 50 years after the event, to bring before the courts those who butchered the unfortunates who dared to oppose Hitler.
  The present Government are co-operating with Spain over the detention and extradition of General Pinochet. We have listened to the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister on the subjects of Kosovo and Brick lane. The Prime Minister drew a parallel between the fight to defeat "injustice and intolerance" at home and NATO's battle against ethnic cleansing in Kosovo:
  "The values we are fighting for are the same values: the right to live in freedom from fear, whatever your race or religion."
  He said:
  "When defenceless people are butchered by Milosevic in Kosovo, young men murdered, women violated, it is an outrage against the very values of humanity which are the world's only salvation. We must act to stop it."
  He went on to say:
  "This is not a battle for NATO, this is not a battle for territory, this is a battle for humanity. It is a just cause".
  He said later:
  "As far as the eye could see, a queue of humanity stretches through no man's land to Kosovo. I felt an anger, a loathing, of what Milosevic's policy stands for, so powerful, that I pledged to them as I pledge to you now: Milosevic and his hideous racial genocide will be defeated."
  With regard to the nail bombing in Brick lane and elsewhere in London, the Home Secretary told us:
  "This is a terrible outrage committed by people with no humanity. I know that the police are devoting huge efforts to find the perpetrators."
  The Prime Minister delivered a powerful condemnation of the same bombing, declaring that an attack on a single community was an attack on Britain as a whole:
  "when the gay community is attacked and innocent people are murdered, all the good people of Britain, whatever their race, their lifestyle, their class, unite in revulsion and determination to bring evil people to justice."
  He called for
  "the decent majority in society to take a stand against prejudice and bigotry."
  He said:
  "On the face of it, it is a long way from Soho, Brick Lane and Brixton to Kosovo. But they are linked by the battle against bigotry and hatred —a battle of values."
  That is what the Bill comes down to.
  In all those instances, the nation claims, through our top Ministers, to believe in the rule of law, and expresses its determination to see it applied despite the costs in trade, the blood of our fighting men and the treasure involved, yet the Bill continues down the path of undermining the rule of law, which was so well begun by the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 and the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997.
  The latter Act is costing £90,000 per month —the total cost so far is, I think, £2 million —for no weapons. It introduced the abhorrent principle —and it is abhorrent —that evidence as to the identity of murderers and other criminals that is uncovered in the operation of the Act could not be used in evidence in court. Clause 3 builds
  68
  on that hideous principle. It prohibits the admissibility of evidence that is found during the recovery of a body where such evidence would be useful to the prosecution.
  It does not stop there. Any evidence that would help the defence of such people could be used in court. In other words, half truths —a fancy name for lies —are now legal tender to protect the most vile and brutal of thugs, who have tortured and murdered citizens whom the Government, the police and courts have a duty to defend. It is, of course, a sickening fact that, even if detailed and assiduous police work managed to secure a conviction for any of those murders, the persons convicted would be out of prison in a maximum of two years.
  The Bill is the product of a Government who, in opposition, accused others of a lack of morality. This is a question of morality —of simple right and wrong and nothing else. The Bill should never have seen the light of day. It should be opposed for the idea that easing the pain of victims' families is a good reason to forget the sobs, screams and pleas for mercy that were uttered to the merciless.
  The Bill is a foul, odious besmirching not only of the House, but of the nation. In passing it, we become defenders of those same torturers and murderers, and accessories to the crimes that they commit. The Under-Secretary may smile at what I say, but at least I believe what I say. I wonder: does he believe what he is putting before the House?
  6.45 pm
  Mr. Harry Barnes: I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to the House for arriving so late and then wishing to contribute to the debate. My excuse is that the issue that we are dealing with is a matter that I have raised on numerous occasions in the House and elsewhere.
  In fact, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland was usually aware of what I was going to say. Time and again, I had pushed forward the issues of intimidation, terror, people being placed in exile and the bodies of "The Disappeared" so much that she knew where the question was coming from. She would then produce the answer, and we would see what the latest stage of that particular game was.
  My reason for being late is that, suddenly, a constituency issue of some considerable importance emerged. a matter that may form part of the Adjournment debate that I have on Thursday night.
  I support the Bill, but I realise that it has many of the problems that hon. Members have stressed. Moral and legal dilemmas are involved in a such measure, which have been strongly stressed by certain Members.
  The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) said that it was a simple matter of right and wrong. The problem is that matters of right and wrong are seldom simple. This is a complex matter of right and wrong. Arguments on one side outweigh legalistic and constitutional considerations about how we should handle matters of law and order —they are overruled by other considerations.
  It seems that the overwhelming argument why we have this unfortunate legislation is that it is for the benefit of the families of "The Disappeared". They have been through horrendous experiences, which have gone on for

  69
  years and years. Not only have they not been able to lay to rest their loved ones and to grieve. Often, they have been unable to express in the communities in which they have lived their concerns and their condemnation of those who have not allowed the bodies of their loved ones to be returned to them.
  Initially, after their loved ones were murdered, those people may have sought justice. As time has gone on, what they have wanted is some concern, some compassion, and the ability to bury their loved ones and to complete the grief that they have had for years and years. That must be a strong consideration. The issue of right and wrong must be weighed against that consideration. It has tremendous weight.
  We are talking about potentially, we believe, 14 bodies. It might seem that, in the weight of things, and with all the terrors that have occurred in Northern Ireland, it is a minor and small problem, but it is not for the people who have been consumed by the experience of losing loved ones in such circumstances. It is right that we should be concerned with such a matter in the House, and consider legislation to help them to overcome the considerable problems that they have faced.
  The second reason why the Bill deserves support is that it will help in furthering the peace process. I have always argued that we have to address the issues of recovering the bodies of "The Disappeared" —so that they may receive a Christian burial —and of stopping intimidation and violence. Recent debate has helped to address the latter issue. Although violence and intimidation have not stopped, they —especially IRA intimidation and violence —have been reduced. I am sure that the attention paid by legislators to the issues has helped.
  We have yet to address the issue of those who have been sent into exile and are not allowed to return to Northern Ireland. We should never forget those people, or allow the IRA to forget them.
  I believe that if progress is made on the three issues —recovering the bodies of "The Disappeared"; stopping violence and intimidation; and enabling the exiles' return to Northern Ireland —the IRA will have demonstrated a shift in its horizons, attitudes and approach.
  I condemn the IRA as much as any other hon. Member speaking in the debate, but we have to seek a shift in the IRA's position. We need to encourage the creation of shifting sands—the ultimate aim of which will be an arrangement on decommissioning. If the IRA takes a step in the resolution of one problem, it should be able to take another step, until we reach the big prize —thereby firmly establishing the peace agreement and the Assembly. Addressing the three issues will not solve all Northern Ireland's problems —that will take a considerable time —but the most intractable problem of all will almost have been cracked.
  The Bill will assist us in starting that process. I grant that it would have been better if the IRA, in response to all the arguments and pleas that have been made, had readily announced the locations of the bodies and allowed access to them, so that "The Disappeared" could be returned to their loved ones. It would have been better if there were no need for the Bill. But no one was able to find the bodies. Given the IRA's position on the issue, we have been pushed into passing this legislation.
  I accept that the IRA has helped to shape the legislation; but circumstances often shape our legislation. We have to respond to circumstances, and do so in a way
  70
  in which our moral case is advanced, and in which the least possible damage is done to legal and constitutional principles. The Bill is not without problems, but I believe that it advances our moral case.
  Mr. Maginnis: The hon. Gentleman has always been positive, and most tangibly so when addressing Northern Ireland issues. However, does he agree that his very honourable objective will be frustrated if the obligation does not fall fairly and squarely on the shoulders of IRA-Sinn Fein, and if not remorse, but reward motivates the actions of IRA-Sinn Fein? That is the point that I have tried to make in the debate. We are not seeing any sign of remorse from IRA-Sinn Fein, but we are offering reward.
  Mr. Barnes: I agree that the IRA's position on the issue is disgraceful and that it has shown no remorse. However, I do not believe that the IRA will be rewarded by the legislation. I also believe that, at long last, the families of "The Disappeared" will not be given a reward, but be shown the decency that they should have been shown years ago. Although their relatives should never have been the victims of any organisation, once they had been, their bodies should have been returned. As the IRA —for various reasons —did not want to accept responsibility, that was not done.
  I should say what I believe is wrong about the IRA's position on the issue, so that there is no doubt about it. Although we may disagree on this particular legislation, our attitude and approach to the issue may be the same.
  Mr. Hunter: The hon. Gentleman mentioned "reward" in relation to the families. Does he accept that —using his own terminology —if a "reward" is the Bill's desirable end product, it extends to absolving murder?
  Mr. Barnes: "Absolving murder" is a rather grand description of the Bill's provisions, as it suggests that we shall be able to catch the criminals involved and properly to pass sentence on them. We know that that will not happen. Without such legislation, there will be no possibility that the bodies will be returned.
  The Bill may allow people to get off the hook, but I do not think that that hook will catch anyone anyway. Moreover, we do not have any other means of achieving our objective. Although the Bill deals with a complicated issue and is not entirely good, concern and compassion for the victims and their families should lead us to support it.

  It took the IRA far too long to move on the issue. When it did make a move —at a delicate stage in the negotiations on establishing the Assembly —it was more like a ploy, as if the IRA was not genuinely moved and concerned by the issue. The IRA's action seemed to be only a cynical concession, for which it expected something in return. However, its concession must have gained it no advantage among any "audience" in Northern Ireland or Great Britain.
  Subsequently, the IRA said that it knew the location of only nine of the 14 victims. It has yet to make any provision for the other five victims. We also have no guarantee —but only the possibility —that, when the legislation is passed, the bodies will be returned.
  Worst of all, the IRA listed the "crimes" of those whom it had so ruthlessly murdered. Even then, the IRA had it wrong. The family members tell us of the obnoxious claims made about the "crimes" of their loved ones.

  71
  The Bill is not really about the IRA; it is about the families of "The Disappeared" and how we may assist them. If the Bill also encourages the IRA in making what it considers —in its own terminology and chopped logic, not ours —to be "a concession", it may be easier to make subsequent progress, getting us a little further down the road. However, it has taken us ages to get this far. The IRA should have taken its limited action —and we should have been considering this type of legislation —ages ago. The IRA should at least have made that limited move to allow us to produce such a Bill before.
  I hope that the Bill is supported. We understand the problems, but it is justified by the circumstances and the opportunity that it will give to the families to bury their loved ones and overcome some of the massive traumas that they have suffered year after year. For some, being able to visit the graves of their loved ones in their last few years of retirement would be more important than it is to anyone else who has buried a relative. For most people, visiting the grave of a loved one is a ritual because they have a regular opportunity to do so. For the families of "The Disappeared", it will never be a ritual.
  7.1 pm
  Mr. Dominic Grieve: This has been a sombre debate. It has reminded all of us who have been listening of the horror that has been visited on the people of Northern Ireland over the past 30 years. It has allowed us to focus on the activities of the Provisional IRA and the way in which it has treated sections of its own population, whom it said it would protect. IRA members have murdered people, concealed their bodies and refused to give any information about their fate or their whereabouts.
  We are all united in believing that it offends every tenet of human decency for the IRA to act in that way after murdering someone. For many years, one of the most characteristic views of Northern Ireland on our television screens has been of funerals. Often, they have been the funerals of terrorists —members of the Provisional IRA —who have been lawfully killed in the course of carrying out their murderous enterprise. At no time in the past 30 years has it been suggested that, as happens in certain countries, the state should deny burial to those who have perpetrated such crimes or the opportunity to mourn them, because we stand by human rights and human decency. Even if we try to see some rightness in the cause of the Provisional IRA and to apply its selective morality, it is impossible to find a shred of justification for what has happened. The IRA has offended every tenet of human decency. The debate has provided an opportunity for hon. Members to express their contempt for that behaviour.
  Two mutually irreconcilable views have been expressed during the debate. We have heard powerful and eloquent speeches from the hon. Members for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes), for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik), for Greenock and lnverclyde (Dr. Godman) and for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell). They all pointed to the need for constructive measures to give those who mourn the opportunity to bury their loved ones. That is a powerful argument, which the House should not lightly disregard.
  Equally, it has been impossible not to have considerable respect for the views of the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis), my hon. Friend the
  72
  Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) and the hon. Members for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) and for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross). We cannot minimise the step that we are taking with legislation that invites immunity from prosecution —or at least disallows any forensic evidence that might accompany the discovery of the remains of those who have been murdered from being brought in any prosecution.
  Comparisons have been made during the debate between this Bill and the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997. I accept that the same tests were applied. Any forensic evidence that is gleaned from weapons that are handed in will not be used against anyone. There is a powerful argument that the mere removal of weapons from circulation is an important step in preventing their further use. It is highly unusual for a prosecution for murder to take place without direct forensic evidence relating to the remains of the deceased. It has happened, but it is very unusual and very difficult. I fully accept that the Bill does not provide an amnesty to those who perpetrated the offences, but it is right to acknowledge that its practical effect must be to make it most improbable that anyone will ever stand trial for the murders, unless someone confesses or provides evidence so powerful that it would convict those responsible without forensic evidence.
  There are two matters on which I should like assurances from the Minister. We very much hope that if the Bill is passed, remains will be disclosed and discovered. If that happens, it is essential that in the forensic examinations that take place with a view to the inquest, the full facts and circumstances, in so far as they can be found, should come to light. The Bill should not result in those facts being brushed under the carpet for the convenience of those who perpetrated the offences. It has been pointed out during the debate that there are powerful grounds for suspecting that those who were murdered were also tortured and treated in the most abominable fashion. It is right that those facts should not be concealed from the public if they come to light when remains are found. I hope that the Minister will reassure the House that, although the evidence will not be admissible in a prosecution, it will be available through the inquest procedure so that people will know what happened.
  Mr. McDonnell: I should like clarification on that from the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Minister. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the further dissemination of information should be at the behest of the family, or should it be determined by the commission? Members of the family may wish to be aware of some of the information, but they may not want it to be disseminated more widely.
  Mr. Grieve: Some clarification from the Minister on that would be helpful. Clause 4 clearly
  "does not prohibit a test or procedure the purpose of which is to discover information in relation to an item where the information is sought for the purpose of establishing, for the purposes of an inquest, the identity of a deceased person, or how, when and where he died."
  I infer from that that there will be inquests if remains are found and that the usual consequence will flow from an inquest: the public will be made aware of how the people died. However unpalatable some of the facts that emerge

  73
  as a result may be, those matters should be made public. I see no reason why they cannot be made public, even if the main thrust of the Bill were to go through.
  Mr. Swayne: I agree entirely with the thrust of what my hon. Friend is saying, but does he not believe that he is raising the idea of increasing the public demand for justice while the Bill removes the possibility?
  Mr. Grieve: I take my hon. Friend's point, and that was a matter to which I was going to refer in a moment. When the full facts emerge, it is likely that they will cast considerable doubt on some of the comments made by the IRA in its mealy-mouthed responses to the events of the past 30 years, and they may well excite a great deal of public comment. However, we should bear in mind the fact that there is powerful evidence that the relatives of the deceased support the Bill. That is an important consideration; although, as has been said in the debate, it is clearly not the overwhelming consideration.
  In the same way, from time to time, people may ask in a court of law that malefactors should not be punished, even though they themselves have been affected personally. However, the law is there to be upheld, and generally the views of victims —although they will be listened to politely —are not necessarily given priority over what is regarded as the public interest. The public interest aspect of the Bill is of paramount importance.
  Another matter on which I seek clarification is this; the point has been made that we are dealing with the possible location of the remains of nine murdered people, as alluded to by the Provisional IRA. Yet there is a general public suspicion that there are a number of others who were victims of the Provisional IRA, although it is possible that some may have been the victims of other paramilitary organisations. It is clearly desirable that, in so far as it is possible, an explanation should be forthcoming as to why the locations cannot be divulged. There may be a number of unpalatable reasons. One may be that the locations are wholly inaccessible. Another may be that, as a result of the ruthlessness of the killers, the remains of the murdered have been effectively destroyed.
  I ask the Minister to clarify why, under the Bill, there would not be immunity for a person who cared to give the commission details of how someone met his end as a victim of the Provisional IRA and an explanation of why there was no possibility of recovering the remains. If such a provision is not in the Bill, we might wish to reconsider the matter. It is clearly desirable that, in so far as it is an informant's information, he should be protected if we are to get an explanation of what happened. That goes hand in hand with the question of finding remains. I hope that the Minister will address that point. When I read the Bill, I felt that it was inherent —or at least implicit —that such information would be covered by it. I would be grateful for the Minister's comments.
  We must consider also some ironies in the situation. It has been said that the measure should be proposed as part of a general pattern of reconciliation; something that may be desirable. However, I am sorry that if we are coming to this point, it should not be at a time where there is clear evidence that reconciliation has taken place. If we were confronted with the Bill at a time when the Executive had been set up, when decommissioning was under way, when Sinn Fein was participating and when there were clear
  74
  signs that democracy was beginning to thrive, it would be easier for hon. Members —particularly those who represent constituencies in Northern Ireland —to accept the need for the Bill, notwithstanding the problems that it poses.
  I can well understand the fears expressed that the Bill is seen merely as another ratchet by which concessions are made to terrorists who have no intention of giving anything in return. It may be that terrorists, or those who wish to give the information, should beware. If some of the victims were tortured, it seems to me that the immunity that we may provide them with in terms of evidence in relation to the findings of the bodies may be limited, if recent court decisions in this country in respect of international conventions are accepted.
  One can foresee a situation where, in 10 years' time, someone might find that their best remedy, if they wished to see prosecuted a terrorist of whose guilt there was clear evidence, but for whom evidence in relation to the remains was also required, was to go abroad and seek extradition from a third country, in exactly the same way as this country has faced problems in terms of General Pinochet. It is important that we remind ourselves of that. We are going down a similar road of making concessions, as was done in Chile, for the sake of achieving limited amnesties and some degree of reconciliation.
  It seems to me that there are a number of clear and possible benefits from what the Government are seeking and —notwithstanding our reservations —it is for that reason that we will abstain tonight. First, I wish to refer to the families. Clearly, their views are not paramount, but they are entitled to great consideration. That must be weighed against the likelihood of remains ever being found so that they could be used in evidence in criminal proceedings in any event.
  In many cases, we are talking about episodes —dark and horrible episodes —that are now many years old. Others are far more recent. However, the inability to detect the remains of those murdered up to now does not suggest a great likelihood of that happening in future. If it were to happen in future, it is more likely than not that it would happen in circumstances either of denunciation or of confession, which would, in all probability, get round some of the problems in terms of the amnesty element of the Bill. The question of the families' wishes merits great consideration.
  Another matter has not been addressed fully in the debate. It has been suggested that, in this case, a concession is being made to terrorists. It is true that —strictly speaking, and in purely legal terms —such a concession is being made. However, the fact that we have debated this matter for some three and a half hours —and the fact that if the remains of those murdered are discovered, there will be massive attendant publicity about what the IRA did over this period —seems to me scarcely a victory for the IRA's cause.
  If anything was likely to expose the hollow rhetoric of that organisation and the underlying nastiness that has characterised its operations, it must be the public exposure of what they did to those victims. There was never any justification for that, and the best weapon that the IRA ever had in the matter was the silence that it brought to the matter. The IRA was silent about what it had done. The IRA denied it year after year, and it has been forced in the peace process —however imperfect it may be—to

  75
  accept and admit its actions. If it honours its commitments as a result of the Bill, the IRA will be forced down a road which, over time, will be shaming to it; and it will deserve every ounce of shame that it receives.
  I do not see the Bill as a victory for terrorism. If the Bill works—I very much hope that it does work in the way in which the Government desire —the cause of democracy, freedom and those who believe in human rights can be enhanced.
  Mr. Maginnis: The hon. Gentleman made the point that the legislation was in the interests of the families. Taking into consideration the point he made about how it would reflect on the IRA, is there not a possibility that the legislation will go through, but that members of the IRA will drag their feet and the bodies will still not be revealed? Does he see any merit in at least time limiting the Bill, so that it facilitates, within a specified period, what the Government intend? I am still not in favour of the Bill, but would there be some merit in that course, in terms of what we want to achieve?
  Mr. Grieve: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, although I wonder if, in reality, it will be of any advantage to the IRA if their members do drag their feet. Let us consider the following scenario. The IRA have given several assurances. Legislation passed not only in this House, but in Ireland, is designed to facilitate the honouring of their pledge, but they then decide to do nothing. I should have thought that nothing could be more damaging to them —especially in view of the public disquiet that exists in the communities from which, over the years, they have claimed to derive their support —than to be seen to be unable and unwilling to honour their commitment. In those circumstances, the only possible conclusion that could be drawn would be that they were so frightened or ashamed of what they had done that they were unable to face up to it. That is not likely to do their cause much good at all.
  In the meantime, if the IRA did not divulge the information, there would be nothing to prevent anyone from being prosecuted if remains were found by some other means. In those circumstances, the benefit to the IRA would seem to be slight. We could time limit the Bill; the Minister may want to comment on that matter. However, once the measure is up and running, there must be an argument that there is no need to time limit it. However, I should be grateful if the Minister would address that question, because it might be argued that, if nothing has happened after a year, there was no point in introducing the measure in the first place. That might be a proper time to say enough is enough.
  I do not wish to take up much more of the House's time in concluding this debate on behalf of the official Opposition.
  Mr. McDonnell: I do not want to be confrontational in any way, but I should like to be clear about the views of the Opposition. If Opposition Members are to abstain in the vote on Second Reading tonight, is that because they are abstaining until they hear the response from the Minister on the detail of the Bill or because they oppose the Bill in principle —or, perhaps, a better form of words would be that they cannot support the. Bill? If the latter —
  76
  that they cannot support the Bill —reiterate what my right hon. Friend the Minister said earlier: the onus is on those who cannot support the Bill to offer an alternative that will allow those families who have lost their loved ones to discover their bodies and bury them, and put that part of their lives behind them.
  Mr. Grieve: The hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point, but it seems to me that he might be missing one aspect of the case. He and other hon. Members have laid great stress on the need to help to satisfy —in so far as we can —the perfectly understandable desires of the relatives of those who have been murdered. I sympathise with that. However, as I said, there was nothing wrong with the point made by some Opposition Members that it is not the job of the Government or of the House to alter the law, or the way in which the law should normally operate, in order to satisfy that need. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question must be that we could tell people, "We cannot do that for you." If we were to say that, it would not be inherently wrong in any way, but at the same time, I say to the Government and to the Minister that I am sympathetic to what they are trying to achieve.
  The Government have a primary responsibility to carry through their business and to take policy decisions that are often difficult. That is why it appears to Opposition Members that the correct course of action, in this particular circumstance, is to abstain. We shall of course participate in the Committee, in so far as we are able to do so. If we can make a sensible contribution at that stage, we shall do so.
  What it comes down to is that the Government hold out the hope that the legislation might be constructive for the families and for the peace process, and constructive in making those who have perpetrated these crimes face up to their actions. There are legitimate grounds for that hope, but that must be set against what appears to Opposition Members to be the proper repugnance of right-thinking people to indulge those who have committed such offences by even going to the extent that we propose for the purpose of achieving that result. That appears to us to be a legitimate reason for abstaining on the Bill. We share the Government's hope and wish them every success in implementing the measure. We hope that it fulfils the Government's expectations for it, but we shall take the course that I have outlined.
  7.26 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. John McFall): As the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) said, this has been a sombre debate. However, it has also been moving, and for me it has been educative. We have heard many contributions from Members who have had experience in Northern Ireland during the past 20 to 30 years. We might be travelling along different paths, but we all want to achieve the end result of ensuring that there is comfort for the families of "The Disappeared".
  The House has realised that the Bill has a humanitarian purpose —that is a core issue of the Bill. I share in the moving tributes that have been paid to the families of "The Disappeared". Several hon. Members referred to some of the families who were in the House today. Members on both sides of the House met members of those families. Margaret McKinney, whose son Brian was

  77
  killed, was in the House today, as was Anna Macshane, whose father, Charles Armstrong, was abducted from Crossmaglen. One group has not been mentioned today, but it deserves to be recorded —WAVE, or Widows Against Violence Empowered. Members of that group have played a positive and constructive role —they were represented here today by Sandra Peake, and I pay tribute to them.
  I shall try to deal with the points that were made in chronological order. My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) made a number of points. He asked about the financial provisions of the Bill. The explanatory notes give a figure of approximately £100,000 for the commission, but, in giving that figure, we do not suggest that there will be any financial restrictions. Those resources will be shared when the commission comes into being as a joint international body, but we do not want to limit its work. If extra commitments are envisaged, we shall consider sympathetically any representations from the commissioners.
  My hon. Friend also asked if credence could be given to stories of victims being buried in Scotland. He expressed the wish that the Scottish authorities should co-operate with the measure. I know that distressing comments have been made about the disappearance of the victims. The problem is that the lack of firm information has given rise to rumours, and the sad fact is that, until information is forthcoming, we cannot know for sure. However, the Bill is drafted so as to cover all possibilities and I have every confidence that the Scottish authorities would co-operate fully if that was deemed necessary.
  I welcome the positive comments made by the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss). He drew to our attention section 11(2) of the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997, which states:
  "Nothing in this Act shall prejudice any power or discretion exercisable"
  and so on. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall consider that issue and report back before Committee stage.
  The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) made a lengthy speech. He asked about the deal with the IRA without a guarantee of nine bodies. I cannot stand here and say with conviction that nine bodies or their location will be forthcoming. However, we have the evidence received from the families and others who are willing us to act and the statement made by the IRA on 29 March, to which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Irish Government responded. We are legislating on the basis of that information and in the sincere hope that the agony of the families will end.
  I acknowledge that the statements made by the IRA and others gave families hope in the short term, and that some of those hopes have since been dashed. We do not want that hope to be lost, which is why we are legislating —so that the sorrow of the families can be ameliorated to some extent. We are acting in a positive spirit. I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's comments, but I hope that he accepts the sentiments I have expressed.
  The hon. Gentleman also said that the legislation was needed and that Sinn Fein and the IRA were twisting the knife. He said that the only danger posed by forensic testing is that it might reveal the degree of torture employed. However, the British and Irish Governments
  78
  believe that, without the legislation, there is no chance of information emerging. We want that information for the benefit of the families, which is why in the Bill we propose that there should be limits on forensic testing.
  The hon. Gentleman said that we need to examine the activities of both the IRA and Sinn Fein in respect of decommissioning —a point made eloquently by other hon. Members. I believe that the sole beneficiaries of the Bill will be the families of the victims. As the hon. Member for Beaconsfield said, it will do the IRA and Sinn Fein no credit at all if there is no movement. No credit will be given to those who disclose information, for it is they who have shown great cruelty and inhumanity by prolonging the families' suffering for so long; nor, I believe, will there be any political credit associated with the paramilitaries.
  The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act, and I looked up the speech he made on that legislation in December 1996, in which he paid tribute to Monsignor Denis Faul, as he did tonight. Monsignor Faul has been extremely helpful in acting as an intermediary between the families. He sees the merit in this process, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be comforted by the role that Monsignor Faul is playing, for over the years there has been no greater critic of the IRA's activities than that courageous man.
  The hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) called the Bill an obnoxious and dangerous Bill. I shall not indulge in party politicking tonight, because that would be inappropriate, but I looked up the hon. Gentleman's 1996 comments on what became the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act. He said then that he would support the Government. At that time, the hon. Gentleman was a Government Back Bencher and although that legislation exercised his mind greatly and he had considerable doubts about it, he gave the then Government the benefit of the doubt —I paraphrase, but I think those are the sentiments he expressed.
  On the face of it, none of us here tonight would want anything to do with the Bill, but we have to acknowledge the reality of 30 horrendous years in Northern Ireland and the continued grief and suffering of individuals. We have to respond to that humanitarian plea from the families by going some way toward helping them. We do not agree with the Bill from first principles, but we are proposing it because it deals with reality.
  The hon. Gentleman asked about the judicial process, and I can state clearly that the Bill does not affect the judicial process, only the admissibility of certain criminal evidence, and the limited guarantee extends only to information given to the commission. If any other criminal evidence is found elsewhere, the case can be prosecuted on that basis. The provision is included for a specific reason, which is to enable the bodies to be located.
  The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone referred to Sinn Fein's allegations of collusion by security forces. I note his points and recognise his sincerity, but to comment on them would be to stray from the Bill.
  The hon. Member for Basingstoke said that the Government have departed from the principles underlying the previous Government's policies in Northern Ireland, adding that the end, although desirable, does not justify the means. The Bill does nothing to undermine such principles —yes, it gives limited protection in limited

  79
  circumstances, but it does so for humanitarian reasons. It does not undermine a principled approach to Northern Ireland matters, nor does it condone or lessen our disapproval of any of the crimes committed. The crimes were horrendous, and that the whole House shares that disapproval should be a matter of public record.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) mentioned article 5 of the agreement between the British and Irish Governments and asked about the next steps in the implementation of the Bill. He asked who will act as the commission's agents, and who will guard against the danger of collusion. If the Bill becomes law and the treaty comes into effect, the commission is established. The staff will be appointed by the commission, and it will be for the commission to ensure that the staff are aware of their obligation of confidentiality under clause 5 of the Bill.
  My hon. Friend also asked about penalties. Because the families are in receipt of confidential information, it is difficult to legislate comprehensively. However, if there were a breach of confidentiality, I understand that the individual involved could be subject to dismissal and would certainly be subject to the full disciplinary process.
  The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) said that legislation would expunge the guilt of the murderers. Nothing will expunge their guilt, and their crimes can be prosecuted if other evidence is available. We are at one on that point: nothing will expunge their guilt. The hon. Gentleman also claimed that the Bill sets a dangerous precedent by giving limited amnesty and that concession is a prominent part of the peace process. He said that the Government are giving concessions to the Provisional IRA and Sinn Fein without reciprocity.
  This process is not about concessions. It is about an agreed way forward in Northern Ireland, starting with the Belfast agreement. It is about an agreed way forward that is endorsed by the people, and that involves the British and Irish Governments and political parties from both sides of the community. I recognise that the process makes difficult demands of people on all sides. However, tonight we are replicating the courage and determination displayed by the politicians and the people of Northern Ireland. We have one aim: to achieve peace, stability and a normal democratic society in Northern Ireland.
  The hon. Member for Belfast, East asked whether the lawful security forces will be allowed to conduct searches. The searches will be conducted by the security forces —that is, the RUC or the Garda Siochana —on the basis of information provided to the commission. I assure the hon. Gentleman that it was never intended to replace the security forces with the commission, and that information will be passed to the security forces.
  The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) asked about the read-across to Bloody Sunday. The Attorney-General has provided an undertaking that persons giving evidence to the Bloody Sunday inquiry will not do so to their own detriment in respect of possible criminal proceedings. However, neither this Bill nor the Attorney-General's undertaking will prevent criminal proceedings being brought. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) made several positive points that focused precisely on why we are debating this issue
  80
  tonight. I can do no more than commend him for that approach. This debate is about the families and their pain and about minimising their suffering if possible.
  Mr. Maginnis: The Minister referred to the soldiers in Londonderry. He said that the Attorney-General has given certain guarantees, but he said also that the soldiers will have to be identified. We know that, however innocent they may be, identification will blight their lives and leave them vulnerable to threats, and perhaps violence, from illegal organisations. Will he not reconsider the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) and perhaps view it in the context of this Bill?
  Mr. McFall: The hon. Gentleman's point about Bloody Sunday is a judicial matter and will be referred to the Saville inquiry. The Attorney-General has made a clear public statement in that regard.
  The hon. Member for East Londonderry referred to the horrendous nature of the crimes and said that those responsible must be pursued. The Government agree: the crimes are horrendous and the perpetrators can expect to pay for their actions. However, that issue is separate from this Bill, which has an humanitarian purpose.
  It is nice to see my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) back in the House after a long illness. He has a long-running interest in and dedication to Northern Ireland issues, and he made some very potent and moving points, focusing on the families and on the genuine desire for peace. I congratulate my hon. Friend on his speech and on his commitment to Northern Ireland issues.
  In summing up for the Opposition, the hon. Member for Beaconsfield raised several issues. We agree that the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997 is quite similar to the Bill before us tonight, and I welcome the hon. Gentleman's comments in that regard. He raised several questions about remains that are found and asked whether the full facts will come to light at an inquest. I assure the hon. Gentleman that a full post mortem and inquest will take place, as is usual with any murder. The findings will be made known in the usual way and the same amount of information will be made public. For example, the coroner might ask for evidence from a pathologist, and that will be given in public. As with any other inquest, the coroner will have full powers.
  The hon. Gentleman asked why someone giving evidence only about the cause of death will have no immunity. The Bill is about locating the remains of victims. The provision of relevant information by the commission will trigger the protection that is mentioned in clauses 3, 4 and 5.
  By way of intervention, the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone asked about time-limiting the Bill. The Government are not keen to close the door to the provision of information about "The Disappeared" either from the IRA or any other organisation. The hon. Gentleman knows that the IRA produced a list of nine names at the end of March. Some people —such as the individuals who came to the Palace of Westminster today —have expressed dismay that their relatives' names were not on the list. The families of those who were not on the list hope that, in time, details of the location of their loved ones' remains will be provided. That is why we are not time-limiting the Bill.

  81
  I hope that I have responded to most of the points raised today. This has been a very moving experience for us all. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, who has met family members and others in Northern Ireland on many occasions. He knows more than anyone about the pain and the anguish, but we have seen it for ourselves today. We have spoken to the mothers who lost sons under the age of 21. Those mothers brought their sons into the world full of hope and joy for the future, but that hope and joy were cruelly extinguished. Those mothers and their families want to retrieve the remains of their loved ones so that they can celebrate their lives in a dignified and a Christian manner. We owe it to them to do everything possible to effect that outcome. If we can, we must ease their pain, not continue it.
  That is why the Government have introduced this Bill. We welcome hon. Members' comments, but we remain focused on its humanitarian purpose. We hope that the passage of this Bill will bring some comfort to those who have waited for it for far too long.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 289, Noes 10.

  Division No. 168]

  [7.50 pm

  AYES

  Ainger, Nick

  Clark, Dr Lynda

  Alexander, Douglas

  (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Allan, Richard

  Clark, Paul(Gilligham)

  Allen, Graham

  Clarke, Charles(Norwich S)

  Ashton, Joe

  Clarke, Eric (Midlopthian)

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Clelland, David

  Ballard, Jackie

  Clwyd, Ann

  Barnes, Harry

  Coaker, Vernon

  Barron, Kevin

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Bayley, Hugh

  Colman, Tony

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Connarty, Michael

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Cook, Frank (Stokton N)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Corbett, Robin

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Cotter, Brain

  Benton, Joe

  Cousins, Jim

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Crausby, David

  Berry, Roger

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Betts, Clive

  Cummings, John

  Blizzard, Bob

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Borrow, David

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Darvil, Keith

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Davidson, Ian

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Browne, Desmond

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Burden, Richard

  Dawson, Hilton

  Burgon, Colin

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Dobbin, Jim

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Doran, Frank

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies

  Dowd, Jim

  (NE Fife)

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Cann, Jamie

  Edwards,Huw

  Caplin, Ivor

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Caton, Martin

  Ennis, Jeff

  Cawsey, Ian

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Fisher, Mark

  Chaytor, David

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Chidgey, David

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  Clapham, Michael

  Flint, Caroline

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Follett, Barbara

  82

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Lewis, Teryy (Worsley)

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Linton, Martin

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Foulkes, George

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Fyfe, Maria

  McDonnell, John

  Galloway, George

  McFall, John

  Gapes, Mike

  McIsaac, Shona

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  McNulty, Tony

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  MacShane, Denis

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Godsiff, Roger

  McWilliam,John

  Goggins, Paul

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Grogan, John

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Hain, Peter

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Martlew, Eric

  Hanson, David

  Maxton, John

  Harvey, Nick

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Healey, John

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Miller, Andrew

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Moffatt, Laura

  Heppell, John

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Hill, Keith

  Morgan Ms Estelle (Cardiff N)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Morris, Ms Estelle B'ham Yardley)

  Hoey, Kate

  Mudie, George

  Home Robertson, John

  Mullin, Chris

  Hood, Jimmy

  Murphy, Denis(Wansbeck)

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Hope, Phil

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  O'Brein, Mike (N Warks)

  Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

  Olner, Bill

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Öpik, Lembit

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Pearson, Ian

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Pickthall, Colin

  Hurst, Alan

  Pike, Peter L

  Hutton, John

  Plaskitt, James

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Pollard, Kerry

  Illsley, Eric

  Pond, Chris

  Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

  Pope, Greg

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Pound, Stephen

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Jenkins, Brian

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Johnson, Miss Melanie

  Primarolo, Dawn

  (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Purchase, Ken

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Jones, Ms Jenny

  Rammell, Bill

  (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Reed, Andrew Loughborough)

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Rendel, David

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Rouche, Mrs Barbara

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Rooker, Jeff

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Rooney, Terry

  Kemp, Fraser

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Roy, Frank

  Khabra, Piara S

  Rauane, Chris

  Kidney, David

  Ruddock, Joan

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Kingham, Ms Tess

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Sawford, Phil

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Laxton, Bob

  Sheerman, Barry

  Leslie, Christopher

  Simpson. Alan (Nottingham S)

  Levitt, Tom

  Skinner, Dennis

  83

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Todd, Mark

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Touhig, Don

  Smith, Miss Geraldine

  Trickett, Jon

  (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Truswell, Paul

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Turner, Dr George(NW Norfolk)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Twigg, Derek Halton)

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Spellar, John

  Ward, Ms Clarie

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Watts, David

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  White, Brian

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Stevenson, George

  Wighley, Rt Hon Dafydd

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Willis, Phil

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Stringer, Graham

  Wise, Audrey

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Wood, Mike

  Stunell, Andrew

  Woolas, Phil

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Worthington, Tony

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Timms, Stephen

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth and

  Tipping, Paddy

  Mr. David Jamieson.

  NOES

  Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

  Maginnis, Ken

  Colvin, Michael

  Robathan, Andrew

  Garnier, Edward

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Hunter, Andrew

  Mr. William Ross and

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Mr. Desmond Swayne.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills),
  That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. McFall.]
  Question agreed to.
  Committee tomorrow.

  NORTHERN IRELAND (LOCATION OF VICTIMS' REMAINS) BILL [MONEY]
  Queen's recommendation having been signified —
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a),
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Northern Ireland (Location of Victims' Remains) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State under the Act. —Mr. Clelland.]
  Question agreed to.

Travellers
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Clelland]
8.4 pm
Mr. Tim Loughton: Shoreham, in the heart of my constituency, is currently a town under siege. That quiet, mostly residential Sussex coastal town, with a population of around 15,000, is an unwilling host to some 200 travellers, who occupy a derelict former council depot in an array of some 100 assorted charabancs, buses, caravans, lorries, ex-ambulances and former military vehicles, on a site known as Ropetackle, bordering the river Adur, on the edge of Shoreham's town centre.
The shanty town at the gateway to Shoreham, in the heart of my constituency, is hardly a good advertisement for visitors or potential investors in our town —let alone the immense disruption, anxiety and anger that is being forced on the local community. It is also seriously jeopardising the long awaited Ropetackle development plan set up by English Partnerships and, I hope, to be carried forward by South East regional development agency in the near future.
The number of travellers has been growing towards the current level of 200 since the end of 1997, but it was only a few weeks ago that the local council felt able to initiate legal proceedings to have the travellers evicted. Residents in the area around Ropetackle have been driven to despair. They have faced all-night parties and flashing lights. Their houses have vibrated to the thumping noise of music. Bonfires and smoke frequently engulf the whole area at night. There is heavy drinking among the occupants, and many others, suspected of being under the influence of various other illicit substances, stumble around the area.
Rubbish is strewn across the site, wrecked cars are being done up, discarded gas canisters are strewn on the public highway —certainly a danger —electricity cables have been stretched across a public highway, and welding equipment has been left where children can play with it. Ropetackle is, in short, an environmental hazard, with 200 people living in cramped conditions. Human waste is dumped at the bottom of residents' gardens. Sewage and pollution are gratuitously dumped into the river. Fences are broken down, kids play on top of dangerous piles of wrecked cars and climb on to the adjacent railway line. Guard dogs bark all night long and scavenge around the site and the town, causing traffic accidents and attacking residents.
A neighbouring garage site —a private business —has also been occupied by the travellers, and is in danger of going under. The garage has been broken into, the proprietor is unable to use part of the land for his legitimate business, he may lose insurance cover for his business, and he has been threatened with violence by the travellers.
The whole town of Shoreham is being intimidated. Drunken travellers, often crazed out of their minds, roam the town, rummaging through bins, causing traffic accidents, being abusive to residents and terrorising little children on the way to school. There has also been an outbreak of petty crime, which is more than a coincidence. Many shops and pubs in the town of Shoreham have now

85
barred travellers. Residents have organised petitions, and they are frustrated by the local police, who in many cases are powerless to bring the siege to an end.
I shall read out comments from some of the many letters that I have received on this subject from my constituents. One that I received a few weeks ago reads:
"On the night of Saturday, 13th March. there was another all night party in the Council building area … There was a lot of noise and very loud music until 7.30ish in the morning which meant another night of very little sleep … Once again the piece of land at the rear of one of our neighbour's garden … was used as a toilet by some of the people from the party (and not just as a urinal)."
Another letter states:
"The stress of having this in our backyard is unbearable. We could not function as a family with three young children, after losing sleep, so we have taken to sleeping in the front downstairs room of our house at weekends … We cancelled a Bank holiday break in Wales —which we had already paid for in advance —because we had no confidence in leaving our property vacant for 2 nights … This is the effect those 'spongers' of society have had on us."
Another report by residents says:
"Children have been seen defecating over the edge of the wall on the riverside as well as people emptying buckets of waste into the river … It is impossible to sell houses in the vicinity of Ropetackle due to the presence of the travellers."
Many of my constituents are literally prisoners in their own home.
We are not talking about gypsies or Romanies, who are officially defined as legitimate nomadic communities, who have a pattern of travel for a specific economic purpose and who are necessarily limited in number. We are talking purely about travellers, in this case from as far afield as Eastbourne and Edinburgh and with a penchant for strong brew, who choose to opt in or out of that existence at whim —a potentially limitless constituency of people.
To prevent the travellers from encroaching on adjacent sites and other nearby council-owned open spaces, the local council has recently instituted a number of earthworks as barricades, constructed from building waste. Such are the desperate measures now being taken. The barricades are an eyesore, denying residents access to their leisure amenities, and the whole area now resembles something out of the Somme rather than the quiet, friendly Sussex coastal town that it usually is.
The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 should have been able to deal with all this. Plainly it is failing in this case and in many others throughout the country. Since securing this Adjournment debate I have had calls from my hon. Friends the Members for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) and for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan), and from my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), who are terrorised by similar traveller occupations in their constituencies.
It was right to introduce, in the 1994 Act, measures enabling local authorities to move on travellers and giving the police powers to direct that land be vacated if at least six vehicles were present, even if no criminal activity or damage to the land was involved. Sections 61 and 77 of that Act apparently gave such powers.
However, subsequent court cases, notably those involving Lincolnshire county council and Wealden district authority, as well as cases in the European Court of Human Rights, have largely emasculated those powers, because now, unless a raft of social welfare conditions are
86
taken into account, the local authority risks a legal challenge in the courts. Conditions regarding the education of travellers' children, and housing and social service needs, including statutory duties placed on local authorities under the Children Act 1989 and under the Housing Act 1985, are all used as loopholes to circumnavigate legal action.
Local authorities are now taking months —even years, in this case… to instigate legal proceedings against travellers, for fear that a successful legal challenge will ensue in the courts owing to some loophole. In the meantime, travellers literally dig themselves in deeper, the encampments attract more and more itinerants, the life of the local community is made more and more miserable, and a great deal of council time and resources are taken up by the need to prepare legal cases, to clear up around travellers and, in the case of Adur council, to build defences —fortification works —around the travellers —not to mention the immense cost of the police time involved.
The Government have now actually made matters worse. Despite parliamentary questions tabled by many hon. Members, Ministers continue to insist that powers given to police and local authorities under the 1994 Act are perfectly adequate and that the Government have no plans to change them. A while ago, the Minister for Local Government and Housing tantalised us by promising a research project on the subject, and the Minister for London and Construction today promised us the good practice advice which he launched in October 1998.
However, at that time the Government effectively relaxed restrictions on where new age travellers and gypsies can camp, specifically advising police and local authorities in future to identify acceptable temporary stopping places, and imposing on them a duty to tell travellers under what circumstances they will be allowed to stay on unauthorised sites without being evicted. In practice, this amounts to nothing less than a charter for squatters —an invitation to travellers to occupy first and ask questions later.
This last consideration has been seized upon by travellers at Ropetackle and elsewhere to apply for tenure when occupying derelict council-owned land for which no immediate development plans are in force. Indeed, some of the smarter occupants of the site in Shoreham submitted a formal proposal to Adur district council requesting a short-term licence agreement to stay. In a letter to councillors, the very word processor-proficient organiser of the travellers specifically drew attention to the recently issued Government guidance to local authorities on managing unauthorised camping in support of their claim to remain on the land.
The letter said:
"Toleration can be for a matter of weeks, months or years, depending on the circumstances, and in some cases an authority may decide that eviction action is not necessary at all. Local authorities must weigh the needs of Travellers against any nuisance being caused and have due regard to their statutory duties with regard to the education of and welfare of children."
The letter refers to circular 18/94, which the travellers are using in support of staying on an unauthorised encampment where they are causing merry hell for the indefinable future.
Mr. Ivor Caplin: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would advise me whether he agrees that an authorised site, wherever it is, should therefore be used by those travellers.
Mr. Loughton: There is scope for using authorised sites. There may be a lack of authorised sites in some cases; that is an entirely different matter, and the hon. Gentleman, who represents a neighbouring constituency, well knows the problems. His own council has been confronted by enormous difficulties in disposing of travellers. I shall mention that a little later, if he will bear with me.
There is evidence to suggest that centrally organised traveller groups are specifically targeting council-owned derelict land for their illegal encampments, now making it easier for them, as the Minister put it in an Adjournment debate,
"to use every ruse to prolong their stay on a totally unsuitable site."— [Official Report, 16 July 1997; Vol. 298, c. 376.]
Certainly an unusually large quantity of these travellers seem to have had some advice bordering on training from a co-operative establishment in the Tunbridge Wells area.
In our legal system, a defendant is innocent until proved guilty. In current practice, though, it appears that the unwitting victim of traveller occupation —be it a local authority or private landowner —must bear the burden of proof in order to refute the charge that they have no formal plan for use of their land. It is almost as though to snatch and occupy confers a right of tenure on the traveller until the owner negotiates a lengthy and costly series of legal hoops to prove otherwise. That cannot be right, and was certainly not what the 1994 Act was intended to achieve.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier)—who has joined us and is now sitting on the Front Bench —in an Adjournment debate that he initiated on this subject last year argued that the 1994 Act could be used more often than it is. Specifically, he contended that the police can take direct action against trespassing travellers without the need for additional legal proceedings. That is as it may be, but it is simply not happening. The Government need to consider further legislation to define and streamline local authorities' powers more clearly.
I am no lawyer, and the Government need to produce detailed proposals of their own. However, as long ago as November 1997, I did ask the Minister to consider amending section 77(3)(b) of the 1994 Act to make it a criminal offence for travellers, having been evicted, to return to any land in the same district within three months. That would help to prevent the farce of travellers who have been taken off a site nipping across the road to another site and setting up another encampment —which starts the legal clock running again.
I also asked whether the Minister would consider amending the 1994 Act to enable agents acting for local authorities to confiscate property belonging to travellers subject to eviction orders, as compensation for damage done to public land and legal costs incurred in securing convictions. Currently there is no practical redress for all the environmental damage, the petty crime and the nuisance factors —the noise, the pollution and the human waste. If you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, or I had all-night bonfires in our garden, had loud music blaring out at
88
3 am, or decided to strew our waste across the pavement or the public highway, the local authority or the police would be down on us like a ton of bricks, and we should rightly be carted off and prosecuted if we did not comply; but it is just not happening.
Even if local authorities can discover who did it, there are few practical means of pursuing the matter through the courts. I think that it is necessary, therefore, to have general powers of confiscation over entire camps without having to prove which individual caused the most noise or dumped the most rubbish on the public highway. There is also scope to use the lever of social security benefits to secure more considerate and compliant behaviour on the part of the travellers drawing on those benefits. I would like to see greater use made of public order offence legislation at the outset, before an encampment escalates. That is another possible avenue for the Government to explore.
The system needs to be streamlined and the relevant legal processes need to be fast-tracked. The Government need to take a lead, and I fear that at present they are abdicating responsibility for doing so. There are other measures that the Government could take with regard to planning law —for example, making unauthorised development an immediately punishable offence. It is a common practice of certain unsavoury characters, including travellers —this happens in my constituency —to take over an area of agricultural land, either unlawfully or on a short lease, and to turn a green-field site into a breaker's yard of scrap vehicles, some of which they occupy while they provide them with a living, with the maximum disruption and annoyance caused to those living in residential areas nearby.
The Government could address these problems. The deterrent effect of immediate court action would give the police faster powers and serve in no small part to restore some public credibility to the planning system.
In desperation, my constituents have written to the main party leaders and to the Liberal Democrats. They have written to the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Home Secretary. The reply from the Home Office stated that if the current legislation is not working, the Government will look closely at changing the law. It is clear that the law is not working. It is not working in Shoreham, nor is it working in Rutland and Melton, Runnymede and Weybridge, Wells and in many other constituencies throughout the country. It is clear that the Government need to act. Much could be done before the introduction of new legislation or amendment to the 1994 Act.
I invite the Minister to admit that that is the position and to give my constituents and those of many other right hon. and hon. Members some comfort by making it clear that the existing highly unacceptable state of affairs will be addressed as a matter of urgency by the Government.
8.23 pm
Mr. Alan Duncan: I am grateful for the opportunity to add a few words to what my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) has said. The House will be grateful to him for raising this topic because it affects many Members of this place. It is, as he has so vividly described, a scourge on decent people who find their decent lives interrupted and intruded upon by these so-called travellers.

89
My constituency has proved particularly vulnerable to these people. For months now, on the Leicestershire-Lincolnshire border, near Buckminster and Skillington, an encampment of travellers has caused no end of upset to those who live nearby. Likewise, in Rutland, at Barrowden and Belton, and elsewhere, this situation is a recurring problem. It has caused many difficulties for farmers and villagers going about their lawful business.
If I solve the problem in my constituency by persuading the police to move on the travellers, it is not much of a solution if they merely move on to the constituency of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Gamier), who has to take on the same problem and find somewhere else to move them on to. They are pretty grubby people. Their dogs terrorise sheep. As my hon. Friend has described, their sanitation is disgusting. They frighten and threaten people in otherwise peaceful villages. They have the gall to drive along country lanes carrying, on the back of lorries, hydraulic equipment that is designed for no other purpose than to rip up fence posts so that they can invade private property and pitch their tents, as it were, where they should not.
We are not talking about folksy gypsy types. They are revolting vagabonds who seem to give nothing to society and demand everything from it. They stay for weeks, even months, and are very intimidating to the communities that they invade.
It is clear that they know how to use the law. They are not stumbling and bumbling their way from one village to another. They know exactly what to do to get round the law so that they can stay put. It seems that the police do not enforce the powers that they have, or are reluctant to do so. I shall be grateful if the Minister will tell us what guidelines and clear instructions he might have given to the police to ensure that where the law exists it is properly enforced.
Knowing the law as they do, these so-called travellers know how to get social services wrapped round their little finger so that they cannot have an enforcement order put upon them. They simply claim that one little child has a snuffly nose and that there is thus a social services duty that stops them being moved on.
Perhaps the Minister will tell the House the status of social security payments to such people. What is the law governing the compulsory provision of water through standpipes by the local authority? Will the Minister consider the law on congregation? Where there are 10 vehicles, for example, designed for living and illegally parked on private or public property, causing a nuisance around them, perhaps the law can be strengthened so that the police have power to move them on.
This is a continuing problem. The way the law is being implemented, if not the law itself, seems inadequate to solve the legitimate concerns of people in my constituency, as in many others. I hope that the Minister can give me some satisfaction in his response this evening.
8.28 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Nick Raynsford): I start by congratulating the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) on securing a debate on unauthorised camping, which is
90
clearly an issue of major concern in his constituency, as it is in many others, including that of the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan).
We do not underestimate what a nuisance such encampments can be, particularly when they involve many travellers, as I understand is the case at the Ropetackle site. I hope that after he has heard my response, the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham will be reassured that the Government take the issue seriously, and that he will recognise our efforts to ensure that local authorities and the police have effective joint policies in place to deal with unauthorised camping. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that, contrary to what he claims, the Government have not by any means abrogated responsibility for this issue. We have taken action and we have been diligent in pursuing policies to try to ensure that there are effective provisions in place to deal with what everyone recognises is a serious problem that requires a serious and thorough response.
I understand that Adur district council has been working in partnership with the newly formed South East regional development agency — SERDA —on proposals for the development of the Ropetackle site. The development of community facilities, housing and leisure facilities, in accordance with the views of local people in Shoreham, is a positive and much needed step forward for the site, which I understand has been in a poor and partially derelict condition for some 25 years, its only recent uses being as a council depot and sewage pumping station. No one can be satisfied that the site was left in such a state for such a long time, and I am delighted to know that there are now proposals to bring it into use.
The regional development agencies have a key role in promoting sustainable development and addressing the needs of social and physical regeneration in the regions. It is clear that the fruits of that partnership, which was initiated, as we heard, under English Partnerships, before SERDA came into existence, are coming together in a positive way. I am delighted that SERDA is taking such a proactive role in the regeneration of that run-down area. I can well imagine the frustration and anger that have been generated in the locality by the continued trespass of a large number of travellers on such an important site.
It is precisely because of concern expressed by local authorities about how they deal with such encampments that my Department, working with the Home Office, produced joint good practice guidance for local authorities and the police to manage unauthorised camping. The good practice, which is based largely on research carried out for our Department by the university of Birmingham, draws on the real, often hard won, experience of local authorities and police forces in managing such issues in various parts of the country.
We published the good practice last October, after consulting a wide range of interested groups, including local authorities, gypsy and traveller representatives and land-owning bodies. The good practice has been welcomed as a positive and innovative step in managing what can be a highly emotive issue locally.
We have considered carefully whether we should amend the existing local authority powers in sections 77 to 79 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 to deal with unauthorised camping, and we have concluded that that would be counter-productive. There

91
are no obvious, easy solutions to unauthorised camping and no short cuts. If there were, they would have been found long before now.
Recent case law has confirmed that local authorities must balance the nuisance caused by an encampment against the needs of the campers concerned. Local authorities that do not adopt such an approach are likely to find their actions challenged successfully in the courts. Consequently, we have no plans to make changes to the 1994 Act powers or to make unauthorised camping a criminal offence. To do so could well bring the UK Government into conflict with both the domestic and the European courts.
Mr. Loughton: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Will he say specifically why he is not prepared to amend the 1994 Act with regard to successfully evicted travellers who return to the same district? It has happened in my constituency and, I am sure, in many others, that an eviction order is at last successfully executed, yet the same travellers turn up a few hundred yards down the road on an alternative site, and the whole process has to start again.
Mr. Raynsford: I accept that that problem can arise, but the powers do not prevent the local authority from taking further action on a second site, nor do they prevent the police, who have powers under section 61, to which the hon. Gentleman also referred, from taking action where there is a nuisance. Powers exist, and the correct question is how they are used to ensure the outcome that we all regard as necessary. We do not wish to encourage local authorities to act in a way that would bring them into conflict with the courts in this country and possibly the European courts. That would be counter-productive, for the reasons that I have given.
Mr. Edward Gamier rose—
Mr. Raynsford: I give way to the hon. and learned Gentleman.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. May I make it clear that there is no activity from the Opposition Front Bench during an Adjournment debate.
Mr. Gamier: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Raynsford: The hon. and learned Gentleman has made a rapid move from the Front Bench to the Back Bench. On this occasion I shall give way to him, because I know that as a constituency Member he has taken an interest in the subject and has had an Adjournment debate on it.
Mr. Gamier: I am grateful for the Minister's forbearance. The Conservative party is moving all over the place at present. The Minister kindly acknowledged my contribution to the debates in the House in July 1997. Much of what he is now saying I heard in July 1997 at about 10.22 pm. He referred a few moments ago to the correct question, but he did not go on to answer it. Will he now answer his own correct question?
Mr. Raynsford: I am trying to do that, but as the hon. and learned Gentleman will recognise, I have a little progress to make. This evening's debate began almost half an hour ago, and I hope that we will complete it slightly earlier than 10.22 pm.
We believe that in a properly inclusive society, people who legitimately wish to adopt a travelling life style should be free to do so. However, the right to adopt such a life style does not bring with it licence. It brings with it responsibilities towards the settled community. We recognise that there are occasions when it is simply not possible for travellers' presence to be tolerated because they do not accept those responsibilities and do not behave in a way that is compatible with the normal decencies of civilised life, which all of us wish to uphold. From everything that has been said, I am well aware that that is an issue in Shoreham.
The concept of toleration in the context of unauthorised camping has caused some controversy and has wrongly been interpreted as meaning that the Government want local authorities to tolerate the anti-social and sometimes criminal behaviour that can accompany some unauthorised encampments. That is emphatically not what we mean by toleration. Nor is toleration something that was invented for the good practice guidance.
Government advice to local authorities has, for many years, advocated that gypsies who are camped on council land and who are not causing a nuisance should be tolerated wherever possible. Providing basic facilities such as skips, drinking water and toilets may minimise nuisance. Forced eviction, on the other hand, could result in campers moving to a more unsuitable site, whether on public or private land. That is particularly true in those areas where there is little or no site provision and thus nowhere where gypsies could camp with permission.
The good practice guidance simply reflects what has been found to be successful, through detailed examination of the way that local authorities deal with unauthorised camping. Toleration can be a pragmatic option for dealing with a short-term encampment, particularly where the level of nuisance is low or non-existent. That does not imply toleration of people who are behaving anti-socially and causing nuisance. Gypsies or travellers who indulge in anti-social or even criminal behaviour are not above the law; they are subject to exactly the same penalties as anyone in the settled community.
The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 requires local authorities and the police to develop local crime and disorder reduction partnerships and to work together to reduce particular problems of crime and disorder in their areas. If anti-social or criminal behaviour associated with unauthorised encampments has been identified, we would expect local crime and disorder reduction strategies to encompass measures to deal with it.
Turning to the particular encampment described by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham, I understand that a hearing has been fixed in the High Court for Tuesday 18 May to consider the council's application for repossession of the land. It would, therefore, be inappropriate for me to express any view on the actions taken by the council in this instance, but, in advance of the court hearing, I find it difficult to accept his claim that the 1994 Act is not working.

93
I understand that the fact of the case, as set out by the council in a series of news releases, is that it gave notice to the travellers camped on the Ropetackle site that it would take legal action to evict them if they did not leave the site within seven days. The travellers did not leave, and the council commenced proceedings in the High Court to regain possession of its land shortly after those seven days expired. The case will be heard on 18 May, within a month of the action being initiated.
Mr. Loughton: Of course the facts that the Minister describes are absolutely right, but the bottom line is that it has taken 17 months to initiate that legal action—17 months of misery, anxiety and disruption for my constituents. Does he think it acceptable for such a period to elapse before the legislation should start to come into play, as is the case here?
Mr. Raynsford: I do not know why the local authority did not take action earlier. I am not commenting, and I am not saying that it should or should not have taken action. All I know is that the council's notice to the travellers saying that it would take legal action if they did not leave within seven days was issued on 14 April and its initiation of possession proceedings was announced in a press release on 23 April.
I do not know why action was not taken earlier by the council or why the site was allowed to remain derelict for 25 years. Those are issues on which other people will have to find answers. All I would say is that, in advance of the possession proceedings, which are due to be heard on 18 May, it would be premature to say that the legislation is not working.
I further understand that Adur district council has been working in partnership with the Sussex police on this issue and that the police have used their discretionary powers under section 61 of the 1994 Act, to which the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham referred, to evict travellers from privately owned land adjacent to the Ropetackle site.
Regular liaison between the police and local authorities and the development of joint protocols clearly setting out respective roles and responsibilities are key messages in our joint practice guidance. The police are obviously key stakeholders in any local strategy for managing unauthorised camping because of their role in the prevention and detection of crime and in maintaining public order. It is vital that local authorities and the police have a clear idea of each other's roles and responsibilities and that they work together to find a solution that suits the particular circumstances of each encampment. That avoids the potential for confusion and for frustration on the part of local residents who may feel that nothing is being done. It also avoids the potential risk of inappropriate action being taken because a blanket approach is being adopted, which may be appropriate in one case but not in another.
Mr. Duncan: The Minister keeps referring to the good practice guidelines, almost as though his guidelines supersede the law. Does he agree that if the law allows the police to take action, that action should be taken, not just permitted to be taken?
Mr. Raynsford: I would not wish to take away from the police operational responsibility for deciding when it
94
is appropriate to take that action. It would be inappropriate for Ministers to try to interfere in that way. What I do believe is that it is right that the police should have the powers to take action where they believe that it is appropriate, and that the police should be in close liaison with local authorities to establish the protocols that I have described governing how they will respond in difference circumstances. If there is that understanding, it is possible for both the police and local authorities to respond quickly, to give clear messages to reassure local residents, and to avoid confusion about who is using the available powers, how they are proceeding and any other relevant matters that need to be covered. As I said, regular liaison between the police and local authorities is vital if the policy is to work successfully.
My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office is hosting a series of regional seminars, primarily for police and local authority representatives, which are aimed at promoting better joint working between the police and local authorities in managing unauthorised camping, particularly where criminal or anti-social behaviour is associated with the encampment. He has made it clear that he expects police powers to remove trespassers to be used at an early stage, where necessary. I hope that that gives the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton the reassurance that he seeks. We are clear that the police should use their powers where they consider it appropriate to do so.
It is for local authorities, working with all the relevant agencies, including the police, to develop policies for managing unauthorised camping which best suit local circumstances. In doing so, they will be taking into account existing circular advice, case law and the joint DETR-Home Office good practice guidance. Local authorities need to ensure that they can convince the courts that eviction is necessary and justified, given the circumstances of each case. We want all local authorities to take a fresh look at their policies on unauthorised camping in the light of the good practice guidance, and I hope that Adur district council is taking that opportunity.
Eviction of a large number of travellers inevitably raises the question of where they will go when they are evicted. I have much sympathy with local authorities that are faced with such large encampments, which can cause awful problems for local people. It would clearly be unrealistic to expect individual local authorities to be able to offer suitable authorised accommodation to so many people on a long-term basis, although our good practice guidance encourages local authorities to be receptive to the idea of providing sites for travellers, perhaps on council land, where that is feasible and in accordance with local needs. As I said earlier, site provision should be part and parcel of a local authority's overall strategy for managing unauthorised camping.
I appreciate that the provision of sites for travellers is a difficult issue for local authorities to deal with, and that it requires a tremendous level of local political will to get proposals agreed. However, it can be done. I understand that Brighton and Hove council, for example, recently started work on a site for travellers at Horsdean, in line with the advice in our good practice guidance. My Department's circular 1/94 entitled "Gypsy Sites and Planning" makes it clear that local authorities should include policies in their development plans which meet the accommodation needs of gypsies in their areas. It was therefore disappointing to discover that the Adur district plan specifically states that the provision of further sites will not be permitted.

95
[Mr. Raynsford]
Nothing in the circular prevents local authorities that have identified a need for sites for other travellers from looking sympathetically at such proposals, and considering whether site provision would be a more pragmatic option than eviction. Brighton and Hove council appears to have done just that.
I hope that the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham feels able to reassure his constituents that the Government take this problem very seriously, that we are committed to ensuring that unauthorised camping can and will be dealt with effectively and sensitively, in line with good practice, and that we are determined that anti-social or criminal behaviour by travellers, or by anyone else, will not be tolerated.
The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton raised several other issues. He asked whether there were different rules relating to social security benefits. As I did not have notice of his questions, I hope that he will appreciate that I shall have to write to him on those issues to ensure that he has a full and thorough answer. I also hope that he recognises our determination to ensure that people who cause a nuisance to others and whose behaviour is unacceptable do not enjoy the benefit of the tolerance of the agencies of society that ensure that the law is enforced, whoever is involved. Whether they be travellers or members of the settled community, the law applies to all of them. I hope that these policies will work, will continue to be used and will ensure an effective outcome—
Mr. Gamier rose—
Mr. Raynsford: I hesitate, because I was about to finish my speech. I shall resist the good practice guidance that tells me I should sit down, and I shall give way briefly and finally to the hon. and learned Member.
Mr. Gamier: I am extremely grateful to the Minister. I simply want to draw his attention to the fact that, even under the Labour Government, good things have happened. He and his Home Office colleagues may wish to consider the anti-social behaviour orders in this context.
Mr. Raynsford: I endorse that point. We introduced the concept of anti-social behaviour orders as a means of tackling these problems. We want the police and local authorities to work together. I hope that in Adur district and in other areas, the police and local authorities will consider how to use those powers as an additional weapon. It is not their only weapon, and I have no doubt that Adur district council had good reason for deciding on its course of action. I cannot say more, as the matter is due to be considered in the courts. Anti-social behaviour orders have an important role among the armoury of weapons available for tackling anti-social behaviour, and I am glad that the hon. and learned Gentleman made that point.
We have thoroughly gone through this difficult and controversial issue, which causes a disproportionate amount of anxiety to many people. We must provide policies that achieve a proper balance between effective action to tackle nuisance and a respect for the rights of individuals. People are entitled to a life style that involves movement from one area to another rather than being settled in one area. However, that is no excuse for anti-social behaviour: we will have no truck with that. I hope that I have reassured hon. Members that the Government are determined to put effective policies in place to deal with this problem.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twelve minutes to Nine o'clock.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Sudan
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what data she has collated on the take-up of children's vaccination in Southern Sudan. [83088]

  Clare Short
  United Nations Children's Fund UNICEF confirm that during two rounds of National Immunisation Days (NIDs) in Sudan in February and March this year, over one million children in Southern Sudan were vaccinated against polio. The next Sudan NIDs are planned to take place in February and March 2000.

  Poverty Elimination Programmes
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on her Department's plans to link debt relief with poverty elimination programmes. [83297]

  Clare Short
  We are working to influence the World Bank and the IMF during the comprehensive review of the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) initiative to strengthen the linkage between debt relief and poverty eradication. In particular we are stressing the need for HIPC to deliver a greater reduction in the level of service payments in the early years to enable governments to invest sufficient resources in anti-poverty programmes such as health and education and so achieve the International Development Goals.

  Debt Relief
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) what discussions were held at the recent IMF/World Bank meeting in Washington on debt relief; and if she will make a statement; [83298]

  (2) if she will make a statement on the HIPC Initiative following the IMF/World Bank spring meetings. [83304]

  Clare Short
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer and I participated in discussing the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) initiative at the Interim Committee meeting of the IMF and at the Development Committee of the World Bank in Washington at the end of April. At both meetings, Ministers gave strong support to providing more debt relief to countries which are committed to eradicating poverty. In discussions on the fundamental review of the HIPC initiative, the Chancellor and I emphasised the need for change, in order that the initiative provides countries with a permanent exit from their debt problems, as it was intended to do. We also stressed the importance of debt relief being provided in 2
  such a way that it releases resources for governments to invest in key sectors to enable them to achieve the International Development Goals. Phase 2 of the HIPC review will consider how to strengthen this link between debt relief and poverty elimination.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what provision will be included in the Government's proposed debt relief framework for debt(a) service and (b) stock reduction. [83300]

  Clare Short
  The Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) initiative focuses on reducing the stock of debt, with countries receiving one large cut in their debt which takes effect after many years. We are pressing the international community to agree not only to provide more debt relief to countries who are implementing demonstrably pro-poor policies, but to provide it in a way that enables governments to increase spending on anti-poverty programmes. This points to revising the Initiative so that it takes more account of what governments can afford to pay from their budgets, and delivers greater reductions in debt service paid, especially in the early years.

  Reconstruction (Balkans)
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the long-term reconstruction needs of(a) Albania, (b) Montenegro and (c) Macedonia. [83299]

  Clare Short
  We are working with the European Commission, EU Member States and International Financial Institutions to determine the longer term needs of Albania, Macedonia and Montenegro. As the Donors Conference on Macedonia on 5 May indicated, the international community is prepared to provide considerable support based on real needs. Bilaterally we plan to focus on know how and technical support to enable the Governments of the region to increase their capacity to respond to the crisis and absorb international assistance.

  IMF
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment her Department has made of the IMF's suitability as the lead organisation in helping poor countries meet the 2015 international development targets. [83301]

  Clare Short
  Multilateral organisations including the IMF have a key role to play in helping countries to meet the international development targets. Following last year's review of the IMF's Enhanced Structural Adjustment Facility, it was agreed that the IMF should take more account of the social impact of their programmes, the quality of government expenditure, and should protect budgets in high priority areas such as health and education. We are encouraging the IMF to work more closely with the World Bank to ensure that, in designing structural adjustment programmes, they take account of the impact on the poor. Following proposals put forward by the UK, the World Bank is developing principles of good practice in social policy, in consultation with the IMF. We envisage that these principles will be
  3
  drawn upon by the World Bank and the IMF in the design of programmes. We continually emphasise the need for the IMF to build support for reforms which lead to economic growth which benefit the poor programmes, through discussion and consultation with civil society.

  Ethiopia and Eritrea
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement about the current humanitarian situation in Ethiopia and Eritrea. [83302]

  Clare Short
  The UN estimate that there are 3,250,000 people in need of humanitarian relief in Ethiopia. 397,000 of whom have been displaced due to the border conflict. In Eritrea 540,000 people need support with 290,000 displaced by the conflict. Main relief requirements are food, shelter, clothing, household items, health care, water and sanitation. Since January 1998 Britain has provided £5.2 million (including our contribution to EU actions) for emergency food and other support to Ethiopia and Eritrea.

  Democratic Republic of Congo
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement about the current humanitarian situation in the Democratic Republic of Congo. [83303]

  Clare Short
  We are continuing to press all parties to the conflict to agree a cease-fire and to reach a negotiated settlement. The signing in April of the Sirte agreement between the DRC, Uganda, Libya, Chad and Eritrea was a welcome step towards a cessation of hostilities, as was the communique issued on 5 May by the leaders of Tanzania, Rwanda and Uganda re-affirming their commitment to a peaceful settlement of the conflict.

  Date

  Location

  DETR Minister

  US Counterpart

  13 February 1998

  London

  John Prescott

  Stu Eizenstat (Under Secretary of State for Economic, Business and Agricultural Affairs)

  16 February 1998

  London

  Gavin Strang

  Mortimer Downey (Deputy Secretary, US Department of Transportation)

  4 April 1998

  Leeds Castle

  John Prescott Michael Meacher

  Carol Browner (Administrator at the US Environmental Protection Agency)

  28 April 1998

  Washington

  John Prescott

  Rodney Slater (Secretary of Transportation)

  Norwich Hospital
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to ensure(a) public transport access and (b) access off the southern bypass to the new hospital in Norwich from the city centre. [82688]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Public transport access to the new Norfolk and Norwich Hospital at Colney is a matter for Norfolk County Council as the local transport authority, the Hospital trust, who have entered into an agreement with the County Council to provide a high quality bus service for the new site, and the commercial operators.
  4
  Fighting in the country is resulting in continued flows of refugees into neighbouring countries. The conflict and movement of those displaced continues to prevent humanitarian agencies from accessing many of those in need.

  The UK is ready to respond to appeals from UN agencies and NGOs. We have so far this year provided over £450,000 bilaterally through humanitarian agencies to support refugee and displaced populations, and other vulnerable groups.

  Open Government
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many applications for information she received under the Open Government: Code of Practice on Access to Government Information in the last parliamentary session; and how many of these applications were granted. [83117]

  Clare Short
  In the Parliamentary session October 1997 to July 1998 I received and granted four applications for information under the Open Government Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Ministerial Meetings (US)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer on 26 March 1999,Official Report, column 417, how many times Ministers in his Department met their counterparts in the US Government between 1 January 1998 and 1 June 1998; and if he will list the dates and locations of each meeting, the Ministers involved on each occasion and the name of the US counterpart at each meeting. [82227]

  Mr. Prescott
  The information for DETR is as follows:

  My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State has asked the Highways Agency to look again at access to the hospital. The Highways Agency is considering the matter. A decision will be taken as quickly as possible.

  Regional Development Agencies
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many staff transferred to each regional development area from(a) English Partnerships, (b) the Rural Development Commission, (c) Government offices, (d) regional development organisations and (e) other bodies. [82922]
  5
  Mr. Meale
  The table shows the number of staff transferring to each regional development agency on 1 April 1999. The figures exclude temporary staff and

  Number of staff transferring to RDAs on 1 April 1999 by source organisation

  Region development agency

  English partnerships

  Rural development commission

  Government offices

  Regional development organisations

  Advantage West Midlands

  26

  7

  30

  57

  0

  East of England

  9

  15

  13

  0

  0

  East Midlands

  35

  11

  13

  29

  0

  North East

  85

  9

  27

  91

  0

  North West

  83

  8

  20

  44

  0

  South East of England

  16

  9

  15

  0

  0

  South West of England

  44

  23

  13

  44

  5

  Yorkshire Forward

  60

  11

  33

  63

  0

  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what staff with environmental expertise have been recruited by each regional development agency. [82923]

  Mr. Meale
  Staff transferring from English Partnerships, the Rural Development Commission and Government Offices to take forward transferring functions, will have, or will have access to, any necessary environmental expertise to carry out the work. RDAs have been recruiting for a wide range of posts, including strategy development and corporate functions. Where environmental expertise is relevant to the post this will have been a consideration in the advertisement and selection process. RDAs will also be establishing links with a range of organisations, some of which will be able to provide advice on environmental issues. However, separate records are not kept on the environmental expertise of individual staff in the RDAs.

  Refrigerants (Emissions)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what assessment he made of whether the author of the report, "UK Emission of HFCs, PFCs and SF6 and Potential Emission Reduction Options", had been involved in lobbying on behalf of(a) the refrigeration industry and (b) the manufacturers of refrigerants referred to in the report; and if he will make a statement; [82928]

  (2) what action he plans to take as a consequence of the report commissioned by his Department, "UK Emissions of HFCs, PFCs and SF6 and Potential Emission Reduction Options"; [82927]

  (3) what representations he has received concerning the independence of his advisers on climate change issues, with particular reference to the global warming impact of different refrigerants. [82926]

  Mr. Meale
  We have received representations concerning the consultants who have prepared for my Department a report which updated annual UK emissions data for HFCs, PFCs and SF6, provided emission projections to 2020 and assessed the costs and benefits of options to reduce future emissions. One of the representations included a detailed list of comments on the report, and a detailed reply, responding in full to each of the points raised, has been made.
  6
  vacant posts which also transferred. Figures for RDAs exclude overseas staff.

  The consultants were chosen on their technical merits and we see no reason to question the objectivity of the report. The preparation of the report included wide consultation with industry and was overseen by an interdepartmental steering committee.

  The Government intend to develop a balanced and equitable strategy across all sectors, to meet the UK's climate change targets. The climate change consultation paper, which we published last October, set out a range of policy options that could be used to meet these targets. We are now developing a draft UK climate change programme for publication later this year. This will be informed by the responses to the consultation paper and other relevant information, including the above report and any representations concerning it.

  Metered Dose Inhalers
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress he has made in phasing out the chlorofluorocarbon exemption on metered dose inhalers. [83172]

  Mr. Meale
  The Montreal Protocol allows chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) to continue to be produced for use in the manufacture of metered dose inhalers (MDIs). This essential use exemption will continue to be provided only until an adequate range of non CFC alternatives is on the market, which in the European Union is likely to occur within the next two to five years.

  The Montreal Protocol also required Parties to prepare a national or regional strategy by 31 January 1999, which would ensure a smooth and efficient transition from CFC MDIs to non CFC MDIs whilst protecting the health and safety of patients.

  As the European Community is a Party to the Protocol, the European Commission prepared an EU wide transition strategy in consultation with member states, which was published by the Commission at the end of October 1998. The EU strategy sets out the criteria which will be used to determine when the essential use criteria for MDIs will be withdrawn in the EU. A number of non CFC MDIs are now available in the UK, and we anticipate that it should be possible to complete the transition for most types of MDI in the next three years.

  To complement the EU strategy, my Department is currently consulting stakeholders and interested parties on a draft UK strategy which will manage the transition

  7
  process within the UK. The consultation ends on 31 May 1999 and we aim to publish the final strategy later in the year.

  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the annual volume of chlorofluorocarbons released into the atmosphere through the use of metered dose inhalers in the UK in 1997 and 1998. [83173]

  Mr. Meale
  Based on data supplied by the European Commission, my Department estimates that the volume of chlorofluorocarbons used by manufacturers of metered dose inhalers in the United Kingdom was 2,208 tonnes in 1997 and 2,109 tonnes in 1998. About 40 per cent. of these metered dose inhalers will be used in the United Kingdom, the remainder being exported to other European Union countries and elsewhere. It is assumed that all the chlorofluorocarbons used in the manufacture of metered dose inhalers will eventually be emitted to atmosphere.

  Local Authority Housing
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what recent discussions he has had with London borough councils on the number of empty housing units in their authorities. [83333]

  Mr. Raynsford
  As part of the annual Housing Investment Programme determination, officials from the Government Office for London regularly discuss with all London boroughs many aspects of their housing strategies and their performance as housing authorities. These discussions include the boroughs' enabling role in bringing empty properties back into use and their private sector renewal strategies to tackle empty properties in the private sector.

  The Government fully support the work of the Empty Homes Agency and the London Empty Property Forum, which are both playing an important role in bringing empty homes back into use.

  Road Freight
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proportion of road freight in the United Kingdom originated outside the United Kingdom, in the latest year for which figures are available. [82882]

  Dr. Reid
  [holding answer 5 May 1999]: In 1997, an estimated 2.5 per cent. of all tonne-kilometres performed in Great Britain, for both domestic and international haulage, were performed by vehicles originating outside the United Kingdom. Virtually all of this foreign activity was accounted for by the British part of international journeys by foreign hauliers. Domestic journeys by foreign hauliers accounted for under 0.04 per cent. of the total Great Britain tonne-kilometres in 1997, which is the last year for which we have full figures. However, there is some anecdotal evidence that the foreign haulier activity within the UK has been increasing over the recent years. This is one of the issues we will be addressing through the Road Haulage Forum.

  Manchester Airport
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what were the main environmental safeguards agreed under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as preconditions for granting planning permission for the second runway at Manchester airport. [83353]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Manchester airport entered into a number of legal agreements including such matters as landscape and nature conservation, noise controls, night flying, highways improvements, public transport and the relocation of listed buildings.

  Domestic Violence
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when research into accommodation and support services available to households experiencing domestic violence is expected to be(a) completed and (b) published. [83564]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The research was commissioned by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, in association with the Women's Unit and the Department of Health, in June 1998, and is progressing well. The research involves a number of data collection exercises, including surveys of local authorities and women's refuge groups, case studies in a small number of local authorities, and interviews with households who have made use of the accommodation and support services. Fieldwork will be completed by the end of the year.

  The final report and good practice guidance for local authorities on the options for addressing the accommodation and support needs of households experiencing domestic violence is expected to be published in summer 2000.

  Passenger Partnership Fund
  Ms Keeble
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will publish the guidelines for the Passenger Partnership Fund. [83699]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  OPRAF will be publishing shortly guidance for those who wish to bid for some of the Rail Passenger Partnership Fund.

  Open Government
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many applications for information he received under the Open Government Code of Practice on Access to Government Information in the last parliamentary session; and how many of these applications were granted. [83105]

  Mr. Prescott
  For monitoring purposes, this information is collected on a calendar year basis. Information for 1997 was published last year in the Open Government Code of Practice on Access to Government Information 1997 Report. In 1998 my Department received 5,304 applications for information under the Code and granted 5,302 of them.

  Urban Centres
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps the Government are taking to improve facilities in urban centres for(a) the less mobile and (b) those on low incomes. [83599]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  My Department has issued guidance to local authorities on a range of measures to improve town centres for people with mobility difficulties. On the transport side, in January this year we published new guidelines on the use of tactile paving surfaces to provide warning and guidance to blind and partially-sighted pedestrians. We also intend to publish our strategy to encourage walking soon. This will set out the need for town centre improvements to take into account the needs of all groups, including disabled people and the 30 per cent. of households without access to a car.

  More generally the planning policy guidance for town centres and retail developments (PPG6) we have issued to local authorities has made particular reference to improving access to and within town centres, improving the pedestrian environment and, in particular, addressing the needs of people with mobility difficulties. We would expect authorities to survey the access and mobility needs of disabled people and demonstrate a commitment to meeting their needs in drawing up their strategies for town centres, their development plans and in making decisions on new developments.

  We also expect local authorities to demonstrate a similar commitment in their Local Transport Plans (LTPs). The guidance already issued to local authorities on preparing their LTPs has made particular reference to the needs of people with mobility difficulties. We expect LTPs to provide evidence to support their record in this area, and provide detail of their future plans.

  Turning to buildings, Part M of the Building Regulations requires that reasonable provision should be made for access and facilities for disabled people in all new buildings. These requirements currently apply to buildings other than dwellings, but from 25 October this year they will be extended to all new dwellings.

  In terms of low incomes, we have commissioned research into the links between public transport and social exclusion. The research will seek to establish the level of exclusion from public transport, identify the factors which discourage different groups from using it, examine the initiatives to encourage new passengers, and propose a range of initiatives to encourage ridership among excluded groups. The results of the research will be available in late 1999.

  Rural Brown-field Sites
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the Government's policy is on returning rural brown-field sites developed in the Second World War and no longer required for the original purpose to greenfield status. [83778]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The future use of a previously developed site should be consistent with the local planning authority's development plan and with the Government's planning policy guidance.

  Planning Guidance
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what account he takes of public support for the construction of a relief road in deciding whether to give statutory protection to an area considered by English Nature to be worthy of special conservation the designation of which will obstruct the building of that road; [83777]

  (2) what account his Department takes of the effect on environmental pollution of selecting a site for protection as a Special Area of Conservation whose designation will obstruct the construction of a relief road. [83760]

  Mr. Meale
  None. All Special Areas of Conservation are selected on the basis of their scientific conservation interest. The decision to allow the building of a road must be based on a number of planning factors one of which is its possible effect on nature conservation sites. Article 6 of the Habitats Directive requires all plans or projects which may have a significant effect on sites designated as Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) to be assessed for their implications on the site's conservation objectives. If that assessment shows that the plan or project would adversely affect the integrity of the site, consent may only be given, in the absence of alternatives (ie a less damaging way of carrying out the scheme), in the overriding public interest.

  London-Ipswich Corridor
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the remit for the multi-modal transport study for the London-Ipswich corridor; when it will be completed; if he will place any papers relating to traffic flows, investment options and opportunities for the injection of private finance received in the course of the study in the Library; and if he will make a statement. [83749]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Following consultation with the Regional Planning Body and others, we announced on March 23 that a study into the London to Ipswich corridor would be added to Tranche 2 of the Multi-Modal Studies programme. Tranche 2 studies will begin in 2000 and are expected to take on average 2 years to complete.

  The terms of reference for the study will be drawn up by a Steering Group which will include the Regional Planning Conference (SERPLAN) the Government Office, the Local Highway Authorities and transport providers. The aim of the study will be to address strategic problems within the London to Ipswich corridor, including on the Al2, and to identify solutions to those problems from all modes of transport and land use planning which meet our overarching environmental, safety, economic, accessibility and integration objectives for transport.

  The study will be an open process conducted in partnership with SERPLAN and in consultation with a wide range of interests. Specific reports related to the studies, covering topics such as data collection, option testing and strategy formulation etc., will be available from the Government Offices who are managing the studies.

  Fenchurch Street Station
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 5 May 1999,Official Report, column 396, concerning services to Fenchurch Street Station, if he will introduce legislation to improve the level and speed of compensation for customers in respect of infrastructure failures which are the responsibility of Railtrack. [83714]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Compensation to passengers for delays and cancellations, whatever their cause, is paid under the Passenger's Charter. These payments are made directly to passengers by the Train Operating Companies (TOCs) with which they travelled. All TOCs were required as part of their franchise agreements to publish a Passenger's Charter and the level of compensation offered and the events which triggered such payments were required to be as good or better than those offered by British Rail. The Franchising Director cannot unilaterally require improvements.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 5 May 1999,Official Report, column 396, concerning services to Fenchurch Street Station, what action the Government are taking to ensure that Railtrack invest sufficiently to reduce the incidence of infrastructure failure. [83716]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  We made it clear at the National Rail Summit in February that the Government is prepared to work in partnership with the railway industry to deliver a better rail service and increased investment. But Railtrack must play its part in creating a high quality, high growth, high investment railway. We have appointed Sir Alastair Morton to lead the shadow Strategic Rail Authority, and Tom Winsor as Rail Regulator, to ensure that that investment is delivered.

  Westminster Council
  Mrs. Shephard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what has been the total cost to public funds of the Westminster auditor's inquiry into the Westminster Council's designated sales policy over the period 18 July 1989 to 30 April 1999. [83381]

  Ms Armstrong
  We are advised by the Audit Commission that the auditor's costs for the investigation, up to and including the publication of his report in 1996, was £3,017,905, which has been met by Westminster City Council. The Audit Commission has, since the commencement of High Court proceedings, met further costs of £3,705,000. This includes the legal costs of the auditor for the High Court and Appeal Court Hearings, and the costs of those appellants whose appeals were successful in the High Court. It does not include the High Court and Appeal Court costs of Dame Shirley Porter and David Weeks; the Appeal Court is reconvening in several weeks to consider the award of these costs.

  Audit Commission
  Mrs. Shephard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will set out the authority under which the Audit Commission may make, vary, or refuse payments to a District Auditor it has appointed; and if he will make a statement. [83382]
  12
  Ms Armstrong
  The Audit Commission appoints auditors in accordance with the provisions set out in the Audit Commission Act 1998. Section 3(8) gives the Audit Commission discretion to make appointments on such terms and for such periods as the Commission may determine. These terms include the basis on which payments are made to appointed auditors.

  Fuel Poverty
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to publish the Government's fuel poverty policy proposals. [83906]

  Mr. Meale
  The Government intend to publish their proposals for the way ahead on fuel poverty tomorrow. They follow an extensive inter-departmental review of all current policies and programmes, including discussions with over 60 organisations with an interest in this area. Fuel poverty is an important issue which affects all too many households and which we are determined to address. The proposals will be subject to a two month consultation period, during which we shall actively seek views from interested parties. Copies of the consultation paper will be available tomorrow morning in the Library of the House and the Vote Office.

WALES

  Union Recognition
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what monitoring his Department undertakes of the implementation of Government policies on wages and union recognition in companies in South Wales. [81921]

  Mr. Hain
  Wages

  The Government asked the Low Pay Commission to monitor and evaluate the introduction and impact of the national minimum wage with particular reference to the effects on pay, employment and competitiveness. The Commission has been asked to report its findings by December. However, all employers in Wales will need to act within the law respecting the provisions of minimum wage legislation.

  Union Recognition

  The Employment Relations Bill, which contains a statutory procedure for trade union recognition, is currently being considered in another place. The Government is committed to reviewing the operation of such a procedure once it is in place.

  Genetically Modified Crops
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list each application for a licence to grow genetically modified crops in Wales in 1999, and the proposed locations. [82220]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  No applications to release genetically modified organisms at sites in Wales have been received in 1999.
  13
  An application was received, in December 1998, for the approval of research trials of Spring GM oilseed rape at 15 locations across Great Britain. In line with normal procedures this was assessed by the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment who appraise the application and advise on whether consent should be granted. One of the proposed release sites was in Monmouthshire and a consent was issued earlier this year. Subsequently, the farmer in Monmouthshire has withdrawn his permission to trial the GM crop.

  My right hon. Friend's responsibilities in this area are shortly to transfer to the National Assembly for Wales.

  New Deal
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has made of the number of lone parents who have agreed to join the New Deal programme in Wales. [83765]

  Mr. Hain
  The latest information from the Employment Service indicates that, by the end of March 1999, over 4,400 lone parents had agreed to participate in the New Deal for Lone Parents in Wales.

  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what his latest estimate is of the number of lone parents who have found jobs under the New Deal arrangements in Wales. [83764]

  Mr. Hain
  The latest information from the Employment Service indicates that, by the end of March 1999, almost 1,200 lone parents had secured jobs through the New Deal for Lone Parents in Wales.

  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the numbers of 18 to 24-year-olds who have obtained jobs through the New Deal arrangements in Wales. [83766]

  Mr. Hain
  The latest information from the Department for Education and Employment indicates that, by the end of February 1999, over 4,300 young people had secured sustained jobs through the New Deal for 18-24s in Wales.

  Open Government
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many applications for information he received under the Open Government: Code of Practice on Access to Government Information in the last parliamentary session; and how many of these applications were granted. [83121]

  Mr. Michael
  For monitoring purposes this information is collected on a calendar year basis. Information for 1997 was published last year in the Open Government Code of Practice on Access to Government Information 1997 Report. In 1998 my Department received 18 applications for information under the Code and granted 14 of them.

DEFENCE

  Armed Forces (Overstretch)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what measures his Department is taking to address overstretch in the Armed Forces. [82588]
  14
  Mr. Doug Henderson
  We remain firmly committed to addressing overstretch in the Armed Forces. Recruiting is an important priority; it remains buoyant and all three Services have improved their recruitment achievements during the last year. We are also making strenuous efforts to improve retention, for example through the Strategic Defence Review 'Policy for People' initiatives.

  Kosovo
  Ms Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the current security situation in Kosovo. [82589]

  Mr. George Robertson
  Serbian forces continue their brutality against Kosovar Albanians. Over one million have been forced from their homes. The UNHCR report that approximately 800,000 are now resident in temporary camps outside Kosovo or in countries elsewhere. A further 350,000 to 800,000 are thought to be internally displaced seeking refuge and safety in Kosovo.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the estimated tonnage of ordnance dropped on oil and chemical plants in Yugoslavia since 24 March; and what estimate he has made of resulting emissions of(a) ammonia, (b) benzene, (c) chlorine, (d) mercury, (e) phosgene and (f) sulphur dioxide. [82592]

  Mr. George Robertson
  I am withholding information on the tonnage of ordnance dropped in Yugoslavia since 24 March under exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. We take the need to avoid dangerous emissions from nuclear and chemical plants fully into account in making decisions about targets. The UK will comply with its obligations under the First Geneva Protocol.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment his Department has made of the effectiveness of the air campaign against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to date. [82600]

  Mr. George Robertson
  NATO's military action has had significant impact on Yugoslav military and special police operations and continues to do so. The air campaign is moving systematically and progressively to disrupt the violence and degrade President Milosevic's forces, his sustaining infrastructure, command and control and other targets associated with his system of repression.

  Ms Dari Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what role British troops are playing in assisting the humanitarian relief effort for Kosovar Albanian refugees. [82610]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The UK will continue to play a leading role in responding to the humanitarian crisis in the region.

  British troops in Macedonia have been assisting refugees since the beginning of April. They are continuing to prepare and distribute food and to supply blankets, nappies and other essential items. UK troops have also been involved in improving infrastructure at the refugee camps. This has included erecting tents and shelters, digging latrines, laying water pipes, removing rubbish, erecting fences and constructing tracks and bridges.
  15
  Today we plan to make available some 1,000 UK troops, currently in Macedonia, to assist in the humanitarian aid effort in Albania, where they will work with troops from other NATO nations to construct camps for up to 65,000 refugees. These camps will be handed over to Non Governmental Organisations to administer as soon as they have been established.

  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what role British troops are currently playing in providing humanitarian support in south-east Europe. [82601]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  In south-east Europe, British troops are providing humanitarian support in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and in Albania. For the details of their role, I refer The hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor) today,Official Report, column 140.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what quantities of(a) food, (b) medical equipment and (c) temporary accommodation have been provided by (i) United Kingdom military forces and (ii) NATO forces to refugees in (1) Macedonia, (2) Montenegro and (3) Albania since the outset of the NATO action in Yugoslavia; and what has been the cost to date of such assistance. [81944]

  Mr. George Robertson
  UK forces have not yet provided any assistance to refugees in Montenegro. In Albania and Macedonia UK forces have played a key role in alleviating the refugee crisis. In Albania this has not as yet involved provision of food, medical supplies or temporary accommodation. In Macedonia, full details of the quantities are not available, but estimated costs to date under the relevant headings are as follows:

  £

  (a) food

  2,500,000

  (b) medical supplies

  37,000

  (c) temporary accommodation

  95,000

  The Department for International Development will reimburse MOD for the above costs, and has assumed responsibility for future assistance. We do not have records of the value of assistance supplied by other NATO nations.

  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many additional(a) major units and (b) trained soldiers the Army would require to sustain 24-month tour intervals if operational deployments to Kosovo/ Macedonia/Albania and Bosnia are sustained at current levels indefinitely. [83139]

  Mr. George Robertson
  [holding answer 4 May 1999]: This would depend on the circumstances of particular operations, the overall level of operational commitment and progress towards achieving full manning.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what reports he has received on the identity of the perpetrators of war crimes in Kosovo. [83402]

  Mr. George Robertson
  It is for the Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in The Hague to seek indictments against 16
  individuals she believes have been responsible for serious violations of international humanitarian law in Kosovo. The Government will hand over as much information as they can that will be relevant to the Tribunal's investigations.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what reports he has received of the extent of collateral damage caused by NATO air raids in(a) the Belgrade suburb of Banjica and (b) Aleksinac. [83490]

  Mr. George Robertson
  [holding answer 7 May 1999]: We do not have any information on collateral damage to the Belgrade suburb of Banjica.

  As NATO has said, a military facility was struck at Aleksinac, home of the 203rd mixed artillery brigade. Despite meticulous pre-attack planning, it is possible that one weapon fell short of the target. (I am placing in the Library of the House a full transcript of what was said on the subject by a NATO spokesman at a press conference on 6 April 1999).

  Unlike President Milosevic, we take great care to reduce the risk of casualties and collateral damage. If there has been any unintended damage to civilian property or loss of life we regret this, but NATO's military actions are the result of Milosevic's brutal policy of ethnic cleansing.

  Royal Army Medical Corps
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on funding for the Royal Army Medical Corps. [82590]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The Strategic Defence Review increased the size of the Royal Army Medical Corps by 212 Regular and 675 Territorial Army personnel, an increase of 14.5 per cent. overall. This is part of a major enhancement of the Defence Medical Services for which we are providing an extra £140 million over the years 1998–99 to 2001–02, with further expenditure planned in subsequent years.

  Former Service Men (Sexual Orientation)
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the position of former service men discharged on the basis of their sexual orientation. [82591]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The Ministry of Defence does not monitor Service personnel once they have been discharged from the Armed Forces, whether on the grounds of their sexual orientation, or any other grounds.

  NATO Summit
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what decisions were made at the NATO summit in Washington regarding the non-proliferation of (i) nuclear weapons and (ii) weapons of mass destruction; and if he will make a statement. [82593]

  Mr. George Robertson
  At the NATO Summit meeting in Washington on 23-25 April, which I attended, the Alliance decided to launch a Weapons of Mass Destruction Initiative. It is designed to integrate and
  17
  further improve Alliance political and military efforts to counter their proliferation. This decision was recorded in the summit communiqué.

  Staff College (Camberley)
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will announce his plans for safeguarding the war memorial and buildings of staff college, Camberley; and if he will make a statement.[82595]

  Mr. Spellar
  In the light of the decision to base the Joint Doctrine and Concepts Centre at Shrivenham, a further review of the future of the Camberley site will now take place and a report will go to Ministers in the autumn. This solution will take full account of the war memorial in the Main Building.

  Guided Missiles (Saudi Arabia)
  Mr. John Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the planned gift of guided missiles to Saudi Arabia. [82596]

  Mr. George Robertson
  The details of the gift of Paveway bombs are contained in the Departmental Minute which was laid before Parliament on 4 February 1999.

  Territorial Army
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of the Territorial Army is currently deployed on operations. [82597]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  334 Members of the Territorial Army (TA) are currently deployed on operations, and these represent some 0.67 per cent. of the overall TA. The majority of these are in Bosnia.

  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of morale in the Territorial Army. [82605]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 22 February 1999,Official Report, columns 27–28. The situation remains unchanged.

  Parachute Regiment
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will review the proposed reorganisation of the Parachute Regiment following operations in Kosovo. [82598]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  No. The current situation in Kosovo does not affect the Strategic Defence Review conclusions made in respect of the Parachute Regiment.

  Troop Deployment (Bosnia)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many British troops are currently deployed in Bosnia. [82603]

  Mr. George Robertson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the oral answer given today,Official Report, column 3, to my hon. Friends the Members for Warrington, North (Helen Jones) and Plymouth, Sutton (Mrs. Gilroy).

  Army Ranges (Shoeburyness)
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made in determining the future use of the old and the new ranges in Shoeburyness. [82604]

  Mr. Spellar
  Progress is being made with respect to the disposal of defence establishments at Shoeburyness, Horseshoe Barracks and the Old Ranges (including Gunners Park). Having been declared surplus to my Department's requirements, they are now being prepared for disposal. A draft Planning Brief has been the subject of a public consultation exercise and was approved by the full Borough Council on 25 February. Marketing of the site will begin shortly. With regard to the New Ranges, DERA is seeking to appoint a new contractor to support the operation of the range. It is intended that this contractor will also work with the Agency to improve exploitation of the range through the introduction of alternative activities to supplement income. Several possible diversification opportunities have been identified. However, as negotiations are currently in hand with preferred bidders, it would be premature to provide details until the remaining contractual issues have been resolved.

  RAF Strike Command
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of RAF Strike Command is currently committed to operations. [82606]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  As at 7 May 1999, approximately 8 per cent. of Strike Command's trained strength is currently deployed on operations.

  The figures represent personnel deployed away from their parent station and, as such, do not account for personnel supporting operations from their normal station, such as those at RAF Bruggen. Similarly, the figures do not include personnel working at Strike Command or Group Headquarters who are involved as part of their normal tasks in planning activity in support of operations. It would not be straightforward to give an accurate figure which included these personnel.

  Strategic Defence Review
  Mr. Beard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps are being taken to adapt the Army's tactical doctrine to the more flexible role defined for it by the Strategic Defence Review. [82607]

  Mr. George Robertson
  The Army's tactical doctrine is under continuous review and improvement, taking into account the lessons of current and recent operations. This process now includes planning for the employment of the new structures created by the Strategic Defence Review, such as the Air Assault Brigade with its Attack Helicopters. In addition, a Joint Doctrine and Concepts Centre is being established at Shrivenham. It will be a centre of excellence on joint doctrine for all three Services.

  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to change the resource assumptions made in the strategic defence review. [82609]

  Mr. George Robertson
  None.

  Eurofighter
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the progress of the Eurofighter programme. [82608]

  Mr. George Robertson
  The Eurofighter programme is progressing satisfactorily. Production contracts for the first 148 Eurofighter aircraft, 55 of which are for the Royal Air Force, were signed in Munich on 18 September 1998. The project remains on schedule to deliver the RAF's first Eurofighter in June 2002.

  The seven development aircraft have now flown a total of some 950 sorties, (some 770 flying hours), achieving speeds up to Mach 2.0.

  Achievements this year include the signing of the initial aircraft supports contracts in January, and a high altitude demonstration of the aircraft powered by the new Eurojet 200 engine. Most recently, the rear seat controls in one of the 2 twin-seater development aircraft have been demonstrated.

  Trident
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current deployment of the Trident submarine fleet. [82611]

  Mr. George Robertson
  There are currently three Trident submarines in the operational cycle in order to maintain one submarine on deterrent patrol at all times. The UK's minimum deterrent force is maintained at several days' notice to fire as was announced in the Strategic Defence Review.

  Falklands Garrison
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current cost of garrisoning the Falklands. [82612]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The cost to the Ministry of Defence of the Falklands garrison in the financial year 1998–99 is expected to be approximately £70 million.

  This figure relates to the costs incurred by the Commander British Forces Falkland Islands only. It does not include the costs of the RAF airbridge to the Falkland Islands, nor the cost of naval deployments to the South Atlantic. These costs fall to other budgets and are not separately identified.

  Defence Agencies Merger
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for the merger of the Military Survey and Joint Air Reconnaissance Intelligence Centre (JARIC) Defence Agencies. [83904]

  Mr. Spellar
  The case for merging the Military Survey and JARIC Defence Agencies into a single, converged Agency was considered under the Strategic Defence Review, and built on earlier work.

  The final study, which was completed in September 1998, concluded that there were a number of drivers, mainly in the medium to long-term, recommending the merger of Military Survey and JARIC. These would
  20
  secure improved operational effectiveness and better service to Defence. Early implementation of merger was recommended.

  Following full consultation, I have asked the Director General of Intelligence and Geographic Resources to proceed with the implementation of a single Agency to be launched in April 2000. The post of Chief Executive Designate of the new Agency, Colonel Peter Walker OBE, has been filled by internal competition. On promotion to Brigadier he will lead an Implementation Team which will be established shortly before he assumes his Chief Executive role in April 2000.

  Resource Accounting
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish the illustrative resource accounting and budgeting accounts for his Department for 1998–99. [82517]

  Mr. George Robertson
  The first Departmental Resource Account for publication is that for 1999–2000, which will appear in autumn 2000, in line with the timetable set out in the White Paper "Better Accounting for the Taxpayer's Money" (Cmd. 2929, July 1995). The 1998–99 Departmental Resource Account is not due to be published.

  RAF Deployment
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the required increase in(a) RAF squadrons and (b) RAF strength to achieve an average deployment on operations for RAF personnel of six months every 30 months based on the RAF's deployed position as at 23 March. [83231]

  Mr. George Robertson
  [holding answer 4 May 1999]: The target figure for nights away from home on deployment or detachment is 140 nights in one year, or 280 aggregated over two years in peace-time. This needs to be seen in the context of the likely demands placed on the Royal Air Force over a period of time rather than on the basis of a snapshot on one particular day.

  Ex-service Pensions
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many ex-servicemen receive levels of pensions that were adversely affected by short-term pay restraint measures which were in force at their date of retirement. [82575]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 4 May 1999]: During periods of pay restraint, principally during the mid 1970s, the pay of members of the armed forces rose by less than the rate of increase of the retail prices index (RPI). As a consequence the pensions of those who retired during these periods can be lower than the pensions of those who retired either before or after that period. The numbers affected are not known. However, the numbers leaving the armed forces during the years 1976–78 ranged between 46,500 and 48,500, but not all of those who retired during those years would have been entitled to a pension.

  Graphite Bombs
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the cost of a graphite bomb. [83465]

  Mr. George Robertson
  The UK armed forces do not hold such weapons and we have no details about their cost.

  Open Government
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many applications for information he received under the Open Government Code of Practice on Access to Government Information in the last parliamentary session; and how many of these applications were granted. [83113]

  Mr. Spellar
  For monitoring purposes, this information is collected on a calendar year basis. Information for 1997 was published last year in the Open Government Code of Practice on Access to Government Information 1997 Report. In 1998 my Department received 271 applications for information under the Code, and granted 248 of them.

  RAF Museum, Hendon and Cosford
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future development of the RAF museum at Hendon and Cosford. [82594]

  Mr. Spellar
  Development of the RAF Museum is a matter for its Trustees. A new Visitor Centre at the RAF Museum's Cosford site was completed last year. The Trustees' plans for a major development at Hendon, which are dependent upon Heritage Lottery Fund grants, are progressing well. My Department supports these plans. Indeed, we funded the initial work and have promised further funds towards the Museum's contribution to the development costs.

  Defence Estimates
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he intends to publish the statement on the Defence Estimates; and if he will make a statement. [83581]

  Mr. George Robertson
  I have made no decision on the publication date of the 1999 Defence White Paper. I am keeping the timing of publication under review in the light of developments in the Balkans. As I informed the House of Commons Defence Committee in February, the Defence White Paper will be a forward-looking policy document complementing the Annual Performance Report and replacing the Statement on the Defence Estimates.

  Skill Shortages
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what skill shortages he has identified within Her Majesty's forces. [82602]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  In the Naval Service there is a shortfall of Engineer Officers, particularly Direct Graduate Entry Engineers, and Engineer (Training Managers). For Ratings/Other Ranks the shortfall categories are: Operator Mechanics; trained Naval Nurses; Short Engagement Seamen; Artificer Apprentices; Commando Medical Assistants; and General Duties Marines. For the Army,22
  there are skills shortages in the medical, dental, and veterinary services. Shortfalls also exist in the Royal Artillery, Royal Signals, Infantry, Army Air Corps, Royal Logistics Corps, Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers, Intelligence Corps and Corps of Army Musicians. The RAF has a shortfall in the number of junior officer fast jet pilots, and officers in engineering and medical branches. A shortage in RAF Fighter Controllers is also giving cause for concern.

  Each Service has introduced a range of initiatives to reduce these shortfalls.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Hesford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has for encouraging the power generating companies to increase their use of renewable energy sources. [82244]

  Mr. Battle
  Renewable sources of energy make an important contribution to secure, sustainable and diverse energy supplies and are an essential element of a cost-effective climate change programme. The Government are working towards a target of renewable energy providing 10 per cent. of UK electricity supplies as soon as possible. They hope to achieve this by 2010. I have recently published "New and Renewable Energy: Prospects for the 21st Century", which seeks views on the balance of measures and the precise form of support for renewables in the next stage of their development. It identifies the key issues which the Government, industry and other players will need to address. It affirms the Government's commitment to their new drive to develop renewables; identifies the practical steps which might be needed to achieve this objective; and seeks to engage a wider public in the development and realisation of its strategy.

  Redundancies
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many redundancies were reported to his Department(a) in 1997, (b) in 1998 and (c) to 31 March 1999, in (i) Southport and (ii) the North West of England. [82911]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The number of redundancies reported to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State were:

  Southport

  North West Region

  1997

  314

  33,316

  1998

  516

  36,948

  to 31 March 1999

  359

  18,697

  Home Businesses
  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate he has made of the number of businesses in the United Kingdom run from home; and what initiatives his Department has taken to address the specific needs of those businesses. [83040]
  23
  Mr. Wills
  [holding answer 5 May 1999]: No official estimate has been made of the number of businesses run from home. The Labour Force Survey, Spring 1998, estimated that 600,000 self employed people work mainly from their own home, and a further 1.1 million use their home as a base while working in different places.

  There are no schemes specifically addressed towards home-based businesses. Home based businesses and the self employed are eligible for business support in the same way as any other small business. Business Link partnerships provide support to all businesses regardless of size or their location. In addition, the DTI makes available a considerable amount of free information on a wide variety of topics.

  I met with officials from the Home Business Alliance on 27 April to discuss their concerns for home-based workers.

  Parental Leave
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list those European countries which(a) pay and (b) do not pay people on parental leave, indicating the methods used for making such payments. [83558]

  Mr. Byers
  From the information that we hold, it appears that some form of state payment is provided in Italy, Sweden, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany and Luxembourg during parental leave, subject to each Member State's qualifying conditions.

  There does not appear to be any universal provision for payment in Spain, Portugal, Greece, Ireland or the Netherlands.

SCOTLAND

  Scottish Parliament (Facilities)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what(a) reciprocal and (b) other arrangements have been made for hon. Members to use facilities at the Scottish Parliament. [83240]

  Mr. McLeish
  MSPs themselves will wish to consider the nature of their relationship with Westminster MPs. It will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament itself to decide on what arrangements it would be appropriate to make for hon. Members to use facilities at the Scottish Parliament.

  Open Government
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many applications for information he received under the Open Government Code of Practice on Access to Government Information in the last parliamentary session; and how many of these applications were granted. [83112]

  Mr. Dewar
  This information is collected for monitoring purposes on a calendar year basis. Information for 1997 was published in the Open Government Code of Practice on Access to Government Information 1997 24
  Report. In 1998 my Department (including non-departmental public bodies covered by the Code) received 263 applications for information made under the Code and granted 255 of them.

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

  Public Record Office
  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many linear metres of storage space at the Public Record Office for Scotland are(a) occupied by records and (b) vacant. [83753]

  Mr. McLeish
  The National Archives of Scotland has 69,492.94 metres of available shelf space, of which 57,618.48 are currently occupied.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Environmental Appraisal
  Mr. Truswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what environmental appraisals of policy his Department has(a) completed, (b) started and (c) planned. [79632]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment, Transport and the Regions on 13 April 1999,Official Report, column 66.

  EU-ACP Ministerial Meeting
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish the agenda for the forthcoming EU-ACP Ministerial Meeting of 6 May. [83279]

  Ms Quin
  The last EU-ACP Ministerial Meeting took place in Dakar in February and the next will take place on 29–30 July in Brussels. A separate ACP-EU Council between these negotiating sessions was provisionally envisaged for May, but in the event no need for it arose. No agenda has yet been fixed for the next meeting.

  China and Tibet
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) of 26 April 1999, Official Report, column 36, on China and Tibet, if he will list those areas on which a dialogue-based approach has made limited progress; and if he will make a statement on how he intends to press China to take further action. [83557]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  Since the UK/China human rights dialogue was established in September 1997, and the EU/China human rights dialogue resumed in October 1997, China has taken several positive steps which will bring about its closer co-operation with UN human rights mechanisms. These include signature of the international covenants on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and Civil and Political Rights, and agreement to report to the Un under those covenants in respect of Hong Kong. It has received visits by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and the UN Working Group on Arbitrary
  25
  Detention, as well as allowing a visit to Tibet by EU Troika Ambassadors. It has also extended an invitation to visit to the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture. We have been able to discuss issues of serious concern including the death penalty, religion, Tibet and individual cases in the dialogues; China has also begun to collaborate with the UK and EU on human rights co-operation programmes. We shall press for further concrete steps through these continuing dialogues, as well as forthcoming bilateral and EU high level meetings with China.

  Subsidiarity
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on how many occasions he has blocked a Commission proposal at the Council of Ministers on the ground of subsidiarity. [83474]

  Ms Quin
  Subsidiarity is one of numerous factors taken into account when legislation is discussed in the Council of Ministers. It is not possible to say how often it has been the principal factor in UK opposition to a Commission proposal.

  Cambodia
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what position Her Majesty's Government took on Cambodia at the recent United Nations Commission on Human Rights meeting in Geneva; and if he will make a statement. [83374]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  We see the UNCHR as an important opportunity to press the Cambodian Government to improve its human rights record. This year we co-sponsored a successful resolution on Cambodia which called for proper investigation into extra-judicial killings, an end to impunity, and for Khmer Rouge leaders to be brought to justice. We will continue to press for full respect for human rights in Cambodia, both through diplomatic pressure and practical assistance.

  Sudan
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent information he has received from the United States Government concerning the missile attack last year on the pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum. [83468]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  It is established practice under Section 1(c) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information not to disclose or discuss information received in confidence from foreign governments.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received from Sudan concerning the attack on Akoc in Troc County, Bhar-el-Ghazal, Southern Sudan on 26 February. [83084]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  [holding answer 6 May 1999]: We have had a number of reports of an attack on Akoc by murahileen. Reporting by NGOs on the ground talked of over 40 killed and nearly 900 abducted.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made in re-establishing an embassy in Khartoum. [83085]
  26
  Mr. Robin Cook
  [holding answer 6 May 1999]: As I made clear at the time of the withdrawal of staff, we hope the necessary conditions will be re-established for a return to normal relations with Sudan. We have been in regular contact with the Sudanese authorities and discussions continue.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to the letter from Lady Bingham of Cornhill to the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett), what assistance he has given to the Sudanese Red Crescent(a) emergency vaccine campaign against meningitis and
  (b) malaria eradication programme. [83354]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  Support for Red Cross activities, as for all humanitarian responses in Sudan, is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development.

  Entry Clearance Visas
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the average length of time of an interview for an entry clearance visa in(a) Bombay, (b) New Delhi, (c) Calcutta, (d) Islamabad, (e) Dhaka and (f) Karachi in the last year for which figures are available. [83560]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  Applications are dealt with on the basis of a triage system which separates them into 4 tiers. The tiers are:

  (A) Non-settlement

  Tier 1: Straightforward applications received over the counter, by post, or from an agent, resulting in immediate issue or mandatory refusal. ECOs may ask one or two questions if necessary to clear up minor points.

  Tier 2: Secondary examination of less straightforward applications that are likely to result in an issue.

  Tier 3: For cases likely to result in refusal. A full interview is required.

  (B) Settlement

  Tier 4: This is the category under which all settlement cases are dealt with. Interviews can result in issue, refusal, referral (to the Home Office for a decision) or deferral (for additional information to be obtained).

  The average length of interviews at the posts listed is as follows (figures, in minutes, are for 1998):

  Post

  Tier 1

  Tier 2

  Tier 3

  Tier 4

  Bombay

  2.00

  9.00

  30.00

  50.00

  New Delhi

  2.02

  5.33

  28.46

  57.54

  Calcutta

  3.00

  10.00

  29.75

  39.17

  Islamabad

  3.85

  10.50

  35.65

  39.71

  Dhaka

  2.80

  8.07

  32.87

  58.11

  Karachi

  1.59

  4.28

  26.50

  43.00

  Turkey
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received in respect of Turkey's conflict with its Kurdish population; and if he will make a statement. [83561]
  27
  Ms Quin
  We receive regular representations from Members of Parliament, Members of the House of Lords, members of the public and interested groups about the conflict in south-east Turkey.

  We have made it clear to the Turkish authorities that we believe the conflict in the region cannot be resolved by military means alone. We believe that the social and economic problems of south-east Turkey and the aspirations of the Kurdish population there must be addressed if the region is to achieve a long-lasting peace.

  We have long made clear our condemnation of terrorism in all its forms, including terrorist acts by the PKK (Kurdistan Workers' Party).

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the current position in respect of Turkey's application to become a member of the European Union. [83488]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 7 May 1999]: The Cardiff European Council in June 1998 endorsed the European Strategy for Turkey, which aims to prepare Turkey for membership by bringing it closer to the EU in all areas. The Turks and the Commission have met three times so far to discuss implementation of the Strategy. We welcome the Commission's proposals for funding the Strategy, worth 150 million euro over 3 years. These proposals are currently being considered by the European Parliament; we hope they can be agreed soon.

  In November 1998, the Commission produced its first annual report on Turkey's progress towards European Union membership. The report noted that Turkey had most of the hallmarks of a market economy, but still needed to address shortcomings in the areas of human rights, treatment of minorities and the lack of civilian control over the army. Turkey must improve its record in these areas in order to meet the criteria for membership of the European Union laid down by the 1993 Copenhagen European Council.

  Zimbabwe High Commission
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many children over the age of majority living in the United Kingdom as part of the household of employees or diplomats of the Zimbabwe High Commission are entitled to diplomatic immunity. [83551]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  [holding answer 7 May 1999]: There are five children over the age of majority living in the United Kingdom as part of the households of diplomats of the Zimbabwe High Commission. All five are entitled to diplomatic immunity.

  Chagos Islands
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer on 26 April 1999,Official Report, column 35, what approach he will adopt in considering applications for full British citizenship from Ibis who do not hold full citizenship of another country. [83379]
  28
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  [holding answer 7 May 1999]: The British Government does not propose to extend the offer of British citizenship to British Dependent Territories citizens who owe their status to their association with the British Indian Ocean Territory.

  Kosovo
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what reports he has received concerning the whereabouts of Dr. Ibrahim Rugova; what attempts have been made to contact him; and with what results; [83485]

  (2) what contact Her Majesty's Government have had with the Democratic League of Kosovo; and if he will make a statement. [83484]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  [holding answer 7 May 1999]: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary spoke by telephone to Dr. Rugova on 6 May in Rome, where he was staying as a guest of the Italian government. Prior to that, I met with Mr. Hafiz Gagica, a senior representative of the LDK on 23 April. Officials remain in close contact with the LDK.

  Montenegro
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received from Montenegro in respect of the military action in Yugoslavia. [83486]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  [holding answer 7 May 1999]: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is in regular contact with the Montenegrin President, Mr. Djukanovic. President Djukanovic naturally regrets the need for military action against the FRY. We understand his position and have pledged Montenegro maximum support.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made on the effects of an oil embargo on Montenegro. [83582]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We recognise the political and economic impacts on Montenegro of the conflict in Kosovo. Both the EU and NATO have made every effort to minimise the adverse effects for Montenegro of punitive measures against the regime in Belgrade, including the EU oil embargo which entered into force on 30 April. The European Union has recently allocated 13 Meuro for budgetary assistance for Montenegro. We are pressing the Commission to ensure that these funds are disbursed as soon as possible, and are exploring other ways of assisting.

  Croatia
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is Her Majesty's Government's policy in respect of the return of refugees to Krajina; and what representations have been made to Croatia in respect of their return. [83492]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  [holding answer 7 May 1999]: The Government believes that all those displaced from their homes during the conflicts following the break-up of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia should be allowed to return to their homes.
  29
  We take every opportunity to impress on the states of the former Yugoslavia, including Croatia, the importance we place on refugee return. I most recently raised this issue with Mrs. Skare-Ozbalt, President Thajman's principal adviser on refugee policy, when she called on me in London on 26 April.

  KLA
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when Her Majesty's Government first made direct contact with the Kosova Liberation Army; and how many meetings there have been between Her Majesty's Government and that organisation since. [83494]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  [holding answer 7 May 1999]: An initial meeting between an official of the British Embassy in Belgrade and leaders of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) was held on 30 July 1998. As co-Chairman of the Rambouillet peace talks, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary held frequent meetings with the Kosovo Albanian delegation, which included representatives of the KLA. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and officials have subsequently had a number of contacts with senior leaders of the KLA.

  Open Government
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many applications for information he received under the Open Government Code of Practice on Access to Government Information in the last parliamentary session; and how many of these applications were granted. [83107]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  For monitoring purposes, this information is collected on a calendar year basis. Information for 1997 was published last year in the "Open Government Code of Practice on Access to Government Information 1997 Report. In 1998, my Department received 46 applications for information under the Code—35 were met in full, 8 in part and 3 were refused.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Open Government
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many applications for information he received under the Open Government Code of Practice on Access to Government Information in the last parliamentary session; and how many of these applications were granted. [83115]

  Janet Anderson
  My Department monitors applications for information received under the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information on a calendar year basis. In 1998–99 the Department and those of its sponsored bodies1 then subject to the Code received 34 requests for information. 30 of these were granted.

  1In 1998–99 the following DCMS sponsored executive NDPBs were subject to the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information:

  Royal Parks Agency

  Arts Council of England

  British Film Institute

  British Library Board
  30
  Crafts Council

  English Sports Council

  English Tourist Board

  English Heritage

  Museums and Galleries Commission

  National Heritage Memorial Fund/Heritage Lottery Fund

  Registrar of Public Lending Right

  UK Sports Council.

  An Order taken before the Privy Council in February 1999 brought all the executive and two of the advisory NDPBs sponsored by my Department within the scope of the Code.

  Folk Music
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what measures his Department is taking to promote traditional folk and acoustic music. [83294]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The Government recognise the importance of folk and acoustic music to our wider arts policy. The strategic arms length relationship between DCMS and the Arts Council in funding issues means that it is for the Arts Council and Regional Arts Boards to take decisions on the funding of specific art forms, but DCMS is aware of the need to ensure that performers, producers and promoters of folk music continue to receive appropriate support. The Arts Council—having already provided significant Lottery support to folk music, and having also increased substantially the grant-in-aid budget to be committed to it—will shortly be launching a new Folk Music Policy which, following consultation, will provide a framework for future development, partnerships with other sectors, and future funding.

  Hotels
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to publicise the launch of the new rating scheme for hotel accommodation; and when it will take place. [83036]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 4 May 1999]: The Government have asked the English Tourist Board, which will shortly become the English Tourism Council, to arrange the consumer launch of the new harmonised schemes for hotel and guest accommodation, working closely with the AA and the RAC. Preparatory inspections will shortly be complete and the launch is planned for September. We support these arrangements to ensure wide awareness of the benefits of the new schemes.

  UK Sports Institute
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what progress he has made in the allocation of the facilities at the regional centres of excellence for the UK Sports Institute. [83168]

  Mr. Banks
  Since the launch of the UK Sports Institute's network in England on 1 March 1999, Sport England have briefed key individuals and institutions in consortiums on the way forward. They are also updating the 1997 audit of sport to clarify individual World Class Programme sports service and facility requirements.
  31
  The information will be used to draw up a template for each UK Sports Institute consortium which will set out the service and facility requirements for each individual area. These will be ready to present to the network consortiums in the summer.

  BBC Director-General
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions he has had with Mr. Greg Dyke with regard to the appointment of the next Director-General of the BBC. [83037]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 4 May 1999]: I have had no detailed discussions with Mr. Greg Dyke about the appointment of the next Director-General of the BBC. He did, however, inform me on 4 February that he was considering applying for the post.

  Millennium Commission Projects
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what proportion of projects which have received Millennium Commission awards have been in(a) the east midlands and (b) Leicestershire. [83164]

  Janet Anderson
  This is a matter for the Millennium Commission. My right hon. Friend will reply to my hon. Friend in his capacity as Chairman of the Commission, and place copies of his reply in the Libraries of the House.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) if he will list the expected sources of partnership funding for each of the Millennium capital projects; and how much has now been secured in each case; [83758]

  (2) how much of the matched funding being sought by the Millennium Commission capital projects is expected to come from (a) local authorities, (b) development corporations, (c) ERDF, (d) other Government sources and (e) private donations. [83759]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  These are matters for the Millennium Commission. I shall write to the hon. Member in my capacity as Chairman of the Commission, and place copies of my reply in the Libraries of the House.

  School Playing Fields
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many planning applications for the sale of school playing fields have(a) been considered and (b) been objected to by Sport England since 25 February; and if he will list them. [81801]

  Mr. Banks
  [holding answer 28 April 1999]: Since 25 February Sport England has considered 45 planning applications in respect of school playing fields and objected in 4 cases. Of the remaining 41 planning applications, 16 are still undergoing assessment by Sport England. The list of planning applications is as follows:

  Region

  Site name

  London

  Horsenden School, Ealing Ashmole School, Barnet

  East Midlands

  Pingle School, Swadlincote St. Peter's and St. Paul's, Lincoln Daventry Tertiary College Trinity Higher Comp., Nottingham

  32

  Region

  Site name

  South

  Lord Grey School, Milton Keynes St. Bernard's School, Basingstoke Sandmills School, Oxford Hailey Borough School, Windsor Grange School, Aylesbury Furze Down School, Aylesbury Wycombe Abbey School Queen Anne's Reading Southwold Primary Bishop Lovett Middle School Queen Dyke School, West Oxon St. Leonard's Primary, Cherwell West Berkshire Education Centre Ryde High School, Isle of Wight Shaw House School Westgate School, Winchester Oriel College, Oxford

  North

  Queen Katherine School, Kendal Walkerden Special School, Newcastle Ehenside School, Cleator Moor Haughton Comprehensive, Darlington Cumwhinton Primary School, Cumbria

  East

  Elmstead Primary School Moulsham School, Chelmsford Market Field School, Elmstead Sir Fredrick Osbourne, Welwyn Surlingham CP School Litcham HS Station Road, Harpenden (off site)

  North West

  Our Lady Reconciliation HS, Liverpool Ribbleton High School, Preston Hyde High School Former Stanney Grant Infant School Shepherd Cross Primary School, Bolton

  West Midlands

  Aldersley High School, Wolverhampton Broad Heath School, Coventry Cockshut Hill School, Birmingham

  South West

  Sedgemoore Manor Junior School, Bridgwater

  South East

  Deburgh School, Tadworth

  Millennium Dome (Opening Ceremonies)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps he is taking to ensure that those invited to the opening ceremonies of the Dome are representative of the whole of society. [82327]

  Janet Anderson
  The New Millennium Experience Company are determined that the opening celebration at the Millennium Dome on 31 December 1999 will be an inclusive event and will represent the whole of society. The majority of those invited will be members of the general public from across the UK. NMEC are currently developing their strategy for delivering this and will announce the arrangements in due course.

  Departmental Legal Business
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on his Department's policy when(a) conducting legal proceedings and (b) seeking legal advice as to the circumstances in which Queen's Counsel should be instructed; and for each of the last three years (i) on how many occasions his Department instructed Queen's Counsel and (ii) what was the total cost of instructing Queen's Counsel.[81764]
  33
  Mr. Chris Smith
  In relation to sub-paragraphs(a) and (b) of my hon. Friend's question concerning my Department's policy when conducting legal proceedings, and when seeking legal advice as to the circumstances in which Queen's Counsel should be instructed, this Department would normally expect the Treasury Solicitor's Department to instruct Counsel on its behalf. I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by the Solicitor-General on 26 April 1999, Official Report, columns 1–2.

  With regard to each of the last three years, as far as my officials have been able to ascertain without incurring disproportionate cost, from April 1996 to March 1997 Queen's Counsel were instructed in one case; from April 1997 to March 1998 Queen's Counsel were instructed in three cases; and from April 1998 to date Queen's Counsel were instructed in five cases.

  As far as my officials have been able to ascertain without incurring disproportionate cost, the total cost of instructing Counsel during the periods referred to above was:

  for 1996–97: £146,689.75; and

  for 1997–98 £11,350.50; and

  for 1998 to date £25,168.51.

  It should be noted that the total figure given for the period 1996–97 covers work for two cases—it includes a sum attributable to Counsel's fees for work undertaken before April 1996 but paid after that date. It should also be noted that the figure given for 1998 to date excludes Counsel's fees for work undertaken in that period which are yet to be agreed.

  Professional Statisticians
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many staff who have worked as professional statisticians in his Department and its predecessor have left on early retirement in each of the past 10 years. [81174]

  Janet Anderson
  The number of "professional statisticians" who have left on early retirement in the last 10 years is none.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many staff by grade are employed as professional statisticians in his Department; how many of these staff have been accepted as fast stream by the Civil Service Selection Board; and how many have been granted chartered statistician status by the Royal Statistical Society. [81196]

  Janet Anderson
  Statistical work is undertaken by a range of specialisms such as Research Officers, Social Survey Officers and Economists. Within this Department there are 1 Grade A (U)—Grade 6 equivalent, 1 Grade A (L)—Grade 7 equivalent, 1 Assistant Statisticians employed as "professional" statisticians, all of whom have been recruited via CSSB.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, pursuant to his answer of 21 April 1999,Official Report, column 577, if he will give the total travel
  34
  cost of each occasion when (a) departmental special advisers travelled abroad in an official capacity since 2 May 1997 and (b) the place visited. [82412]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  For the period 2 May 1997 to 31 March 1999, special advisers in my Department have travelled overseas in an official capacity on two occasions to the USA and France.

  The total cost of travel and any hotel accommodation is £7,739. All travel complied with the requirements of the Ministerial Code and the Civil Service Management Code.

  Broadcasting Licences
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what recent representations he has received regarding lifting the restrictions on religious organisations which prevent them holding national terrestrial radio broadcasting licences; and if he will make a statement; [83129]

  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on United Christian Broadcasting's application for a broadcasting licence. [83044]

  Janet Anderson
  The Broadcasting Act 1990 disqualifies groups whose objectives are wholly or mainly of a religious nature from holding a terrestrial national radio licence issued by the Radio Authority. However, this disqualification does not extend to local, satellite and cable radio licences where the Authority is permitted to licence religious bodies subject to compliance with its religious guidelines. It is under these provisions that, for example, United Christian Broadcasters already holds two satellite broadcast licences from the Radio Authority. A religious organisation can hold a digital satellite radio licence but not a terrestrial digital radio multiplex or sound programme service licence under the 1996 Broadcasting Act.

  My Department has received representations from United Christian Broadcasters, from around two hundred Members of Parliament and more than ten thousand representations from members of the public. We are considering these representations and I will be meeting representatives of United Christian Broadcasters on 10 June to explore their concerns more fully.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Asylum (Kosovan Albanians)
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to revise the rules governing refusal of asylum on safe third country grounds in respect of Kosovan Albanians. [83614]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We are not persuaded that it is necessary to change the Immigration Rules. The Dublin Convention provides an agreed legal framework for deciding which member state should decide asylum applications made in the European Union. It provides for a range of criteria to be taken into account including the applicant's family links. Member states have not decided to suspend the operation of the Convention in respect of Kosovan Albanians. In recent weeks, we have transferred
  35
  a small number of Kosovans to other member states. In each case the receiving state had, in accordance with the provisions of the Dublin Convention, accepted responsibility for considering the asylum applications. All of these persons had arrived in the European Union before the recent North Atlantic Treaty Organisation action. None of those Kosovans who are being airlifted directly from the region to the United Kingdom will be transferred to other states on safe third country grounds.

  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Kosovan Albanians have been(a) refused asylum and (b) removed to other countries on safe third country grounds since 24 March. [83615]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The available information is that no nationals of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, whose cases have been considered substantively, have been refused asylum in the period January to March 1999. It is not possible separately to identify Kosovans within the statistics held on nationals of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

  All applications for asylum are considered within the terms of the 1951 United Nations Convention on the Status of Refugees and its 1967 New York Protocol. At the present time, and in general, ethnic Albanians from Kosovo who apply for asylum are likely to be able to demonstrate that they have a well-founded fear of persecution and will be granted asylum.

  Where, under the provisions of the Dublin Convention, another European Union member state accepts that it is responsible for determining the claim we would normally seek to transfer the applicant there. Six nationals of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, excluding dependants, have been transferred to European Union Member states since 24 March 1999 under the Dublin Convention. All of these persons had arrived in the European Union before the recent North Atlantic Treaty Organisation action. None who arrived since that date have been transferred. No Ethnic Albanians from Kosovo will be returned to the region while the conflict lasts.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to accommodate Kosovan refugees in East Lancashire. [83605]

  Mr. Straw
  The Refugee Council and its partner agencies are working closely with the Home Office and local government associations to identify sites for further reception centres across the United Kingdom. We are looking at all parts of the United Kingdom. There will be a variety of different forms of accommodation used as temporary reception centres where the refugees can be housed prior to moving into more settled accommodation.

  Immigration and Nationality Directorate
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what payments have been made to Siemens Business Systems in respect of work for the Immigration and Nationality Directorate to date. [83617]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Details of the payment arrangements between the Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) and Siemens Business Services are commercially confidential. A high proportion of the payments to the supplier are linked to the successful delivery of key elements of the IND Casework 36
  Programme, including the computer system and improvements in IND-s productivity. In effect it is payment on delivery of specific parts of the contract.

  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the additional costs to the Government which have resulted from the late delivery of the Siemens Business Systems contract with the Immigration and Nationality Directorate. [83618]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Under the terms of the contract between the Immigration and Nationality Directorate and Siemens Business Services (SBS), the financial risk for the late delivery of elements of the Casework Programme is borne by Siemens Business Services. Although development of the full information technology application has been delayed, many elements of the Programme, in particular improvements to the business process and some new information technology, have been delivered. A package of changes to the contractual payment terms has been negotiated with SBS.

  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what penalties have been imposed on Siemens Business Systems for late delivery of work at the Immigration and Nationality Directorate. [83613]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Immigration and Nationality Directorate's Casework Programme is a Private Finance Initiative. A high proportion of the payments to the supplier, Siemens Business Services, are linked to the successful delivery of key elements of the Programme, including the computer system, and to improvements in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate's productivity. If the expected benefits are not achieved, the payments to the supplier fall below the target in the contract. The delay in delivering the Programme and the Computer system means that Siemens Business Services have received substantially less income.

  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the total cost of the contract with Siemens Business Systems for work at the Immigration and Nationality Directorate. [83612]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The contract contains a novel charging mechanism in which the Immigration and Nationality Directorate pays for services provided as specified in the contract. Milestone charges relating to the delivery of key elements of the business process improvements and the information technology system and a productivity-related charge is based on the level of savings achieved. Because payments are linked to productivity-related savings, it is difficult to predict the value of payments to be made to Siemens Business Services.

  Open Government
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for information he received under the Open Government Code of Practice on Access to Government Information in the last parliamentary session; and how many of these applications were granted. [83108]

  Mr. Straw
  For monitoring purposes, this information is collected on a calendar year basis. Information for 1997 was published last year in the Open Government Code
  37
  of Practice on Access to Government Information 1997 Report. In 1998, my Department received 43 applications for information under the Code, and granted 36 of them.

  Correspondence
  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) pursuant to his answer of 29 March 1999,Official Report, column 554, concerning when the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), would reply to the letter of 3 February from the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire, for what reason the Under-Secretary did not respond in the week beginning 29 March; [83771]

  (2) when the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire can expect a reply to his letter of 3 February to the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), on behalf of his constituent, Mr. Perry. [83755]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I apologise to the right hon. Member for not having replied to his letter of 3 February. It has only been brought to my attention due to an administrative error in my Department. I have now replied to the right hon. Member.

  Subordinate Legislation (Publication on Internet)
  Mr. White
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to be able to publish on the Internet, drafts of the subordinate legislation to be made under the Data Protection Act 1998. [83748]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Drafts of six of the statutory instruments being prepared under the Data Protection Act 1998 will be published on the Internet at www.homeoffice.gov.uk on Tuesday 11 May 1999. I am also placing copies in the Library. Other drafts will be made available in due course.

  Special Branch (Records)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many individuals have their personal details recorded on the(a) data base and (b) files maintained by the National Joint Unit of the Metropolitan Police Special Branch; and how many of these individuals are (i) Irish, (ii) US and (iii) non-EU and non-US citizens. [81678]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 29 April 1999]: None. The National Joint Unit (NJU) does not maintain its own records, but instead draws as necessary upon information held by individual Special Branches nationwide. The NJU, although situated with the Metropolitan Police

  1998–99 Prison Service KPI results

  KPI

  1998–99 Target

  1998–99 Outturn

  Category A escapes

  0

  0

  Escapes

  less than 0.17%

  0.14%

  Assault rate

  less than 9%

  9.3%

  Positive random drug resting rate

  lessthan20%

  18.4%

  Purposeful hours per prisoner

  24

  22.8%

  % of population above uncrowded capacity

  less than 12%

  10%

  Are standard/enhanced regime prisoners unlocked >= 10 hours on weekdays

  60%

  57.2%

  Offending behaviour programmes completions

  3.000

  3.125

  38
  Special Branch (MPSB) at New Scotland Yard, is not part of the Metropolitan Police Service. It is a national unit, managed by the MPSB but staffed by police officers drawn from forces around the country.

  Prevention of Terrorism Review
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department by what means and on what date Mr. J. J. Rowe QC was informed that his terms of reference for review of the operation of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 in 1998 did not include sections 5, 6 and 7 of the Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Act 1998 relating to conspiracy; and what arrangements will be made to review the operation of these sections of the Act.[81679]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 29 April 1999]: Mr. Rowe was advised by letter dated 17 November 1998 that the terms of reference for his annual review of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 (PTA) did not include review of the conspiracy provisions in sections 5, 6 and 7 of the Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Act 1998. Arrangements are now in hand for the appointment of a reviewer of the working of those sections and an announcement will be made in due course.

  Fair Trade Products
  Ms Ward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to introduce fair trade products at(a) meetings, (b) events and (c) catering facilities within his Department. [82866]

  Mr. Straw
  In purchasing goods and services for these and other purposes, my Department takes full account of the Government's policy of seeking value for money, having due regard to propriety and regularity. However, my Department has undertaken a review of the implications of offering Fair Trade products and will be issuing guidance on their use in the near future.

  Prison Service
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish the results achieved by the Prison Service on each of its key performance indicators(a) in each prison and (b) on average, in the last year; and if he will make a statement.[83708]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The Prison Service met five of its eleven targets for the 1998–99 year. This is based on provisional information which is subject to validation by prisons. The tables show key performance indicator (KPI) average performance for the Service as a whole and for each establishment. The overcrowding KPI is formulated in terms of overall Prison Service capacity and population levels and is not applicable to individual prisons.
  39

  1998–99 Prison Service KPI results

  KPI

  1998–99 Target

  1998–99 Outturn

  Sex offender treatment programmes completions

  680

  605

  Cost per place (cash terms)

  £24,615

  £25,096

  Training days per staff member

  6.5

  7.8

  Performance against Key Performance Indicators by prison, 1998–99

  Prison name

  Category A escapes

  Escapes

  Assault rape(%)

  Positive random drug testing rate(%)

  Purposeful house per prisoner

  Are standard/enhanced regime prisoners unlocked >=10 hours on weekdays

  Offending behaviour programmes completions

  Sex offender treatment programmes completions

  Cost per place2(£)

  Training

  Acklington

  0

  0

  2.9

  28.0

  23.8

  Yes

  54

  14

  14,650

  12.6

  Albany

  0

  0

  1.9

  1.5

  23.8

  Yes

  105

  47

  19,801

  7.6

  Aldington

  0

  1

  0.7

  22.2

  28.1

  Yes

  0

  0

  16,090

  7.3

  Altcourse

  0

  1

  18.4

  19.0

  20.5

  Yes

  0

  0

  4—

  4—

  Ashwell

  0

  0

  1.6

  38.3

  33.3

  Yes

  0

  0

  15,040

  10.3

  Askham Grange

  0

  0

  0.0

  10.9

  42.0

  Yes

  0

  0

  18,069

  6.1

  Aylesbury

  0

  0

  41.4

  14.2

  20.9

  No

  63

  0

  23,021

  10.2

  Bedford

  0

  0

  7.0

  24.1

  22.7

  No

  39

  0

  20,390

  9.3

  Belmarsh

  0

  0

  11.2

  11.8

  13.2

  No

  0

  0

  31,196

  9.3

  Birmingham

  0

  1

  6.2

  30.3

  13.3

  No

  0

  0

  20,334

  6.2

  Blakenhurst

  0

  0

  18.7

  38.5

  21.8

  Yes

  20

  0

  22,001

  4—

  Blantyre House

  0

  0

  0.0

  0.7

  39.6

  Yes

  30

  0

  17,806

  6.1

  Blundeston

  0

  0

  6.4

  14.1

  25.8

  Yes

  0

  0

  20,232

  7.3

  Brinsford

  0

  0

  35.4

  21.4

  16.3

  No

  0

  0

  18.847

  7.5

  Bristol

  0

  0

  9.2

  23.6

  21.3

  Yes

  31

  0

  31,844

  7.2

  Brixton

  0

  0

  11.8

  12.0

  15.7

  Yes

  62

  17

  22,757

  7.8

  Brockhill

  0

  0

  21.4

  15.8

  21.1

  Yes

  0

  0

  29,867

  5.1

  Buckley Hall

  0

  0

  2.9

  37.6

  26.8

  Yes

  0

  0

  19,972

  4—

  Bu11ingdon

  0

  0

  6.9

  26.0

  21.2

  Yes

  51

  0

  16,485

  12.7

  Bullwood Hall

  0

  0

  19.2

  13.6

  19.1

  Yes

  0

  0

  29.281

  8.1

  Camp Hill

  0

  0

  5.3

  30.2

  19.3

  No

  0

  0

  18,576

  3.7

  Canterbury

  0

  0

  2.1

  13.3

  18.5

  Yes

  0

  0

  33,983

  6.7

  Cardiff

  0

  0

  5.9

  25.5

  21.3

  Yes

  25

  0

  21,783

  6.8

  Castington

  0

  2

  28.5

  17.5

  20.7

  No

  14

  14

  19,288

  13.5

  Channings Wood

  0

  0

  1.9

  15.6

  30.5

  Yes

  73

  38

  16,543

  7.8

  Chelmsford

  0

  0

  12.4

  23.6

  15.8

  No

  0

  0

  19,726

  6.6

  Coldingley

  0

  0

  0.3

  12.4

  40.7

  Yes

  0

  0

  22,015

  10.3

  Cookham Wood

  0

  1

  6.4

  7.0

  22.3

  Yes

  8

  0

  26,511

  7.6

  Dartmoor

  0

  0

  6.0

  5.5

  18.9

  No

  102

  19

  19,423

  7.2

  Deerbolt

  0

  2

  19.1

  8.9

  19.9

  Yes

  0

  0

  17,934

  8.2

  Doncaster

  0

  0

  19.7

  12.6

  17.0

  Yes

  0

  0

  25,454

  4—

  Dorchester

  0

  0

  5.9

  33.9

  14.4

  No

  0

  0

  30,114

  7.4

  Dover

  0

  1

  21.8

  13.0

  21.2

  No

  0

  0

  38,360

  8.0

  Downview

  0

  0

  0.0

  3.3

  30.8

  Yes

  0

  0

  19,152

  7.6

  Drake Hall

  0

  0

  0.4

  17.9

  34.9

  Yes

  0

  0

  14,289

  6.3

  Durham

  0

  0

  8.0

  16.0

  20.2

  Yes

  0

  0

  29,450

  6.9

  East Sutton Park

  0

  0

  0.0

  4.2

  40.1

  Yes

  0

  0

  18,545

  7.1

  Eastwood Park

  0

  1

  15.5

  15.8

  21.6

  Yes

  0

  0

  22,633

  11.8

  Elmley

  0

  0

  5.8

  11.5

  20.2

  No

  91

  0

  18,459

  10.1

  Erlestoke

  0

  0

  0.7

  25.3

  27.2

  Yes

  0

  0

  17,711

  8.6

  Everthorpe

  0

  1

  3.5

  30.6

  27.0

  Yes

  0

  0

  17,882

  5.7

  Exeter

  0

  0

  12.5

  27.9

  13.6

  No

  0

  0

  29,405

  6.4

  Featherstone

  0

  4

  2.0

  42.5

  24.2

  Yes

  19

  0

  18,448

  4.2

  Feltham

  0

  1

  25.6

  20.7

  15.5

  No

  21

  13

  18,820

  8.4

  Ford

  0

  0

  0.0

  11.3

  35.6

  Yes

  0

  0

  11,253

  6.3

  Foston Hall

  0

  0

  11.9

  9.0

  23.4

  Yes

  15

  0

  27,055

  12.0

  Frankland

  0

  0

  5.1

  17.3

  18.4

  Yes

  43

  7

  36,437

  11.5

  Full Sutton

  0

  0

  4.1

  6.9

  17.6

  No

  85

  21

  35,593

  8.9

  Garth

  0

  0

  1.9

  12.1

  21.3

  Yes

  0

  0

  18,611

  8.1

  Gartree

  0

  0

  3.0

  25.3

  27.0

  Yes

  41

  0

  22,735

  7.3

  Glen Parva

  0

  2

  35.8

  15.1

  16.7

  No

  40

  0

  16,642

  7.8

  Gloucester

  0

  0

  26.7

  30.2

  26.4

  No

  0

  0

  26,197

  5.6

  Grendon

  0

  0

  1.3

  11.2

  34.2

  No

  45

  0

  19,320

  7.3

  Guys Marsh

  0

  2

  5.9

  35.4

  22.8

  Yes

  20

  0

  15,283

  5.9

  Haslar

  0

  0

  2.0

  2.5

  18.8

  Yes

  0

  0

  15,721

  7.3

  Hatfield

  0

  0

  7.9

  16.2

  32.5

  Yes

  0

  0

  17,473

  5.8

  Haverigg

  0

  1

  1.8

  17.4

  33.9

  Yes

  0

  0

  18.207

  7.1

  Hewell Grange

  0

  0

  0.5

  11.0

  42.7

  Yes

  0

  0

  12,588

  3.3

  40 41

  Performance against Key Performance Indicators by prison, 1998–99

  Prison name

  Category A escapes

  Escapes

  Assault rape(%)

  Positive random drug testing rate(%)

  Purposeful house per prisoner

  Are standard/enhanced regime prisoners unlocked >=10 hours on weekdays

  Offending behaviour programmes completions

  Sex offender treatment programmes completions

  Cost per place2 (£)

  Training

  Highdown

  0

  0

  13.6

  21.0

  13.9

  No

  67

  14

  24,928

  9.5

  Highpoint

  0

  0

  4.2

  20.6

  23.2

  Yes

  0

  0

  18,479

  9.2

  Hindley

  0

  0

  30.8

  25.0

  23.8

  No

  0

  0

  20,376

  7.4

  Hollesley Bay

  0

  0

  14.2

  24.8

  28.1

  No

  0

  0

  20,618

  4.8

  Holloway

  0

  2

  26.9

  10.1

  17.6

  Yes

  22

  0

  34,689

  6.5

  Holme House

  0

  0

  4.6

  11.8

  15.8

  No

  0

  0

  15,179

  6.4

  Hull

  0

  0

  11.5

  15.1

  20.0

  No

  0

  0

  21,063

  8.5

  Huntercombe

  0

  0

  15.8

  16.5

  23.8

  Yes

  0

  0

  19,712

  9.2

  Kingston

  0

  0

  0.6

  20.6

  23.9

  Yes

  0

  0

  21,302

  6.8

  Kirkham

  0

  0

  0.5

  23.2

  43.5

  Yes

  0

  0

  13,870

  5.7

  Kirklevington

  0

  0

  0.0

  7.9

  50.1

  Yes

  0

  0

  13,921

  6.7

  Lancaster

  0

  0

  1.4

  37.0

  20.9

  Yes

  12

  0

  21,794

  8.7

  Lancaster Farms

  0

  0

  14.8

  5.9

  20.5

  No

  37

  0

  19,749

  5.1

  Latchmere House

  0

  0

  0.0

  14.8

  70.2

  Yes

  0

  0

  11,983

  9.8

  Leeds

  0

  0

  8.6

  18.9

  14.8

  No

  27

  0

  18,948

  7.5

  Leicester

  0

  0

  6.3

  27.1

  20.5

  Yes

  0

  0

  35,718

  6.0

  Lewes

  0

  0

  8.5

  33.2

  18.5

  No

  0

  0

  18,929

  5.4

  Leyhill

  0

  0

  0.0

  13.9

  39.0

  Yes

  26

  26

  18,333

  7.6

  Lincoln

  0

  1

  3.0

  26.8

  22.9

  Yes

  27

  0

  24,720

  4.9

  Lindholm

  0

  1

  1.0

  30.8

  24.2

  Yes

  22

  0

  19,897

  6.6

  Littlehey

  0

  1

  3.3

  13.9

  26.0

  Yes

  0

  0

  14,202

  10.1

  Liverpool

  0

  0

  4.8

  18.0

  19.0

  No

  0

  0

  19,616

  5.7

  Long Lartin

  0

  0

  6.0

  13.4

  17.4

  Yes

  42

  0

  36,851

  15.4

  Low Newton

  0

  0

  40.5

  37.1

  20.2

  No

  0

  0

  28,283

  15.2

  Lowdham Grange

  0

  0

  4.6

  31.2

  —3

  Yes

  0

  0

  1—

  4—

  Maidstone

  0

  0

  2.5

  13.0

  21.3

  Yes

  36

  0

  18,932

  9.2

  Manchester

  0

  0

  7.1

  15.7

  26.7

  Yes

  0

  0

  27,044

  6.6

  Moorland

  0

  0

  13.1

  5.5

  24.1

  Yes

  85

  0

  17,743

  6.5

  Morton Hall

  0

  0

  0.5

  8.3

  37.9

  Yes

  0

  0

  12,288

  5.7

  Mount

  0

  0

  3.7

  20.6

  18.0

  No

  0

  0

  14,637

  10.5

  New Hall

  0

  0

  13.7

  5.0

  23.7

  Yes

  10

  0

  22,501

  5.5

  North Sea Camp

  0

  0

  0.0

  24.1

  45.0

  Yes

  0

  0

  14.588

  4.7

  Northallerton

  0

  0

  15.9

  15.1

  14.5

  Yes

  0

  0

  30,967

  7.1

  Norwich

  0

  0

  9.1

  21.4

  18.3

  No

  0

  0

  22,878

  6.0

  Nottingham

  0

  0

  6.9

  26.1

  15.3

  No

  19

  0

  19,634

  7.6

  Onley

  0

  0

  35.6

  4.2

  18.4

  Yes

  71

  0

  16,105

  9.3

  Parc

  0

  0

  7.4

  44.7

  30.0

  Yes

  0

  0

  1—

  4—

  Parkhurst

  0

  0

  6.1

  2.7

  19.5

  No

  74

  0

  22,466

  8.1

  Pentonville

  0

  1

  11.0

  31.8

  20.3

  No

  77

  0

  21,330

  7.8

  Portland

  0

  0

  13.9

  9.4

  23.1

  No

  16

  0

  17,735

  6.7

  Preston

  0

  0

  9.6

  23.4

  17.1

  No

  0

  0

  28,086

  5.4

  Ranby

  0

  0

  3.2

  9.0

  26.4

  Yes

  33

  0

  16,155

  7.8

  Reading

  0

  0

  18.6

  29.3

  23.8

  No

  0

  0

  26,791

  6.7

  Risley

  0

  0

  10.4

  21.4

  21.9

  No

  28

  28

  18,360

  4.6

  Rochester

  0

  0

  14.7

  3.6

  19.1

  Yes

  34

  15

  18,555

  6.1

  Send

  0

  0

  1.2

  19.6

  40.7

  Yes

  0

  0

  32,894

  23.2

  Shepton Mallet

  0

  0

  4.3

  32.4

  22.7

  Yes

  16

  0

  25,249

  7.2

  Shrewsbury

  0

  0

  5.1

  17.2

  22.7

  Yes

  0

  0

  32,140

  6.2

  Stafford

  0

  0

  6.6

  16.9

  23.5

  No

  0

  0

  16,493

  4.5

  Standford Hill

  0

  0

  0.0

  11.4

  44.1

  Yes

  13

  0

  16,068

  6.6

  Stocken

  0

  0

  2.8

  30.4

  23.2

  Yes

  6

  0

  16,171

  9.4

  Stoke Heath

  0

  0

  37.3

  10.0

  21.6

  Yes

  7

  0

  15,407

  7.5

  Styal

  0

  1

  5.7

  13.3

  28.7

  Yes

  0

  0

  24,097

  13.5

  Sudbury

  0

  0

  0.4

  10.8

  44.5

  Yes

  27

  0

  13,410

  7.9

  Swaleside

  0

  0

  7.1

  18.1

  22.3

  No

  63

  0

  17,341

  9.1

  Swansea

  0

  0

  11.1

  37.0

  20.0

  No

  0

  0

  26,302

  4.9

  Swifen Hall

  0

  0

  14.7

  6.0

  28.9

  Yes

  116

  15

  20,870

  8.7

  Thorn Cross

  0

  0

  11.6

  21.4

  50.3

  Yes

  85

  0

  19,827

  7.4

  Usk

  0

  0

  0.0

  5.3

  34.9

  Yes

  104

  44

  21,507

  8.2

  Verne

  0

  0

  1.2

  19.4

  27.2

  Yes

  0

  0

  15,079

  6.0

  Wakefield

  0

  0

  4.3

  1.3

  18.2

  No

  144

  57

  24,520

  9.0

  Wandsworth

  0

  1

  7.2

  7.3

  18.9

  No

  107

  21

  17,817

  11.7

  Wayland

  0

  0

  2.2

  35.8

  23.8

  Yes

  96

  50

  14,417

  9.8

  Wealstun

  0

  0

  1.8

  25.2

  30.6

  Yes

  16

  0

  15,127

  6.6

  Weare

  0

  0

  0.9

  28.8

  20.8

  Yes

  0

  0

  17,463

  5.1

  Wellingborough

  0

  0

  2.1

  22.9

  25.4

  Yes

  0

  0

  19,115

  8.7

  Werrington

  0

  5

  45.1

  4.9

  24.0

  Yes

  8

  0

  26,079

  8.8

  42 43

  Performance against Key Performance Indicators by prison, 1998–99

  Prison name

  Category A escapes

  Escapes

  Assault rape(%)

  Positive random drug testing rate(%)

  Purposeful house per prisoner

  Are standard/enhanced regime prisoners unlocked >=10 hours on weekdays

  Offending behaviour programmes completions

  Sex offender treatment programmes completions

  Cost per place2(£)

  Training

  Wetherby

  0

  0

  29.9

  4.8

  28.3

  Yes

  8

  0

  18,723

  4.4

  Whatton

  0

  0

  1.2

  4.4

  28.8

  Yes

  129

  85

  15,849

  6.8

  Whitemoor

  0

  0

  12.3

  7.7

  19.0

  Yes

  44

  17

  34,998

  7.2

  Winchester

  0

  0

  6.5

  33.2

  15.7

  No

  0

  0

  23,518

  6.4

  Wolds

  0

  0

  11.0

  17.8

  29.1

  Yes

  26

  0

  25,008

  4—

  Woodhill

  0

  0

  14.1

  17.1

  20.0

  No

  72

  22

  27,806

  8.4

  Wormwood Scrubs

  0

  1

  5.0

  23.0

  14.2

  No

  51

  0

  17,368

  6.8

  Wymott

  0

  0

  2.1

  16.3

  28.7

  Yes

  128

  22

  16,382

  6.3

  1Cost per place performance figures for Parc, Altcourse and Lowdham Grange prisons cannot be provided on a comparable basis because available data include an element for capital repayment.

  2 Cost per place, assaults, positive random drug testing, purposeful hours, offending behaviour programmes and training figures are provisional. Final figures are not likely to be significantly different.

  3Purposeful activity performance figures for Lowdham Grange are not available for the financial year 1998–99.

  4Private prison contractors are not required to supply training figures.

  Referendums
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if it is his policy to introduce legislation to implement the recommendations of the Neill Committee on the conduct of referendums before any further national referendums. [83595]

  Mr. Straw
  We intend to publish a draft Bill to implement the main findings of the Neill Committee report before the Summer Recess, and we hope to have the new arrangements in place by the time of the next general election. The Government's position on the timing of possible referendums on changes to the voting system for elections to the House of Commons and on Britain's membership of the single currency were set out by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in the reply he gave to the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) on 4 November 1998,Official Report, column 868 and in his statement of 23 February 1999, Official Report, columns 179–96 respectively.

  Criminal Law Alignment
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when his Department received a copy of(a) the European Commission communication of 14 July 1998 relating to the progressive alignment of criminal laws and procedures within the Union COM (1998) 459 and (b) the Draft Convention of Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters. [83242]

  Mr. Straw: The European Commission Communication towards an area of Freedom, Security and Justice of 14 July 1998 (COM (1998) 459) was received in the Home Office on 2 September 1998 and deposited for scrutiny on 15 September 1998.

  The most recent consolidated text of the draft Convention on mutual assistance in criminal matters between the member states of the European Union is in Council Document 13144/98 JUSTPEN 108, which was received on 20 November 1998. That document has since
  44
  been supplemented by proposals for additional articles to be included in the draft Convention. Those proposals, like the consolidated text, have been submitted to the relevant parliamentary Select Committees and have been, or will be, placed in the Library.

  Violence against Women
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what initiatives Her Majesty's Government are taking on public education to prevent violence against women. [83563]

  Kate Hoey
  The largest single type of violence against women is domestic violence. We have, therefore, initiated a domestic violence publicity and awareness campaign to make clear the impact of violence against women, including how it so often leads to murder; to challenge misconceptions, such as believing that violence within relationships is somehow not a crime, or that the victim is to blame in some way; and to show what we can all do to reduce domestic violence and its impact, including on children who witness the violence.

  The Government launched "Break the Chain" in January, with a leaflet for survivors and those who might be in a position to help them, and an associated poster. This will be followed soon by guidance for agencies which deal with the victims of domestic violence.

  Justice and Home Affairs Council
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer to the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) of 21 April 1999,Official Report, column 583, on the Justice and Home Affairs Council, for what reasons it was not practicable to make an earlier report to the House on the outcome of the meeting on 12 March. [83482]

  Mr. Straw
  We always aim to report promptly to the House on the outcome of Justice and Home Affairs Council meetings. But we can only prepare a report when we have a reliable record of the proceedings. In the
  45
  present case, this was received in the Home Office on 16 March, and I reported to the House in the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) on 22 March 1999, Official Report, columns 23–26. I assure the hon. Member that there was no avoidable delay.

  Sudbury Prison
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners are currently held in HMP Sudbury; and how many of these are serving a life sentence. [83477]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The total number of prisoners held at Sudbury prison as at 6 May 1999 was 489. Of these, 72 are serving a life sentence.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many life prisoners at HMP Sudbury have absconded during(a) the last two months and (b) the last six months; how many of these have committed further offences for which they have been charged during the period of time they were away from the prison; and what they were charged with.[83478]

  Group members

  Mr. A. Tallentire

  ATCM (Chair)

  Mr. M. Sola

  ATCM

  Mr. S. Baxter

  Police Policy Directorate, Home Office

  Ms G. Fraser

  Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions

  Assistant Chief Constable A. McWhirter

  Association of Chief Police Officers

  Mr. G. Lander

  British Council for Offices

  Mr. W. McKee

  British Property Federation

  Mr. J. Orchard

  KOP Pavement Shopping Ltd.

  The following were also invited to attend but were unable to do so:

  David Lepper MP
  A representative of the Local Government Association.
  Membership of the working party is not expected to remain static and additional members are likely to be invited to the next meeting. No remuneration is provided for members of the working group.

  Crime Statistics
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases of incitement to racial hatred were(a) reported, (b) investigated and (c) the subject of arrest in (i) Hammersmith and (ii) Fulham police stations in (1) 1997 and (2) 1998. [79874]

  Kate Hoey
  [pursuant to her reply, 13 April 1999, c. 21-22]: I should like to point out that the figures in that answer, which were provided by the Metropolitan Police, were in fact figures for all racial incidents, and not for cases of incitement to racial hatred. The Metropolitan Police tell me that there was no offence of incitement to racial hatred recorded in either Hammersmith or Fulham Division during 1997 and 1998.
  46
  Mr. George Howarth
  In the last two months, two life-sentenced prisoners failed to return to Sudbury from temporary release: one is still unlawfully at large; the other surrendered to the police in North Wales and has been charged with murder.

  During the last six months, one life-sentenced prisoner absconded from Sudbury prison. He absconded on 5 March 1999 and surrendered to the police in Shrewsbury on 9 March 1999 with no further charges.

  Also, during the last six months one other lifer failed to return from temporary release. The prisoner was arrested in Coventry and charged with shoplifting. This charge is not being proceeded with.

  Public Speaking (Public Places)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the members of the Public Speaking in Public Places working party; and what remuneration is received by each. [83471]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Association of Town Centre Management (ATCM) has established a small working group to look at the various issues surrounding the development of public speaking in public places or "Speakers' Corners". The group met for the first time on 17 March this year and was attended by the following:

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Census Returns
  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the Acts and the sections of those Acts which define public access to census returns.[83773]

  Mr. Hoon
  No Acts specifically define public access to census returns.

  The following Acts and sections relate to the confidentiality of information in census returns:
  The Census Act 1920, section 8(2), as amended by the Census (Confidentiality) Act 1991, section 1.

  The following Acts and sections govern public access to census returns within the public records system:
  The Public Records Act 1958, section 3(4); and section 5(1), as amended by the Public Records Act 1967, section 1.

  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the right hon. and hon. Members who, since 1 September 1998, have been informed by the Public Record Office that access to the 1921, 1951 and 1961 census returns is covered by the Census Act 1920 as amended by the Census (Confidentiality) Act 1991. [83754]
  47
  Mr. Hoon
  I refer the right hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) on 5 May 1999,Official Report, column 427.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Kosovo Refugees (School Provision)
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate he has made of the additional cost to local education authorities of providing an appropriate education for child refugees entering Britain from Kosovo. [83711]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Funding for Local Education Authorities for the education of children of Refugees from Kosovo will be provided by the Department in the same way as that for all children on school roll. When we have more information on the number of refugee children from Kosovo likely to come to the UK; their educational needs; and the geographical areas where they will be located, then we will consider what additional funds, if any, local education authorities may need to provide appropriate support.

  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what discussions he has held with(a) the Local government Association and (b) particular local authorities with regard to school provision for child refugees entering Britain from Kosovo. [83712]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  At a joint Department for Education and Employment and Refugee Council Seminar on 28 April, I made clear the Government's commitment that the children of refugees entering Britain from Kosovo will have access to education in mainstream schools. The Department is in regular contact with the Local Government Association and the local authorities who have received refugees to date, to arrange suitable school provision. Those contacts will be developed when we have more detailed information on the numbers of refugees from Kosovo likely to enter the country, and the geographical areas in which they will be located.

  Open Government
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many applications for information he received under the Open Government Code of Practice on Access to Government Information in the last parliamentary Session; and how many of these applications were granted. [83109]

  Mr. Mudie
  Statistics are not available for the period required. However, for the calendar year January to December 1998, a total of 35 requests for information were received which cited the Code of Practice. This includes 24 requests received by the Employment Service. No Code requests were refused.

  Sex Discrimination
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to issue guidance to employers and employees on the Sex Discrimination (Gender Reassignment) Regulations 1999. [83901]
  48
  Ms Hodge
  The Sex Discrimination (Gender Reassignment) Regulations 1999 (No. 1102), which were laid before Parliament on 9 April, came into force on 1 May. The Regulations extend the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 to cover protection from discrimination on grounds of gender reassignment in the fields of employment and vocational training.

  In order to help individuals and employers understand their rights and responsibilities arising from the new Regulations, I have published the "Guide to the Sex Discrimination (Gender Reassignment) Regulations 1999". In addition to providing helpful guidance on the effect of the legislation, it also suggests some "good practice" examples for successfully accommodating a transsexual employee in the workforce.

  I have placed a copy of the Guide in the Library.

  Leicestershire Training and Enterprise Council
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what levels of funding Leicestershire Training and Enterprise Council received in(a) 1996–97, (b) 1997–98 and (c) 1998–99; and what level of balances they carried forward in (i) 1996–97 and (ii) 1997–98. [83179]

  Mr. Mudie
  The level of DfEE funding to Leicestershire TEC from 1996–97 to 1998–99 was as follows:

  Year

  £

  1996–97

  21,637,512

  1997–98

  20,105,386

  1998–99

  18,846,814

  In addition, DTI funding for Business Link activity amounted to:

  Year

  £

  1996–97

  1,370,103

  1997–98

  1,749,944

  1998–99

  1,652,087

  Balances carried forward were:

  £

  As at

  Committed Reserves

  Uncommitted Reserves

  Total Reserves attributable to Secretary of State

  1 April 1996

  5,090,720

  1,103,186

  6,193,906

  31 March 1997

  3,035,955

  1,425,890

  4,461,845

  31 March 1998

  2,321,875

  —

  2,321,875

  After-school Clubs
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) if he will make a statement about the music, art and drama content in after-school clubs; [83591]
  49
  (2) what plans he has to increase the opportunities for children to engage in music, arts and drama by an expansion of after-school clubs. [83592]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Government want all young people to have access to a range of out-of-school hours activities, including music, arts and drama. The Government's vision is set out in "Extending opportunity: a national framework for study support" published last year. £80 million of Standards Fund money will be made available from April 2000 for the development of study support activities throughout England. In addition, £425 million of lottery money is being made available through the New Opportunities Fund (NOF) over the next four years to support the expansion of out-of-school hours activities—both education and child care. The policy directions issued by my right hon. Friend the Culture Secretary make clear that music, art and drama activities are included within the framework of activities that NOF can fund.

  Reception
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made following the early years development and child care partnership plans for 1999–2000 of the proportion of four-year-old children attending full-time reception classes in schools. [81988]

  Ms Hodge
  The number of four-year-olds in infant classes' as at January 1998 was 320,897, equivalent to 51 per cent. of the four-year-old population.

  1Includes reception and other classes (ie non nursery classes).

  Training Organisations
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what are the criteria for approval of a national training organisation with regard to the assessment of qualifications. [83056]

  Mr. Mudie
  Any National Training Organisation which has an awarding body function, or which operates as a training provider, must demonstrate it has transparent arrangements to avoid any conflicts of interest.

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what representations he has received regarding the decision by Lantra to combine the role of instructor and assessor for their training courses. [83058]

  Mr. Mudie
  The Department has received a number of representations on this matter from industry practitioners.

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority requirement for qualifications to include external quality assurance and its application in the case of National Training Organisations using instructors to assess trainees on their own courses. [83055]

  Mr. Mudie
  We welcome the QCA's requirement that external quality assurance should be a feature of vocational qualifications accredited by them. Any organisation conducting training to qualifications accredited by the QCA should be subject to quality assurance by an external body sufficiently independent of those providing the training.
  50
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the appropriateness of national training organisations using instructors to assess trainees on their own courses. [83057]

  Mr. Mudie
  The development of vocational skills often sensibly involves assessment, by qualified trainers, of trainees' performance in realistic working conditions, but such assessments should be subject to external verification.

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will ensure that qualifications which are required by law and are his Department's responsibility should be awarded by external assessment. [83059]

  Mr. Mudie
  In the Department's designation of qualifications under Schedule 2(a) of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992, and in the Qualification and Curriculum Authority's accreditation of qualifications, awards are required to be verified by a body separate from that conducting the training.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Open Government
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the President of the Council how many applications for information she received under the Open Government Code of Practice on Access to Government Information in the last parliamentary session; and how many of these applications were granted. [83110]

  Mrs. Beckett
  I have received no applications under the Code.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Common Fisheries Policy
  Mr. Darvill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the carry-over of unused fishing effort allocations within the EU Multi Annual Guidance Programme (MAGP IV). [83902]

  Mr. Morley
  Under the arrangements which I announced on 24 February last year, in answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Ms Osborne),Official Report, columns 187–88, fishing effort available to the UK pelagic and beam trawl segments in 1998 was allocated between the various Producer Organisations (POs) or groups of fishermen concerned. Monitoring of uptake during 1998 showed that both segments succeeded in remaining within their main targets. Following representations from the industry, we approached the Commission to see if unused effort could be carried over into subsequent years. They have now confirmed to us that this is possible. We will accordingly be holding urgent consultation meetings with those concerned to explore how to reflect this in effort allocations for this year.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  National Insurance Numbers
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will introduce measures to enable a reliable estimate to be made of the proportion of national insurance numbers that have been fraudulently created. [82572]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 4 May 1999]: A considerable amount of work has been done to estimate the number of duplicate and fraudulent National Insurance Numbers in the Departmental Central Index.

  Since 1995, the Departmental Central Index Data Cleaning Project has checked the database by selecting cases which fit certain risk criteria. The project has so far resolved over 750,000 duplicate records held in the database which were mainly created when details of customers were accidentally recorded incorrectly. Since the project started, it has detected only about 10 cases of the fraudulent use of National Insurance Numbers.

  National Insurance Contributions Office has worked with employers to check their records and looked at over half a million cases: less than 0.1 per cent. of the items were referred for investigation of potential National Insurance Number irregularities.

  The best available measure of the scale of fraud is provided by DSS benefit reviews. Since 1995, two Housing Benefit reviews have been carried out and in no instance was a case of identity fraud confirmed. Two Income Support benefit reviews have been carried out since 1995. The second review reported in 1997, and in 99.1 per cent. of cases randomly selected, identity was established to our satisfaction. The remainder included cases in which the customer could not be found.

  The studies carried out indicate strongly that identity fraud is one of the least common types of fraud, and the fraudulent use of National Insurance Numbers will form only a proportion of identity fraud. Nevertheless, we are determined that the Welfare System should be secure against fraud of this kind. Our best defence against such fraud is through our current policy of rigorously checking all applications for new National Insurance Numbers, and continuing our programme of data-cleaning departmental databases, and ensuring records are reliable.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what the planned savings were as a result of the introduction of the single room rent restriction for each quarter since its introduction; and what the actual savings for each quarter have been. [83713]

  Angela Eagle
  The estimated yearly savings, which took little account of behavioural changes, for 1996–97, 1997–98 and 1998–99 were £13/£57/£62 million respectively. However, we are unable to provide actual savings because there is insufficient quantitative information to assess how this group as a whole responded to the change.

  Open Government
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many applications for information he 52
  received under the Open Government Code of Practice on Access to Government Information in the last parliamentary session; and how many of these applications were granted. [83118]

  Angela Eagle
  For monitoring purposes this information is collected on a calendar year basis. Information for 1997 was published last year in the Open Government Code of Practice on Access to Government Information 1997 Report. In 1998 this Department received 238 applications for information under the Code and granted 232 of them.

  Benefits Agency Medical Service
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on his policy for fees paid to doctors working for the Benefits Agency Medical Service and on the progress of talks between Sema/NDA on the level of fees. [83606]

  Angela Eagle
  The provision of medical services was contracted out to Sema Group Medical Services on 1 September. There are now no doctors employed by the Benefits Agency.

  The question of fees to be paid to the doctors is an issue for negotiation between the doctors, their representatives, and the companies employing them (Sema Group Medical Services and Nestor Disability Analysis).

  Discussions regarding fees have taken place between Sema Group Medical Services and the British Medical Association. Although agreement has not yet been reached discussions with individual doctors are ongoing.

  Pensions
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate(a) the additional cost in 2009–10 if the basic pension were raised in line with earnings from 2000 and (b) the increase in revenue from national insurance contributions if contributors paid the same proportion of their earnings in 2009–10 as in 1999–2000. [83496]

  Mr. Timms
  The estimated additional net cost in 2009–10 of uprating basic State pension alone, without the linked benefits which include Incapacity Benefit and Widows Benefit, in line with earnings from April 2000 in 1999–2000 price terms is £4.6 billion pounds. The estimated increase in National Insurance contribution revenue if contributors paid the same proportion of their earnings in 2009–10 as in 1999–2000 is £1.7 billion.

  Notes:

  1. Figures are rounded to the nearest 0.1 billion. Gross costs have been provided by the Government Actuary's Department. The cost of uprating basic State pension in line with earnings is net of Income Related Benefit offsets.

  2. Estimates should be treated as broad orders of magnitude.

  3. Income Support and Housing Benefit offsets have been calculated using PENSIM which does not include offsets for linked benefits.

  4. Both estimates assume real earnings growth of 1.5 per cent. per annum. The estimate for the increase in National Insurance contribution revenue is based on the March 1999 Budget assumptions.
  53
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will list the governance structures, other than those based on trustees, which his Department has evaluated in relation to the governance of stakeholder pensions; [83602]

  (2) what estimate his Department has made of the costs of the stakeholder pension being based on (a) trustee and (b) other forms of governance. [83607]

  Mr. Timms
  The Green Paper asked for views on trustees and alternative governance structures which could provide comparable benefits for stakeholder pension scheme members. A number of suggestions have been made on aspects of how different arrangements might work. We shall be considering these carefully and propose to consult further on governance arrangements for stakeholder pension schemes shortly.

  The costs of governance will be one of the factors to be taken into account in setting the proposed limit on charges in stakeholder pension schemes.

  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if his proposals for stakeholder pensions will contain a statutory requirement for people to seek financial advice before they join a stakeholder pension scheme. [83600]

  Mr. Timms
  Appropriate information and advice for those who need it will be an important part of the decision making process for individuals considering a stakeholder pension scheme. We shall be consulting further on how that information and advice would best be delivered. Further details will be set out in due course.

  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make it his policy to allow group personal pensions to register as stakeholder pensions. [83603]

  Mr. Timms
  Group personal pensions will be able to register as stakeholder pension schemes provided they meet the required conditions for such schemes. Those conditions are set out in the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill currently progressing through Parliament, and will be developed in secondary legislation following further consultation.

  We are also considering how far the proposed requirement, that employers should facilitate access to stakeholder schemes for employees where an occupational scheme is not available, should apply in cases where employers offer group personal pension arrangements.

  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimates his Department has made of the average cost of financial advice for an individual seeking to join(a) a personal, (b) an occupational, (c) a group personal and (d) a stakeholder pension. [83601]

  Mr. Timms
  Occupational pension schemes are operated by employers and charges for financial advice do not arise for individual employees seeking to join such a scheme.

  For people considering taking up a personal pension or joining a group personal pension scheme, the cost of advice is, in most cases, included in the overall charges attached to the pension. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in his March
  54
  1999 Budget, the Financial Services Authority is to draw up league tables of investment products, including personal pensions, and charges will be a key feature.

  Information and advice for those who need it will be an important part of the decision making process for individuals considering a stakeholder pension scheme. We propose, therefore, to consult further on information and advice arrangements for those schemes. We shall then consider carefully what allowance should be made for the costs of information and advice in the proposed limit on charges.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security at what level the upper limit of the middle band of earnings would have to be set in order to give higher earners the same pension entitlement from phase 1 of the state second pension as from SERPS, assuming that the lower limit is as proposed in the pensions Green Paper. [83495]

  Mr. Timms
  We have recently reached the end of the consultation period on our proposals for the State Second Pension. Final decisions, including those on earnings thresholds at which different pension accrual rates apply, will take account of the responses received. However, to achieve the policy intention that higher earners would have broadly the same pension entitlement from State Second Pension as under SERPS, the upper limit for the middle band of earnings would need to be set at approximately £20,000 in 1998–99 terms.

  Paternity Pay
  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what his estimate is of the cost to the Exchequer of the introduction of two weeks' statutory paternity pay at 90 per cent. of earnings replacement value, assuming full take-up. [83804]

  Mr. Bayley
  Around 390,000 men would receive an average payment of £930 with a cost to the Exchequer of £360 million. This assumes entitlement conditions for statutory paternity pay would reflect those for statutory maternity pay. This would require a man to have been with his current employer for at least 26 weeks and have earnings at or above the lower earnings limit for national insurance purposes.

  Source:

  Family Resources Survey 1997–98, uprated to 1999–2000 prices using March 1999 Treasury Economic Assumptions.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate his Department has made of the total number of disabled people who will receive an increase in their income as a result of the disability income guarantee. [83608]

  Mr. Bayley
  We are committed to ensuring that resources are directed towards those that need them most. The consultation document "A new contract for welfare: Support For Disabled People" published last October indicated that we expect some 175,000 disabled people and families with the highest care needs to benefit from the higher premium as a result of the disability income guarantee.
  55
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate his Department has made of the total number of disabled children whose benefit will increase as a result of the higher rate of the mobility component of disability living allowance being extended to children aged(a) three and (b) four years of age. [83609]

  Mr. Bayley
  It is estimated that 3,000 three year-olds and 5,000 four year-olds will benefit in 2001–02 when eligibility for the higher-rate mobility component of Disability Living Allowance is extended to children aged 3 and 4.

  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to increase assistance with mobility costs available to disabled pensioners not in receipt of disability living allowance. [83253]

  Mr. Bayley
  Assistance for people disabled later in life with costs associated with mobility, among the other requirements of daily living, is the subject of specific discussions being held with groups representing disabled people.

  We have also taken a number of steps to improve the financial support available to all elderly people. These include the introduction of a Guaranteed Minimum Income for pensioners from April 1999, by increasing Income Support for the poorest pensioners by three times the normal price up-rating and an increase in the level of winter fuel payment which means that, from next winter, every eligible pensioner household will receive £100. In addition, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has committed us to a "minimum guarantee on tax". No pensioner whose income falls below a specified level will pay Income Tax.

  In terms of other help with transport costs some help already exists, for example through the disabled person's rail card. Local authorities also have discretionary power to make special transport provision for disabled people, including elderly people. We have also announced our intention to introduce a national, standard minimum for concessionary fare schemes for people of pension age. It will require each local authority to make available at least half-fares on buses for all pensioners on purchase of a £5 annual bus pass.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to the oral statement by the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for City of York (Mr. Bayley), on 20 April 1999,Official Report, Standing Committee D, column 864, what assumptions he has made about the cost or savings to the Exchequer of a change in people's behaviour as a result of changes in the law on entitlement to incapacity benefit. [82721]

  Mr. Bayley
  The costings in the explanatory notes to the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill assume that overall the financial effects of any behavioural changes as a result of the proposed changes to Incapacity Benefit will be broadly neutral.

  The behavioural effects of the change to the contribution conditions are assumed to be negligible. This is because it would be difficult for many people to adjust their circumstances in such a way as to ensure that they
  56
  meet the contribution conditions at the time when they claim Incapacity Benefit. In addition special arrangements to enable people to re-qualify after short breaks in entitlement without paying further contributions will, together with linking rules, reduce any incentive for people to stay on benefit longer as a result of the new conditions.

  The behavioural effects of the proposal to take some account of occupational and personal pensions over £50 are assumed to be broadly neutral. Potential behavioural changes would include some people increasing their pension income, to compensate for the benefit reduction, which would lead to higher savings. Other people might seek to change their pension arrangements to maintain the level of benefit, which would lead to lower savings. In the absence of any evidence as to which of these effects will predominate it has been assumed that they will broadly cancel each other out. Since only half the pension income over £50 will be deducted from benefit, people on Incapacity Benefit will still gain from having made their own provision.

  The effects of the changes will be monitored post-implementation.

CABINET OFFICE

  Ethnic Minorities
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what assessment he has made of the achievability of his target for ethnic minority representation in the Senior Civil Service in the period to 2004–05. [82914]

  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  The Modernising Government White Paper sets Service-wide targets to increase the number of ethnic minority staff in the Senior Civil Service. The target for 2004–05 is that 3.2 per cent. of the Senior Civil Service will be from ethnic minority backgrounds.

  This target is challenging, but achievable. It is based on an assessment of current trends and the potential impact of action we are taking. This action includes identifying and bringing on existing ethnic minority staff with potential, and ensuring all steps are taken to attract ethnic minority applicants for posts in the Service.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what plans he has to set further targets for ethnic minority representation in the Senior Civil Service after 2004–05. [82913]

  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  The Modernising Government White Paper sets out the Government's commitment to tackle the under-representation of ethnic minorities in the Senior Civil Service.

  Addressing this is a top priority. The target for 2004–05 is the first step. We will want to monitor progress against this and consider further action in the light of it.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what monitoring he proposes to undertake with regard to his target for ethnic minority representation in the Senior Civil Service. [82915]
  57
  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  We will monitor the target centrally to assess progress across the Service. Each Department will measure its own progress and report regularly on it.

  Regional Development Agencies
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will include regional development agencies in future lists of ministerial responsibilities. [82919]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  No. Regional Development Agencies are classified as Non-Departmental Public Bodies, which are not included in the List of Ministerial Responsibilities. Instead, details of them will be published annually in future editions of Public Bodies, copies of which will be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Genetically Modified Foods
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what advice the Government have received from the Chief Medical Officer and the Chief Scientific Adviser about the potential links between genetically modified foods and birth defects and cancer; and when this report will be published. [83096]

  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  A draft paper prepared by the Chief Medical Office and the Chief Scientific Adviser has been considered by Ministers. The paper concluded that there is no evidence of any greater risk to human health from approved GM foods than from conventional ones and that the tests, rules and regulations for assessing the safety of GM foods are sufficiently rigorous. When the paper has been finalised it will be published.

  Freemasons
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many letters were sent to magistrates in the Duchy as part of the exercise to establish a voluntary register of freemasons; when the letters were sent; and if he will break down the total between(a) declared masons, (b) declared non-masons, (c) those who refused to indicate their status and (d) those from whom no reply was received, distinguishing in each case between men and women. [83497]

  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  All magistrates in Lancashire, Greater Manchester and Merseyside were sent a proforma at the end of last year asking them to declare whether or not they were Freemasons.

  From the 11 Benches in Lancashire:

  74: magistrates declared that they were Freemasons

  674: magistrates stated that they were not Freemasons

  13: magistrates declined to give this information

  295: magistrates did not return the proforma

  From the 11 Benches in Greater Manchester:

  122: magistrates declared that they were Freemasons

  1,557: magistrates stated that they were not Freemasons

  20: magistrates declined to give this information

  290: magistrates did not return the proforma

  From the 6 Benches in Merseyside:

  61: magistrates declared that they were Freemasons

  819: magistrates stated that they were not Freemasons

  28: magistrates declined to give this information

  137: magistrates did not return the proforma.
  58
  Benches were not asked to differentiate between men and women. They have been asked to provide this breakdown.

TREASURY

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what effect there will be on their eligibility for childcare tax credit if a parent of(a) one child and (b) two children who is in receipt of childcare tax credit takes unpaid parental leave under the Employment Relations Bill; [83343]

  (2) if he will estimate the effect on the income of (a) an employee whose spouse and (b) a lone parent who takes unpaid parental leave under the Employment Relations Bill and whose working families tax credit is in payment and has three months to run; [83345]

  (3) if he will estimate the effect on the income (a) on average and (b) by quartiles of a family in receipt of working families tax credit of the main earner taking unpaid parental leave under the Employment Relations Bill; [83341]

  (4) what the effect will be on the income of an employee receiving working families tax credit if his or her partner takes unpaid parental leave under the Employment Relations Bill; [83340]

  (5) if he will make a statement on the eligibility for the working families tax credit of an employed person who takes unpaid parental leave under the Employment Relations Bill while her employed spouse is the direct recipient of the working families tax credit. [83344]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 5 May 1999]: WFTC will be awarded for a 26-week period. Each award is based on a "snapshot" of income immediately preceding the application. Once the award starts it is not affecting by changes to income during the 26-week period. That means that if a parent decides to take unpaid parental leave during that 26-week period the amount of WFTC awarded, including any child-care tax credit, will not change.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate how many of those who did not receive family credit but will receive working families tax credit are dual-earner couples. [83342]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 5 May 1999]: It is estimated that in 2000–01, the first full year of the Working Families Tax Credit, about 175,000 dual-earner couples who would not have been in receipt of Family Credit will receive Working Families Tax Credit.

  Fuel Duty Escalator
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to the oral statement by the Economic Secretary of 27 April 1999,Official Report, columns 241–46, if he will set out the basis on which the cost of exempting commercial vehicles from the fuel duty escalator was calculated; and what definition of commercial vehicles was used. [83103]
  59
  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 5 May 1999]: Slightly under 50 per cent. of diesel is used in goods vehicles over 3.5 tonnes and this is the definition on which the figures are based. The amount of diesel used by these vehicles was calculated using total distances travelled by such vehicles in 1997 and the average miles per gallon achieved by rigid and articulated vehicles. However, the definition could go much wider to include all diesel vehicles used by businesses.

  Currency Speculation
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received concerning the introduction of a tax on currency speculation. [83080]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 6 May 1999]: The Treasury has received a number of representations from members of the public and two letters from hon. Members about the proposal to introduce a tax on currency speculation.

  Financial Advisers
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what reasons only fee-based financial advisers are permitted to describe themselves as independent. [83553]

  Ms Hewitt
  Financial advisers are permitted to describe themselves as independent so long as they offer products from any provider. Their independence or otherwise is determined by the polarisation rules, not by their reward structure.

  Mortgage Products
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what factors underlie the Financial Services Authority's decision not to publish league tables on the costs and charges of mortgage products. [83555]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Financial Services Authority (FSA) has no powers to use its resources to collect information about products and activities it does not regulate. FSA is, however, working closely with the Council of Mortgage Lenders on how key mortgage information can be most effectively presented to customers.

  Financial Services Act 1986
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans the Government have to extend the protection afforded under the Financial Services Act 1986 to homebuyers. [83554]

  Ms Hewitt
  There are no plans to extend the present Financial Services Act to cover mortgages. The Financial Services and Markets Bill provides for mortgages to be brought within its scope and the scope of the powers of the Financial Services Authority. A decision will be made later this year on whether the scope of the Bill should include all mortgage selling.

  Correspondence
  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire can expect a reply to his letter of 24 March on behalf of his constituent Miss Marvin. [83750]
  60
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  I replied to the right hon. Member on 7 May.

  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  the Exchequer when the North-West Cambridgeshire letter of 16 February on Mr. Gascoynes. [83756]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  I replied to the right hon. Member on 7 May.

  Aviation Taxes
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the tax yield to the UK Exchequer of ending the duty-free concession at airports, and on aircraft, on(a) flights to Europe and (b) all flights assuming that with international agreement similar action was taken by other countries. [83352]

  Dawn Primarolo
  It is not possible to predict with any degree of certainty the additional revenue which will result from the abolition of duty-free sales(a) within Europe and (b) internationally. Estimates are sensitive to a whole range of assumptions about the nature of the successor regime and the post-abolition marketing strategies of the duty-free operators.

  Income Tax Liability
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if interest can be the first tranche of income to be set against personal allowances for the purpose of assessing income tax liability, once the 20 pence rate comes into effect. [83372]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Savings income, including interest, is favourably taxed. Setting interest income against personal allowances ahead of other income would increase taxes by approximately £110 million and increase the tax bill of millions of people. We do not find such a change attractive.

HEALTH

  GPs
  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what provisions exist to ensure that each area has a choice of male and female GPs. [73548]

  Mr. Denham
  We have made possible new ways of working that are more sensitive to doctors personal and family circumstances and we have also improved the general practitioner retainer scheme, which allows a doctor to maintain skills during a career break and so return to general practice more easily. These family friendly policies will ensure that general practice remains an attractive option for female doctors, so that patients have the widest possible choice.

  Primary Care Groups
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of Sate for Health by what date he plans to complete the process of appointing primary care group boards. [74709]
  61
  Mr. Denham:
  [holding answer 4 March 1999]: Health authorities are charged with the responsibility to establish Primary Care Groups as committees of their authorities. This process has now been substantially completed.

  Medicines Control Agency
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the remit of the Medicines Control Agency is, with particular reference to areas of activity other than the licensing of medicines. [80220]

  Ms Jowell
  The Medicines Control Agency's primary objective is to safeguard public health by ensuring that all medicines on the United Kingdom market meet the appropriate standards of safety, quality and efficacy. As well as achieving this through a system of licensing before the marketing of medicines, the agency is also responsible for the monitoring of medicines and acting on safety concerns after the medicines have been placed on the market. The agency checks and monitors the standards of pharmaceutical manufacture and wholesaling, represents UK pharmaceutical regulatory interests internationally, and manages the British Pharmacopoeia Commission in setting quality standards for drug substances. It is also responsible for medicines control policy and enforcement of these requirements.

  Multiple Sclerosis
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to implement the recommendations in the report from the Working Party on Multiple Sclerosis produced by the British Society of Rehabilitation Medicine. [81342]

  Mr. Hutton
  The report, "A Survey of Multiple Sclerosis Provision in England 1998–99", was produced by the Association for Quality in Healthcare in November 1998 on behalf of the Multiple Sclerosis Society.

  We have set out our plans to address unacceptable variations in services via a modernisation programme to deliver more consistent and higher quality care for patients. We remain committed to improving standards of healthcare and to ensuring that newer treatments, including new medicines, are introduced into the National Health Service as fast as possible where they represent a genuine therapeutic advance and are cost effective.

  In addition, the move to new commissioning arrangements will bring about improvements in services for people with conditions like MS. Longer term agreements, reflecting dialogue between clinicians and focusing on health improvement and quality objectives, will increase the emphasis on programmes of care that cross the traditional boundaries to meet patients needs best.

  NHS (Ethnic Minorities)
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what data his Department has collated on the time it takes for ethnic minority members of NHS staff to be promoted within NHS hospitals relative to white members of staff; [82232]
  62
  (2) what data his Department has collated on the rate at which ethnic minority members of NHS staff resign from the NHS relative to the rate for white members of staff; [82231]

  (3) what data his Department has collated on whether ethnic minority members of NHS staff are more likely to be disciplined by (a) suspension and (b) dismissal than white members of staff. [82229]

  Mr. Denham
  The Department does not collect the data requested. Ministers are, however, concerned about the treatment of black and minority ethnic staff in the National Health Service and have a programme of action to tackle racism and end discrimination in the service.

  In order to inform that programme, the Department commissioned Industrial Relations Services Research to undertake a survey of NHS trusts in England published in August last year, "Equal Opportunities and monitoring in NHS trusts", available from the Department of Health, Wetherby. This survey showed that 98 per cent. of NHS trusts have an equal opportunities in employment policy, but only a minority monitor promotions, redundancies, dismissals or training from an equal opportunities perspective. The survey has provided a baseline against which we are now able to measure progress and set targets for raising standards in employment practice.

  As part of the modernisation of the NHS, the Government has published "Working Together—Securing a quality workforce for the NHS", the first human resources framework for the NHS published September 1998. This framework sets targets for reducing racial harassment of staff by colleagues and service users, and increasing ethnic minority representation in the work-force. By April 2000, local NHS employers are to have policies and procedures in place to tackle racial harassment, supported by monitoring and reporting arrangements to measure progress. They must also demonstrate that they are making progress year on year in achieving a more representative work-force.

  Beta Interferon
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy to collect statistics on the prescribing and dispensing of Beta Interferon for MS sufferers in the NHS. [82642]

  Mr. Denham
  We will continue to collect statistics on all drugs prescribed by general practitioners, including Beta Interferon, which are dispensed in the community. We do not collect statistics on drugs dispensed in hospitals and do not anticipate being in a position to do so for some time.

  Renal Services
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to improve renal services in East Lancashire; and if he will make a statement. [82846]

  Mr. Hutton
  The four health authorities in Lancashire and South Cumbria, working together and with the National Health Service Executive North West, have identified capital investment of £1 million and revenue spending of approximately £1 million for 2000–01 to provide 15 additional dialysis stations. These facilities are
  63
  expected to be in place at the Royal Preston Hospital by next spring and will relieve pressure and lead to improvements in renal services throughout the area.

  Investing in Dentistry
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many applications have been received under the Investing in Dentistry initiative; how many applications have been(a) successful and (b) unsuccessful; how many are still being considered; and what is the value of the grants that have been awarded as a result of successful applications. [82683]

  Mr. Denham
  To date, a total of 696 Investing in Dentistry requests have been received, of which 282 have been approved for grants totalling over £8 million; 287 refused, and 127 are awaiting decision.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the bids which he has received from Avon health authority area under the Investing in Dentistry programme. [82900]

  Mr. Denham
  The investing in dentistry funding requests submitted by Avon Health Authority are as follows:

  Clifton, Bristol

  Easton, Bristol

  Filwood, Bristol

  Lawrence Weston, Bristol

  Bath (2 requests)

  Bedmister (2 requests)

  Bishopsworth

  Chew Magna

  Stockwood

  Weston-Super-Mare.

  Fair Trade Products
  Ms Ward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to introduce fair trade products at(a) meetings, (b) events and (c) catering facilities within his Department. [82871]

  Ms Jowell
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary on 5 May 1999,Official Report, column 410.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many Executive Board members in NHS trusts received a one-off contribution to their pension funds in the last round of pay awards; and what was the total cost of such payments to the NHS. [83097]

  Mr. Denham
  Information on individual contributions to Executive Board members' pension funds is not available centrally.

  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice he has given to NHS trusts in respect of pay awards to Executive Board members in the forthcoming pay round. [83098]
  64
  Mr. Denham
  The Chief Executive of the NHS wrote to all National Health Service trusts and health authorities on 1 February 1999 about pay for staff in 1999–2000. Setting out the Government's position on senior NHS managers' pay, he said:"The Government does not expect to see senior managers being awarded increases out of line with the rest of the public service. Further guidance will follow when the pay round for other staff is complete".

  National Institute for Clinical Excellence
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the scope for including tax and benefit considerations in NICE's assessments of the cost-effectiveness of drugs. [83027]

  Mr. Denham
  Ministers are considering the responses to the discussion document "Faster access to modern treatment", which set out detailed proposals for the appraisal by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence of the clinical cost effectiveness of new and existing interventions. There will be a further statement shortly.

  Dental Services
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many dental practices providing national health service dental treatment there were in(a) the north-west of England and (b) London, in (i) 1996, (ii) 1997 and (iii) 1998; and what is the current figure. [82907]

  Mr. Denham
  The number of General Dental Service (GDS) dentists on a health authority (HA) list at December 1998 and in December in the years 1996 and 1997 in the North and West region health area and in the Greater London HAs area are shown in the table.

  General Dental Service: Number of dentists on a HA list at 31 December in each year from 1996 to 1998 inclusive

  North and West

  Greater London

  1996

  2,195

  2,848

  1997

  2,209

  2,946

  1998

  2,240

  3,010

  Note:

  Dentists includes principals, assistants and vocational dental practitioners.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of dental practices in(a) the north-west of England and (b) London, have (i) under 20 per cent., (ii)21–40 per cent.,(iii) 41–60 per cent., (iv) 61–80 per cent. and (v) 81–100 per cent. of the patients registered with them as national health service patients. [82906]

  Mr. Denham
  Information about dentists' private patients is not available centrally. The registration arrangements which these private patients have with their dentist may vary greatly. However, information is available for the average list size of registered National Health Service patients of General Dental Service (GDS) dentists.

  The average number of NHS patients registered per GDS principal dentist on a health authority (HA) list at 31 December 1998 was 1,481 in the North West region health area, 902 in the Greater London HAs area, and for England the corresponding average is 1,341. Dentists are

  65
  counted in each HA in which they practice and some dentists had no registrations on that date. Differences between these averages will reflect not only differences in the level of dentists' commitment to the GDS but also, other circumstances, for example the number of support staff.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the percentage of all dental treatment provided by the national health service in(a) the north-west of England and (b) London. [83018]

  Mr. Denham
  Gross fee expenditure in the General Dental Service for the year 1998–99 in the North and West region health area was £202.5 million and the Greater London Health Authorities was £211.4 million. These represent 15 per cent. and 16 per cent. respectively of gross fee expenditure in England.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Gamier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) when he intends to reply to the letter from the hon. and learned Member for Harborough dated 20 January; [83065]

  (2) when the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), intends to reply to the letter from the hon. and learned Member for Harborough dated 19 January. [83064]

  Mr. Denham
  I replied to the hon. and learned Member on 30 April.

  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire can expect a reply to his letter of 12 February on behalf of Dr Kravitz. [83752]

  Ms Jowell
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State replied to the right hon. Member on 7 May.

  Hepatitis C
  Mr. Godsiff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what reason the study tracing people who might have contracted hepatitis C from blood transfusions did not also trace those people with haemophilia who contracted hepatitis C through blood product treatments. [82885]

  Mr. Hutton
  The study to trace people who might have developed hepatitis C following blood transfusion focused on those who were unlikely to have remained under clinical care and who could benefit from treatment which had then become available. As haemophiliacs are in constant contact with their clinicians, the need to include them in the tracing exercise did not arise as they would have already been known to the service. It was implicit in the hepatitis C exercise that anyone who was concerned about their hepatitis C virus status could request a test.

  Osteoporosis
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the Royal College of Physicians publication, "Osteoporosis: Clinical Guidelines for Prevention and Treatment", will be given official status in Ministers' advice to health authorities. [82890]
  66
  Ms Jowell
  The Royal College of Physicians clinical guidelines for the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis, and the desktop guide for general practitioners and primary care teams, offer advice on effectiveness to inform clinical decisions.

  The Department highly recommends both documents as a basis for developing local osteoporosis strategies, and where strategies already exist would expect them to be consistent with this guidance.

  The Department has brought the RCP document on osteoporosis, launched last June, to the attention of the National Health Service through Health Service Circular 1998/124, and through two articles in the Chief Medical Officer's Update.

  NHS Costs
  Mr. Denis Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what will be the total operating and maintenance costs of the national health service network in the current financial year.[83026]

  Mr. Denham
  NHSnet is a managed service provided to National Health Service organisations by commercial contractors who funded its development and meet its operating and maintenance costs. Those costs are confidential to the contractors.

  The charges levied by these contractors for using NHSnet are met centrally and consist of connection charges and messaging charges. Estimates for the current financial year are: NHSnet connection charges—£8.8 million; messaging charges—£4.3 million.

  Glaucoma
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the number of cases of glaucoma which are likely to be identified following the reintroduction of free eye tests for pensioners. [82918]

  Mr. Denham
  We do not know how many people aged 60 and over have already been having regular sight tests or how many of the remainder will take up the opportunity of a free National Health Service sight test but, within these uncertainties, we estimate that optometrists could refer an additional 2,000 patients presenting signs of glaucoma.

  Human Insulin
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) on what research into the potential merits and negative effects of genetically engineered human insulin the decision to instruct NHS purchasers to cease to buy animal insulins and to transfer diabetics to genetically engineered human insulin was based; [83337]

  (2) what guidance his Department gives to clinicians concerning the relative merits and negative effects of genetically engineered human insulin and animal insulin. [83338]

  Mr. Hutton
  Decisions as to the most suitable type of insulin for particular patients are matters for the clinicians involved, in discussion with their patients. The Department has not issued guidance to clinicians on the relative merits of human and animal insulin, and it has
  67
  given no instructions to the National Health Service about their use. The Committee on Safety of Medicines will continue to monitor closely the safety of insulins.

  Open Government
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many applications for information he received under the Open Government Code of Practice on Access to Government Information in the last parliamentary session; and how many of these applications were granted. [83114]

  Ms Jowell
  For monitoring purposes, this information is collected on a calendar year basis. Information for 1997 was published last year in the Open Government Code of Practice on Access to Government Information 1997 Report. In 1998, the Department received 40 applications for information under the Code. We do not keep figures centrally on how many were granted the information requested.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Social Housing
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, what sources of advice are available to the Church Commissioners on the need of social housing in inner-urban areas. [82617]

  Mr. Stuart Bell
  The Commissioners retain a portfolio of 1,591 units of residential property, known as the Octavia Hill Estates, in central London. These properties are let on Fair and Assured rents largely to people who are unable to afford market rents elsewhere in the private rented sector. The properties are managed from local offices and all administer a direct access waiting list. There are very few vacancies within the portfolio and the demand for our accommodation always outweighs supply.

  Applications for accommodation are received from a variety of sources including personal callers, local authority and HOMES nominations.

  Staffs in the local offices are all members of the Chartered Institute of Housing and are in touch with developments in Government Policy in this field.

  British Aerospace
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, if he will make a statement on the sale of British Aerospace shares by the Church of England; [82618]

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, what factors the commissioners took into account when deciding to dispose of its holding in BAe. [82621]

  Mr. Stuart Bell
  The Church's long-standing ethical investment policy is not to invest in companies whose main business or focus is in armaments, and shares in British Aerospace have never been held for this reason.

  In view of the proposed sale of Marconi Defence Systems, the defence arm of GEC, to British Aerospace, the Church of England's Ethical Investment Working
  68
  Group has recommended to the Church's central investing bodies that they do not retain shares acquired in "new British Aerospace", as a result of the sale.

  Risk Assessments
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, if he will make a statement on the commissioners' plans to encourage parishes to carry out risk assessments in relation to crime against churches. [82619]

  Mr. Stuart Bell
  Guidance to parishes on church security is given through the publications of the Council for the Care of Churches. Its booklet "Safe and Sound: a Guide to Church Security", was sent to all incumbents some three years ago. This booklet addresses the complex problems of security in churches, and specifically recommends the establishment of church watch schemes.

  In my answer to my hon. Friend on 22 February 1999, Official Report, column 16, I gave details of the Church Risk Management Group in the Diocese of Leicester, which is an admirable scheme for advising parishes on potential risks. Details of the scheme have already been given to other dioceses. Similar schemes are in force in other parts of the country.

  Church Repairs
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, what plans the commissioners have to give assistance to churches for the cost of repairs. [82620]

  Mr. Stuart Bell
  Responsibility for the maintenance of Church of England churches in use for worship rests with the parochial church councils concerned and not with the Commissioners, who have no general statutory power to assist. The Commissioners main spending priorities are the support of the serving clergy, clergy pensioners and their dependents.

  Commission Properties (Essex)
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, what recent representations he has received on the state of the commission's properties in Essex. [82622]

  Mr. Stuart Bell
  No representations have been received by the Church Commissioners on either their agricultural holdings or commercial properties in Essex.

PRIME MINISTER

  Kosovo
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Prime Minister if it is a precondition for a cessation of air hostilities in Kosovo that all Kosovars be permitted a guaranteed return to their place of residence of March 1999. [83729]

  The Prime Minister
  The NATO Summit statement issued on 23 April spelt out clearly that there could be no compromise on a number of conditions including the need for President Milosevic to agree to the unconditional and safe return of all refugees and displaced persons. The statement said that, as long as Belgrade fails to meet
  69
  the legitimate demands of the international community and continues to inflict immense human suffering, Alliance air operations will continue. This remains the position.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Prime Minister what is his policy on the partition of Kosovo. [83403]

  The Prime Minister
  We are seeking a political solution to the crisis based on the Rambouillet Accords. The partition of Kosovo is not on our agenda.

  Spain
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Prime Minister for what reason Spain was decided upon as the partner for co-operation in a working group on employment and economic reform; to what extent Gibraltar will feature in this; and what will be the budget. [83742]

  The Prime Minister
  The Government build alliances with other Member States on a range of issues under discussion in the EU both to deepen bilateral relations and to influence the wider EU debate. Work with Spain on employment and economic reform is one example, reflecting a shared approach on many of these issues. The Working Group was established to bring together various strands of existing collaborative work. There is no requirement for a dedicated budget. Gibraltar will not be a focus of the Group's work.

  Romania
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Prime Minister if he discussed Romania's application to join Nato during his recent visit to Bucharest; and if he will make a statement. [83580]

  The Prime Minister
  In my speech to the Romanian Parliament I said that Romania was at the forefront of the aspiring NATO members, that I wanted Romania to be on a fast track to NATO membership, and that I was confident that Romania would be one of the next countries to be admitted as a full member of the Alliance.

  Government Policy Presentation (Europe)
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) what instructions he has given to Ministers and civil servants 70
  about their influence on public opinion towards (a) the European Union and (b) British membership of the euro; [81431]

  (2) what instructions he has given about the media presentation of (a) issues concerning the European Union and (b) British membership of the euro. [81433]

  The Prime Minister
  Our relationship with our European partners is based upon principles of positive engagement and co-operation. This has enabled us to strengthen our influence in Europe without compromising our national interests.

  To help support this new constructive relationship a Ministerial Group for European Co-ordination (MINECOR) was established in December 1998. The members of the MINECOR group are Ministers from all UK Government departments which have an interest in European policy issues. The objective of the group is to achieve greater co-ordination of the presentation of HMG's European policies both within the UK and overseas. To that end, the group considers papers which give guidance to Ministers and officials on the presentation of government policy on Europe. The group also monitors Government efforts to develop closer co-operation with other EU partners and EU applicant countries. The group meets on a regular basis and is chaired by the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Ms Quin).

  The Government's policy on the euro was set out by my right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his statement to the House on 27 October 1997, Official Report, columns 583–88.

  All contacts with the media and the public are carried out in accordance with the requirements of the Ministerial Code and the Civil Service Guidance on the Work of the Government Information Service offers additional guidance on the presentation of Government policy and information through the media, publicity and advertising.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on Government responsibility after 1 July, for the authorisation for disposal of radioactive waste, subject to the Radioactive Substances Act 1993, which originates in Scotland but is disposed of in England.[83710]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the letter I wrote to him on 6 May, a copy of which has been placed in the Library.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Factory Inspectors
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many factory inspectors there are in Northern Ireland; and how many are trained in the health and safety aspects of asbestos removal. [83061]

  Mr. Ingram
  At present there are 32 Health and Safety Inspectors covering the employment sectors for which the HSENI has responsibility.

  Two Health and Safety Inspectors have received training in the safety aspects of asbestos removal, one of whom is the Principal Inspector with responsibility for occupational health issues.

  Asbestos Removal Companies
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many certified asbestos removal companies operate in Northern Ireland; and how many were visited by a factory inspector in the last year for which figures are available. [83062]

  Mr. Ingram
  On 31 March 1999, 23 companies were licensed to undertake work with asbestos insulation or asbestos coating in Northern Ireland.

  During the year 1 April 1998 to 31 March 1999, 12 of the 23 companies were visited by a Health and Safety Inspector and 23 site inspections were carried out.

  Health and Safety Executive
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many extra inspectors the Health and Safety Executive in Northern Ireland aims to recruit. [83063]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Health and Safety Executive for Northern Ireland was established on 1 April 1999. Its board is currently considering the recommendations of the report of a needs analysis carried out by J. Rimington, a former Director General of the Health and Safety Executive. The outcome of these deliberations will advise future policy as regards the recruitment of extra Inspectors.

  Planning
  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the planning services and procedures for enforcement indicating the 72
  priority given to ensuring enforcement of planning conditions laid down by the Planning Appeals Commission. [82920]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  It is the responsibility of the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland under the Planning (NI) Order 1991, where it considers it expedient to do so, to take enforcement action against all breaches of planning control. Each case is considered on its merits and no special priority is given to ensuring enforcement of conditions laid down by the Planning Appeals Commission.

  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the Planning Appeals Commission's handling of recent cases in Derry. [82903]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  In the last year, in the Derry District Council Area, the Planning Appeals Commission (PAC) heard 22 appeals. Of these, 18 were allowed and 4 dismissed. The PAC also held 2 inquiries on which the Department of the Environment (NI) has now made its decisions. In one case, the Department accepted the recommendation of the PAC to grant planning permission; in the other, although the PAC recommended that the application should be refused, the Department, having considered all relevant planning issues, concluded that planning permission should be granted.

  The PAC is an entirely independent body and it would not be appropriate for the Secretary of State to comment on the handling of cases by the PAC or on the merits of PAC decisions.

  University First Degree Courses
  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many students, normally domiciled in the Western Education and Library Board area are currently enrolled in full-time university first degree courses; and what is the number of full-time university first degree places in the Western Education and Library Board area. [82921]

  Mr. McFall
  The information is not available in the form requested. However there are 5,511 students domiciled in the Western Education and Library Board area currently receiving financial support to attend full-time first degree courses at universities in the UK and Republic of Ireland.

  The only university site located in the Western Education and Education Library Board is the Magee campus of the University of Ulster. There are currently 1,292 students enrolled on full-time first degree courses at the Magee campus.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Southwark

Gas Supply: Marketing Practices
Viscount Hanworth Viscount Hanworth asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to regulate competition among salesmen in the domestic gas supply market.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, the Government believe that misleading selling practices are unacceptable. Last year the Office of Gas Supply introduced a licence condition for gas suppliers concerning marketing practices. This includes rules on the selection and training of sales staff and puts an obligation on the supplier to contact the customer within 14 days of the contract being signed to ensure that they are content with the sales approach. This is helping to curb abuses in the marketplace. We are, however, keeping the situation under review.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that enlightening and partially reassuring reply. The Minister has indicated that he is aware of the many complaints from customers who have unwittingly signed contracts with new suppliers when they had imagined that they were simply extending their contract with an existing supplier. Are the salesmen of gas supply companies who are liable to be working on commission subject to the regulations governing doorstep trading? Are those adequate to restrain them?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, yes, they are covered by the doorstep selling regulations. Those have been tightened up. The new regulations came into force on 31st December 1998. They require a seven-day cooling off period. They require the trader to give the consumer details in writing of the right to cancel. It is now a criminal offence not to inform consumers of the right to a cooling off period. The maximum penalty is a fine of £2, 500 which we believe will make unscrupulous traders think twice. Finally, we have tightened up the definition of an unsolicited visit so that it is less easy to get round.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, under the present competitive arrangements for gas, the prime objectives of suppliers and their salesmen must be to increase market share and sell as much gas as possible, with much less attention paid to providing services, improving efficiency and the reduction of emissions? Do the Government, through the regulator, or in other ways, aim to correct that imbalance?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, in any competitive situation there will always be the danger
956
that the sole goal of the salesmen becomes that of selling their product and increasing market share. In the long term I hope that most companies in the market economy realise that their best interest is served long term not only by increasing market share but also by gaining the goodwill of their customers. It is part of the regulatory process that we seek to control the situation where, as a short-term goal, people focus on increasing market share.
Lord Peston: My Lords, surely it is to the advantage of the consumer that the gas market is opened up to broader competition? Although there may be excesses, do we not agree that that at least was a good step forward?
In this market is there not a complication relating to the nature of contracts? People seem to be making verbal contracts without understanding that they are contracts; and not knowing that the cooling off period applies?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I agree very much that some real benefits have come from competition. Out of some 20 million domestic customers, over 4 million have switched gas supplier, some of whom are saving up to 20 per cent of their annual gas bills. For many people that is clearly highly desirable.
I believe that verbal contracts take place but they would be covered by the same regulations concerning the cooling off period.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I speak from personal experience. We are being approached on the doorstep with a hard sell from people from an electricity company asking us to take their gas. I understood that the electricity system was not meant to start for a while. However, on the doorstep I have been pressed to sign agreements for an electricity company to supply me with gas.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, doorstep selling by Ofgas has been watched carefully by Offer on the electricity side. Similar licence conditions have been introduced. The appointment of Callum McCarthy as both electricity and gas regulator pending legislation is in order to make certain that there is no abuse of a similar kind on the electricity side.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, does the Minister accept that there will be tremendous confusion among consumers as to their rights and the best course for them to take. Most of all, they wish to be reassured that all the safety regulations and codes of practice are being adhered to.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, there are dangers that the situation will be abused. That is why we have introduced tightened-up regulations on doorstep selling and the licence condition. In addition. we recognise the need to ensure that consumers are properly protected. That is why as part of the parcel of proposals announced following the review of the utility

957
regulation, we intend to put in place an independent energy consumer council. That council will champion consumers' interests and act as a one-stop shop for consumers' inquiries. The new council will have responsibility for seeking to resolve complaints which have not been resolved by the company concerned. Where further measures, such as enforcement action, are required, the council will pass on the complaint to the regulator. Therefore, we have taken stringent action in terms of the regulations and the representation of the consumers.
Lord Clarke of Hampstead: My Lords, do similar regulations govern "cold" telephone sales people who establish or seek to establish a contract without the person being fully aware of the situation and feeling pressurised by the salesman on the other end of the telephone? Do the regulations to which my noble friend earlier referred apply to cold telephone sales?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the regulations on doorstep selling cover all those markets. However, I need to write to my noble friend on the situation which applies to cold telephone selling.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, does the Minister agree that competition is of benefit to consumers? It is very easy to confuse that sort of competition, as, indeed, the Question does, with talking about undesirable sales pressures and tactics. Does the noble Lord agree that it would be helpful if both the gas and electricity regulators were to require fuel suppliers to publish unified tariff systems so that customers can decide pricing issues on a like-to-like basis?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the issue of consumers being able to make comparisons is something that we have in mind. An agreement has been reached with the Association of Energy Suppliers that a consumer will be provided with a written tariff of the options for that customer. One cannot have a situation where everything is published on a common basis because tariffs will vary. But that point has been taken on board and the Association of Energy Suppliers has agreed to do that.

European Single Currency
2.45 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil asked Her Majesty's Government:
Further to the Answer by the Lord McIntosh of Haringey on 14th April (HL Deb, col.767) concerning the question of the United Kingdom joining the single European currency, whether they will publish a White Paper setting out the political and economic arguments, as they now see them, both for and against joining.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, government policy on membership of the single currency was set out
958
clearly by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in a Statement to the House of Commons in October 1997 and was restated by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons on 23rd February 1999.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, will the Minister kindly read the Question and consider what he is now being asked? He is not being asked for a statement of government policy. We have hints galore as to what government policy is and we are not looking for any more. The issue is one of the most complicated and important that this country has ever faced. Do the Government not realise that in a referendum, which they have promised, it is very important indeed that the public should be familiar with the economic and political arguments for and against and that, based on those arguments, they can begin to form a proper judgment? I remind the noble Lord that this is the second time that he has been asked the same Question without bothering even to read it.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, if the noble Lord asks me the same Question again, he will receive the same Answer. I was entirely satisfied with the Answer that I gave him and with the subsequent exchanges. Of course I read the Question with great care, as I always do.
The noble Lord posits a situation in the future when we have a referendum and a decision as to whether to enter the single currency. Such a referendum would be meaningless if it were carried out long before a decision had to be taken and if it were long after the necessary informed consent of the British people had been obtained. I assure the noble Lord that the Government take very seriously their responsibilities for informing the British public, but it would not be meaningful to do it a long time in advance of the referendum and the decision.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, does the noble Lord not accept that when the referendum comes, the Government will be, quite rightly, partisan in that? The Government's policy is very clear and it will be stated, as they are perfectly entitled to state it. But there is a case that can be made on both sides. Given the £7 million or so which has been spent so far on the softening-up process, what conceivable argument can there be against engaging a group of people to produce an authoritative statement of the arguments on both sides? Nobody will believe that the Government can be independent when the referendum comes.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I reject entirely the noble Lord's statement that £7 million has been spent on a softening-up process. What is happening is that we are seeking to ensure that when the time comes, British industry and commerce and, indeed, the British people as a whole, have made such preparations as are necessary in order to make a serious choice.
Of course, the Government accept that there will be arguments on both sides and those arguments will have to be put to the British people. Indeed, we already did so by publishing last year an excellent volume entitled

959
The Pros and Cons of EMU by my noble friend Lord Currie, which I commend to the noble Lord and the House.
Lord Shore of Stepney: My Lords, I share the disappointment of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, regarding the reply he has received. That is tempered a little by the fact that I do not believe, given the Government's commitment to the euro, that they can present a genuinely objective assessment of the case for and against economical and political membership. However, things are moving on. Is it not now sensible to ask the Government to produce a White Paper outlining the pros and cons of the case for accepting the proposals of Senor Prodi for a European army and discussing the German Government's scheme for a European Union military and defence union? We should hear something about that also.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as my noble friend stated, things are moving on and will continue to do so. However, they are not moving on so far as to put the question of a European army within the scope of this Question.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, in his loveable, if somewhat mischievous, usual way, perhaps has a serious point. Does my noble friend accept that while it would not be possible to convince people such as the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, and my noble friend Lord Shore of Stepney, it might be possible to convince genuinely open-minded people—I deliberately exclude my noble friend—because the facts clearly show the advantages of our joining a single currency?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Prime Minister has made the issues absolutely clear. As he stated in February, it is essential that convergence is settled and sustainable. We cannot say that yet. Under those circumstances, of course things will continue to move on, as stated by my noble friend Lord Shore, and we will continue to sustain our responsibility for informing the British people as and when appropriate.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that as a Minister in this House no one would possibly accuse him of arrogance, but that the Answer drafted for him, and which he read, reeked of the arrogance of this Government? Noble Lords are entitled to ask this Question. They will probably ask it again and again. It is about time Her Majesty's Government got it into their heads that there is a desire on the part of the people of this country to have the information set out as fairly as possible by an authoritative source on which they can begin to make up their minds on this issue. Why are the Government afraid to let them have the facts?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government have never been afraid to let anybody have the facts, nor indeed have they been afraid to do more than just hint, as we were accused of doing, about our attitude. We have set out the economic convergence
960
criteria and the basis upon which a decision will ultimately be made. Perhaps I may say that we have gone a great deal further than the noble Lord's government in setting out our position on the European single currency, and we will continue to do so.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the debate about the single currency has been going on for some years? Does he not accept that the objective of the Government, and, I suspect, of every corner of this House, would be to extend the scope of that debate to embrace a much greater proportion of the population than currently feels equipped to take any part in it? Does he not also agree that the recent election results, the turn-out in the local elections and in the Welsh Assembly and Scottish elections have proved that there is a serious disillusionment in the country with the extent to which Parliament legislates and deliberates above the heads of the electorate?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I agree with the first point raised by the noble Lord. As regards the second point, he is entitled to his opinion.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the changeover plan makes little reference to the cost of entry? Does he also accept that he owes it to the British public to have early indications of that cost, which has been estimated at five times that of putting right the millennium bug?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Viscount compares two "unknowable" statistics. I do not believe there is any point in making such a comparison.

House of Lords: Report on Smoking
2.54 p.m.
Lord Janner of Braunstone Lord Janner of Braunstone asked the Chairman of Committees:
What steps he proposes to take following the publication of the survey into smoking in the House of Lords.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of FavershamMy Lords, at its meeting last week the Administration and Works Sub-Committee approved the recommendations set out in the report of the Informal Group on Smoking. The report will now go to the Offices Committee, and the recommendations will come before the House in the report of that committee. Meanwhile, Black Rod has undertaken to investigate the possibility of identifying a room for smokers. Once a room has been identified, smoking could be reduced elsewhere.
Lord Janner of Braunstone: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply and for the action he is taking. When he refers the matter of smoking in eating places in this House to the Refreshment Sub-Committee, will he draw to their attention the excellent, sensible and compromise arrangement in the Churchill Dining Room

961
in the other place? I refer to the fact that smoking is permitted in the bar but not in the eating area. Surely the time has come to prohibit smoking in eating areas in this House.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I shall certainly ensure that the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Janner, is drawn to the attention of the appropriate quarters. However, as the noble Lord will have seen from the report of the informal group, I should point out that no changes are made to the smoking arrangements at present in force in your Lordships' Refreshment Department.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, does the Minister appreciate that some of us resent being told how to lead our lives? Does he agree that the Palace of Westminster is large enough for people such as the noble Lords, Lord Janner and Lord Avebury, to avoid being polluted by people like me? After all, they can always buzz off to the Commons.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, are, to an extent, correct. Those who are entitled, as she put it, to "buzz off to the Commons", in particular quarters of the premises of another place, may do so having been Members of another place. Because of the job I do, I hesitate to take sides so far as smoking is concerned, but I always find everything said by the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, absolutely irresistible!
Lord Peston: My Lords, as former chairman of the Refreshment Committee, I am grievously disappointed that the Chairman of Committees does not feel that he should take sides. This is a disgraceful state of affairs. I believe that almost the only occasion I was roundly defeated each time was when I tried to deal with the matter of smoking in areas where ordinary people try to eat and drink in a decent atmosphere and are terrorised—I use that word advisedly—by a small minority. Is it not time that your Lordships' House showed leadership on this matter? We must be one of the most reactionary institutions. I know that is a badge of pride with some, but on this subject it is a disgraceful state of affairs. Before the end of this year, when we move to our reformed House, is it not about time that we dealt with the problem which, in my view, is more important than that of the hereditary Peers?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I shall not be tempted or drawn into commenting on the last point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Peston. I am sorry to have disappointed him so greatly. As some of your Lordships will be aware, this is the wont of a politician. However, there is one point which should not escape the attention of your Lordships' House; that is, the outcome of the inquiries made into the views of your Lordships as a result of the questionnaire. Perhaps I may say that I am extremely grateful, as I am sure your Lordships will be, to the informal group for its work, and in particular to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of
962
Haringey, the Deputy Chief Whip. Among his other demanding occupations, he very kindly undertook to draw up the questionnaire which, because of his extensive professional experience as a former market researcher, was of particular benefit to those of us in your Lordships' committees.
The point which we cannot ignore is simply this. As a result of the responses to the questionnaire, which were extensive—over 400 Members of your Lordships' House responded—the House was formed of two pretty-well equal groups. In fact, those in favour of the status quo or more smoking amounted to 53 per cent and those in favour of less smoking amounted to 52 per cent. To introduce a more radical tightening of restrictions would be to ignore that fact.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, as a member of the committee on smoking, in which context I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, on the way in which he chaired that committee, can the Chairman of Committees confirm that the fact that his figures amount to more than 100 per cent makes sense in the context of what the questions were? Is it not the case also that there was scarcely anywhere where there was anything like a majority for a reduction in smoking?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, is correct in relation to the figures adding up to more than 100 per cent. It was open to respondents to the questionnaire to opt for more than one of the questions being asked and to refer to more than one of the options. That is not uncommon in answering questionnaires, but I should add that I am always full of admiration at the ingenuity of your Lordships.
Baroness David: My Lords, can the Chairman of Committees confirm that the Commons is a good deal more strict than we are? The idea that people like the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, can escape there means that they are not going to escape to a very happy atmosphere.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, without going into detail on the Commons restrictions, so as not to take up too much of your Lordships' time, I will make them available to those noble Lords who are interested in what another place does. To some extent, though not to a very great extent, there are more restrictions in another place.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Next Question!
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, we have allowed extra time on this Question, as there was obvious interest in it throughout the Chamber and we felt perhaps more time should be spent on it. However, we have now reached within five minutes of the time allotted for Questions and we should move on.

Peers' Guests: Parking Facilities
3.2 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley Lord Beaumont of Whitley asked the Chairman of Committees:
What facilities are available for the parking of bicycles ridden by Peers' guests arriving at the Peers' Entrance.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, the House does not provide parking facilities of any kind for Peers' guests. However, the House authorities are aware of the problem of bicycle parking near the Palace of Westminster. Some years ago representations were made to Westminster City Council. As a result, there are now 15 bicycle parking spaces in the Abingdon Street car park which are available for anyone to use free of charge.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply, though it is not entirely satisfactory. Should not there be facilities for bicycles seeing that the Government are trying to encourage their use instead of cars aid that Peers' guests who arrive are not, unlike those who arrive by car, taking up an enormous amount of space? Is the noble Lord aware that a fortnight ago a guest of mine arrived and when she asked where she could park her bicycle was told "Nowhere"? When she asked what she should do if she came as the guest of a Peer, she was told that she should not come by bicycle. I am sure that the noble Lord is aware that that is against government policy. Should we not show that we support government policy and encourage as many bicycles as possible to be parked in front of your Lordships' House?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, while many noble Lords will be sympathetic to the general point of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, I do not feel that I should be drawn into questions of government policy on these matters; nor are they matters for your Lordships' committees. I am sorry to hear of the experience which the noble Lord's guest suffered. I shall ensure that that point is brought to the attention of those concerned and that, where there is a query of this kind, the 15 spaces available—very few of which are ever taken up—will be drawn to the person's attention. Abingdon Street is very conveniently placed of course.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that in April 1988 expenses were introduced for Peers who wished to ride their bicycle to this House? Since then only two Peers have claimed those expenses and the reason for that is that they have to originate their journey outside Greater London. Will the noble Lord undertake to look into the expenses system for Peers who wish to ride their bicycle to this House so that all Peers, both those inside and those outside Greater London, are entitled to claim bicycle expenses?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I am advised, though I shall need to write to the noble Lord,
964
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, with the details, that what he said is not entirely accurate. However, I can confirm that there has recently been an increase in the bicycle mileage allowance along with other annual increases. I cannot promise that a vast amount of money is being saved by those who kindly and generously fail to claim their allowance.
Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, does the Chairman of Committees agree with me that, as we are making available bicycle spaces in the Abingdon Street car park, it would be right also to make spaces available for powered two-wheelers as well?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I understand that some accommodation is available. I shall look into the point. If anything needs to be done, I shall seek to ensure that it is done.

Business
3.7 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 4.30 p.m. my noble friend Lady Symons of Vernham Dean will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement being made in another place on Kosovo.

Breeding and Sale of Dogs (Welfare) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.
Company and Business Names (Chamber of Commerce, etc) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Employment Relations Bill
3.8 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Simon of Highbury): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
I am delighted to move this important Bill. It is a balanced series of proposals. It sets out a radical, forward-looking package of measures which will create a modern framework for employment relations fit for the next century. It delivers the Government's manifesto pledge to provide decent minimum standards for treatment at work and to develop family-friendly employment policies. It also modernises employment law in response to changes in working patterns; for example, more women than ever are working, the number of part-timers is increasing and more families are dependent on two earners.
The Bill will promote the best of modern employment practices in all our companies, encouraging a culture of fairness and trust in the workplace, coupled with clearer

965
definitions of rights and responsibilities. To achieve the prosperity we all want to see, the Government believe that there must be decent minimum rights for people at work, and the Bill will achieve those.
As noble Lords will be aware, the provisions of the Bill were foreshadowed in the White Paper, Fairness at Work, which was published in May last year. That White Paper was drawn up following consultations with the Confederation of British Industry and the Trades Union Congress on trade union recognition. All of the 29 proposals in the White Paper were subject thereafter to thorough consultation with both employer and worker organisations. Since the publication of the White Paper, the Government have been vigilant in consulting all interested parties. We believe that to improve the culture of employment relations for the next century it is important that we carry employers, employees, and their representatives with us when developing proposals.
Our objective is to create an understanding between employers and employees, managers and managed, that the value that people can add at their workplace is vital for all stakeholders. The ability to produce goods and services at low cost does not in itself guarantee industrial success, especially in our knowledge-based economy. Value-added and productivity are better tests of success in such an economy. As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister stated in the foreword to last year's Competitiveness White Paper, our success depends on how well we exploit our valuable assets of knowledge, skills and creativity.
Before considering the Bill in more detail, I remind noble Lords that the Government's economic policy is geared towards achieving sustainable prosperity. We see the implementation of the Bill as a major contribution towards achieving that policy. The Bill covers a variety of employment relations issues, individual rights, trade union recognition and family-friendly rights.
I hope that noble Lords have read the explanatory notes which give the purpose behind each of the provisions in the Bill. I intend today to explain the major elements of the Bill. They can be grouped into three themes: decent minimum standards for people at work; a new climate of co-operation in the workplace; and family-friendly employment rights.
The Government believe that all employees should be treated fairly so that they feel more trusted and valued. This will benefit the organisation through increased commitment and enhanced productivity.
Many good employers already provide decent employment standards for their employees. However, some do not, and the Government believe that fair minimum standards must be backed up by the law. We have done this already for working time and the national minimum wage. The Bill complements those measures and completes the package of reforms designed to restore an acceptable balance to the workplace.
The Bill contains a number of measures to ensure fair treatment in recruitment and employment. Clause 2 and Schedule 2 plug the loophole which currently permits employers to discriminate by omission on grounds of trade union membership, non-membership or activities.
966
For example, the denial of promotion to an individual on grounds of his trade union membership or activities, where a colleague is promoted who has agreed to give up union membership, could constitute an omission to act.
Clause 17 will ensure that part-time workers are treated no less favourably in respect of their terms and conditions of employment than their colleagues. This clause implements the European Part-Time Work Directive (Council Directive 97/81/EC) which covers employment conditions excluding pay. However, the Government believe that discrimination in respect of pay should be covered in the same way as other employment conditions. The clause therefore also covers pay.
We will also, through Clause 3, prohibit the compilation and use of blacklists recording individuals' trade union membership and activities with a view to use in recruitment. We will seek to ensure that employees do not suffer from detriment and dismissal arising from a refusal to accept a contract on terms which differ from those applicable to them under a collective agreement. Clause 15 will bring that into effect.
Secondly, we have sought a fair balance of rights and responsibilities in the workplace. Employers should not dismiss employees unfairly. We are not preventing employers from dismissing people where they have good reason and act reasonably in doing so, but we need to send a powerful message to employers that unfair dismissal is a serious matter. The Government's principle behind Clauses 28 to 32 is that people who have been unfairly dismissed should be entitled to receive adequate compensation to compensate for their economic loss.
Noble Lords will not have missed the media attention to the increase in the maximum limit for unfair dismissal compensatory awards to £50,000. However, these clauses will also simplify the existing system of additional and special awards and will link the limits on these awards to changes in the retail prices index. We will also remove the compensatory award limit in certain cases for those dismissed for "whistle-blowing"; that is, for drawing attention to health and safety problems or wrongdoings as set out in the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998.
There are four more provisions. Through Clauses 10 to 13, we will be creating a statutory right for individual workers to be accompanied either by a fellow employee or a trade union official during disciplinary and grievance hearings. We will further protect the interests of those using either employment agencies or employment businesses by amending the 1973 Employment Agencies Act. A consultation document proposing revised regulations under the Act will be issued soon. I hope to make copies available to noble Lords before the Bill is considered in Committee.
Clause 16 will prohibit the waiving of unfair dismissal rights in fixed term contracts.
The Government will, through Clause 20, empower the Secretary of State to rationalise and update the coverage of the existing body of employment rights by

967
conferring, by order, some or all of those rights on specified categories of individuals who may not or clearly cannot benefit from them at present but who are not genuinely self-employed. There will be full consultation on the draft regulations.
In business, co-operation and teamwork at all levels are conducive to success. My five years at the head of British Petroleum in a period of some pressure and change convinced me of the extraordinary power of the team. An organisation which does not encourage such co-operation between management and workers or their representatives risks missing out on the real prize, that is, enhanced employee commitment to the organisation, working towards shared goals—in the words of management consultants,"alignment".
The Government have always upheld the right of people to choose whether or not to join a union and, consequently, whether they wish to be represented by a union at the workplace. Clause 1 and Schedule 1 establish a new statutory procedure for the recognition of trade unions, if teat is the wish of a majority of the workforce, in organisations employing 21 or more workers. The procedure seeks to encourage voluntary agreements where possible but provides for the Central Arbitration Committee (CAC) to decide on applications for recognition if no agreement is reached.
If an employer agrees to recognise a union but a method for collective bargaining cannot be agreed, the CAC may impose a method. Schedule 1 includes procedures for changing the bargaining unit; that is, the group of workers who are covered by a recognition agreement. It also outlines procedures for derecognition of unions, including non-independent unions. It protects workers against detriment, financial or otherwise, or dismissal resulting from their supporting or failing to support recognition or derecognition.
The Bill also maces provisions in Clauses 22 to 25 to reflect changes necessary to the industrial relations institutions, in particular, the CAC and ACAS.
The Bill also simplifies and clarifies the existing law on industrial action, for example, by making clear that unions need not disclose to employers the names of their members they are balloting or calling on to take industrial action. Clause 4 and Schedule 3 will bring that into effect.
Clause 5 applies to workplaces where there is statutory union recognition and a bargaining procedure has been imposed by the CAC. It requires employers in those circumstances to consult recognised unions on training policy and practice relating to the workers represented by the union.
Clause 14 and Schedule 5 allow employees who take or have taken lawfully organised industrial action to complain of unfair dismissal if dismissed within the first eight weeks of such action. It will also be unfair to dismiss them thereafter if the employer has not taken reasonable procedural steps to resolve the dispute.
To underline the Government's commitment to improving co-operation in the workplace, Clause 26 authorises the Secretary of State to make funding
968
available to promote partnerships at work. The partnership fund will support innovative projects which develop the partnership approach in the workplace.
Finally, I turn to the support for family-friendly employment. The world of work is changing and, as I said, changing rapidly. For example, the number of mothers in work is increasing. Some employees have trouble combining their work and family responsibilities. The Bill therefore proposes new rights to parental leave. We believe organisations will benefit once these policies are in place. For example, there should be increased employee commitment and productivity and cost savings from reduced staff turnover and absenteeism.
The Bill, through Clauses 7 and 8 and Schedule 4, contains provisions dealing with leave for family and domestic reasons. It provides rights and regulation-making powers for the Secretary of State to replace most of the existing statutory provisions on maternity leave with simpler, clearer rights and to provide new rights to parental leave and to time off for domestic incidents in order to implement EU directives. I give way to the noble Lord.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, I apologise for interrupting the Minister. However, on reading the Bill, I was not quite certain about a few aspects in this respect. As the Minister has rightly said, this provision will make it more possible, for example, for women to be at work because of the extra rights. Do those extra rights apply also to the nanny who is looking after the child of the woman who is at work?
Lord Simon of Highbury: No, my Lords. The rights of nannies are covered under that part of the Bill which I have already mentioned which sets out the changes in employment agency terms and the status of nannies in those circumstances, I give way to the noble Lord again.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, with great respect to the Minister, I am not talking about an agency nanny. I have in mind a nanny who is employed full-time by the lady at work and who perhaps becomes pregnant or sees that there is some domestic crisis involved in her work. Does that nanny have the benefit of those rights as well as her employer?
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, I believe that it depends entirely on the status of the nanny's contract. That is one of the issues we shall have to debate during the course of the proceedings on the Bill. Nevertheless, I take note of the noble Lord's question.
The new rights will include: a minimum of 18 weeks' maternity leave for all women in line with statutory maternity pay; the right to extended maternity leave of up to 40 weeks for women after one year's service, rather than two, as at present; three months' parental leave for mothers and fathers, including adoptive parents; guaranteed job back—or its equivalent—at the end of parental leave; clarification of the status of employment contracts during periods of family leave; time off to deal with family emergencies; and protection from victimisation for exercising any of these rights. My

969
department will ensure that there is full and thorough consultation with employer and worker organisations on the draft regulations.
Much has been said about the costs of the Bill. That is an important question. In drafting the Bill, we have taken great care to avoid imposing unnecessary burdens on business. But we should be clear about the costs and benefits.
The Bill gives statutory backing to rights which many workers already enjoy. By doing so, it gives greater certainty to the majority of workers and enhanced protection to those who do not currently enjoy these rights. It will make it easier for employees with family and other domestic commitments to continue to contribute productively in the workplace, making use of their training and experience.
Employers and society at large will benefit enormously from greater participation in the labour market, reduced staff turnover and a climate of greater commitment and trust in the workplace. Against that, our departmental economists estimate that, across the whole of British business, the Bill will cost some £60 million a year, mainly due to the new parental leave rights and the wider entitlement to additional maternity leave. On top of that, there will be some £1.7 million a year in one-off costs, mainly for the new recognition procedures. So the cost is about 5p a week per employee.
The Bill will not, as has been suggested in certain elements of the media, damage employment. If employers accept these measures and the spirit which underlies them, they will get more out of their employees. More productive businesses mean better paid, safer jobs, and, incidentally, higher tax revenues and sounder public finances.
In conclusion, the Bill is something to which the Government are wholeheartedly committed. There is now widespread recognition of the need for updating the existing framework of employment legislation to take account of new developments in working practices and the needs of a modern economy. Therefore, it is important that we get this piece of vital legislation right. We greatly respect the experience which some noble Lords have had in the field of industrial relations. The Government look forward to their contribution to this debate. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.
(Lord Simon of Highbury.)
3.27 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I should like, first, to thank the Minister for his explanation of this important Bill in his normal, very careful manner. I shall look forward to debating with him the points where we will most certainly take issue with the Government as the Bill progresses through your Lordships' House.
It is not difficult to see why the title of the Bill, the Employment Relations Bill, changed from the White Paper on which it is based—entitled, Fairness at Work —because, when you examine the provisions in the
970
Bill, there is nothing in it which is fair to employers. There is also certainly nothing fair to those employees who simply want to get on with their jobs without industrial unrest caused by trade unions seeking to reassert themselves in a way that they have not been able to do for the past 15 years or so. Indeed, there is nothing fair to those employers and employees alike who, together, want to get on with keeping going the businesses in which they are both interested, rather than being sunk by the stream of socialist theory which is making Europe increasingly uncompetitive—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, noble Lords opposite may well laugh, but the truth is that our unemployment record has been very much better than that of many countries in Europe, with, as I said, their socialist policies.
In his speech in the other place on Second Reading of the Bill, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry spoke about,
"measures for partnership based on rights matched by responsibilities". —[Official Report, Commons, 9/2/99; col.130.]
I invite noble Lords to look at all 38 clauses and eight schedules on all of the 94 pages of the Bill and show me one responsibility imposed either on employees or on the trade unions which this Bill can foist on the majority of employees by the wishes of a minority.
As to the so-called partnership, I believe there is just one item. I shall refer to Clause 26. The Minister referred to it, but he put an entirely different complexion on it to that which I shall put on it, based on what the clause actually says. To paraphrase, it permits the Secretary of State to provide money, taxpayers' money, on any terms that he thinks fit, including gift or loan, for the purpose of encouraging and helping employers and their representatives, and employees' and their representatives, in order to improve the way they work together, whatever that may mean.
The words "their representatives" are code words for trade unions. The clause is nothing less than a licence for the Government to hand out taxpayers' money to the trade unions, on the pretext that they are encouraging improvements in industrial relations. What can the employers expect in return? Perhaps a lollipop, in the form of a grant towards a day's outing to the seaside for the employees of one of the Prime Minister's industrialist chums.
In the other place the Government could offer no explanation of how the clause would operate, despite the fact that they were asked. The Under-Secretary of State for Small Firms, Trade and Industry claimed that the reason was, first, that it would be constraining and, secondly, that they were consulting the key parties. I must advise the noble Lord the Minister that the clause will need a great deal of attention when it reaches the Committee.
Even the present Title of the Bill,"Employment Relations", is misleading, because the Bill resembles a relationship based on a shotgun marriage. The Bill does nothing to foster good relations between employers and

971
employees. Rather, it revives the old Labour environment of "them and us" that pervaded until the reform of the unions that took place in the 1980s:
"steps were needed to correct the worst of trade union excesses". —[Official Report, Commons, 9/2/99; col.130.]
Those are not my words, but are a direct quotation of what the Secretary of State admitted within the first two minutes of his speech on the Second Reading in the other place. At last there is an admission that the bitter rearguard action that the party opposite fought on every single trade union re form measure was mistaken, and this is just another Conservative policy that New Labour has now adopted.
The first and major problem that the Bill causes is the disruption and expense that will be inflicted on small businesses. It will bake them less competitive in the market alongside the major industrial concerns. I am not talking about the very small business with fewer than 21 employees, which is exempted from one of the worst excesses in the Bill—compulsory union recognition—although the fact is that in the next 10 years most new jobs will be created in companies with fewer than 21 employees. No, I am talking about all small businesses: ones that are struggling to start up; ones that are struggling to keep going, especially in the retail trades in the face of the mammoth out-of-town shopping parks; and small manufacturing businesses struggling to compete with the multinationals.
The Secretary of State regaled the other place with the story of what he described as a leading supermarket chain which has introduced maternity leave, paternity leave, child-care leave, adoption leave, shift-swap and bereavement leave. Despite all of this, the Minister says that the company is enjoying all sorts of commercial benefits. Needless to say, the chain is Asda, chaired by my honourable friend he Member for Tunbridge Wells. I trust that noble Loris opposite will as a reward patronise those shops instead of the Co-op, to which the Secretary of State was unable to give such a plug. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, will not mind my having made that comment.
Just as there is no such thing as a free lunch, there is no such thing as a free social benefit. The fact is that all of the major supermarkets, not just Asda, can indulge in such generosity to their staff because probably all they have to do is to add an unnoticed penny on, say, a bag of sugar or forgo their profit on bottles of tomato ketchup for a couple of weeks. The same probably applies equally to the large department stores, DIY stores and the other chain stores and the suppliers of services in near-monopoly conditions.
The trouble is that this Government—and, I admit, perhaps all governments—fail to recognise that there is a vast difference between Sainsbury's and the Coronation Street corner shop. Only a few weeks ago the Prime Minister in a speech in Bristol complained to businessmen that many of the regulations coming out of Brussels were out of date and should be reviewed, and yet here are the Government piling on new ones in the Bill.
The Government are not just putting in new regulations, but, as ray honourable friend the Member for Daventry pointed out in Committee in the other place, are
972
going above and beyond even what the EC directives demand. This is gold-plating the directives as part of their pay off to the unions.
Before I turn to some of the specific matters in the Bill, I have one other general observation: once again the Government have produced a half-baked piece of legislation. It is an enabling Bill, a mere skeleton, with the details to be filled in by statutory instrument, rather like the ministerial decrees that pass for law-making in Russia. For, make no mistake, statutory instruments are no substitute for an Act of Parliament, which receives the scrutiny of the two Houses on three separate occasions, whereas a statutory instrument is considered only once and cannot be amended: take it or leave it. Parliament has to accept the bad provisions or throw the good ones out with them.
This is just another example of the present Government's marginalising Parliament and stealthily removing as many of its functions as possible. We have already seen the mess that the Government got into over the national minimum wage, because of the cases of au pairs, and the working time directive over the position of paper boys.
If that is not bad enough, in the Bill before us the Government have taken large matters of substance out of the body of the text and buried them in the schedules, all printed, as my honourable friend the Member for Daventry pointed out, in smaller print. A classic case in point arises under Clause 8, the substance of which is to be found in Part II of Schedule 4, 63 pages further on. It provides for time off for what are called "domestic incidents". The problem is that even the schedule does not define what is a domestic incident. That is to be left to the Secretary of State to announce when he gets round to it.
The Government have been in office for two years and have conducted 10 months of consultation, yet they cannot tell us what they mean by this provision. Perhaps the noble Lord the Minister will when he replies to this Second Reading debate at least give your Lordships an idea of the sort of events that might be regarded as "domestic incidents"—not a final list, but at least tell us what the Government currently have in mind. The Minister in the other place admitted that he could not offer a definition.
That is no basis for asking Parliament for permission to make statutory regulations that could cost employers tens of millions of pounds a year. If we are given some inkling, then when we reach the Committee stage at least we shall have an idea of what we and, more important, the Minister are talking about—that is assuming, of course, that the Government themselves know.
I suggest that in formulating their shopping list of domestic incidents the Government pay heed to the excellent advertising slogan of the Legal & General Assurance Company, and not make a drama out of a crisis.
Although the Bill is euphemistically described as the "Employment Relations Bill", what kind of relationship can there be if, when an employee asks for half a day off, he and his employer have to consult Part II of Schedule 4, containing a page and a half of gobbledegook? Part II is to be found on pages 67 and 68. Then one has to plough through four pages of consequential amendments to other

973
Acts in Part III. That is without our having seen a single syllable of the regulations which the Secretary of State is to unveil at some unspecified time in the future. I was very pleased to hear from the noble Lord the Minister that he was very hopeful that Members on this side of the House would have sight of those regulations before the Committee stage.
Of course, I have a certain sympathy with the Secretary of State over this. I have held my present brief a great deal longer than he has. He is the third Secretary of State in the short life of this Government. The first was moved after the first reshuffle, presumably without her department having worked out what a domestic crisis is. The second honourably felt obliged to resign, following a domestic crisis of his own about his house, without having produced his own minimum ideas on the subject. Now we find Secretary of State No.3 having to come to Parliament to ask for all sorts of blank cheques in this Bill, because, having been dropped in at the deep end, he has had to use his legislative slot, by doing something, however ill-prepared. Act first and think about it later!
Another example is Clause 27, which is just five words long. It states:
"Schedule 7 shall have effect".
What does Schedule 7 say? It states that the Secretary of State can make regulations that can control employment agencies by restricting the services they perform, the way they do it and what they can charge: not the slightest indication of what the Government have in mind or why they think that these rigid regulations are needed. We shall expect the Minister to give us the courtesy of a full explanation of this clause before he asks this House to pass it.
Backtracking just a little, I should like to refer to Clause 1 on collective bargaining recognition. That is a coy euphemism for foisting compulsory trade recognition on unwilling employers and a possible unwilling majority of the workforce. It is contained in 40 pages of the unindexed Schedule 1: roughly one-half of the Bill if you take into account that the print is especially small.
That schedule was a mere 25 pages long when it was published in the other place, which seems to suggest that this Bill, which is to redeem one of the Labour Party's many IOUs to the unions, is making law on the hoof. It is now 40 pages long. It also explains why so much of it is to be the subject of secondary legislation. That is because the Government do not know how the Bill will work in practice or do not want Parliament to know until they have been given a blank cheque.
What a confusing mish-mash Schedule 1 is. Paragraph 6 of the schedule explains how to calculate the number of employees:

"(a) take the number of workers employed in each of the 13 weeks (including workers not employed for the whole of the week);

"(b) aggregate the 13 numbers;

"(c) divide the aggregate by 13".

All that is missing is the instruction to take away the number you first thought of!
On the subject of union recognition, the department has kindly (on page 7 of the Explanatory Notes) produced a diagram with arrows pointing in all different
974
directions. It is perhaps significant that the general direction of the arrows is downward. The chart resembles a cross between a demented game of snakes and ladders and a design by Heath Robinson. Having studied it carefully, I must confess I am none the wiser; and neither will be the employers and employees of a small business which is misguided enough to give work to 22 people, and which will then be affected by the provisions.
No doubt experts in the trade unions, and the lawyers employed by the larger companies will manage the paragraph, but I can see plenty of work for lawyers and a vastly expanded quango, the Central Arbitration Committee, which seems to be the son of ACAS. I wonder what ACAS thinks of its new child.
I shall not dwell further on this clause and schedule at the present moment. They occupy, as I have pointed out, over one-third of the Bill and we shall need to examine their provisions in some detail at the next stage.
We will also need to examine the provisions about maternity and paternity leave. Apart from the extra burden of expense that they place on an employer of whatever size, they are particularly harmful to smaller businesses. Not only has the employer to keep open the employee's job, possibly through a series of pregnancies—these things happen—but if the absence goes on for long enough, the ability to dispose of the locum because of the length of her or his supposedly temporary employment is lost.
Once again the Secretary of State demands the powers to make regulations as to the length of such maternity or paternity leave. In a process of what I consider to be disinformation, the Government have told us that the length is increased to 18 weeks. I do not think that that is correct, because what will be the new Section 71 (3)(a) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 provides that the regulations shall secure that,
"no ordinary maternity leave period is less than 18 weeks".
So, the Secretary of State could make it 20 weeks, 26 weeks or whatever the unions demand; and that is even without the extensions that the Secretary of State can arbitrarily order under what will be new Section 73 of the 1996 Act. The same applies to parental leave, including when it may be taken. What about by the time the child reaches the age of 18?
Some of these arbitrary and far-reaching powers must be restricted, even before the regulations get the cursory examination that parliamentary procedures permit.
At the end of his Second Reading speech in the other place, the Secretary of State gave a catalogue of almost 13 million people whom he claims will benefit from the provisions of this Act. This is a figure arrived at by double and even treble-counting that even the Secretary of State's right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer might have hesitated from trying.
What the figures do not show is how many jobs will be lost by firms being driven out of business, or not even starting up because of the airy-fairy devices of dreamland socialist economics provided for in this Bill.
What these figures do not show is how many of the 6.5 million part-timers (who the Secretary of State claims will be protected from his idea of exploitation)

975
will not get a job at all, because if it is as expensive to employ a part-timer as a full-timer, many employers may well decide to employ a full-timer. So much for helping mothers on benefit get out of the poverty trap!
The Secretary of State also made extravagant claims about the so-called Benefits of this Bill. He said:
"it is a balanced package with a clear emphasis on partnership, not confrontation; fairness and trust, not insecurity and maltreatment; and rights coupled with responsibilities". —[Official Report, Commons, 9/2/99; col.141.]
That stream of clichés and platitudes could have been taken straight from the "Old Comrades' Book of Speeches".
The fact is that, we believe that employers and employees should be left free to settle relationships between themselves, including, if that is what the employee desires, his union, but without outside complicated regulation from the Government—a government who reached the apogee of the nanny state by publishing earlier last month a pamphlet on how to employ a nanny.
What we do not want is to copy the German laws and regulations, which result in it having twice the unemployment rate of the UK. One of the reasons for BMW's heavy investment in the UK, according to its chairman, is that we do not have the legislation which is causing it and Mercedes Benz the trouble that is making them export so many of their jobs. Sony is transferring production from Germany to South Wales precisely because of Germany's oppressive and restrictive labour laws. They can just as easily transfer them back again.
What the Government have done, and are steadily continuing to do, is to push up the cost of employing people. The minimum wage, as the Deputy Prime Minister admitted, is going to cost jobs, as we shall soon see. The working time directive and all the additional costs that this is going to involve will add to industry's burden.
British Steel recently warned:
"The rate of job losses will accelerate given the extremely difficult trading conditions …it is imperative that the Government should do nothing to add to our costs and to undermine our competitiveness".
I fear that that is a plea falling on deaf ears; and a rude awakening for those industrialists who were lulled into a sense of false security by the siren song of the Labour Party just prior to the last election when its spin doctors assured them that they were "business friendly".
In April 1997 the Chancellor of the Exchequer (then the Shadow Chancellor) said:
"we will not impose burdensome relations on business because we understand that successful businesses must bring costs down".
On 25th November 1998, before his abrupt departure from the office of Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the right honourable Member for Hartlepool told the other place:
"we have no intention of introducing any legislation that presents a burden on business and reduces the competitiveness of British firms". —[Official Report Commons.25/11/98; col.214.]
Well, we all know what "we have no intention " means in government-speak; it means "not this week".
976
This Bill is designed to increase employment rights and will unquestionably raise costs and reduce competitiveness, and will fall particularly hard on small and medium-sized businesses.
In his speech on the Second Reading in the other place, the Secretary of State announced that,
"There will not be a continuous drip, drip of employment legislation throughout this Parliament". —[Official Report, Commons 9/2/99; col.134.]
Thank goodness for that, because we have had more than enough already, and we have yet to be subjected to the regulations under this Bill, which are themselves legislation.
The Secretary of State then went on to say (also at col.134):
"We have no plans to bring forward further measures … for the remainder of this Parliament"—
again the coded phrase,"We have no plans". Well, so long as that is that for this Parliament, then there is some hope that the damage caused by the Government's legislation to date may be limited, because I and my colleagues on this side of the House will do our very best to ensure that there is no second term during which the Labour Party can re-infect the country with what our competitors derisively called "the British disease", which the last Conservative government decisively cured.
3.50 p.m.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, it will come as no surprise to the Minister and your Lordships that the Liberal Democrats broadly support the principles and purpose of this modest Bill. We support the increase in the rights of the individual enshrined in certain clauses of the Bill. We support the general principles of the improvements in collective rights and the family-friendly policies contained in it.
Having listened to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, I stress that we regard this as a modest Bill. To those of us on this side of your Lordships' House it does not appear to have a great deal to do with socialism, red in tooth and claw Kremlin policies, the British disease or any of the other phrases which the noble Baroness used to warn us as regards all the pillars of government policy concerning the national minimum wage and the working time directive. It is a modest Bill in the sense that it simply brings best commercial practice into our legislative framework, as the noble Baroness recognised. As regards the position of the current chairman of Asda, that is likely to be the company which people will choose. That company is obviously an example of the best commercial practice. Whether it is able to pass on the cost to the unwitting consumer will be a matter for the Monopolies and Mergers Commission to consider in its review of the pricing of supermarkets.
It is also a modest Bill in the sense that it brings this country into line with our European competitors almost all of whom had much more successful economies over the 20 to 25-year period when most of them were run by right-wing governments. That is contrary to the idea that they were mostly Left-wing and imposing socialism

977
from Europe. Almost all the European countries which had protection for the workforce, as set out in this Bill, had been run by Right-wing parties for the past 15 to 20 years. I dissociate this Opposition party from the remarks made by the Conservative Party.
However, that is not to say that we regard the Bill as perfect. We shall need to probe a number of its provisions. As the Minister indicated, the Bill was preceded by the White Paper Fairness at Work There was inevitable publicity and debate in the public arena as regards the rights of trades unions and their recognition. As the Bill passes through this House I do not believe that we shall wish on this side to intrude in Labour Party private grief concerning the 40 per cent mechanisms. All the evidence was touched on by the Minister; namely, that such issues are best resolved by voluntary agreement. Under the previous Tory government when similar provisions were in place, I believe that ACAS indicated quite strongly at the time that the formal rules of recognition did not work and that almost all disputes of that kind had to be resolved by voluntary agreement. We hope that the complex schedule in the Bill will be put on to the back burner of most industrial disputes and that voluntary recognition and agreement will be the norm. If it is not, then no legislation will solve the problems.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that in anticipation of the Bill there is quite a strong body of evidence that on a voluntary basis employers are engaged in positive discussions with trades unions and that recognition is taking place in advance of the Bill itself?
Lord Razzall: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord is correct. I shall be delighted if that is the case. As the noble Lord will be aware, the tenet of my argument is that voluntary agreement and not legislative agreement' will solve the problems. But, as I say, I do not believe that from these Benches we shall intrude in the private grief of the Labour Party.
We shall probe the Government as regards a number of areas where we believe the Bill does not go far enough. I choose two major areas. One of them is likely to find favour in your Lordships' House; the other, less likely. The area which I anticipate will find favour is that of discrimination on grounds of age. The debate in the other place touched significantly on whether there is a gap in legislation of this nature to give legal rights to argue and claim discrimination on the grounds of age. In a Second Reading debate I do not need to give examples that many people have raised on the issue. As I understand it, the Government's position is that discrimination about age should not be dealt with by legislation but by a voluntary code of practice. I would not wish to embarrass the Government by indicating that when in opposition they took the opposite view. The then Tory government believed that age discrimination should be dealt with by a voluntary code of practice. The Labour Party at the time thought that unacceptable and considered that it should be dealt with by legislation. When we reach the Committee stage we
978
shall wish to push the point to ascertain whether or not issues concerning age discrimination should be covered by the Bill.
The area which is less likely to find favour with your Lordships is whether the Bill goes far enough as regards sexual discrimination. A number of examples of discrimination against employees on the grounds of sexual orientation have been well documented in the press. When the Bill reaches Committee stage we shall bring forward amendments. Whatever the view taken by your Lordships, the age of consent should be regarded as a separate issue. Hiring, firing and employment practice where there is evidence of discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation is quite different from the issue of lowering the age of consent.
In another place, the Government, although sympathetic, felt that there should be a different approach. Age discrimination, they indicated, should be dealt with through a voluntary code of practice. On the subject of sexual orientation they took the somewhat surprising view that it was not a matter for the Department of Trade and Industry, but for the Department for Education and Employment. In these days of "joined up" government, if we are considering legislation which affects employment practices in the workplace it is not an excuse to say that it is not a matter for the Department of Trade and Industry but for another department. When we reach the Committee stage I hope that that is a matter on which the Government will be able to adapt.
There are some areas of detail in the Bill on which we shall wish to probe the Government. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, touched on one which has caused some considerable concern; namely, the "gold plating" of certain provisions which come from European directives. The obvious one is rights being given for time off in relation to a domestic incident. That has been fairly well documented. Those of your Lordships who have studied the Bill in detail will realise that the definition of such an incident will be left to regulation. If it is left to regulation by the Minister, undoubtedly time off for his son to watch Arsenal on a Tuesday afternoon is unlikely to be a domestic incident; it will be a domestic normality. There is clearly concern as to the exact meaning of "domestic incident". It is a gold plating of the European directive that goes further than many would have anticipated.
That leads me to the fundamental concern that we on these Benches have. From her remarks, I think our concern is shared by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. Much of the Bill is left to be dealt with by regulation. There are very significant items in the Bill which the Government say will be the subject of consultation—we accept that—but the nuts and bolts will be implemented by regulation which, under the way our parliamentary democracy currently works, will never really be subject to proper parliamentary scrutiny. It is regrettable that the legislation has been drafted in that way. I hope that the Minister who responds will give strong undertakings to the House that, because the regulations will not be subjected to effective parliamentary scrutiny, there will

979
be an adequate consultation period during which the input of all sides of industry and of the House can be considered.
Finally, I wish to make a point which has not so far featured in the debate. All the surveys seem to indicate that there is considerable confusion among medium and small-sized companies as to the current status of the regulations and provisions to which they are subject. I know that the Department of Trade and Industry has spent time and money trying to give effective notice and information to businesses. However, businesses without significant corporate legal teams or central functional teams that can advise management are, according to the latest surveys, in considerable difficulty as to the impact of the national minimum wage regulations, the working time directive and the regulations that will flow from the Bill. To be fair to the Government, those regulations are constantly changing in the process of consultation. The national minimum wage regulations have been amended as we have gone along lo try to reflect consultations with the public.
The Minister says that this is the third and final pillar of the Government's employment legislation. It is absolutely paramount that an effective, proper and extensive information operation is mounted to ensure that particularly medium and small-sized companies know their obligations. I hope that the Minister can assure us that that will be done.
4.3 p.m.
Lord Walker of Doncaster: My Lords, Westminster must be the only place where one can experience a second maidenhood. If I might muddle my metaphor, looking around the Chamber I feel that I am revisiting an old battlefield. 'When I first came to your Lordships' House I thought it sensible to follow the wise advice of the Procedure Committee to study the form before making one's first speech. Perhaps I have hesitated too long, but I must admit that I have been inhibited, if not intimidated, by my inability to rise to the standard of erudition and eloquence that often illuminates your Lordships' debates. However. I feel that I may have the credentials to make a brief contribution to our proceedings today.
One way or another, most of my adult life has been linked with the stuff of industrial relations. I am proud to declare an interest: for more than 50 years I have been a member, and I am still a member, of the engineering union—the AEU and now the AEEU, in common with some of my noble friends. I remember the long-gone days when I was a youthful shop steward, the days when almost the only way to seek remedy for a grievance at work was to take, or threaten to take, some form of militant industrial action. If a worker was sacked, otherwise victimised, or was ordered to carry out some excessively dangerous task, and if an employer behaved unreasonably, all too often the response was a collective action which damaged the interests of both employers and workers alike: loss of production for one; loss of earnings for the other.
It seemed so obvious then, all those years ago, that the sensible thing was to seek to provide some acceptable, reasonable method of resolving disputes or,
980
alternatively, to remove the underlying causes of the grievances that had caused the dispute in the first place. I rejoice that, despite some setbacks in recent years, that is the road that has been followed in these matters. During the past decade or so the number of days' production lost due to industrial action has greatly diminished and the number of industrial disputes has greatly declined.
No doubt there are many reasons for the decline—the restraints on the unions imposed by the previous government, as has been referred to, and the persistently high level of unemployment—but I am sure that a significant factor has been the beneficial influence of the legislation passed by Parliament over the past decades. I think particularly of the Equal Pay Act 1970, which was introduced by my noble friend Lady Castle of Blackburn and was one of her many achievements. On the other side, the noble Lord, Lord Can of Hadley, introduced the first statutory remedy for unfair dismissal. Those are the kind of measures that have not only contributed to a very great improvement in the statistics of industrial relations but have beneficially transformed relations in the workplace.
It seems to me that the Bill before us today marks a further step along that road. It is yet another move away from the old master and servant relationship to one where employees can feel that they are partners in the provision of goods and services. Promoting the rights and protections of workers is about not only modifying the social relationships of employment but also to do with industrial efficiency and productivity. Before I entered Parliament I spent part of my career in industrial management; I was for a period a work study engineer. I was convinced then, and I am convinced now, that one of the most significant contributions to high productivity is that the workforce should be confident and free of anxiety. If the workforce performs better, we as a country gain from it.
Finally, I wish to make reference to the welcome provisions in the Bill for the updating of the regulations relating to employment agencies. It fell to me in 1974 to produce the first regulations to give effect to the Employment Agencies Act, which was introduced by the late Kenneth Lewis. At that time the Federation of Personnel Services, the collective body representing the leading employment agencies, was the most fervent advocate of regulation, not least because it was being prejudiced by the activities of the cowboy agencies operating in that field. I am delighted with the success of the regulations over the years in eliminating some of the abuses and malpractice that were endemic in the employment agency field 25 years, a quarter of a century, ago. The time is ripe now to update those regulations, and I am pleased that there is provision in the Bill for that to be done.
I thank your Lordships for your forbearance and courtesy. I very much hope that the House will give the Bill the fair wind it deserves.
4.8 p.m.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, there can be no more suitable subject than this for the noble Lord,

981
Lord Walker of Doncaster, to choose for his maiden speech. He is a deeply respected specialist in these matters. He has referred to revisiting an old battlefield. He will recall that he and I over several years in the 1970s were brought together on the Standing Committees of several Bills concerned with industrial relations and employment law in one way or another. We were brought together as opponents, but I like to think that we were turned into lasting friends. I know that the House will look forward to further contributions from him which will always have the acute approach, but also the genial and fair approach, that he demonstrated in his speech to us today. It is a great privilege for me to be the first to congratulate him on it. For his part, he will look forward to no longer having to be uncontroversial.
Perhaps I may be permitted a further personal reflection. The Bill generates for me a feeling of déjávu. My early years in the other place seemed to be dominated by industrial relations and the decline thereof, as well as the consequential and parallel decline of this country's economy between 1974 and 1979.
As the noble Lord, Lord Walker, will well remember, the flagship of the then Labour Government was the Trade Union and Labour Relations Bill, and perhaps the Employment Protection Bill. I watched in fascinated horror as immunities from legal process were conferred upon trade union leaders and massive privileges and undemocratic powers, as I thought, over their trade union members were conferred upon them, under the gleeful but ultimately catastrophic leadership of Mr. Michael Foot.
All that was done in the name of better industrial relations—a cause upon which all were agreed who were ranged against each other in the Standing Committees and on either side of the Chamber in the other place—but strikes became endemic. By 1979, when lost working days were running at nearly 27 million annually, the social and economic consequences brought the government down. Additionally, such burdens had been imposed on employers, particularly small employers, that many were prevented from remaining competitive and were obliged to throw their workforce out of employment.
I am afraid that—I do not doubt with the best intentions—the present Bill suggests to me that the Government are in some respects starting to return to their predecessors' thraldom to the trade union leaders. That thraldom had been progressively dispelled by and with the insistent support of working people on the shop floor. Otherwise it could not have been done in the years of Conservative government that followed. The shop-floor workers showed themselves, to an enormously impressive extent, sick of their enforced so-called representation by many of their trade union leaders. It was representation that they showed they did not want. Against their wishes, their leaders had exploited the ability to secure strike action, even by workforces that had no dispute with their employers.
In our Employment Bill 1980, during the passage of which I had the privilege to serve Jim Prior, now the noble Lord, Lord Prior, we set about, step by step—a phrase which had some significance in those days—
982
restoring democratic principles and resurrecting the rule of law in industrial relations. We did it by putting the effective provisions of our Bills on the face of the Bill, not—as is such a painful feature of the present Bill, already much remarked upon—leaving it to be worked out or at least specified in regulation after regulation.
Then and thereafter it was the shop-floor people who most clamantly told us,"Go on. You haven't gone far enough". So we took another step. The Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Prior, was followed by that of my noble friend Lord Tebbit. So it went on until, at the end of that lengthy process, not only had the annual toll of working days lost been reduced from about 27 million to under 1 million, but also unemployment had fallen markedly and British industry was restored to competitiveness. That was why we did it.
Towards the end of that period, or even long before it, strikes had come to seem as old-fashioned in the context of industrial relations as the application of leeches to a fevered patient had become old-fashioned and just about as unhelpful in the field of medicine.
Strangely, throughout that period—and this is why dèjávu afflicts me—step after step that we took at the demands of the shop floor was opposed by several noble Lords whose names appear on the list of speakers, and I look forward to their speeches: the noble Lords, Lord Wedderburn of Charlton, Lord McCarthy, Lord Clinton-Davis. Time and time again they were opponents of the measures. For some of them, it must have been a long winter.
I believe that towards the end of that period we got the balance about right. I speak of balance because we never wished to be against trade unions; we wished to be against the unreasonable imbalance of the powers of certain trade union leaders.
Now the clock is in part to be nudged back: compulsory recognition of trade unions is to be reintroduced. We had it from 1975 to 1980 and even if those who desire recognition in what is called an "agreed bargaining unit" fall short of a majority by 10 per cent, recognition will be enforced. Dismissing an employee within eight weeks of taking part in a strike in violation of a contract of employment is to be made unlawful, and so on. That will apply to all firms employing more than 20 employees. Virtually every business organisation that has been consulted on the question of the threshold—the Association of British Chambers of Commerce, the CBI, the Federation of Small Businesses, the Institute of Directors—pressed for the threshold to be markedly increased. Here I should declare an interest in that I am patron of the chamber of commerce for West Kent.
One of the representations made to the Government stated:
"Firms with fewer than 40 staff rarely have the resources to deal regularly with trade union representatives and this legislation will serve only as a further constraint on business growth and competitiveness".
That makes a lot of sense. But more important, the business community thinks it makes a lot of sense.

983
I conclude with a very important point: legislative principle. Central to the operation of statutory trade union recognition will be the operation of the central arbitration committee. Yet we know nothing about how it will look, we know nothing about its procedures, we know nothing about how it will be composed. None of that is in the Bill. It will all be found in the secondary legislation. That point and the consequences flowing from it have already been powerfully made.
The object of the committee—though by whom it is committed I am not clear—is said to be:
"encouraging and promoting fair and efficient practices and arrangements in the workplace".
One beneficiary of the Bill will be legal employment. Jobs for life will certainly increase. I hope that we shall see the damaging provisions of the Bill at least mitigated through debate in this House and that we shall see far more precision and more specific provisions on the face of the Bill when we finish with it.
4.19 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, perhaps not surprisingly I dissent from some of the propositions advanced by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden—although I strongly agree with his opening remarks about my noble friend Lord Walker of Doncaster. I gather that eulogies are not permitted these days but he was a fine example of a Deputy Speaker of distinction in the other place. Occasionally, he even called on both of us to speak. Rarely, but occasionally.
I declare my interest as president of the British Airline Pilots Association, which is a trade union of airline pilots of which the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, is not unfamiliar. I was vastly entertained by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon. We are all very fond of the noble Baroness but her suggestion that the present government is a collection of the militant faction resurrected is somewhat far from the truth. I remind the noble Baroness that it is New Labour.
The extraordinary prejudice that was imported into the noble Baroness's speech and that of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, as to the current role of trade unions is rather mind boggling. I know that many of us are rather ancient but it is never too late to overcome prejudice. It is time to consider the present state of the trade unions.
I personally believe that there was a case for reform and that the role undertaken by trade unions during the winter of discontent was arrogant. It brought down the Labour government of which I was proud to be a member and that situation was intolerable. However, the Thatcher government went too far. The balance became unacceptable as well. For them, balance is a chip on both shoulders. It was manifestly plain at the last general election that the country had come to recognise that the last government had gone too far and that the power of irresponsible employers had replaced the irresponsibility of some trade unions.
One of the problems is not trade unions but unofficial action, which was often provoked by the very thing that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, spoke about—the rigidity of statutory provision and the inability to modify a position in light of experience. As
984
the noble and learned Lord well knows, it is not easy to gain parliamentary time to introduce yet another Bill—although it is true that the Conservatives had three employment Bills in their 18 years.
My noble friend Lord Simon of Highbury said that we are facing huge challenges in the demands that will be made of industry and hence of industrial relations as we move into the next millennium. We are still far behind France and Germany in terms of productivity, and that has something to do with building up a better, more harmonious relationship at work—where there is greater co-operation and each side seeks to understand the position of the other. It is enormously important that we are prepared to recognise the need to change the environment at the workplace. That is the purpose of the Bill and of a number of other measures. I was privileged to help the National Minimum Wage Bill through this House. Other measures include the possibility of enhancing employee share ownership. All such measures are designed to secure a better environment in the workplace.
I have no doubt that we will learn as we go along. That will not be easy. Attitudes must be changed. Hence the importance of the government provision in the Bill for training facilities for employers and employees alike, to be better able to face the challenges.
I do not imagine for one moment that we will be able to dispense with traditional dispute resolution. It would be folly to think that. But creating a better, more co-operative sense of partnership in industry will invade that area as well. True partnership involves a keener appreciation of the role of each other and the support that each side of industry can afford each other because their ambitions are the same.
The noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, will not share the argument that one of the great benefits of the European Union is that considerable action has been taken to achieve that end. The EU has decisively rejected the antediluvian view that there always has to be conflict between the two sides of industry. Bitterness, rancour and conflict were the hallmarks of so much of our late industrial past, including the period of Conservative government.
The Bill's provisions provide for dignity at the workplace, and that is the relevance of helping to promote family friendly employment practices. Those, together with the other measures, mirror the Government's ambition to proclaim an interdependent combination of laws and practices because each area of the Bill is dependent upon the other. The establishment of a fair, just and strong society is clearly to be preferred to the ideological approach taken by our predecessors and by some trade unionists in the past.
Frankly, I do not understand the Conservative case, but if the Opposition are saying that paternity leave, extended maternity leave and all the other things criticised by the noble Baroness are dangerous and damaging to industrial relations, is it the Conservatives' intention—if they return to power in 15 or 20 years—to repeal those provisions?
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, our complaint is that too much is not on the face of the Bill.

985
We do not know what it means. In many respects, we are not even sure that the Government know. We hope that the Government will clarify many points.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I am sure that clarification will emerge. It always does in Committee and on Report. My noble friend has already alluded to that. Further consultation is required and it would be wrong to be too prescriptive at this stage.
It is essential to recognise—and the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, did not do service to this point—that the Bill has been the subject of intensive consultation. At the end of the day a package has been arrived at between the TUC and the CBI and there is broad agreement in principle. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, shakes his head, but what I have just said is completely accurate. He can shake his head as much as he likes.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, is the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, aware that not all of us in manufacturing industry regard the CBI as the last word in consultation?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, that is another point. The noble Lord has his disagreements with the CBI. I mentioned the CBI specifically.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, does the noble Lord suggest that if the Opposition table any amendments that the CBI should like to see made to this Bill the Government will accept them? Surely, that is the message that he gives.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I have not been in a position to give any messages to the Government since the previous July. My views on that matter are hardly helpful. It is a matter for the Government to decide. However, the most extensive consultation took place, and I believe that it was right to undertake it. Consultation must go on, particularly in relation to the corpus of regulations that must be introduced. But the course that the Government have taken indicates an absence of the rigidity that marked the approach of their predecessors.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, spoke about the generosity of the previous government's views on trade unions. He forgot the appalling events at GCHQ and the scarring of industrial relationships on a far wider scale than simply the workers at that establishment. I am proud that as one of their first acts the Government have decided to put that right. The previous government did not favour trade unions. One hears from the lips of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, that the Conservative Party is still visibly—sometimes eloquently—opposed to the very principle of trade unions. Trade unions do not exist simply to negotiate wages or conditions but to provide a major supportive role. They look after their members at times of accidents, provide legal support and give help when
986
their members are unwell and become old. I never hear members of the Conservative Party mention those important factors.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I am not sure that the noble Lord read my lips correctly. My lips did not say anything at that stage. As a matter of fact, the trade union legislation introduced by the previous Conservative government made the trade unions much easier to live with. We are talking here about the position of trade unions when this Bill and the regulations are brought into effect. One important point that the noble Lord has not answered is that made by my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew. I believe my noble and learned friend said that in 1979, 27 million days—my brief makes reference to 29 million days—were lost through industrial action, and in 1996 only 1.3 million days were lost. That is the result of Conservative legislation.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, for one moment I thought that to read the lips of the noble Baroness would be a pleasurable experience. However, she now descends into the kind of speech that she made before. I shall not give way again.
I find it a little odd that a government who decimated manufacturing industry should claim responsibility for the benefits that have accrued to industry in this country. That government burdened industry with a massive number of regulations and now claim to be business-friendly. That is simply not in accord with reality.
I should like to raise two particular points relating to the Bill that have been brought to my attention. First, the use by employers of waiver clauses that remove their employees' rights to redundancy payments is a matter that gives rise to some concern. Under current employment law it is possible for employers to arrange for employees to sign away their rights relating to unfair dismissal and redundancy. I understand that while the Government have moved to prohibit the use of unfair dismissal waiver clauses, redundancy waiver clauses, remain untouched under the Bill. Perhaps my noble friend will allude to that when he comes to wind up.
Secondly, I refer to the draft proposal for a fixed term work directive from the European Commission. Its intention is to end differences in employment rights between fixed term and permanent employees. This matter has been the subject of widespread consultation by the social partners and has also been adopted by the European Parliament in both committee and plenary session. Do the Government have any objection to that proposal? If so, on what basis is that disagreement ventilated? I believe that this proposal is one that does and should enjoy widespread support. I do not believe that the Conservative Party speaks for the people of this country on this issue. The Conservative Party simply utters prejudices that it has held for years and years and shows no sign of reform whatever.
Lord Burlison: My Lords, before we move to the Statement on Kosovo, I should like to take the opportunity to remind the House that the Companion

987
indicates that discussion on a Statement should be confined to brief comments and questions for clarification. Peers who speak at length do so at the expense of other noble Lords.

Kosovo
4.36 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall now repeat a Statement on Kosovo which has been riade in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. The Statement is as follows:
"Before I begin the Statement, the House would expect me to say a few words on the tragic death of Derek Fatchett. I and all who worked with him at the Foreign Office are shocked at his sudden loss and our thoughts today are with his wife and family. I spoke earlier this morning to Anita who told me how proud she had been of what Derek had done. She and their sons had every right to be proud of him. Over the past two years he had proved himself an effective and creative Minister, from the early days when he helped broker a ceasefire to provide relief for the famine in Sudan to last month when he paid a brave visit to East Timor. His early death cruelly deprives the House of a Member who had so much more to give and robs many of us of a friend whom we will remember as always cheerful, whatever the difficulties.
"Last Thursday I attended the meeting of the G8 Foreign Ministers in Bonn. That meeting reached agreement with Russia on the principles on which any settlement of the Kosovo conflict must be based. They parallel the objectives which NATO requires to be met as the condition of ending the military campaign: withdrawal of Serb military, police and paramilitary forces from Kosovo; an international interim administration for Kosovo; a political process on the basis of the Rambouillet peace accords; and the free return of all refugees under the protection of an international security presence capable of achieving our common objectives. From the start of the conflict we have maintained regular dialogue with Russia and made sure that the door was kept open to Russia. This agreement on our common ground exposes as a lie the repeated promises of Milosevic to his people that one day Russia would come to their rescue. Work will now be proceeding this week between officials of our countries to turn these principles into the draft text of a Security Council resolution.
"On Friday night the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade was destroyed during a NATO attack on sites in the city. It appears that the missiles hit the building on which they had been targeted. However, the building had been wrongly identified in the targeting plans as the Federal Directorate of Supply and Procurement for the Yugoslav Army. The review continues into how this error could have occurred, and the procedures that gave rise to it.
988
"My right honourable friend the Prime Minister has written to Zhu Rhongji, the Chinese Premier, expressing our deep regret at the error and assuring him that there was no deliberate intent on the part of the allies to attack the Chinese Embassy.
"Yesterday I spoke to our ambassador in Beijing who confirms that the embassy has been blockaded by demonstrators who have hurled stones though the front windows of the embassy building. I am pleased to report that no member of the embassy staff has been injured, and we are not aware of any other British citizen in China having been attacked. We have amended our travel advice in respect of China to recommend against all non-essential visits to China at the present time.
"My noble friend Lady Symons saw the chargé d'affaires of the Chinese Embassy this afternoon and recorded our concern about the safety of our officials and other nationals in China. We welcome the appeal by the Vice-President of China, Hu Jin Tao, for the demonstrators to behave peacefully, and the apparent increase in the efforts by the Chinese police to protect the embassy.
"On Saturday after the news broke, I spoke to the Russian Foreign Minister, Igor Ivanov, who confirmed that Russia was firmly committed to the principles that we had agreed in the G8 and that there would be no let-up in the search for a settlement.
"We continue vigorously to pursue any opportunity for progress on the diplomatic track. After this Statement I will meet with Carl Bildt, who has been appointed by the Secretary-General of the UN as his special envoy. This afternoon Victor Chernomyrdin, the special representative of President Yeltsin, is meeting with Mr. Talbott, the US Deputy Secretary of State.
"Our best hope of success on the diplomatic track is by keeping up the military pressure. If Milosevic felt any reduction in our air campaign, or sensed any weakening of our resolve, there would be no prospect of his agreeing to meet our demands.
"On the ground in Kosovo over recent days we have destroyed tanks, heavy artillery, military convoys and command posts. In total we have eliminated within Kosovo the equivalent of the weapons and equipment of an entire brigade. But we cannot ignore the fact that the Serb forces in Kosovo are controlled and co-ordinated from Belgrade. Striking at their command headquarters in Belgrade is vital to breaking their military capability in Kosovo. On Friday night we destroyed in central Belgrade the Hotel Yugoslavia, which had been taken over as the war room for Arkan's paramilitaries who have killed, burned and raped their way across Kosovo. By any test, that war room was a legitimate military target and could not be ignored if we are serious about reversing the ethnic cleansing which was planned from there.
"We want a settlement, and we would welcome a diplomatic solution. But we will not accept a settlement at any price. It must meet our objectives—in particular, it must provide for the Kosovar refugees

989
to go home under our protection. Anything less would condemn the refugees to a life in exile in refugee camps. And it would reward President Milosevic for the butchery and brutality with which he has evicted them from Kosovo. Fresh evidence continues to pour in of that brutality. In one single day last week we received reports from refugees of three further atrocities. At Djakovica, 19 people, mainly women and children, were found by the Serb forces hiding in a basement. They were all shot in the basement, and the house burned over them. At Kotlina, Serb police threw 20 villagers down a well, and then threw hand grenades down after them. At Suva Reka, around a hundred residents were herded into the shopping centre and shot. None of these people was killed as a result of tragic error. Every single one of them was murdered at close range, deliberately and callously.
"I understand and share the concern of honourable Members on both sides at the loss of civilian life when there is an error in our bombing campaign. But I cannot understand those who focus on the tens who have been casualties of NATO's military campaign to the exclusion of the tens of thousands who have been butchered by Milosevic in Kosovo.
"I invite honourable Members to visit the exhibition space at the Foreign Office where they can see on display drawings by the children in the refugee camps. I defy any Member not to be moved to discover that the children have often drawn the guns bigger than the people, and the tanks bigger than the many burning houses. It is not just the dead who are the victims of the ethnic cleansing, but the living also who are traumatised by what they have had to see. The least we can do is to enable them to return and to rebuild their homes in safety. And we will continue and intensify both military and diplomatic campaigns until we succeed in doing so."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, first, I endorse the words concerning the tragic and untimely death of the Minister of State. He is a great loss to the Government and Parliament alike. I ask the Minister to convey our deepest sympathies to his wife and family.
I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place and for attempting to provide an explanation for the tragic error which led NATO to target the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade on Friday. From these Benches we offer our heartfelt condolences to the people of China and in particular to the families of the victims.
The Official Opposition support the objectives which underline the NATO action in Serbia. We have continued to support the Government in their twin track approach of maintaining military pressure on President Milosevic while pursuing a vigorous diplomatic initiative. But we reserve our right as Opposition to scrutinise, question and, where appropriate, criticise the actions of the Government.
990
The attack on the wrong building was a tragic mistake for which NATO governments may yet pay dearly. It has caused grave disquiet for a number of reasons. First, there are the wider implications it may have for our diplomatic relations with China and Russia. Secondly, there is the damage which may have been done to the prospects for agreeing a UN-endorsed peace plan for Kosovo in line with NATO's objectives. Thirdly, there is the air of incompetence with which this incident has caused the whole NATO operation to be suffused. What response does the Minister have to General Naumann, the retiring chairman of NATO's Military Committee, who says that the campaign has undoubtedly been prolonged by NATO's failure to find a way to reconcile the conditions of a coalition war with the principle of military operations such as surprise and the use of overwhelming force?
The attack on the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade indicates a serious failure of intelligence. Can the Minister confirm that a street map of Belgrade clearly indicates the location of the Chinese Embassy? Can the Minister also confirm whether NATO has drawn up a list of targets to be avoided at all costs, and whether the Chinese Embassy was included on that list? If such a list has not been drawn up, can the Minister explain why not?
The US Defense Department has said that an anomaly led to the wrongful targeting of the Chinese Embassy. Is the Minister confident that such an anomaly is unlikely to occur again. Can she give an assurance that NATO procedures on intelligence will be improved as a matter of urgency so that in future all possible safeguards are in place to prevent such a wrongful targeting?
Can the Minister say why it took until the fifth week of the campaign to task the military planners of NATO to look at the options for a maritime operation to implement an oil embargo and why, in the sixth week of the campaign, NATO's proposals were still in the planning stage, given the importance of the destruction of Serbia's fuel resources in this campaign where, in the words of the noble Baroness the Leader of the House,
"Day and night, our pilots are risking their lives to inflict defeat on Milosevic"?—[Official Report, 13/4/99; col.635.]
Will the Minister say whether it is indeed the case that the oil embargo would be legal under international law only if it were introduced on an essentially voluntary basis? In that case, can the Minister clarify what would happen if the ships declined to be boarded?
As the scenes of public protest surrounding both the British and US embassy compounds in Peking continue, what implications does the Minister believe that this tragic error will have for our long-term relations with China and our ability to influence the Chinese Government on key issues such as human rights? In the light of the Government's up-dated advice advising against non-essential travel to China, will the Minister say what action has been taken to protect the lives of British citizens and property in China?
From these Benches, we believe that Russia is necessary in securing a solution to the crisis in Kosovo. The Russian Foreign Minister, Mr. Ivanov, postponed

991
his visit to the United Kingdom, due to take place over the weekend. When does the Minister expect that visit to be rescheduled?
The description of the incident as "NATO's own goal" is not unjust. It comes at the very time when, following last Thursday's G8 meeting, a glimmer of light and hope lad been breathed back into the diplomatic proces What concern does the Minister have that the diplomatic efforts may now stall and that progress towards resolving the Kosovo crisis may be derailed, particularly in the light of President Jiang Zemin's insistence that the UN Security Council cannot discuss a settlement to the crisis in Kosovo unless NATO stops its bombing campaign?
The Minister described the original objectives of NATO set out at the meeting on 12th April by NATO Foreign Ministers as "basic and unalterable" demands which would not be compromised. Will she reconcile those objectives with the principles for the settlement of the Kosovo crisis set out in the G8 Foreign Ministers communiqué last Thursday which failed to clarify the role of NATO in an international military presence?
It was a tragic error on Friday but, as Kenneth Bacon, the Pentagon spokesman, said, there is no such thing as clean combat. As the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, reminded us so rightly on Thursday, President Milosevic's revolting behaviour goes back to events in Croatia in 1990, Bosnia two years later and then Srebrenica. NATO is fighting a war with no more front-line censorship, daily news conference with a right-to-know from the big boys and films of what the people making them want to show versus a dictator who censors everything, who manipulates the news and who shows what he wants to show on television.
Seven weeks into the military action, we appear to be no nearer to achieving the Government's original primary objective; namely, the avoidance of another humanitarian crisis. The humanitarian catastrophe, the responsibility for which rests firmly on the shoulders of President Milosevic, worsens with every day that passes. From these Benches, we shall continue to support the Government in taking the action necessary to bring so much suffering to an end. But we seek an assurance from the Minister that clarity and consistency in objectives do indeed guide the Government's policy.
4.53 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, on these Benches we wish to associate ourselves with the references to the sad death of Derek Fatchett. My colleagues have just been reminding me of how good he was on a number of Middle East issues. I have heard from many friends within the Foreign Office how well-respected he was for all the work he did there. He will be missed as a very good Minister.
I welcome the Statement about the G8 agreement with Russia. It was important to keep the Russians on board. I hope that we now have the Russians again on board in this conflict which is about restoring stability and security to south-eastern Europe. Will the Minister assure us, if possible, that the language of the G8 statement represents no weakening of the language of
992
the Washington statement on Kosovo? There were some interesting minor differences—references to settlements in the G8 statement which had not been present in the Washington communiqué.
We express our concern about relations with China. European governments have had looser, weaker relations with China than the United States in recent years. The US-China relationship was already fraught and has now become more fraught. It seems to us that, as European governments, we need a stronger and more active relationship with China regardless of the current immediate crisis.
The Statement refers to maintaining military pressure and goes straight on to talk about the continuation of the air war. On the last occasion we discussed Kosovo, we said from these Benches that there was an unfortunate logic in any bombing campaign, particularly one that talks about restricting bombing to legitimate military targets, which is the phrase used in the Statement. When one is talking about legitimate military targets, after a while they become in rather short supply. As bombing is increased and continues, so it becomes more likely that one bombs targets either by mistake or that one bombs marginal targets which turn out to be not as military as one had thought.
Many references have been made in prime ministerial statements to this being a just war as well as a limited war. Proportional force requires us to be very careful in our selection of targets. We suggest—and have argued from these Benches throughout—that that requires the question of the commitment of troops to the region, and eventually to Kosovo, to be moved further up the agenda. As the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, said, there is no such thing as clean combat. NATO looks to be fighting this war on the basis that it should at least be clean from our side with no casualties whatever. That is not proportionate use of force. From these Benches, we should like to see more land forces moved into the region ready to move on to the ground in Kosovo.
We were interested to see the article by the Defence Secretary, George Robertson, in the Daily Telegraph this morning in which he refers to the KLA as a "new KLA". It has changed. He states:
"It is increasingly made up of young men armed with the most powerful weapon of all: the sense that they have nothing to lose".
He refers also to the KLA beginning to reoccupy the ground. I ask the Minister whether that represents a shift in our attitude to the KLA as, perhaps, part of the solution as well as, originally, part of the problem.
Finally, from these Benches we query the references at the end of the Statement to the pursuit of a settlement, a diplomatic solution. We must be concerned to find a settlement which does not entirely let down those who have been betrayed; those against whom atrocities have been committed, to which the Statement refers so powerfully in its final paragraphs. There have been some indications from Washington in the past few days that we are now looking for a compromise, even for a fudge. We remind your Lordships that this is a conflict about the stability, security and future prosperity of south eastern Europe. A fudge in Kosovo would put the Bosnian settlement at risk and would put Montenegro at

993
risk, and possibly, even, Vojvodina at risk. Therefore, I ask the Minister to re-emphasise that the settlement must be absolutely in line with the five principles and not a fudge with Mr. Milosevic.
4.58 p.m.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank both the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, and the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, for their kind words about my colleague, Derek Fatchett. Derek was a wonderfully wise, able and supportive colleague. He had a tremendous sense of humour and that other quality so very much needed in the Foreign Office given the sort of issues with which we are faced—an unfailing sense of proportion. Speaking personally, I shall miss him very much, as I know too will my other colleagues in the Foreign Office. I thank the noble Baroness and shall of course convey the sympathies of her party to Derek's widow, Anita, and their sons. I thank both for their very kind words.
I am sure there will be a measure of comfort to his family in knowing how well Derek was respected.
I turn to the subject of Kosovo. This was, indeed, a tragic error. I hope that all noble Lords, in contacts they may have, will stress that fact to those who take an interest in such matters. This afternoon I have been able to express the shock and regret we feel over the bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade. We recognise the shock and very great distress this has occasioned to the Chinese people and to the families of those who died and those who were injured. The fact is that Her Majesty's Government believe that the military pressure must be maintained on Mr. Milosevic if we are to see an outcome through the diplomatic channels that we wish to see.
This was a tragic mistake. That is what is important, that it was a mistake. One or two people have used the word "attack" as though this was some part of a deliberate strategy. I stress that nothing could be further from the truth.
The noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, asked about the position of our colleagues in Russia. The Statement that I was able to repeat to your Lordships made clear that after the news had broken on Saturday, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary spoke to the Foreign Minister, Igor Ivanov, who confirmed that Russia was firmly committed to the principles agreed at the G8.
Noble Lords will also recall that during our debate on Kosovo last week, I briefed the House about the outcome of the G8 meeting in Bonn. I was able to tell your Lordships that the G8 presidency would be taking forward that outcome with the Chinese. That is still on track. We hope that further progress will be made on that front this week.
The noble Baroness mentioned the quote from General Naumann. I think it is also fair to say that to complete the quote one would have to say that he also said that he could not think of any change that he would make in the present NATO strategy. I urge the noble Baroness in making that quote—I know that several of
994
her colleagues in another place have been tempted so to do this afternoon—to ensure that the complete quote is used. General Naumann did not leave any real doubt about being on board over the NATO strategy: he did not want to see any changes in it.
The noble Baroness referred to the failure of intelligence which led to the tragic bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade. As the Statement made by my right honourable friend in another place made clear, that matter is being considered. The review continues as to how this error occurred and of the procedures which gave rise to such an error. It would be premature, at this stage, for us to enter into discussion on the various bits of information we have about what may or may not have occurred over this incident. We need to have a full picture before we can give that to your Lordships, and, indeed, to others. Of course, the Chinese will be interested to know as much as they can. I refer not only to exactly what happened but to why it happened.
The noble Baroness also raised the question of the maritime operation and the oil embargo. Perhaps I may remind her that the proposals for the maritime operation are still in the planning stages. It is important to remember that there are two operations overall: the EU embargo, which was agreed, and the maritime operation which arose as a result of the Washington Summit. It is the latter which we are considering here. We will, of course, take into account the legal implications of any operation before agreeing to it. I assure the noble Baroness, as I have had occasion to assure the House before, that any such operation would be in strict accordance with the law.
As regards travel advice, we have stated that we are advising against unnecessary travel to China at present. We believe that the situation as regards our own nationals is difficult. I remind the noble Baroness and your Lordships that the travel advice we give is not based on diplomatic pressure, commercial pressure, or anything else. When the Foreign Office issues our travel advice we are concerned with the safety of British nationals abroad. That is our primary responsibility in issuing such advice. Tragic as these events are, that makes no difference to the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government to ensure that they are as accurate as can be when advising British citizens on where they should travel.
As your Lordships know, the visit of Mr Ivanov is postponed but, as I was able to repeat a moment or two ago, that does not mean to say that the Foreign Secretary has not been speaking to Mr. Ivanov. He did so over the weekend. This afternoon he is meeting Carl Bildt, special envoy to the UN Secretary-General. Also this afternoon, Mr. Chernomyrdin, special representative to President Yeltsin, will be meeting the Deputy Secretary of State, Mr. Talbot. So, there are a number of diplomatic initiatives taking place this afternoon.
I also stress that, as a result of the Bonn meeting last week, the German initiative is still going ahead with the Chinese. As the Statement made by my right honourable friend made clear, discussions are going forward at the UN. I hope and believe that the positive outcome to

995
diplomatic initiatives built up and launched as a result of the G8 meeting last week—they were the culmination of many other diplomatic initiatives and did not all start last week—will be built on this week.
The noble Baroness was concerned that the five demands expressed to your Lordships on a number of occasions were somehow inconsistent with what came out of the G8 last Thursday. I believe the two sets of proposals are entirely consistent. As I said to your Lordships last Thursday, we simply would not have agreed to them had we not thought that they were consistent. Planners are taking work forward this week on how we can build on what came out of the G8 at Bonn, and Foreign Ministers have agreed to meet again.
I take issue with the comments of the noble Baroness about being no nearer resolving this issue. The situation in Kosovo is terrible, but we do know that we are undermining the military capability there. My noble friend Lord Gilbert tells me there has been some reduction in the Serb military action. Let us hope that such reduction will he sustained. However, we do not believe that the noble Baroness is correct in saying that we are simply not making any impression at all. Perhaps I may remind the noble Baroness that in opening our debate last Thursday, my noble friend Lord Gilbert gave your Lordships a detailed description of exactly what has been achieved. I believe we have been entirely clear and consistent in the objectives we have stated in this military action.
I turn to one or two specific points made by the noble Lord. Lord Wallace. which were not made by the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings. NATO action is in accordance with the rules of international law applicable in armed conflicts. It is strictly limited to what is necessary to achieve our humanitarian objective. I say in all humility to your Lordships that when one considers the number of military sorties there have been, very few bombs have gone astray. That is not in any way to underestimate the tragedy when they do, but is an important point we need to keep within our sights.
I very much hope that, tragic as these events are, they will not deflect us from our course of action and, in particular, from the more hopeful signs that emerged last week with the possibility of further diplomatic progress being made.
5.10 p.m.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I have supported the government action up to now and continue to do so. I was pleased to hear about the effect of the G8 agreement last week. It is an extraordinarily significant and important development. However, if ever there was a mistake that was going to make the diplomatic task more difficult, it was the accidental bombing of the Chinese Embassy. We are entitled to ask the Government—and if we are entitled to ask, the Chinese are certainly entitled to ask—for as explicit an assurance as they can give that this sort of mistargeting will not occur again and that steps are being taken to put right whatever is revealed in the various inquiries.
We are now moving into a new phase in relation to Kosovo. The question we must ask ourselves is where we go from here. Increasingly there is talk of using the
996
United Nations. Those of us with some knowledge of that organisation over the past quarter of a century or so regard those statements with a certain wry, if not amused, scepticism. Unfortunately, the UN tends to be used in circumstances when countries cannot solve problems themselves. They then decide to involve the United Nations to solve it and complain bitterly when the UN finds, perhaps not surprisingly, that it cannot solve the problem either.
I shall be extremely unhappy if the UN is used in this dispute as some kind of fig leaf to cover up what may or may not have gone wrong. If we need a peacekeeping force in Kosovo it will have to be done through the United Nations. If we need some kind of administrative body in parts of Kosovo, that will have to he done through the United Nations. I hope my noble friend can assure me and the House that in seeking UN action we have the full support of the Russians. In a sense they are now the crucial players in producing a settlement in the Kosovan crises. If we do not have the Russians with us, we will have a difficult time when the matter goes to New York, made more difficult by the tragic bombing of the Chinese Embassy.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Richard for his broad support. Of course this was a terrible mistake: it was entirely an accident. I was able this afternoon to assure the Chinese chargé d'affaires quite explicitly on that point, emphasising also the importance that Her Majesty's Government attach to the improving bilateral relationship we have with China. Last year there was the exchange of visits of Prime Ministers and we look forward to the visit of the President of China in October of this year.
My noble friend asked for an explicit undertaking that such mistargeting would not occur again. I can only assure the House that NATO will do its best to ensure that that is the case. I cannot give an explicit assurance. As we have seen, tragic mistakes occur. The Statement makes clear that the event is being investigated, not only in relation to what happened, but also in relation to the procedures leading up to what happened. With the greatest respect to my noble friend, I am sure he feels that such assurances would not be particularly realistic. War is a nasty and terrible business. We can only express our deepest regret when tragedies occur. Everything will be done to ensure that such mistakes do not occur, but we cannot give explicit assurances.
There is no question of the United Nations being a fig leaf. Work is going ahead at the moment to try to secure the Security Council resolution. Our friends in Russia are working with us on this. They were an important part of the agreement reached in Bonn last week. We hope that we will be able to impress upon our friends in China the importance that they should attach to getting a UNSCR through this week.
Baroness Ludford: My Lords, I want to ask about the results of the military action in the context of broad general support for the Government and for NATO action, as I expressed last Thursday in our debate,

997
subject only to concern about the blunders that have been made and the consistently-held view on these Benches about the need to deploy ground troops.
I am puzzled about the apparently modest success of our attack on the Serb forces in Kosovo. Can the Minister enlarge on what she said? She said we had destroyed the equivalent of a brigade. Can she say what proportion that is of the total forces we estimate to be in Kosovo? The figures do not have to be exact. Also, will she explain why more destruction of tanks and artillery in Kosovo cannot be achieved, even if it is for the time being through air power rather than with ground troops?
Baroness Symons of Vernham DeanMy Lords, we cannot have it both ways in this argument. If we were to have unrestrained bombing in Kosovo, much more damage would have been done and your Lordships would rightly be expressing concern about the unintended civilian damage incurred as a result. Last week my noble friend Lord Gilbert explained to your Lordships how the military action got off to something of a slow start because of the weather and because we were inhibited about a bombing campaign which might not have hit the entirely military targets we were looking at to undermine the Milosevic regime.
It is difficult on the one hand to say that we have been able to hit a whole range of targets, and on the other to say that there cannot be any unintended casualties. The Statement is clear in saying that the equivalent of an entire brigade has been destroyed over recent days. That includes tanks, heavy artillery, military convoys and command posts. I am unable to tell the noble Baroness what proportion that represents of the entire military force that the Serbs are deploying in Kosovo. I doubt that that is a figure our military experts would be happy to have broadcast at the moment. If there is anything further we are able to say on that front when I have consulted my noble friend Lord Gilbert and colleagues in the Ministry of Defence, I shall write to the noble Baroness. However, I do not promise a letter because I doubt that we will be able to give much more information at the moment.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that not only is the mistake to which she referred a tragedy, but the whole affair of this bombing is a tragic mistake?
Is my noble friend aware that it was to try to reduce, as far as possible, such mistakes that the Geneva Conventions (Amendment) Act 1995 was drawn up in British law? It specifically prohibits the type of operation which brings about these tragic mistakes. We are not allowed to bomb targets such as television centres, for example. We have to select targets which are exclusively military and which are not near any civilian targets in order not to break the law. NATO has consistently broken the law as laid down in the Geneva Convention, a law which is designed to prevent such tragic mistakes. It is being totally ignored in this operation. You are not allowed to destroy bridges because they are not regarded as being exclusively
998
military targets; you are not allowed to attack anything unless it is exclusively military. If there is any doubt the law states that it shall be regarded as civilian and shall be sacrosanct. The law is being completely broken. The Government have not got a leg to stand on, and they should stop immediately.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I know that my noble friend holds these views passionately and emphatically. I say to him with equal passion and emphasis that the Government do not agree with him, and neither do 19 nations of NATO—19 democracies with independent judiciaries.
Every means, short of force, was tried to avert this situation. The noble Lord knows that force is being used as an exceptional measure on grounds of overwhelming humanitarian necessity. The military intervention is fully justified. Not only do the 19 countries of NATO think that we are doing the right thing; so do the Kosovar refugees and those poor people who have been treated in an outrageous and brutal way by the Serbian authorities.
What else would the noble Lord have us do? We are obeying the law. We have to look at the tragedy that is being played out on the ground. I remind my noble friend of the three incidents that I described. I shall not repeat them because they are too gruesome and too terrible. But those three incidents took place in only one day last week. We owe it to those people to continue our action.
Lord Belhaven and Stenton: My Lords, last Thursday I asked the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, to assure noble Lords that there was no substance in the suggestion which I read in an article in The Daily Telegraph, and subsequent similar suggestions, that nuclear weapons would be used in Serbia. I would be most grateful if the noble Baroness would answer me today. I have written to her about the subject, but if she answers me now she need not answer my letter.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am tempted to say that you cannot believe everything you read in the Daily Telegraph. I apologise if I did not give the noble Lord the assurance that he sought last week. I give it to him now.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, one of the articles in today's Daily Telegraph, which perhaps we might be allowed to believe, was written by Mr. George Robertson. In the final paragraph he states:
"Milosevic is trying to find a way out but the only exit strategy NATO will accept is one that gets him and his forces out of Kosovo."
I have asked the noble Baroness previously what the future status of Kosovo is likely to be. Will it be autonomous under a Belgrade government and under Milosevic? Or will it have some other status?
In the article Mr. Robertson talks about the KLA rising like a phoenix and coming back all over Kosovo. Are the Government confident that when the Kosovars return to their homes, with the KLA rising like a phoenix, those Kosovars will not seek their own bloody

999
revenge on Serbs and other nationals who may still be living in Kosovo? I am sure that this thought will have occurred to Her Majesty's Government, but it would be helpful to have an assurance that the peacekeeping force will ensure that ell those in Kosovo are subject to regulation and rules.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am sure that the noble and gallant Lord can believe what my right honourable friend has written in the Daily Telegraph. When he wrote about Milosevic and his forces being turned out of Kosovo, I believe that he was referring to a settlement which will be made on the basis of the Rambouillet accord. Such a settlement will have to be a matter of negotiation. Since the Rambouillet accord was reached, a great deal has happened. Although it is Her Majesty's Government's view that any further settlement should be on that basis, the details will have to be worked out in due course.
We all very much hope that people who have been turned out of their homes, whether they are internally displaced within Kosovo or whether they are refugees beyond the borders of Kosovo, will return in peace to their homes. An international security force will be there to keep the peace in Kosovo generally, having ensured the safe return of those people. They will be there to ensure the safety of all the citizens in Kosovo thereafter.
Lord Shore of Stepney: My Lords, can I assure my noble friend that no one in their senses for a moment thinks that there was anything deliberate in the attack on the Chinese Embassy? It was a great mistake and I am sure that the Government genuinely regret it. I do not think for a moment that the Chinese themselves seriously believe that it was a deliberate attack. That is not how the world works, whatever the relations with different states. The Chinese are obviously going to make the most of it, but I am sure that that is not the heart of the matter at all.
In regard to what the noble Lord, Lord Richard, said, I am sure that the country we have got to watch in all of this is Russia, not China. China does not have the long-term interest in this part of the world that Russia has. Involving Russia in finding a solution is essential if we are to have permanent peace in the Balkans.
I agree with a two-track policy and go along with both, but on the second, diplomatic, tack, is it just simply a matter of Chernomyrdin and Talbott meeting, or is there an initiative? The noble Baroness spoke of diplomatic initiatives. If it is an initiative, not just a formal meeting, can she give any indication as to what such an initiative might involve and what reception it has been given?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his assurance that he believes that it is widely accepted that this was a terrible mistake and involved no deliberate action.
We all agree that Russia's involvement in any eventual solution is absolutely vital. I was able to detail to noble Lords last Thursday evening the consistent involvement of Russia from the contact group last summer and subsequent developments—the problems
1000
that President Yeltsin had and the assurances he received from Mr. Milosevic; the later meetings of the contact group; and the importance of continuing to keep the Russians involved in the negotiation. That is very much in the forefront of my right honourable friend's mind. He was able to speak to his opposite number on Saturday afternoon.
The noble Lord mentioned the meeting taking place today between Mr. Chernomyrdin and Mr. Talbott. I believe that a number of different issues are involved, not least the outcome of the G8 meeting last week in Bonn and the way in which that can be taken forward. All the Foreign Ministers there, including the Russian and United States Foreign Ministers, charged planners to take forward the outline plan by putting flesh on the plan and engaging the presidency of the G8, which is Germany, in talks with the Chinese with a view to getting an agreed position on the United Nations Security Council resolution. Any of the diplomatic discussions taking place at the moment is bound to touch upon these growing and important issues.
The Earl of Carlisle: My Lords—
Lord Eden of Winton: My Lords-
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, I think it is the turn of the noble Lord, Lord Eden, as he has attempted to intervene on a number of occasions.
Lord Eden of Winton: My Lords, perhaps I may, first, be allowed to pay a brief personal tribute to the memory of Derek Fatchett, whose death at such a young age is greatly to be regretted. Indeed, he was of considerable assistance to me when, as chairman of the Royal Armouries, I sought to establish the new museum at Leeds. Subsequently, as is well known, he served as a Minister of State in the Foreign Office with great distinction and was most impressive in that role.
I turn now to the situation in Kosovo. As we have embarked upon this course and as some of the horrors to which the Statement refers are still clearly being perpetrated under the direction and authority of Mr. Milosevic, can we have the assurance of the Government that the bombing of his centres of command will be maintained with the utmost vigour? Moreover, looking to the future, can the Minister confirm that it is still the Government's intention that the guarantee force, which may come into existence to ensure the safety of the people of Kosovo in the future, will comprise a major NATO military element? Indeed, only by that means, and under direct NATO command, will there be any certainty of security for those people.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his kind words about my late colleague, Derek Fatchett. He was indeed an extraordinarily talented and able man. It is a tragedy that he will no longer have the opportunity to deploy those talents, either for the Government or for the people of this country.

1001
I assure the noble Lord that the military campaign will be maintained until the conditions which NATO has specified for the cessation of such a campaign are met. That was the position when we discussed the matter in your Lordships' House last Thursday and nothing has occurred over the course of the past few days to change it.
The noble Lord also asked about a NATO component in any eventual security force. It is the position of Her Majesty's Government that any such security force should contain a considerable NATO component, expressed in this House last week as a NATO core.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords—
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I believe that the 20-minute limit for Back-Bench questions following a Statement is mandatory.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, I feel—
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am so sorry. I mistook what the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, was trying to do. I realise now that he was attempting to make his speech on the Second Reading of the Employment Relations Bill. I apologise to the noble Lord personally, as well as to the House.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, no apology is necessary. I realise that the House has to settle itself down for a moment and resume wondering not so much where the Government's bombs are going but where their industrial relations policy is going. I must say that I am somewhat relieved to have heard that at least the Government and NATO understand the distinction between Belgrade and Belgravia. One simply hopes that they will have the right A-Z in future.

Employment Relations Bill
5.33 p.m.
Second Reading debate resumed.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Simon, said that this Bill was designed to improve industrial relations. But, of course, all industrial relations and employment Bills are designed to do so. It was my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew who referred to another one of the Bills to improve industrial relations; namely, the Employment Protection Act. Indeed, it was designed to improve the prospects for employment and it damaged them.
I must say that former gun owners whose weapons were expropriated and who are still awaiting payment of the compensation which Parliament decreed should be paid, must be thinking that trades unions get rather better treatment. During Labour's 18 years of opposition, the unions gave the Labour Party over £100 million at today's prices. That is apart from the money which they spent on propaganda on their own behalf.
1002
Here is another part of the payback. Of course paying debts is not to be decried, but this £100 million debt of the Labour Party is to be paid not by the Labour Party and not even by the taxpayers, oddly enough: it is to be paid by businesses, by shareholders, by pension funds, by pensioners, by consumers and, ironically, in the end it will be paid by employees, including trades unionists whose pay and prospects of employment will be diminished by this Bill just as they were by the employment protection legislation.
Noble Lords may detect that I do not like this Bill. There are many of us in this House who remember the events of the 1960s and the 1970s—the Wilson government brought down by their inability to control trades unions; the Heath Government brought down by their inability to control trades unions—and that, despite the skilful drafting by my noble and learned friend Lord Howe, of the Industrial Relations Act, which turned out to be unworkable, unenforceable and unusable, although undoubtedly well intended. Then the government of the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, were also brought down by the trades unions.
It was a great relief to me, all these years later—in fact, 20 years—to hear the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, saying that something should have been done to cut the unions down to size and to stop them from doing it. But when I did do something to stop them from doing it again, the noble Lord and his friends were not with me in the Division Lobbies at that time. Perhaps I may point out to the noble Lord that 20 years is a long time to spend thinking about it before coming to the conclusion that my legislation was right. No wonder—
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, the noble Lord sought some reforms of the trades unions, but he really went overboard; his prejudices dominated his thinking.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, it is a matter of opinion as to whether or not I went too far. The point is that the noble Lord did not come a single inch of the way with me; indeed, not one. He stalwartly defended the closed shop and every abuse of power. He defended Red Robbo and the lads at British Leyland. The noble Lord shakes his head now, but that is 20 years too late. It is no wonder that, by 1979, the world thought Britain was a basket case. The English disease, so the world thought, had become incurable.
I wonder whether noble Lords remember those days. They were the days of prices and incomes policy. We do not hear much about that these days. Back then it was held that no government could possibly govern without a prices and incomes policy. Of course, the fact of the matter is that a government with a prices and incomes policy could not possibly govern. Indeed, prices and incomes policies, both statutory and voluntary, were tried but neither worked. The law did not work for statutory control and there were no volunteers for voluntary control. So, in 1979, the Government, led by my noble friend Lady Thatcher, threw away income policies—to a chorus of "Oohs and Ahs" from all the wiseacres; indeed, I can see that a few

1003
of them are about now and can even remember their names—and left the resolution of wages to employers and employees and prices to suppliers and purchasers.
Of course, for such a market system to work, the market must be open and fair—not rigged—and, above all, those who fix prices or wages must take responsibility for the consequences of their actions. That is the key to the whole of my legislation. It forced people to take responsibility for what they did, whereas the legislation which had been in place gave immunity to trades unions for the damage which they did to other people's interests; and, indeed, inadvertently to their own.
The Labour market had been rigged by the trades unions. They could pass on the unpleasant consequences in the short term to taxpayers and consumers, or to other workers. That called for reform of trades union law. My noble friend Lord Prior started on what was to be a step-by-step approach. I continued that work, as did my Conservative successors.
The Bill does not begin the undoing of that work. Oh, no, that has begun already, not least through Brussels. But the Bill is a great step towards destroying what was achieved in turning a country with the worst industrial relations in the free world into one with just about the best in the free world.
Lord Simon remembers. He remembers those days when the power was switched off periodically to the business which he was responsible for. Nothing could be done about it. He remembers the days of sympathy strikes. Nothing could be done about them. Nothing would have been done, but for the change of government and change of pace. Days lost through strikes fell in consequence of that legislation by probably about 90 per cent. My noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew said that he thought the number of days lost in 1979 was 27 million. I think it was 29 million; I think the figure of 27 was the 27 per cent inflation, which brought the IMF in here to take over management of the economy from the then government.
The year 1994 was a very good year: 278,000 days lost. The year 1996 was not so good, with 1.3 million, but still a long way from 29 million or even, if I am wrong and my noble and learned friend is right, 27 million. Where was the Labour Party during that transformation?
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, will the noble Lord take it from me that all over Europe working days lost per thousand workers involved in strikes were falling at much the same rate, without any legislation?
Lord Tebbit: Come, come, my Lords. If they were falling at that rate, they would be negative in most of the rest of Europe. We are not going to fall for that one from the noble Lord. Experiments into industrial relations have never brought very much, except profit for lawyers.
The Labour Party was opposing this transformation from a basket-case economy, from which overseas investors were struggling to get out, to a success story, with overseas investors struggling to get in—indeed,
1004
very often away from those continental countries that the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, says were doing so well. Labour opposed every reform every inch of the way, despite the regrets now of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, that he did not come with me at least part of the way.
Lord Clinton-Davis: No!
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, I misunderstand the noble Lord; he does not have any regrets that he did not come with me even an inch of the way.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, the noble Lord has never fostered any degree of accuracy in comments that he makes. He is wrong about many of the things he has attributed to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew. All I would say about the legislation that the noble Lord introduced is that it certainly had some benefits, but what an over-reaction!
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, we are getting there gradually. In another 20 years perhaps the noble Lord will be a little more generous about the matter. After all, in those days the noble Lord, like his colleagues, defended the car-park strike motions, the "Hands-up; out we go again, brothers" motions. I see the noble Lord, Lord Simon smiling. He can remember them too. He was probably a victim at some time. The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, opposed secret ballots for strikes. The Labour Party resisted ballots for the governing bodies of trade unions. It preferred the old cronyism for fixing top jobs, and still does. It is part of its culture, as we see today in the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament.
As for the Liberal Democrats, I remember them very well on the night of the Third Reading of the 1983 Act. They split four ways, and it takes a great deal of ingenuity for a party so small to split four ways. Some supported me, some opposed me, some stayed away to abstain and some abstained in person. However, I pay a personal tribute here to Mr. Smith, who was an absolute pillar of support to me on the Liberal Benches as I took that legislation through. That was very much against the wishes of most of his colleagues.
Then we went through the coal strike. Who was the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, supporting then? I think he was out of politics in this country at the time, but I do not recollect him declaiming against Scargill and supporting the working miners. But in the end, as my 1983 Act became operative during that strike it made the attempted national rail and dock strikes which were being called in support of Mr. Scargill unlawful, and it was Mr. Scargill, not the country, who was defeated.
Now we have this Bill—to improve the situation, to get back towards where we were. It is not very far at this stage, but if enacted in its present form, what a pig in a poke of a Bill it is. I look back at my own legislation. As my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew said, just about everything in it was on the face

1005
of the Bill. There were not whole pages of schedules permitting the Minister to do things by order. Too much is to be decided in that way.
If "a domestic incident" were defined in the Bill, Parliament would have a chance to discuss and amend that definition, and surely that would be right, because what a domestic incident is will be crucial to the operation of part of the Bill. The Government will not define it. What is it? The Minister will define it at some time and bring forward an order, which cannot be amended.
But some things are clear. The Bill will make striking easier. It will increase the power of the trade unions. It will place an unfair obligation upon employers to recognise unions even when they do not wish to do so. That is called "partnership". But one party to an agreement is compelled to agree to what the other wants, whether it wishes to or not.
Then employers will have to accept further burdens arising from maternity rights and rights to time off for domestic incidents. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Simon, will now have the answer to the question which I asked him during his speech, because he had an opportunity to be briefed by his officials while the House was discussing Kosovo. Therefore, I give him the opportunity to intervene, if he wishes, to explain. Do all these extended rights apply to sole employees? Do they apply to the nanny of the lady who has gone to work and left her baby in the care of the nanny? I am sure the noble Lord is not sitting there thinking that it is a smart thing to do not to answer that question.
Will it be unfair to dismiss a worker who consistently and persistently attempts to foment strikes in a business? Do we know, do the Government know? Would Michael Edwardes still be able to fire Red Robbo under this Bill, unless the strike had gone on uninterrupted for eight weeks?
There is talk of team-building, but the Bill is full of powers for outsiders to come into the employer/employee relationship. How does that help to build a team, to have outsiders coming in and throwing in their fourpennyworth?
Clause 24 proposes to abolish the office of the Commissioner for the Rights of Trade Union Members. What does that do for the trades unionist who is at odds with his union? It does precious little; there is no team-building there.
I turn to Clause 26, and I will end at this point, but there is so much to be taken up later in Committee. Clause 26 is one of the most amazing clauses I have ever seen. The exact wording of the Bill is:
"Money may be provided in such a way as the Secretary of State thinks fit (whether as grants or otherwise) and on such terms as he thinks fit (whether as to repayment or otherwise)".
What is that wording about? Is it an attempt to "judge-proof" that part of the legislation? Is it an attempt to ensure that not even judicial review can apply to the Secretary of State's decisions? If it is, it is highly likely to fail. If that is the tone of this Bill; if that is what consensus and partnership are about in the view of
1006
this Government; if the Secretary of State can do as he thinks fit and on such terms as he thinks fit, this Bill will do little to promote good industrial relations.
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may ask him one question. His remarks today are much the same as those he made when introducing his legislation and reflect an enormous amount of vindictiveness. I must advise the noble Lord that this Bill has been framed after full consultation with both sides of industry: with representatives from the CBI and employers in this country, and with the trade unions who represent the workers. However, the noble Lord has not said one word about all that.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, just because a couple of Green Papers have been floated around the countryside under the guise of consultation does not mean that both sides of industry agree with this Bill. Indeed, I made that point earlier. I must advise the noble Lord that there is no element of vindictiveness either in what I have said today or in what I did in the past; but I do think that there is an element of vindictiveness in the abolition of the office of the Commissioner for the Rights of Trade Union Members. I consulted widely on my Bill—not only in advance of it, but again in the general elections of 1985 and of 1987, both of which the noble Lord's party lost.
5.51 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I rise to welcome the Bill and to thank my noble friend the Minister for the clarity with which he introduced it. I should like also to express my appreciation of the maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Walker of Doncaster.
Before the last general election, I spent a number of years on the Opposition Front Bench, dealing with a series of employment Bills, all of them directed, so far as I could see, to undermining trade unions and making it as difficult as possible for employees to organise together to protect their interests, and to removing all protection from vulnerable people.
In those days, unions were "the enemy within", according to a previous Conservative Prime Minister. That feeling was echoed in the address of the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, today. The present Bill makes it clear that that era is at an end. Unions are now "social partners". That is, of course, what they were always called in the countries of the EU. Perhaps I may advise noble Lords opposite who have referred to unemployment problems in the EU that for many years the West German economy was regarded as a model and that there has been a rise in unemployment there only since the economic problems caused by reunification. That model economy also had well organised trade unions, which were regarded as social partners within a framework which itself was largely regarded as a model. It was only in Britain that the opportunity to develop successful working partnerships with employees through their unions was decisively rejected. I am glad that those days are now over.

1007
Employers will no longer be able to resist the democratic right of a workforce that wants union representation. As my noble friend explained, the Bill sets out the procedures whereby unions may obtain recognition from employers. If the employer refuses, the union may then apply to the Central Arbitration Committee. Incidentally, I welcome the fact that the CAC has been given that task. For a number of years I was a member of the CAC and I believe that we did extremely good work, mainly in the area of arbitration. The previous administration practically wrote the CAC out of legislation by leaving it hardly anything to do. Incidentally, the employer from whom recognition is claimed must employ more than 20 people, so the Government have attempted to come to terms with those who would otherwise have grumbled about more burdens on business, particularly small businesses.
The procedures envisaged are set out in the very long Schedule 1. It is clear that emphasis is put on conciliation and voluntary agreement. However, if those prove impossible, further steps are envisaged in regard to establishing the bargaining unit. If the union can show that more than half the workers in the bargaining unit are union members, the CAC will then grant recognition. If automatic recognition is not granted, the CAC will then order a ballot.
Furthermore, if the employer wishes to derecognise the union where recognition has come about through a statutory procedure, he must go through a formal derecognition procedure. I particularly welcome that provision. There have been so many instances in recent years where employers, without any consultation whatsoever, have simply torn up procedure and collective bargaining agreements with unions. This provision is very good news indeed.
I well remember the last time round when there was legislative provision for union recognition. I seem to recall that the procedures we had then were rather more complicated than those proposed here. I think that the Government have learned a lot from the last time round. What we have here are relatively easily understood procedures. I believe that most sensible employers will find them quite acceptable.
Certainly, it s quite untrue that trade union recognition is in any way "bad for business", as the previous administration seemed to believe. Some of our most successful companies have long had good working arrangements with their trade unions. That was certainly my experience when I was a trade union official. Where such good relationships have existed, it has often been found that technological innovation, including the retraining of staff which is often so necessary, can be more fairly and more effectively accomplished. The good employer has nothing to fear and everything to gain from measures such as these.
There are other aspects of the Bill that I particularly welcome. There is a new range of rights for individual employees. In a dispute or grievance procedure, an individual employee will be able to call on a fellow employee or trade union official to represent him or her at any hearings and will be protected against any detriment if wishing to exercise that right.
1008
The Bill is particularly supportive of women employees. The Government are to make regulations under Clauses 17 to 19 to make discrimination against part-time workers illegal. A very large section of the part-time workforce is female and they have often been exploited in the past by unscrupulous employers because of their need to do that kind of work and their inability, through domestic circumstances, to work a normal full-time week.
Then there is the family-friendly part of the Bill. There are to be new rights to parental leave, with a minimum of 18 weeks' maternity leave for all women, in line with pay. I remember how several of us tried to obtain that by amendment when maternity rights were debated under the previous government. I particularly remember the impassioned advocacy of the formidable and much missed Lady Seear who was very vocal on that issue. This time round, such a provision is in the Bill.
Time off for domestic problems will also be available in line with EU directives. There is to be consultation about the draft regulations which will make provision for all of this. That is all very good news and surely should be welcomed by everyone.
Another aspect of individual rights which I think of as particularly important is the prohibition against discriminating because of trade union membership. I well remember having an argument in this House in opposition when the previous government sought at a late stage in the passage of the 1992 Act to introduce an amendment allowing an employer to discriminate against an employee who refused to leave his union when it was derecognised. The discrimination involved paying him less than those who left the union. The government of the time succeeded, despite our opposition, in getting that provision into the 1992 Act. As I understand this Bill, that would now be illegal.
Another argument that I remember well relates to the balloting provisions as regards industrial action. There was a requirement in the legislation proposed by the previous government that could compel unions to disclose to employers the names of their members it was balloting on industrial action. I thought this was an outrageous requirement at the time and, to their credit, so did several noble Lords on the government side. Nevertheless, the Government persisted and went ahead. That will not now be a legal requirement. This is a very good Bill. There is much more in it of very great value to employees, whether in unions or not. I hope that it will speedily pass your Lordships' House.
There is one aspect of individual employment rights which occurred to me when reading the Bill. It relates to discrimination against some employees on grounds of sexual orientation. Reference has already been made to that by the noble Lord, Lord Razzall. Your Lordships will perhaps remember that I have been very active on this issue in the past. I twice introduced a Private Member's Bill designed to prevent such discrimination in employment. It does take place. There is no law at present which protects employees against such discrimination.

1009
I was reminded of this again in the light of the recent horrific bombing incidents affecting minorities, in particular the recent bombing in Soho when so many people were either killed or horribly injured. It is clear that bigotry does exist and these dreadful incidents are the most extreme demonstration of it.
I therefore thought of putting down a suitable amendment to the Bill since it relates to employment rights. However, more recently there seems to have been a government announcement to the effect that it is intended to strengthen existing discrimination legislation. It would appear that that is probably the best way to deal with that particular issue.
I listened very carefully to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. I came to the conclusion that we are not speaking about the same Bill. Knowing her as I do, I cannot really believe that she wants the situation to continue in which unscrupulous employers may exploit vulnerable people. I am sure that that is not her view at all. I welcome the Bill and look forward to its speedy passage through this House.
6.1 p.m.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, I apologise for missing the first few minutes of the Minister's speech. I was trying to be polite to a visitor. I heard the greater part of it and particularly his reference to new developments in working practices and the modern economy. I shall return to that subject.
I have to declare two interests. I am chairman of ITNET, plc, which is leading out-sourcing supplier of combined IT and business process management. I recently retired as a director of Associated British Ports Holdings plc, with which company I still hold a consultancy contract. Those interests give me reason on their own for wanting to ensure the maintenance of first-class industrial relations. But that interest grows wider.
My active involvement in British politics covers almost exactly the period of transformation from the time of In Place of Strife, through the Winter of Discontent that helped to make me a Minister; through the step-by-step approach that my noble friend Lord Mayhew of Twysden referred to and all the changes of the Thatcher era to the present time, when good industrial relations have helped to transform our competitive position as an industrial nation. Therefore, it seems to me to be of the first importance that nothing should be done to prejudice the progress that is being made referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Walker of Doncaster, in his very impressive maiden speech.
The company of which I am chairman, namely, ITNET, operates in the high technology sector. Above all we depend on the skill and motivation of our workforce, training and flexibility. The workforce is growing rapidly. But not all of our employees come from the high-tech sector. About half of our business comes from local government and with it many of its former employees under TUPE arrangements. At the outset of a new contract we offer employment contracts that attract many employees to transfer to the group's
1010
terms and conditions. But if they prefer it, the balance remain on their previous terms and conditions under TUPE regulations. Good relations with the trades unions are of first rate importance to us.
When I still worked in the City—it seems a very long time ago—my boss was my noble friend Lord Aldington who was sitting in front of me earlier this afternoon. I remember waiting for a very long time outside his office in Fenchurch Street while he, in his role as chairman of the Port of London Authority, held a crucial meeting with Jack Jones. The negotiations about employment relations in the docks are part of the bad period in the history of British industrial relations.
When I joined the board of Associated British Ports in 1987, the Dock Labour Scheme was still with us. I remember very well my first visit to the port of Hull. It was a deeply depressing scene. That once great port had almost committed suicide. There were acres of emptiness and dereliction. Today the port is thriving. There has been massive investment in the most up-to-date facilities and, like its sister ports on the Humber, its future is assured. The business grows year by year. The storm clouds have lifted and it is in everyone's interest that they do not return.
In the early 1980s, as the Minister encouraging inward investment, I was accompanied on one mission to Japan by the chairman of the Wales TUC. Together we made it clear that it was up to the company considering investing in this country to choose whether it wanted to be unionised or not. But if it decided to be unionised, we pressed the case for a single union agreement. I am neutral as to whether it is right for an individual company to choose, as many American companies do, to be non-union or, as most Japanese companies prefer, to start from the outset with union agreement. That above all is a matter for individual decision by the companies, taking account of their own individual circumstances. The choice is for the management and the workforce and not for government. Therefore, I welcome the fact that the Government have recognised the need for flexibility in such matters. Again, I take up the phrase used by the Minister concerning new developments in working practices and the modern economy, which have to be properly catered for.
So I particularly welcome the statement in the White Paper Fairness in Work which referred to individual contracts and stated that since the current law allows flexibility and works well, the Government see no reason to change it. I also very much welcome what the Minster said in Standing Committee E in the House of Commons on 18th March at col.477. He confirmed that the Government remained of that view. But he perfectly fairly made the point that he had received representations about the need to protect employees from any abuse and being forced to accept conditions which most of us would consider unreasonable. I welcome that.
During the same debate it was made clear that although the Government favoured regulation for dealing with many aspects of the Bill—I share my noble friend's concern about the way in which regulation is being so freely used as the way to proceed—they

1011
recognised the fact ':hat the matter was relatively simple and that there was considerable anxiety among employers if the question was left in any doubt. Therefore, there was a welcome among CBI members and others for the Government's declared intention to introduce a revised clause at Report stage which would move from a clause dependent on regulation to one which set out the position very clearly in the Bill.
Clearly the Government have had some difficulty in drafting the clause because no amended clause was introduced in the House of Commons and we now have the clause as Clause 15 in the Bill. Therefore I shall return and press the Government about their intentions in respect of this matter: whether they intend to bring forward a revised clause; and whether we can have some assurances that the matter will be dealt with in a way that removes the concerns of employers.
The redrafted clause will be very important. It is vital that it should not be drafted in such a way that perfectly reasonable offers made by individual companies to employees are excluded. As I understand it, the issue that causes most concern to employers is the possibility that offers made to employees which encourage them to enter into individual contracts might be deemed to come under the term "detriment by omission", the phrase currently used in Clause 15. If the matter was interpreted in such a way it would make nonsense of the statement made by the Government in the White Paper and the assurances given by the Minister. It is vital that we should deal adequately with that point.
The noble Lord. Lord Clinton-Davis, referred to the importance of trade union membership and the other benefits that it often provides. I entirely share his view about that. Certain] y in ABP it was our practice to offer employees benefits for entering into personal contracts—as the overwhelming majority of our workforce did—but, in offering personal contracts, we always made it clear that anyone accepting such a contract could, if he wished, remain a member of a trade union in order to obtain whatever other benefits a trade union was able to offer, apart from collective bargaining. That option still remains even when individual contracts are commonly used in a company.
There have been repeated references to "consultation by Government". No doubt there has been widespread consultation by Government—of course I welcome that—but it is curious that if the consultation has been so widespread and so prolonged, it remains so difficult to tell us what the end product will be. We still have to depend on a Bill which leaves everything to be announced in future regulations.
As to the idea that the CBI is solidly behind the outcome of this consultation, I have received a parliamentary brief" dated 10th May, from the CBI. That says, among other things, that the CBI remains concerned about the following aspects of the Bill: what appears to be the gold plating of the EU directive on parental leave; the lack of clarity in some of the Bill's key provisions, exactly the kind of point that has been made by a number of my noble friends; and the effect on businesses of adding to a regulatory burden already increased recently as a result of recent legislation. I hope
1012
that we will not be told again and again that the Bill we are considering at the moment is agreed by the CBI and the trade unions as a result of consultation.
The reality is that huge chunks of the Bill are still invisible; they cannot have been agreed. We do not know what the outcome is; the Minister, I suspect, does not know what the results of some of those consultations are likely to be. Indeed, from the question raised by my noble friend Lord Tebbit, it would appear that the Minister may not at the moment have the answers to some specific points. I do not find that surprising. This is a complicated Bill which covers a vast area. There will be plenty of opportunity to probe during the Committee stage. I am not criticising the Minister for not having an immediate response, but we are dealing with an extraordinary Bill; we are dealing with a Bill in which we have to trust the actions of future Ministers. If we are to proceed with a Bill of that kind it is right that we should probe the Government very hard indeed during the Committee stage.
6.16 p.m.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Walker of Doncaster. It is good to see him, as usual it is good to hear him, and I hope we have the opportunity to do so more often.
I of course join him in congratulating the Government on bringing forward the Bill. After 20 wearisome years we have a Bill which regards trade unions and collective bargaining in a positive light and which shows an understanding of the contribution they make to a modern society. This is not a time when noble Lords can rehearse their speeches of the 1980s with any pleasure. As the General Secretary of the Trades Union Congress said only three years ago,
"A large majority of people are saying that the problem is no longer one of the over-mighty union but of the over-mighty boss".
There have been some extraordinary remarks about the Bill. I wish to refer to Sidney and Beatrice Webb who, just over a century ago, took time off from founding the London School of Economics and Political Science to write their remarkable work on industrial democracy. They suggested that social advance would be achieved by, first, the method of legal enactment and, secondly, the method of collective bargaining. If one considers the history since then until now, one sees. first, how right they were and, secondly, how the mix fluctuates as between collective bargaining and statute. In terms not of theory but of straight, practical common sense between employers and employees, this Bill changes the mix to which we have been accustomed.
I did not understand the noble Baroness when she spoke of the Bill being an advance of socialist policies. I will draft her a Bill with socialist policies if she likes, but that would be inappropriate. Nor did I understand the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew—we have met before on these matters—when he rehearsed his attack on the Trade Disputes Act 1906. That is what I expect to find with regard to the immunities when I read Hansard.
Not to be outdone, of course, the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit—in what I hope will be the last movement of the Hayek concerto—came at us with guns blazing to

1013
tell us that every Labour government, every statute on trade unions, everything that had ever been done had been disastrous. My noble friend Lord McCarthy suggested that he look at the figures for the loss of days in industrial disputes. I think one will find that he is correct.
Over the past 100 years British trade unions have emphasised, for good historical reasons, the role of collective bargaining in place of the inequalities of the individual employment relationship. But there has always been a place in Britain for legal enactment—one can think of safety at work and working hours in the mines—and Beatrice Webb urged the Government in 1919 that,
"The case"—
for what she called—
"the National Minimum" (is) now fully demonstrated (and) integral to a decent society".
I do not wish to launch an attack upon the Opposition about their understanding of "a decent society", but it is an issue which divides the speeches. There has been very little talk from the Opposition about what role trade unions might have in a decent society. Oddly enough, there was also little talk about minimum rights, a floor of rights. That floor was taken up in the 1960s and became more evident in the developments in Britain. It is a floor of rights for the individual employee, which one finds in the Bill, as against collective bargaining, which was the main target of the Conservative governments. One finds the right to time off for domestic and family reasons—an individual matter—trade union presence in plans for training and, perhaps the most practically important innovation in the Bill, a right to be accompanied in grievance and disciplinary procedures at work. In Committee we could consider whether more could be done to ensure that there is a procedure at work for that to bite on.
In passing, I do not disagree with noble Lords who say that they prefer to have matters on the face of the Bill rather than by regulation as a general proposition. But we see Bill after Bill where it is impossible to deal with the matter on the face of the Bill and there needs to be a regulation. It seems to me that it is a Committee point, that we should consider each requirement to be dealt with by regulation and ask whether it is the best we can do. I doubt whether anyone on these Benches would disagree with that idea.
It is important not to overlook the international dimension. The creation of the International Labour Organisation in 1919 was a measure largely undertaken by France and Britain. Today, the ILO is a uniquely tripartite agency of the United Nations. It is a powerhouse of international labour standards from child labour to freedom of association, holding fast to its central tenet that labour power is not a commodity.
The dismissal of a worker for taking lawful strike action is an affront to international human rights and ILO principles. We in this country have been criticised for our law in that respect. I wish to say clearly, first, that I welcome the provisions in the Bill to get us nearer to the domestic laws of all western European states,
1014
except Denmark and Britain; to get us to the point where a lawful strike or lawful industrial action is not a breach of the employment contract, only a suspension of the employment relationship until the end of a dispute. I am aware that some people in this country find that bizarre. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, would find it a rather outrageous notion, but he must accept from me that—although I suspect he knows it already because he remembers everything from when he was a Minister—we must say that all the others are out of step except Denmark.
That is something we could consider in Committee. That stage will be important to the Bill. A first class Bill deserves first class scrutiny. A Bill affecting the rights and duties of 26 million working people is entitled to as careful a scrutiny as other Bills, even those that affect the privileges of some 700 noble and unhappy souls in this House. There is no need to delay the Bill. The Committee stage will be important for its selection of key points. I suggest that the industrial action point is one.
Finally, in all systems of obligatory recognition in the world there is a certain duty. I interject that the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, suggested that we could not stomach any system where the employer came under a legal obligation to recognise the trade union, it was thought we would collapse. There has been such a strong duty—the duty to recognise and bargain—in the United States since 1935. If the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, were right, the United States would have collapsed and fallen into the Gulf of Mexico because of the abominable provision at the centre of its labour relations law.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, the noble Lord's memory goes back to the debates of the early 1980s, as mine does. He will recollect that I resisted all efforts made by people on both sides of the House in the other place to import lumps of foreign union law into the British context. It was said always that you cannot just import one bit of a culture. The American culture may allow for legalised recognition of trade unions, but with that go many other matters which the noble Lord would not like to see imported here. I had to find a British way and I found one which has worked.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord because I, too, have often written that it is no good taking a few scraps of laws from some other jurisdiction. It is a British empirical question whether, in so far as empiricism can ever determine the future, we think that getting employers and unions together with a system such as Schedule 1 contains of putting a premium on agreements would be better for our industry than, as we had before in 1978, a system for union recognition but with the ability for just a few firms, such as Grunwick, to destroy the system altogether. We are not far apart, but we should take it further in Committee.
I now return to the two points I wish to make. First, what is the nature of the obligation that we impose upon an employer and union in Schedule 1? I say that to the Minister because we still have a problem. The

1015
Government's answer was given by my honourable friend the Minister for trade, industry and small firms, Mr. Wills, on 16th March:
"If the CAC has to impose a bargaining procedure…because the parties cannot agree, it will be legally binding. However it will be a procedure for holding talks only; the parties will not be required to reach agreement for the simple reason that people cannot be forced to agree". —[Official Report, Commons, Standing Committee E, 16/3/99; col.348.]
Few of us would disagree with the last sentiment, but there are other levels of duty. There is a duty in the United States and France to bargain, a duty to consult or, nearer the mark, a duty in two European directives—but nothing turns on it—to consult with a view to reaching agreement. There is the duty to submit to arbitration and a whole string of ranges of duty.
I do not believe that we are trying to put on the statute book merely a duty to talk in one sense. It is not a duty which would be satisfied by Mr. Boulwar, vice president of General Electric in the United States in the 1950s. When he met the union, he used to bring his research people and their figures. He would say: "It's very nice to meet you for a talk, but on the table is an offer devised by my research people. That's the best the corporation can do and it cannot be changed, no matter how long we talk." That may sound an absurd example, but it went on happening, with revised Boulwarism and so on.
Perhaps we mean. a duty to talk with some glimmer at least of intention to agree or with a view to agreement. Similarly, where there has been an agreement or specified method, as it is called by the CAC, it can be enforced as a legally binding contract but only by the remedy of specific performance. Unhappily,"specific performance" is a concept properly understood only by the finely attuned Chancery mind of property relationships and it carries collateral legal principles such as the maxim,"He who comes to equity must come with clean hands". I am not sure what the shop floor will make of that. I am trying to be helpful because this point has not exercised the other place. We might look at the words and give an explanation of what is meant by the remedy of specific performance and its collateral problems
That may sound critical. I have deliberately touched on some critical points because we should look at all of them in Committee. As far as concerns the Bill as a whole, it is one that in a decade will be seen as a realistic and sensible development in the history of employment legislation.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Birkett: My Lords, I draw attention to one particular, even singular, problem to which the Bill may give rise. Before I do so, I add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Walker of Doncaster. How pleasing it was to hear a maiden speech that carried not only conviction but real authority. I hope that we hear a lot more from the noble Lord.
The problem to which I refer concerns the theatre and the West End in particular. I need hardly remind your Lordships of the importance of the theatre to this country, not merely as a matter of pride and prestige—
1016
although goodness knows, that is important. Thank goodness the world still regards the British theatre with some awe and comes from a long way off to see it. I refer also to the economy. The Wyndham Report from the Society of London Theatre last year pointed out that in one year the West End contributed about £1 billion of benefit to the economy—including £225 million surplus to the balance of payments and £200 million of tax revenue. So, economically, the theatre is of huge importance.
The West End has a number of extremely long-running, popular shows."Cats" has been running 18 years; "Starlight Express", 15 years; "Les Misérables", 13 years; "Miss Saigon", nine years; and "Grease", five years. I wish that the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd-Webber, were here so that he could blush at how many of those shows he is concerned with. It is tempting to think how lucky he is to have written such brilliant musicals that everyone wants to see. One thinks that once such a production is a success it stays a success—that it runs for 13 years and the income comes rolling in. In fact, it is difficult to keep such shows fresh and exciting so that people will want to come to see them as if they were new shows. If a production gets tired, old and rundown, people will not come to see it.
Sometimes it is simply a matter of age on the part of the cast. Someone who, in 1952, joined the cast of "The Mousetrap" as a bright young thing of 23 would now be a bright young thing of 70. There comes a moment when there has to be a cast change. Funnily enough, it is not really about age but about freshness.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I believe that I am right in saying that the orchestra of "Starlight Express" has remained unchanged over the 18 years since the production first opened.
Lord Birkett: My Lords, I defer to the noble Lord's knowledge. How musicians keep themselves fresh in the way that actors cannot, I would not dream of trying to explain. In fact, I am not sure that I know.
It is nice that London is regarded now as the home of great musicals, more so than Broadway. Someone appearing in such a production will appear in eight shows a week—Monday to Saturday and two matinées. In a year or 50 weeks, one will have appeared 400 times. This is nothing to do with the talent and energy of the actors. It applies as much to the chorus as to the principal performers. It is difficult to go on for more than a year and continue to be fresh. People have coped in the past by making fixed-term contracts of one year, at the end of which the contract may be renewed for a further year but most often is not. The initial contract contains a clause whereby the cast member promises not to claim unfair dismissal at the end of the contract because its termination is perfectly foreseeable. Under Clause 16 of the Bill, such a contract would no longer be legal. That will cause considerable problems. Such contracts have not been a matter of dispute in the past but have represented an amicable arrangement that has continued happily. If the waiver concerning unfair dismissal is not allowed in future, that will have a damaging effect on the West End theatre in particular.

1017
I am sure that the Bill was not designed to do that and that the Government have no intention of damaging the West End theatre or the theatre in general. However, I foresee a technical problem. I hope that some time before Committee a way can be worked out of ensuring that the theatre is not damaged.
6.36 p.m.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I welcome and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Walker of Doncaster, on his maiden speech. He was largely the person who wrote and put through the Employment Protection Act 1975, so it is appropriate that he should be here to see the introduction of another of the Employment Relations Bills.
I am not sure that the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, is as against the 1975 Act as he thinks. Most of the time that he was attacking that legislation, he was talking about the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974, which was the one with all the strikes in it. That does not help the noble Lord, Lord Walker, because he was responsible for that legislation as well. Anyway, we are glad to welcome someone who had so much to do with employment protection in the past.
I share with others an expression of joy. I say to you rejoice, rejoice, rejoice. We are beginning to reverse the nine weary Bills that we had between 1980 and 1993. We have not got there yet but the journey has begun. So I say rejoice, rejoice, rejoice.
As to the Opposition's case against the Bill, I took as the statement of that case the Second Reading speech in another place by the right honourable Member for Wokingham, Mr. Redwood. I did not recognise that case for a long time when the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon. began speaking because she was making all sorts of other points, more or less at random. Then towards the middle of her speech, the noble Baroness said much the same as the Opposition's case. I am talking about the Opposition's case, not the noble Baroness's personal case. If I am wrong, I hope that she will tell me.
As I understand it, the Opposition say three things. First, Mr. Redwood would say that he is not against better maternity leave or the granting of parental or family leave. He says there is nothing wrong with someone being accompanied over a grievance or a claim for compensation, or with bigger and wider coverage in respect of unfair dismissal. He says that such things—certainly on the individual side—are not wrong in themselves but are rather good, provided that they come from employers. That is the important thing. Mr. Redwood is not even saying that it is wrong for an employer to recognise a trade union if it represents the majority of the workers, but it is all a matter for the employer. He says such things are rather good and that most good employers do them already.
The second thing that the right honourable Member for Wokingham said is that it is all wrong for such provisions to be made by law; none of this stuff must be done by law. If the employer can afford it he or she will do it. The only reason the employer does not do it is because he or she cannot afford to do it.
1018
We come to the third point. In his Second Reading speech Mr. Redwood said the real problem was that the Bill would result in employers
"shedding jobs and getting into grave financial difficulties". —[Official Report, Commons, 9/2/9; col.142]
It would also undermine the competitive position of British industry. These are the things that are wrong. The employer knows best. Good employers do it. The only reason bad employers do not do it is that if they did so they would go bankrupt.
One can make several comments on that argument. The first comment that is particularly appropriate in this House, which has a long memory, is that there is nothing new in this argument. The argument was most persuasively advanced in this House in 1833 when Lord Shaftesbury pursued the Factories Bill. Noble Lords said at that time that it was ridiculous to have a Bill to provide that young girls could not work for more than 10 hours in the textile factories of Lancashire because all the money that they made and kept them, including everybody else in Lancashire, was earned in the last two hours of their work.
Cobbett commented on the suggestion that the industrial welfare of England depended on 30,000 little girls working for more than 12 hours a day. That idea was put forward in all seriousness by a very distinguished theoretical economist who was the first person to be a professor of economics at the University of Oxford. He was one of a long line of distinguished people to speak about the labour market who had no idea what they were talking about. He said that all the money was made in the last two hours.
But that was not the only comment. The argument that only the employer knew about these matters emerged again in 1909 with the beginning of the Trade Boards Acts when an attempt was made to introduce minimum wage legislation. The same argument was trotted out in this House and in another place. More recently, before the coming into power of the Thatcher government, the best known example of that argument was the first Bill promoted by my noble friend Lady Castle, the Equal Pay Bill of 1970. We were then told that there were 8.4 million women in the labour force and if equal pay for women was introduced that figure would inexorably fall to 7.6 million in two years, 6.3 million in four years and so on. Employers could not afford to pay equal pay and, if they were forced to do so, they would rather employ men than women. That argument has been made consistently. Most recently it has been put forward by the present Opposition. They say that 89 per cent of quoted employers in a survey believe that the Bill will cause an abuse of employment rights and difficulties for small firms.
Given that long historical account, the trouble with all these extreme statements is that none has turned out to be even remotely true. By 1860 employers in cotton, wool and other areas, not just textiles, were in favour of restrictions on working hours. They came to the House of Commons and House of Lords to ask for this legislation to be passed. Why? They said that if working hours were reduced from 12 to 10 hours, or even to nine-and-a-half hours, productivity would rise. They were better off with some restrictions on hours than they

1019
had been before. The same applied to the Trade Boards Acts. In 1945 the then Labour government extended the Trade Boards Acts and introduced the wages council system. That was supported by the Conservatives at the time. It was accepted that all the extreme arguments about the effect of minimum wage legislation had turned out to be absolute nonsense.
As to equal pay, when the Equal Pay Bill was introduced in 1970 there were 8.5 million women in the labour force. We now have 12 million women in the labour force, slightly more than men. It is men who have gone down in the labour force, not women. None of these extreme statements has ever had the slightest effect.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I hesitate to intervene when the noble Lord gives the House such an interesting historical perspective. However, he indicated that if I believed what he said was not accurate I should stand up. I take advantage of that opportunity and thank the noble Lord for his courtesy in giving way. The noble Lord said at the beginning of his speech that he thought the Opposition were against trade unions. He went on to mention maternity leave and parental leave. As to trade unions, my noble friend Lord Tebbit has clearly indicated that, following the legislation that he brought in, the present situation works well. We have no objection to that. We are concerned about what this Bill will do to the very fine relationship that has been created in many cases.
As to maternity leave, we have never been against it. My record in working for women's rights is very well known. However, this Bill will introduce the possibility of extending to 40 weeks maternity rights for women after one year's employment, which means 52 weeks. There can be many further pregnancies when the job must be given to a locum. After a certain period that locum cannot be removed. We believe that that will be a disincentive, not an incentive. As to parental leave, many noble Lords this evening have said that it is gold-plated. We know not what "domestic incidents" means. Those are the points that we shall probe in much more detail in Committee. I cannot allow the noble Lord to suggest for a moment that we are against all of those matters.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I did not suggest that. The Opposition are against the imposition of these matters by law. I believe that that will be found in the speech of the honourable Member for Wokingham. It is said that these are excellent things but at this point one should not introduce parental leave, increase maternity benefit and so on—all the matters referred to in the Bill—by fiat or legal enactment. That is the position which, generally speaking, the Conservatives have adopted over the years and now take in another place.
There are times when the Conservative Party is more far-sighted and support the idea of minimum wage legislation. It supported, pioneered and, if it had been in office, would have introduced the Redundancy
1020
Payments Bill. In 1971, at the same time as the IRA, the Conservatives introduced employment protection legislation which was one of the most important advances in worker rights ever seen. But after 1979—as I was about to go on to say—it became much more reactionary. It now appears to suggest that this modest advance in employment protection should not be introduced by law because only the employers know what they can afford and if it is introduced we shall have unemployment and disaster. That has been said many times in the past in this House and another place and it turns out to be untrue.
Of course it is not suggested that one can never have employment protection that puts people out of work. There have been examples of it. If one suddenly escalates minimum wages particularly for young people one will have a differential consequence. Employers will turn from the employment of young people to the employment of older people. There have been examples of that in France and elsewhere. In principle and practice one may have a level of minimum wage in particular legislation that has a negative employment effect. For that reason the present Government have been very careful to select the figure at which to go in. They do not want a negative employment effect. If there is a negative employment effect, I suspect that the Government will not raise the level of the minimum wage until there is no negative employment effect.
But this is different. We are not talking about minimum wages but about the way in which people are treated at places of work. I find most irritating the present attitude of the Opposition because it is so unfair to many good employers who do not find it impossible to pay decent wages, or grant maternity leave, and have had parental leave for years. It is not because they are big, prosperous employers in protected labour markets, but because they are decent employers. They know that benefits come from treating people decently. Some of my best friends are small employers; and they are good employers. They provide all the rights in the Bill. They are not in protected labour markets. They provide them because they believe that it is good for the workforce, productivity and commitment, and that is the way they want to run a business.
Many other employers do not take that attitude, but they respect the law. They do not want to fall out with the law. They got into employment protection, minimum wage legislation, and discrimination and non-discrimination legislation because it was lawful and they respect and practise the law. In the overwhelming majority of cases, having practised it, employers find that they rather like it because it helps to run the labour force in that way.
The real criticism that I have of the Opposition is that by this time they should know that. I suspect that in their own businesses where they are employers many of them know that. They pretend not to admit it because for ideological reasons or political practices they have decided to pretend that things are as they were in 1833.
6.51 p.m.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, like the Minister, I come from business. I spent 30 years building up my own business, and, rather earlier than the Minister, I, too, learned that partnership, co-operation and balancing interests are the catalyst for success. What was achieved in those circumstances surprised and delighted. Divisions and self-interest sometimes brought short-term benefit, but in the end there was only trouble, disappointment and failure.
In his excellent maiden speech, my noble friend Lord Walker reminded us that there is nothing new about that. When I first started in business there was already concern to avoid strikes. We had joint consultations. Wilfred Brown urged us to have works' committees with unanimous voting. Barbara Castle produced her paper, In Place of Strife. Even the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, when she became Prime Minister, misquoted that early proponent of peaceful relations, St. Francis of Assisi. She said,
"Where there is discord, let me bring harmony; where there is despair, let me bring hope".
However, her actions were the opposite of those fine words. We moved into an era of confrontation which many noble Lords opposite seem to relish. However, I believe that that era of confrontation cost us dear. That was confirmed when a recent OECD report found that confrontation had little beneficial impact on our economic performance and served only to trap people into low paid jobs and encourage insecurity.
It also cost us dear because that was a time when those of us in management began to realise that competitiveness was not just a matter of clever accountancy and good technology. Competitiveness also required speed, service, quick response and close attention to customers' needs. That was not achieved by confrontation and arbitrary hire and fire. It was achieved by identifying those common interests and working together to achieve them. That is as important now as it was then. The Bill recognises that, and that is why I welcome it.
The Bill seeks to establish a culture of fairness and respect for people's rights at work. Of course, that requires a balance between employer and employee rights. The Bill identifies three routes to union recognition: voluntary, automatic or by ballot. By doing so it seeks to facilitate union recognition but not necessarily to force it. I believe that my noble friend Lord Wedderburn discussed that. The Bill lays out rights and responsibilities during the process. It is right that employees should be protected against victimisation, discrimination or dismissal, and there has to be good faith on both sides.
Quite rightly, the Bill seeks to protect individual workers against overbearing or unscrupulous employers. It protects union members against blacklisting and discrimination. As my noble friend Lord Simon explained, it closes loopholes used by unscrupulous employers employing agency workers, part-time workers or workers forced to sign away their rights against unfair dismissal. What fair-minded person can object to that?
1022
I agree that one of the most important aspects of the Bill is the family-friendly policies it seeks to encourage. As we all know, parenthood is not just having a new baby to look after in the home. It is also all about the ongoing responsibilities. The family-friendly regulations acknowledge this. The right to extended maternity absence, to the parental leave that may become necessary and to protection against unfair dismissal during that time is only reasonable. However, it is also fair that there is no obligation to pay for extended parental leave. Employers can deal with the question of pay according to the circumstances. We all have family emergencies which require time off work. How much healthier it is to bring that out into the open and systemise it rather than force people to conceal the emergency and perhaps lie about it to their employers.
Many of the family-friendly policies are tied up with European social regulations. When regulations are drafted it would be helpful if the Government clarified employers' responsibilities under the European regulations and the responsibilities under the Bill. There seems to be some confusion. Clarification is important because each European country has its own view as to where the balance between fairness and market forces lie. It is important that what works here should be incorporated into the Bill.
The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, drew our attention to Clause 26. I note that the Government are willing to create a fund to help train managers and employee representatives in promoting and developing partnership at work. It is important to encourage that. Perhaps the Minister can give us some details about how the scheme will work.
I believe that the objectives laid down in the Bill are beneficial to any business, large or small, because they benefit society. The regulations are not designed just to stop people doing things; they try to make people do things better by adopting best practice. That helps markets and competition work better and so speed up change and improves productivity and competitiveness. Perhaps the same objectives could be achieved by voluntary codes of practice. The Bill crystallises a probable code.
I know all about the dangers of forecasting. I believe, however, that the Bill will very soon cease to be a matter for discussion. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Razzall: it is a modest Bill. The basic, decent, minimum standards it lays down are already carried out by most reasonably run companies, large, medium or small. The Bill will hardly affect those companies. It will affect poorly run businesses and bad employers. But business is so competitive and fast moving nowadays that those people will disappear if they do not improve their performance— and improve it pretty quickly, whether or not they can afford it. It is important not to exaggerate the importance of regulations or the regulatory burdens on industry generally.
The success or failure of any business, large or small, does not depend on regulation or industrial relations. Far more important for success or failure is quality, service, technology, management, skills, initiative and investment. The noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell,

1023
reminded us of that. All those elements must be right. That is far more important. Reliving old battles in Parliament gets us nowhere.
The world has moved on. Modern unions do not want adversarial relations with employers and modern employers want to work in partnership and co-operation with modern unions. Both realise that they have different roles to fulfil. But beyond that comes their joint interest in the success of the enterprise. Thankfully, the Bill recognises that.
7 p.m.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in than king the noble Lord, Lord Simon of Highbury, for introducing this Second Reading debate. I thank him also for staying with the debate because, in the weeks ahead, he may find it invaluable to have heard the contributions.
It does not diminish my thanks to say that I was disappointed by one aspect of his speech. He reiterated the words which appear in Fairness at Work and in various speeches; that is, those words "rights and responsibilities". The rights were enumerated but there was a strange coyness about the responsibilities.
While I have been trying to follow the passage of this Bill in another place, I have been brooding about the nature of a modern government. If I understand it and if MPs made full and proper disclosure of interest, the committee member. who debated issues of fairness at work and employment relations between them mustered a pay roll of one fall-time person. I begin to wonder whether there will ever again be a time when, in another place, there will he a Member of Parliament or a Minister who has that incredible anxiety which we have all experienced in business, of wondering whether we can pay the wages on Friday; whether we can keep our labour force intact. Those are real, heartfelt anxieties and it seems to me extremely sad that Parliament is no longer recruiting such people.
It is self-evident that that is not a partisan point but I cannot but be struck by the distance that today's political class has put between itself and the nation's wealth-creating heartland. Fewer and fewer entrepreneurs and manufacturers find their way into the political process. The noble Lord, Lord Simon, is a notable exception. My noble friend Lady Miller and the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, are both involved with business. Thank goodness for the House of Lords!
Consultation is often a selective and hurried affair. I take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. I do not believe that this was a particularly good consultation process. It is an easy cloak to hide behind. Governments, not only this Government, have done that before. I marvel at the readiness with which today's politicians rush to order people's lives on the basis of such slender collective experience.
By contrast, if my research is correct, 100 per cent of this Bill's Labour supporters are trade union members. Speaking as they do for only one-third of the labour force, I have no doubt that as this Bill goes through the
1024
House, they will adopt a position of appropriate restraint. But it is nice to see the trade union enthusiasts once more having their time in the sun.
I have been in trouble in your Lordships' House, with a certain amount of mischief, for not declaring adequately a personal interest. In consequence, my declaration today is rather long-winded. First, to the best of my knowledge, my entries in the Register of Peers' Interests is up to date. Specifically, I declare the following interests: I am a government-nominated director of United Kingdom Nirex Limited; in the voluntary sector, I serve on a charitable trust to help children of horticultural employees who have encountered misfortune; in addition, I hold positions in a foundation concerned with medical research and a hospice for the terminally ill.
While the Bill could impact on all those concerns, a more significant personal interest lies with the family companies of which I am chairman and in which I hold a beneficial interest. That is the Holker Estate group of companies and its activities include property, agriculture, forestry, construction, aggregate extraction, leisure, horse-racing and slate quarries. That latter industry, which exports about 50 per cent of its product, employs about 130 people and for the purposes of wage negotiations and other matters, the workforce is represented by a trade union.
If I had a choice simply to continue with a trade union or not, the balance of advantage lies with continuing with a trade union. During great crises in a cyclical market, the trade union representative has been of immense help in communicating with the labour force.
There are a number of provisions in the Bill with which it is difficult to quarrel. For example, I support the principle of outlawing blacklisting. Likewise, I sympathise with the clauses which seek to prevent discrimination by employers against workers because they are members of a trade union.
There are some sensible measures, some nuggets, in the Bill which is otherwise, I am afraid, rather flawed. They are nuggets which reflect the changing pattern of the British labour market. That needs to be continually reviewed. So far, so good.
It is where the Government seek to make compulsory what most of us do anyway that I start to part company with them. It is as though they believe that they can legislate to eliminate bad employers. I am sad to say that that is to enter the world of make-believe. There will always be bad employers as there will always he sin. It gets worse because as we study the Bill, it emerges that it is not the measure that it pretends to be.
Since its inception, there has been no shortage of simpering ministerial pronouncements ahead of the Bill's publication. We are told that as much as anything, it is about partnership and competitiveness. We were reassured that there would be no burdensome regulation. In the foreword to the White Paper, the Prime Minister writes:
"It matches rights and responsibilities".

1025
That was echoed by the Minister. I find nothing in the Bill to encourage partnership and nothing which will make my business more competitive. I find the reverse. I find no responsibilities to match the privileges on offer. I find a pile of burdensome regulation.
The Prime Minister's promises about workers' rights are, in his words,
"a matter of course elsewhere".
However, the Prime Minister did not say that unemployment, which is "a matter of course elsewhere" is double that in Britain.
There is nothing in this Bill for employers or the British economy. It is pay-day for the unions and pay-up day for the employers. I hope that when he winds up, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, with his innate sense of honesty, will acknowledge as much.
The truth is that we are being sent a clutch of Bills which have come quickly after legislation dealing with the Working Time Directive, the Social Chapter and the family tax credit scheme, to mention just a few. In a spirit of non-partisanship, I should say that it is not only this Government who have a monopoly of sending Bills to business. If Ministers seriously believe that they can continue to precept the wealth-creating sector without impacting on investment and employment, then I do not know where they have been living.
Employers do not need lecturing on the merits of having good industrial relations; they know it. When this Bill had its Second Reading on 9th February in another place, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, Mr Stephen Byers, said:
"It will replace policies supported by the Conservative Party, which were based on the notion of conflict between employers and employees, with measures for partnership based on rights matched by responsibilities". —[Official Report. Commons, 9/2/99; col.130.]
Having already disposed of the myth of that particular match, it is time to examine the Secretary of State's premise and compare it with the known facts.
Your Lordships have heard again about the 29 million lost days through strikes in 1979 and I shall not repeat those statistics. But, to some extent, we have moved on to the sunny uplands of industrial relations. That was a point made eloquently by the noble Lord, Lord Walker of Doncaster, in an optimistic and notable maiden speech.
This state of affairs did not happen by chance. Over the past 15 years greatly reduced regulations have accompanied a huge surge in living standards and a national performance which has been the envy of our European partners. I believe this to be an unnecessary Bill. Industrial relations is a continuous and seamless process, or so it should be. Legislation cannot foster trust, as the Government claim.
The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy—who is no longer in his place—spoke, with his huge experience of these matters, of compulsion. My feeling as regards industrial relations, certainly in the size of enterprise with which I am involved, is that one has to develop trust. If I am a good, fair, generous-minded, generous-spirited employer because I choose to be, there is trust. If I am
1026
a good employer because I should be by law, there is a nil relationship between the two. I should be interested to talk to the noble Lord about that. If one does not have a choice between being virtuous and evil, it is hardly virtuous when one does the right thing because one is compelled to do so. It is the old argument about freedom.
I was once faced with a strike in my works. That came about because I neglected industrial relations in my business through spending too much time in your Lordships' House. The strike resulted not just in lost revenues but in great misery and distrust. I recount the incident for two reasons: first, I am firmly of the view that this kind of legislation would not have alleviated matters or prevented me from making the mistakes I did at that time; secondly, I made one sensible decision, which was to call in ACAS. Although it was over the Christmas period, ACAS responded immediately and with huge energy. Through their good offices the process of rebuilding trust began, which continues several years later.
It was a humbling episode but one that I feel had to be experienced. There is a pulse in human affairs which teaches that even the best relationships need more investment of time, dialogue and understanding and—this is my point—less in the way of regulations, rules and law.
I cannot speak too highly of the skill, wisdom, sympathy and commitment with which the ACAS team helped our small enterprise through the problems of that winter. I raise that because they receive a mention in the Bill. I shall listen with great care to see that the Government, with their passion for meddling with things that are working—as have all governments—will not upset that extremely special organisation.
As regards some of the individual provisions, I see a plain objection in principle to the notion of compulsion in the matter of recognising trades unions. I do not share the Government's obsession with introducing democracy into every human activity. Because democracy is rightly regarded as a bastion against tyranny, I do not see that more democracy necessarily makes life better. If one thinks of the sheer ineptitude of government actions, the anomalies, unfairness, and time consuming expense of government, surely a lesson might be learnt that we do not want to democratise everything. Also, the trades unions experts must have known that the bogus democratisation of the trades unions did not serve them well in the long term. More accountability is needed, not more democracy.
The Government's own dislike of accountability is seen by their habit of bypassing Parliament. As has been said again and again, huge tracts of the Bill are subject to secondary legislation. That point will obviously arise again. Perhaps I may say to the Minister that if he looks carefully at this and listens to the anxieties we have expressed about secondary legislation, the Bill will have a much easier ride through Parliament.
The hostility to compulsory trades union recognition goes beyond the principle. I very much fear that there will a souring of industrial relations on the road to it.

1027
Already there are reports of trades unions drawing up hit lists of companies to target. That is hardly conducive to fostering a spirit of partnership.
The famous Clause 26 has been mentioned. I believe that it is a dreadful, really iniquitous clause. It would send a wonderful signal to your Lordships' House if the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said in his winding-up speech that that clause should be looked at again. I sometimes tell my children that one of the most frightening phrases in the English language is,"A Minister may from time to time decide". That is a sort of prelude to a total loss of freedom. I hope that will be challenged, and challenged successfully.
Like other noble Lords, I am concerned at the provisions in the Bill which are alleged to be no more than complying with EC directives. Where the Government are trying to gold plate directives, that should be discussed. I am not against gold plating in principle. I do not see why one should not sometimes improve on what has been done by the European Community on such matters. I should like to see a little more originality in the way in which we deal with our labour forces. However, I believe such matters need challenging and explanation. We shall certainly need a definition of "the domestic incident".
I conclude by saying that as there are good and bad employers, so there are good and bad employees. Every workforce with a score or more people will have somebody who will seek to exploit their company for their own gain. That is human nature. We cannot change it or legislate against it. The Bill offers no protection against such abuse. It is not only the employer who needs protection. Ai often as not it is the fellow worker who needs protection from the unscrupulous worker. This is especially so when we introduce, as many of us do, profit sharing schemes. It occurred to me during the debate that I should compile a list so that, in this new spirit of openness, I can tell my workforce of the Bills the Government are sending them. They can then write to the Government and ask for explanations when their profits are reduced and their shares of the profits go down.
An ancestor of mine in the last century was a Minister in numerous administrations in this country, three times declining the office of Prime Minister. He was well known in the Cabinet for the expression,"Far better not". He understood what little good governments had in their gift and what great harm they were capable of through gratuitous intervention. Of this ill-drafted, disingenuous, snivelling little Bill, designed to puff up trades unions and debilitate the wealth-creating sector, I echo my ancestor,"Far better not".
7.17 p.m.
Lord Brookman: My Lords, I shall try to be brief. Much has been said, and, I am sure, will be said in Committee. I only hope that talk is of the future and not of the past.
First, I wish to declare an interest, maybe a vested interest. I currently sit as a member of the General Council of the Trades Union Congress, so criticised by the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, who is riot in his place.
1028
I work, I believe, on behalf of working people up and down the country. Therefore, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish, I am extremely pleased that this legislation, promised in the Labour Party's manifesto, is before the House. The Government said that it would be a priority and they are honouring that commitment. At first hand and at close quarters, so to speak, I observed John Monks's team and senior officials of the TUC skilfully applying themselves in a constructive and practical manner to what I believe will prove an extremely important and historic piece of legislation, if not for Members opposite, most certainly for working people. I can do no more than praise their efforts, as I do those of the Government in honouring their commitment.
The legislation is about fairness at work. It is designed for employers who listen as against those who deny a voice at work. It encourages a genuine partnership between employers and employees, and I am all for that. It is my belief that no one—employee or employer—has anything to fear from the Bill. As my noble friend Lady Turner of Camden so rightly said, there is nothing to lose and everything to gain.
Of course, there are minor areas of concern to both the trade union movement and employers' organisations. But they pale into insignificance when one sees the benefits for employers and employees. Only a small minority of employers are adopting a negative approach. Responsible businesses know that they will not be required to make any substantial changes to their employment practices as a result of the Bill. Some of my colleagues say that the proposed legislation does not go as far as they would wish in some areas. But the TUC and the overwhelming majority of trade unions and their membership give the Bill a warm welcome. Why? Because it is the biggest advance in employee rights for some time. Also, it represents the start of a new era in British industrial relations—looking forward and not backwards. I, for one, welcome that.
As a former general secretary of a trade union at the heart of manufacturing, I know the difficulties that ordinary working people faced at their place of work over many years under the Conservative government: derecognition; denial of the right to be a member of a trade union; and the introduction of personal contracts where collective agreements existed. Those were but a few of the negative effects faced by ordinary working people.
This Bill sensibly addresses those and other vitally important issues such as one year rather than two for unfair dismissal—an extremely important move—and prohibiting the blacklisting of people as a consequence of trade union membership or activities. What is wrong with that? And there are the family-friendly policies about which so many noble Lords, and especially the Minister, spoke.
As I said, I have a declared interest. But from what we have heard today I am sure we all have a vested interest in making sure that the legislation is passed as quickly as possible.
7.22 p.m.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: My Lords, I rise to add my voice to most of those who have spoken today to welcome this legislation. I, too, declare an interest as a former trade union official and the former general secretary of a couple of Civil Service trade unions. But it is important that we recognise that the legislation before us today is not solely about trade unions; it is about the conditions that apply to all workers; it is about their rights and their responsibilities.
I was one of those who was around in the 1970s and saw the problems we had at that time. I had been involved in the trade union movement, like many of my colleagues, for nearly 20 years when a whole series of pieces of legislation was adopted by the Conservative governments when they were in power—nine in total. Being a reasonable-minded person, I recognised that there were problems with some of the things that were happening in the trade union movement, particularly in the 1970s. The public at large were certainly aware of them. That is one of the reasons we had a change of government, and the new government attempted to remedy some of those problems.
Some of the legislation adopted in the early 1980s was appropriate. Indeed, many of us have come to that view and do not want to turn the clock back completely. But what was particularly important was that, as the Tory Party stayed in power and introduced more legislation—we all acknowledge that abuses were taking place in the trade union movement, particularly among the more powerful unions—they not only took corrective measures against the powerful trade unions, but increasingly they started to abuse power themselves at the expense of the weaker workers.
I find it difficult to understand when I hear the noble Baroness opposite protest on behalf of women, in respect of their interests in maternity legislation and presumably also on behalf of the low paid, when those Benches, when in government, increasingly introduced legislation such as that which abolished the wages councils. That took away a very low level of support for the 2 million people in our society on low pay who are most disadvantaged.
So the Conservatives went too far, as my noble friend said. What is pleasing today, as those who come from the trade union movement have our day in the sun, is that we see the balance is swinging back a little bit in the other direction. This legislation goes some way towards redressing the imbalance which not just politicians and trade union officials, but increasingly the public at large, recognise was prevalent in our society, particularly in relation to conditions at work.
What is before us is not entirely to the full satisfaction of the trade union movement; far from it. There are many changes we would have liked to see introduced. But they are not coming, so we get on with dealing with what we have before us. Neither is this legislation perfect from the employers' point of view. Reference has already been made to the CBI briefing which was received by many of us today; it says that it goes too far in a number of respects.
1030
So I guess the Government have just about struck the right balance after their extensive consultations with a wide range of interests which will be affected by this Bill. I feel that they produced a fair and balanced package. They broadly stuck to the principles contained in the White Paper, most suitably entitled Fairness at Work. What we had before was increasingly unfair as the Tories were in power, and this legislation now seeks to redress the balance. I trust that, having seen the deal done, the Government will now stick with it and there will not be cause for complaints from any of the parties who have been involved so far in the consultation, negotiation and discussion process.
Many of the new provisions will be introduced by regulations. I understand the unease about that, and many of us tend to share those feelings about regulatory changes. But I hope that they will be dealt with as expeditiously as possible, and also that the Government will ensure that all the appropriate consultations take place over the widest area before the regulations are presented.
I want to join with a number of my noble friends who have expressed concern to our Front Bench about possible delays with the timetabling of the later stages of this Bill. Can my noble friend, when he replies, try to give us a clearer indication of when we are likely to move into Committee stage? He shakes his head rather like the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. I hope we can get a little more from him later.
I remind my noble friend that some of us will want to explore other ways in which time can be found to accommodate this legislation. After all, we have waited an extremely long time for it. As we said, it does not satisfy all that we would have liked to see in it. We must seek to find time to deal with this important piece of legislation which affects so many people throughout the country. After all, we find within this House that there is plenty of time available to discuss a whole range of issues, many of which are not quite so productive for the people outside the House as those inside might think. We must find the time in whatever way we can.
There are thousands of people out there, waiting for the benefits that will come from the three main sections of the Bill. These are people who do not have good or reasonably fair employers and, having waited so long, they should not be denied any longer. They need protection from over-mighty bosses. There is undoubtedly exploitation and abuse at a minority of workplaces in the UK today, and the Bill seeks to eradicate that. We need, for their sakes, to move forward quickly.
There is plenty of evidence to show that people are being treated badly. Innumerable references are made to industrial tribunals and to ACAS, and these are likely to increase when the legislation is in place and the period in which appeals against unfair dismissal can be accepted is reduced from two years to 12 months. Can the Minister assure me that there will be adequate staffing to deal with those issues at tribunal and CAC level, and that there will not be a long list of people waiting to get justice from such appeal mechanisms?

1031
I can understand why the Government have acted on representations to limit the industrial tribunal awards to £50,000, and I welcome their decision to index-link any revision of that figure. I hope they will reflect on whether it is appropriate to link with the RPI because I think it should be linked with movements in average wages and salaries.
For many people at work, their experience is quite different: many people have good employers and very reasonable employers. Those employers will not have to make any substantial changes in their employment practices as a result of the measures proposed in the Bill.
Most of Britain's top companies already recognise unions. Forty-six out of the top fifty FTSE companies recognise unions, and 42 out of the 45 companies in this country which employ more than 25,000 employees recognise and work with unions.
Britain's biggest private sector employer, Tesco, is the most heavily unionised of all the large supermarket chains. The presence of unions has in no way stopped that company making progress because we now see that it has overtaken Sainsbury to take the top spot in the retailing arena.
Most unions these days are not solely seeking to protect and promote their members' interests in the old-fashioned way of twenty or thirty years ago that the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, spoke of. Modern unions are looking to add value to an employer's enterprise, whether it be in the private or public sector. Even in the public sector they know that if their activity is not as effective or efficient as it could be, it will either come to an end or be replaced or transferred into the private sector. Workers everywhere nowadays recognise that they have a mutual interest with their employers in ensuring that they maximise the efficiency of operations, both public and private.
We all work to raise competitiveness. One of my regrets today is that there has been little discussion about the core purpose of the Bill, which is to bring people together to promote competitiveness, something that is still lacking in many areas of our operations even when compared with some of our much-maligned competitors elsewhere in Europe.
Partnership and co-operation are the key; they are at the heart of the Bill. I hope that it will soon be on the statute book so that workers, whether or not they are members of unions, can move forward quickly.
7.35 p.m.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, I should like to emphasise that I am speaking for myself, and it may well be that my noble friend Lady Seccombe will disapprove of what I have to say.
I caused some confusion in the Printed Paper Office last week by asking for a copy of the Industrial Relations Bill. When we eventually worked out what I wanted I realised that I believed there to be some minor difference between industrial relations and employment relations. I believe the Bill to be more about industrial relations than employment relations,
1032
much of which is concerned with the other things that trade unions do for their members apart from engaging in negotiation.
I am a little concerned, having listened to some of the speeches, particularly from very distinguished former Ministers on these Benches and current union leaders on the other Benches, that we have not, with the exception of my noble friend Lord Cavendish, heard much from people who have been engaged in dealings with employers and trade unions round the table. My noble friend Lord Cavendish has been involved in different parts of industrial relations, as I have.
I was very disappointed that the noble Baroness, Lady Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, did not speak in the debate because she and I, over a period of about 10 years, had many confrontations in which we both realised that some fairly tough trade union legislation was necessary for satisfactory working relationships. I remember on one occasion at the Waldorf Hotel that the noble Baroness was accompanied, to her horror and distress, by 30 of her members, chihiking behind her and preventing any satisfactory negotiations over a big deal. We broke up fairly shortly thereafter and did much better together over a drink a bit later.
The noble Lord, Lord Walker of Doncaster, in his maiden speech (I looked at the list of speakers and thought for one incredible moment that the sky had fallen in and that my noble friend Lord Walker of Worcester was making his maiden speech—but that was very unlikely) emphasised the improvement in industrial relations in recent years. That is absolutely right. When the last Conservative Government came into power in 1979, that was the nadir of industrial relations. I remember shortly before that time—and 1 have absolutely no pride in saying this—going to the offices in the Haymarket of the noble Baroness, Lady Castle, and working out how we and the unions together could bust the wage restraint legislation. I say I have no pride in saying that, but if we had not done that, we would not have had a newspaper at all.
The union problems with which we had to deal in those days were really terrifying. I noted that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, used the word "old-fashioned" in that respect, but at least I am not reluctantly leaving 1833 like the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy. Indeed, things have improved but it is not true, as the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, said, that there has been an over-reaction to what was happening in those days. I do not believe that my noble friend Lady Thatcher was unbalanced in her approach to trades union legislation.
There were so many things which were wrong at that time and which have been cured. Indeed, whistle-blowing has been mentioned and the use of health and safety legislation as an industrial relations weapon; in other words, the frequent practice of using the most spurious health and safety argument to stop work. Again, it has been said that this legislation would prevent discrimination against trades union members, but it is necessary to ensure that trades union members do not discriminate against non-trades union members. In my time it was virtually impossible to give anyone a rise in salary because the dread word "differential" came

1033
out immediately. You could not give anyone a rise because that would spoil the differential. I believe it was the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, who talked about "hire or fire". In those days you could not possibly hire or fire anyone without the permission of the unions, which was very seldom given.
It has also been said that this legislation will protect against black listing. Of course, the latter is not something of which one could even remotely approve. Nevertheless, employers must have some right to find out from previous employers not the nature of the trades union activities of potential employees but who those people are and how they worked. At that time in the newspaper industry, I seem to remember a few members of the union of the noble Baroness, Lady Dean; namely, a father and five brothers who worked in the machine rooms of a number of different publications. For obvious reasons I shall not name them, save to say that the father was known for good and sufficient reason as,"Burglar Bill". Up to a very late stage of negotiations they successfully did everything to prevent newspapers being produced, except under the most expensive conditions, which were totally in the interests of the trades unions and not of the readers or the newspaper concerned.
The situation has changed as a result of the legislation that we have seen introduced over the past 20 years. However, it is now being suggested that we should go back at least some way. Perhaps I may mention the subject of time off—that is to say, time off for parenting. No one argues against the fact that mothers must have a considerable time off in that respect. But in the words frequently used during the course of my short military career, I ask: "Who's to pay?" You have to pay to employ someone, especially in smaller businesses. You cannot absorb the loss of a worker who, because the wife is having a baby, gets a very long time off work in order to look after her. As has been said, you have to employ a locum and when you reach the end of the period and the person returns to work, you cannot get rid of the locum because he has every right to be retained as a worker.
Another reason for time off is domestic incidents. Anyone who has had any dealings with a workforce, although they vary enormously, would know only too well of the dangers which can arise in that respect. We had enough trouble under legislation introduced by the Conservative government with self-certification for sickness. The ability of people to certify themselves as sick for as long as eight days was very expensive and extremely difficult to deal with. There are many such attitudes which exist within many, though not all, workforces. If we did not have the trades union workforce legislation in place today, we would find ourselves in as much trouble as we were 20 years ago, with as many unemployed and as many days lost through industrial action.
We have the introduction of the CAC in this Bill. However, I do not believe that a full explanation has been given as to what it is. For example, is it a hotted-up ACAS? Reference has already been made to the excellence of ACAS and I would agree with that as
1034
regards its role as an advisory body. However, I never found that ACAS was able to solve anything. Goodness me, it tried. The one thing it did buy was time, but it could never actually make an agreement. Indeed, most agreements that I made involved sitting for long hours until about 3 or 4 in the morning in the TUC offices—and the TUC sandwiches were not really very good. Nevertheless, we did get some sort of a deal.
As a result of the latter, I am profoundly unhappy about the Bill. It seems to have far too many holes in it. The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, asked whether we would repeal this legislation when we have the next Conservative government. I do not know the answer; but I doubt it. When the Bill returns to your Lordships' House, I hope that it will be a far better piece of legislation than the Bill we now have before us. I sincerely hope that it will not be so full of holes and clauses like "Clause 26", which I really think should go into a museum. I suppose that we have the skeleton of a Bill at present, some of which is undesirable all the way through and some of which merely needs improvement. Of course we shall give the Bill a Second Reading tonight; but, by God! we shall be at it both in Committee and on Report.
7.47 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, as tail-end Charlie in this debate, I want to raise two minor specific issues. However, before I do so, it is probably worth while putting in a few general remarks. I have not held any illustrious position in the trades union movement. I was a branch chairman for 15 years and a shop steward for a few years. My impression of the Bill is that, yes, there is a deal being done. However, the concern expressed to me by trade unionists in my own branch is that it will not go far enough. It will not resolve all the problems with which we are faced and there will be need for further legislation in future years. Of course, we shall obviously learn from experience.
Noble Lords on the other side of the House talk about the vast improvement in industrial relations which has occurred over the past 20 years. I believe that reference has been made to 27 million or 29 million working days lost in a year. When the Conservative government came to office, I believe that unemployment was running at about a million. In every year since 1979 the average figure has been around 2 million. Therefore, as a country we have had to pay a price for the apparent glorious revolution of improvement in industrial relations. On a quick calculation I estimate 5,000 million working days lost a year. That is a hefty price to pay.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, the noble Lord rightly talks about the unemployment figures in this country. Can he give the unemployment figures at the same time in the rest of Europe?
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, my noble friend Lord McCarthy pointed out earlier, in an exchange with the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, that the unemployment rate in the rest of Europe over the last few years has been about the same as in this country. So there is not that great a distinction. But that was not Europe's experience

1035
over the last 20 years. Our record is absolutely horrific, not just for men and women who have suffered the result of mass unemployment, but for every one of us, citizens of this country, in lost economic performance and lower living standards. That is a heavy price to pay for the apparent improvement.
However, enough of that. Time is getting on, and I said that I did not want to speak for too long. I wish to concentrate on some specific issues. Before doing so, I must declare an interest as the chair of the Campaign against Bullying at Work. It is worth looking at why we have had a vast increase in the number of complaints of bullying at work. I shall not go into some of the horrific cases that we are all aware of through media reports, but it is instructive to examine what has happened over the last 20 years.
We need to recognise that there have been changes in employment practice. Twenty-odd years ago we had virtually full employment. We had very large firms, in the main, with dedicated, specialist, trained and experienced personnel in industrial relations departments. Now we have, unfortunately, continuing mass unemployment, although we hope that the figure will go down over the next few years, and we have many more small firms. That is partly due to new firms rising, partially due to downsizing of the larger firms, partly due to outsourcing by the larger firms. We cannot expect small firms to have at their disposal the skilled, experienced, highly trained personnel in industrial relations departments that used to exist in the large firms.
How do we tackle that? The Government are setting off in the right direction. We are trying to change that relationship from conflict in industry, commerce and employment to one of co-operation, to get people working together, workers and management.
We must also try to ensure that professional expertise is available. It is worth pointing out that there is a vast reservoir of professional expertise in the shape of trade union officials, whether local branch officers, full-time officials, officers at local level or national officers. There is a tremendous body of professional experience available. Small firms would do well to recognise that that expertise, if properly utilised and harnessed, could he beneficial to them.
The parts of the Bill that will bite most effectively, I believe, are Clauses 10, 11, 12 and 13, which confer the right to be accompanied by a fellow worker or an official of a trade union at disciplinary or grievance hearings. The Employment Rights Act 1996 provides in Section 3(1)(b)(ii) for an employee to be advised of,
"a person to whom the employee can apply for the purpose of seeking redress of any grievance relating to his employment".
It appears that that section applies to all firms, and not just those with over 20 in employment. Clause 10(1) of the Bill says that,
"where a worker—
(a) is required or invited by his employer to attend a disciplinary or grievance hearing"
he may be accompanied. I ask my noble friend on the Front Bench: does the combination of those two provisions confer on the employee the right to have a grievance hearing. and then, if he or she has a right to
1036
that hearing, does the Bill confer the right to have a fellow employee or trade union official present? My understanding from reading the Act and the Bill is that all firms would be covered by that provision, not just firms of 20 and above. If so, we have a very positive, worthwhile provision and I am sure that we all welcome it. If not, we shall need to look at the situation in Committee and see whether we can ensure that that sort of provision is included.
Clause 26 was not quoted in full by Members opposite. Subsection (1) states:
"The Secretary of State may spend money … for the purpose of encouraging and helping employers …. and employees … to improve the way they work together".
Would it be possible to use that provision to provide funds for joint work between employers' organisations and trade unions to develop policies and practices to deal with the scourge of bullying at work? That would be very beneficial and useful.
The Bill will, I hope, provide support and assistance in dealing with the problems of bullying at work. I am not sure, however, that it provides all the facilities we shall need. I am sure that we shall be in discussion with the Government, examining specialist legislation to ensure the right of dignity at work for all employees in this United Kingdom.
7.58 p.m.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, the Bill claims good intentions. It claims to promote better relations between employers and employees. It claims to promote more family-friendly employment practices. How could anyone disagree with such admirable intentions?
As my noble friend Lady Miller of Hendon stated with great clarity, the Conservative Party promotes measures that are fair and promote industrial harmony. We support higher standards for workers and we support more flexible working relations to allow people to balance family and work responsibilities better.
However, we oppose the Bill, because we do not believe that it can live up to its claims. In fact, it is likely to send us backwards. Many of the Bill's provisions take us back to the 1970s when things were worse, not better. In fact, they were much worse, as was so graphically described by my noble friend Lord Tebbit.
I support the points made by my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew about the shop-floor wishes at that time. I serve on a magistrate's Bench with employees of what was British Leyland and I can assure noble Lords that their life was pure hell. They had no idea whether they should be working, striking, staying at home or attending a carpark meeting. We should never forget that situation. Our reputation around the world in 1979 was that we were considered ungovernable and the "sick man" of Europe.
The first time in this debate that we heard mention of the 29 million working days lost to industrial disputes in 1979 was in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Walker of Doncaster. I congratulate him on his maiden speech and am glad that he highlighted that figure. By the Conservative government's last full year in power, in 1996, that figure was down to 1.3 million. That was

1037
not brought about by confrontation and it made life much more harmonious for my magistrate friends at British Leyland. It reflected sensible Conservative policies which curbed excessive trade union power.
This Bill seeks to claw back that power. The first part of the Bill relates to statutory union recognition. The Government claim that it is about creating partnership in the workplace, but it is a strange kind of partnership where one side could be unwilling. Compulsory trade union recognition is inherently based on coercion, not co-operation. When one side is not willing, surely it is a recipe for conflict. Adair Turner of the CBI put the point most clearly when he said:
"Good employee relations should be built on trust and this is not fostered if collective bargaining has been imposed on an employer by a trade union. Collective bargaining can only work where it has two willing partners, but not where there is only one. No real improvements in industrial relations occurred last time we had compulsion in the 1970s and indeed the legislation proved to be unworkable".
As an aside, quoting the CBI prompts me to ask whether noble Lords opposite have received the CBI briefing. In the briefing that I received, the CBI expresses concerns and reservations. I am glad to note that the Minister has a copy. He will therefore be aware of the CBI's concerns, which were outlined by my noble friend Lord Crickhowell.
The result is that industrial disputes are likely to rise as a result of statutory trade union recognition. In addition, it will prove very costly for businesses to administer. Although that may not be a problem for some large enterprises which already have personnel departments, it will prove a significant burden for small businesses.
Many noble Lords hold or have held very senior positions in large international businesses, but let us not forget that those large companies were once small and growing. The proposed regulations must not be allowed to stunt the growth of small firms.
The new law will apply to firms with as few as 20 employees. It is difficult to see how a small business with that number of staff requires union representation and collective bargaining arrangements. Most small firms simply do not have the capacity to administer such arrangements. Labour's failure to recognise that illustrates its near total lack of understanding of how businesses work. Virtually every business organisation, including the CBI, the British Chambers of Commerce, the Federation of Small Businesses, and the Institute of Directors, supported raising the exemption for small firms. They said that it should be greater than 20 yet the Government have ignored those calls and the result will be a tough time ahead for small businesses.
The latest bankruptcy survey from Dunn & Bradstreet shows that liquidations are rising far more quickly among small businesses than larger companies. The Bill simply adds another burden at a time of difficulty. In the words of the British Chambers of Commerce in a January press release:
"Firms with fewer than 50 staff rarely have the resource to deal regularly with trade unions and this legislation will serve only as a further constraint on business growth and competitiveness".
1038
The Bill also ignores the fact that small businesses already enjoy close contact with employees. In the words of Brian Prime of the Federation of Small Businesses:
"There may be a need for union representation in large businesses where employees have no face to face contact with management, but in a small firm each employee has direct access to the owner-manager. We are concerned that the presence of union representatives during grievance procedures could result in workplace disputes being taken further than is necessary rather than being resolved internally".
I turn now to individual rights in the Bill. Unfortunately, we cannot debate this part of the Bill in detail because specific measures are yet to be published. In an apparent attempt to avoid parliamentary scrutiny, many of the individual rights are to be passed by regulation—a favourite ploy of this Government. We are extremely concerned that the Government are falling into the same trap as they did with the working time directive. The lack of scrutiny helped to create extremely unclear and complicated working time regulations which the DTI has now been forced to redraft. What guarantee is there that the working time debocle is not repeated with the parental leave issue? The parental leave measures in the Bill allow three months' unpaid parental leave. Beyond that, we have little knowledge of how they will be implemented. How old will the child be when parental leave is available? Will evidential proof be required? Will notice to employers be required, and, if so, how much? I hope that the Minister can enlighten us.
In the words of the Chemical Industries Association:
"Every employer in the chemical industry will be hit by the proposals on parental leave. It is worrying that with Parental Leave due to be implemented by the end of the year, we have seen no detailed proposals from the Government indicating to employers just what they will have to do … a consultation period of at least three months would be needed to assess the likely impact of the regulations and respond accordingly".
Although all businesses, big and small, are hit by ever-increasing taxes and onerous social burdens, it is small businesses that are the least prepared for the cumulative effect of the Government's burdens. They do not have the bureaucratic back-up required to cope with record-keeping, or the access to lawyers that is necessary to interpret complicated and unclear regulations. I am sure that all noble Lords would agree that such advice would be very costly. It is all very well if a company has a vast human resources department to cope with complicated and costly regulations, but whether such regulations come from Brussels or Westminster, small businesses tend to survive on much tighter margins. A small businessman or woman is much more likely to be forced to let workers go when faced with extra burdens. Is that a family-friendly practice?
Labour's burdens provide virtually no exemptions for small businesses. Their concerns have gone unheeded. That is why in another place we proposed an exemption for all measures in this Bill for companies with fewer than 50 employees. As the Bill proceeds through its stages, we urge the Government to consider those and other important amendments carefully. As my noble friend Lord Burnham said, it is our intention to do all

1039
that we can to ensure that this Bill leaves this House with much improved and more realistic measures than when it left another place.
8.8 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have participated in this interesting debate and in particular to my noble friend Lord Walker of Doncaster who brought his ministerial and other experience to bear on the subject. We are fortunate to have a number of Members of your Lordships' House who bring with them varied experience of industrial relations. Some are former Ministers who dealt with industrial relations matters. Inevitably. they are entirely on the Conservative side of the House. A number of distinguished trade unionists and experts in trade union law are represented on the Government Benches. There are some who have met the cost of a payroll. I pay tribute to the noble Lords, Lord Cavendish and Lord Burnham. But our Front Bench contains a number of people who have also met the costs of a payroll. We know very well what it is like on the other side of the fence.
Before I go into further detail about the Bill, perhaps I may say a word about the use of delegated powers, which was a constant theme throughout the debate. It was spoken to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, and the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. The noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, began with that subject and eventually spoke about the Bill when he reached the 13th minute of his speech. I enjoyed his diatribe on the history of industrial relations—which had nothing to do with the Bill in front of us. He spoke about the Bill close to the end of his speech. The noble Lords, Lord Crickhowell and Lord Cavendish, my noble friend Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe and the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, also referred to it. It is true that the Bill will enable various provisions to be enacted by secondary legislation. particularly the family-friendly provisions. There is still a great deal of work to be done to get the detail right. It is right that the draft regulations should be, as they have been until now, subject to full consultation with the interested parties, the employer and worker organisations, before parliamentary approval is sought.
The report of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee is available to your Lordships. In a fairly thorough report, the points where it considered that things were not being done correctly are quite limited. Its comments are in heavy type, which is the distinction that one has to draw. They are confined to Clause 3 on black lists; Clause 5 on training; Clause 15 as regards dismissal; Clause 17 dealing with part-time workers and penalties; and Schedule 7 dealing with employment agencies.
My noble friend Lord Simon of Highbury, in accordance with the procedures recommended by the Liaison Committee, has written today to the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon, the Chairman of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee. If it has not already been done, a copy of the response will be placed in the Library of the House. The noble Lord, Lord Razzall, was right to say that the regulations need
1040
to be read and understood especially by those concerned with small businesses. We shall certainly pay attention to that.
Before I leave the regulations, I refer to my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis. He asked about their consolidation. We shall not be combining regulations on trade union recognition with those on family-friendly practices. There will be a single set of regulations on those practices. We will try to rationalise the regulations as we go along.
I return to the principles behind the Bill—
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, does the Minister recognise that our concern is not merely about the first wave of regulations, but that under this Bill, if it becomes an Act, Ministers will subsequently be able to issue new regulations? Therefore, this Bill is a pig in a poke. We do not know what the first, second, third or fourth waves of regulations will be.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we know a great deal about the first wave of regulations. A number of them are already available. As regards subsequent regulations, the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee will consider the extent to which it is proper to have delegated legislation and the extent to which it should be subject to the negative or affirmative procedures. We have responded to its recommendations on these issues.
I return to the principle behind the Bill. With the wealth of his experience at BP, my noble friend Lord Simon of Highbury put it best. The issue here is, above all, that of partnership. That is the difference between us and the previous government. They abolished almost every institution which brought employers and unions together. They abolished the Manpower Services Commission, the national NEDC and all the little Neddies and tried to keep trade unions out of the TECs. They were banished along with the famous beer and sandwiches at No.10. I was never involved in that. However, bearing in mind what the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, said about the quality of the sandwiches at the TUC, I hope that they were better at No.10 with Mr. Harold Wilson.
One has to be fair. There were times during the 1980s when the CBI was not welcome at No.10. The Government did not appear to like either of the social partners at that time. We want to work with both business and the unions. We do not want to impose our ideology on them. That is why we set up the Low Pay Commission to advise us on the level of the national minimum wage, which is an example of a successful partnership at national level.
We followed the same procedure with Fairness at Work. Soon after the election the Prime Minister asked the CBI and the TUC to try to narrow their differences on trade union recognition. Several months of talks were held, with a constructive joint statement being made in December 1997. That formed the basis of the proposals

1041
in the Fairness at Work White Paper in May last year. In turn that was the consultative document to which we received nearly 480 responses
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, can the Minister say whether the press reports were entirely wrong in saying that the negotiations between the CBI and the TUC broke up in acrimony?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not believe that they did. I believe that the differences between them were considerably reduced by the amount of negotiation that took place. We listened to the responses and held talks with the TUC and CBI. So when the final decisions were taken they were based on open consultation.
There is a certain symbolism in this. We are trying to build a culture of partnership at national level and we are doing so in order to build a partnership at the individual workplace. As regards the work being done on regulations, we are still involving employers and trade union organisations in the legal framework.
We recognise, as a number of noble Lords on this side of the House have said, that the world has changed. Managers have to earn respect. The people who do the job, meet the customers and shift the products want to make their views heard. The best employers already do that. They involve and consult their employees through their unions, works committees and staff councils. They offer good conditions and training and reap the rewards. They get the best staff, who stay with the business and give it their commitment. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, asked me to pay tribute to Asda and Archie Norman. I certainly do that. That company is among the outstanding employers for the reason that it does what is provided for in this Bill. When a company such as Nissan creates new jobs there are dozens of applicants for each new post. Many of them wish to move from other employers. I believe that my noble friend Lord Haskel is right. Those companies which do not act as good employers will disappear. We want every business to be of a similar nature. The noble Lord, Lord Cavendish, said that we cannot legislate to eliminate bad employers. Can we not? Let us see. That is our objective. The noble Lord, Lord Razzall, called this Bill a modest measure. He is entitled to his opinion. I believe that the mission of turning bad employers into good employers by persuasion, as far as possible, is worth pursuing.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, my comment about this Bill being a modest measure was a reaction to the vitriol coming from the Conservative Opposition.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful for that clarification. I did not doubt it. I was only teasing. I do not need to say much more about costs. In his opening speech, my noble friend Lord Simon of Highbury made it clear that we are speaking about 0.01 per cent of the total wage bill, which is about 5p per week per employee. That is relevant to the contribution of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew.
1042
My noble friend Lord McCarthy has had to leave us because his wife is ill. He gave us a very interesting exposition of the "last two hours" theory. We heard a number of modern variants on that in the course of this afternoon and evening.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister will allow a member of the party which changed the conspiracy laws so as to legalise trade unions to ask a question. Does he believe that the contributions we have made—diffidently as always from this side when in Opposition, as we are—to this debate are really motivated by a desire to do down trade unionism and to foster bad employers, or does he credit us with something a little better? Can he tell me why, for example, it is the mark of a bad employer to resist a demand for recognition of a trade union when 60 per cent of his workforce are against it but 40 per cent—which is the threshold in the Bill—are for it?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not accuse all noble Lords opposite of trying to bring down trade unions. I do not think they know how best to foster the partnership which trade unions can bring. I speak as one who, with a workforce of about 35, had the only trade unionised market research company in the country. That caused me some grief because people from the United States who tried to take over the company turned away in horror. But it gave me enormous advantages—free advice on the formulation of my pension fund, quite apart from others. Of course I am not attacking the motives of noble Lords; I am attacking their recollection of history and the way in which they appear to have learnt nothing and forgotten nothing.
As to trade union recognition, the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, said that voluntary agreement was the ideal. Of course he is right. I hope that the 42 pages of Schedule 1 to the Bill will be used as little as possible. That is the Government's position; we want voluntary agreements. This comes back to the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew. We want voluntary agreements wherever possible. We learned from the legislation of the 1970s that if one does not cover the waterfront and close off the loopholes there are employers who will seek to overturn the regulations. From that point of view it is essential to go into the horrifying detail in Schedule 1. I do not claim to have read all of it; when I asked around I found that not many other people have read it either. But the regulations are necessary and I apologise only for their length.
Beyond that, even if we achieve recognition, it must be recognition with a requirement to negotiate in good faith. If we simply had an obligation, we would simply have legal wrangles. The Bill sets out methods—very complicated methods, I admit—for resolving disputes, with incentives at every stage for a voluntary agreement. When noble Lords opposite talk about small firms they should recognise that nearly all of the smallish firms that are brought within the scope of the Bill will achieve agreements by voluntary means, or by recognition, or by recognition without necessarily having collective bargaining. There are many other virtues of trade union agreements.

1043
The noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, asked me about the detriment and dismissal provisions in Clause 15. I can best answer him by reading out the relevant part of the letter which my noble friend Lord Simon has sent to the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee:
"The Government continues to consider whether it would he possible notwithstanding the detailed nature of the proposed legislation to make substantive provision on the face of the Bill. However, informed consultation has revealed complications which the Government is still examining. If these can be resolved within the time scale of the Bill the Government will seek to amend the Bill to replace its present power with a substantive provision".
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, the Minister has made an important statement. As the matter may be left uncertain, can he at least give an assurance that every effort will be made to clarify the Government's intentions and the nature of their solution before we get out of Committee?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, yes. I will give the assurance that we will do everything we can. It is in our interests to do so.
The noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, asked about individual contracts. I welcome his acknowledgement that employers and employees will remain free, as they are now, to conclude individual contracts if they wish to, even where collective bargaining arrangements exist. We have no intention of changing that and the Bill does not do so. We recognise that some employers might put pressure on employees to accept individual contracts; that is why the Bill includes protection for employees from being forced to sign contracts with terms that differ from applicable collective agreements.
Perhaps I may now turn to the issue of family friendly policies. Reference has properly been made to maternity leave and parental leave. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, made the point that employers cannot dismiss replacement staff taken on to cover for maternity or parental leave, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe. In most cases staff taken on to cover for staff on maternity or parental leave will not have been employed long enough to claim unfair dismissal, even when the qualifying period has been reduced to the reasonable period of one year. In any event, Section 106 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 specifically provides that when an employee is taken on to cover for maternity leave, the return of the woman concerned is a fair reason for dismissal provided the employee was informed of the situation when he or she was taken on. I hope that the noble Baronesses will agree that that is a complete answer to that point.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, raised the question of the potential cost to employers of workers on parental leave. We will be consulting fully on the regulations to ensure that we give full protection for workers with families while minimising the costs and burdens on employers, including small firms. There are benefits that flow from an improved loyalty commitment and there is evidence that family-friendly policies such as parental leave can pay dividends in terms of reduced sickness and staff turnover.
1044
I must express amazement at what the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, said about taxes on business and particularly on small business. If she looks at the record on corporation tax, small business rates. lower profit rates and advanced corporation tax she will find that taxes, particularly on small businesses, are lower in this country than they have ever been.
I was asked by my noble friend Lord Haskel about European legislation and I was asked by a number of noble Lords about gold plating. We are keenly aware of the importance of ensuring that regulation is kept to a minimum. We take the view that the Bill represents minimum standards. The increase from 14 to 18 weeks goes beyond the strict requirements of Europe, but it has been almost universally welcomed by all sides as a means of reducing enormous confusion.
There was very little criticism in respect of employment agencies. Indeed, I have passed over many aspects of the Bill where I expected criticism and there was not any. That was rather nice. I wish to recognise the contribution of my noble friend Lord Walker of Doncaster in giving effect to Kenneth Lewis's Employment Agencies Act 1973. I am grateful for his recognition that after 25 years more legislation is required.
As to the issue of employment status, some of the most vulnerable members of the workforce are unsure whether they qualify for most employment rights because employment rights are available only to those who work under a contract of employment. The existence of such a contract can often be unclear and in the last resort only determined by a court or tribunal. In the Bill we are taking the power to act on that and to rationalise and update the coverage. However, we cannot do it without further detailed analysis and consultation.
Perhaps I may take this opportunity to reply to the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, about nannies. If they are employees on a contract, in other words with the same rights as other employees, they will be entitled to maternity leave like any other employee. There is no discrimination against nannies in the Bill.
As regards waiver clauses against unfair dismissal, my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis pointed out that we have chosen not to outlaw waivers of redundancy rights. Employees on fixed-term contracts know that they will be employed only for a limited period. They do not expect the job security for which redundancy payments are intended to compensate. If they carry on after the agreed date of the contract, they will be entitled to the same rights as any others.
The noble Lord, Lord Birkett, has loyally stayed around for an answer to the question he asked a number of hours ago. He asked me about actors, particularly in the West End, but it applies also to film employees. The abolition of unfair dismissal waivers will restore a fundamental right to fixed-term employees. It is a right to which all such employees are entitled, regardless of the sector of the labour market in which they work. In my view there is no case for creating exemptions. However, I do not believe the noble Lord's interpretation of Clause 16 is right. Abolition will not

1045
prevent employers from offering fixed-term contracts to employees. If they have genuine reasons such as those which the noble Lord described for fixing the term of the contract and not renewing it when the term expires, dismissal at the end of it will not be unfair. If the noble Lord wishes to discuss the matter between now and Committee stage, we shall be happy to do so.
On grievance and disciplinary procedures, I was grateful for the support of my noble friend Lord Wedderburn on what is proposed. I was interested in the point made by my noble friend Lord Monkswell about whether accompaniment in grievance procedures could be used to tackle the problem of bullying at work. We can certainly consider that because we strongly condemn workplace bullying. The Health and Safety Executive has issued guidance on help on work-related stress and will launch a campaign to promote better management of workplace stress.
I was taken aback by the criticisms of Clause 26 on partnership at work. We did not need legislation for that; it could well have been done as an administrative act. But we wanted to make it clear on the face of the Bill that we were prepared to support projects at the workplace based on employers and employee representatives working together to support innovative projects to develop the partnership approach in the workplace. We are not asking for extra money; it comes from the DTI's existing provision. How that can be described, as the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish, described it, as "iniquitous" is beyond me. We are working on the detailed proposals for the fund. We need to because we want the first call for proposals to be launched as soon as the Bill has received Royal Assent. I hope we shall be able to make our position clear before the Committee stage.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. Despite what he said, does he not believe that Clause 26(2) is drawn just a little widely?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is drawn with the intention of giving more detail while the House is considering the Bill. If the noble Lord does not like the further details which we give, then he is perfectly at liberty to oppose them. We did not need legislation for this in the first place. If any criticism could be made, it is that we are over-egging the pudding rather than the other way round.
The noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, argued against the abolition of the commissioners. The Commissioner for Protection Against Unlawful Industrial Action, whom he lauded, has only supported one single application since 1993. So we are not abolishing an active body. Similarly, the Commissioner for the Rights of Trade Union Members is not being abolished, except in a formal sense, because some of the powers are being given to the Certification Officer.
If more details are required about the role of the central arbitration committee, I summarise by drawing noble Lords' attention, particularly that of the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, to paragraphs 216 to 221 of the Explanatory Notes which make the position clear. I
1046
assure my noble friend Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe that we shall devote all the necessary effort and resources to finding suitable candidates for the work of the CAC and supporting its work.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for giving way. I raised the issue of the draft directive on fixed-term work. Will he write to me, if he does not have time to deal with the point now?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Yes, my Lords. I am trying the patience of the House, but I am being interrupted quite a lot. Of course I am sympathetic to the point made by my noble friend Lady Turner and the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, regarding sexual orientation. It is right that we said in our manifesto that we would seek to end unjustifiable discrimination where it exists. I hope that noble Lords will agree that it is not a cop-out if I say that the Equal Opportunities Commission has reported on those issues, but it reported to the Department for Education and Employment. It is better that we should leave it with the department at present.
The House will understand that if I have missed any points I shall try to write to noble Lords.
In summary, employers and society will benefit enormously from greater participation in the labour market, reduced staff turnover and a climate of greater commitment and trust in the workplace which the Bill can and will bring. The Government are putting into place the last major piece in our framework of reforms to create a fairer modern labour market in Britain. The Bill honours our manifesto commitments on trade union recognition and protection from dismissal for taking part in a properly balloted strike. It honours our commitment to strengthen family life; it is a contribution to a more inclusive society; it will benefit millions of people in their everyday lives. The Bill encourages responsible behaviour and will encourage employers and employees to resolve their differences by discussion rather than by conflict. It is a privilege to be able to commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

General Teaching Council for England (Constitution) Regulations 1999

  General Teaching Council for Wales (Constitution) Regulations 1999
  8.37 p.m.
  The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone)The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone) rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 22nd March be approved [14th Report from the Joint Committee.]
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, from September 2000, the GTCs for England and Wales will provide an independent and authoritative voice for teachers,

  1047
  working with the Government and others to raise standards. For the first time, teachers will have a major role in regulating their own profession.
  The GTCs will advise the Secretary of State and the National Assembly for Wales on a wide range of teaching issues, including recruitment, supply, initial training, induction, professional development and conduct. As with other professional bodies, the GTCs will develop and consult on a code of professional conduct and practice expected of registered teachers. The GTCs will also maintain a register of qualified teachers and will have powers to strike off teachers for serious professional] misconduct or incompetence.
  The regulations we are to consider today deal exclusively with the composition of the general teaching councils, not their functions. During consideration of the Bill that became the Teaching and Higher Education Act last year, concern was expressed that not enough detail was known about the composition of the GTCs. The regulations we are considering today provide that detail.
  I should add at this point that I am also speaking on behalf of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales to present regulations which will govern the composition of the General Teaching Council for Wales.
  Briefly, I should like to draw attention to the main provisions of the regulations as they apply to the GTC for England. Regulation 3 provides for the composition of the council and is based largely on the consultation paper we published last year. I am pleased that the proposals received a good measure of support. However, inevitably some changes were needed. The main change is to increase the size of the council to 63 members, compared to our original proposal for 55. That is necessary to accommodate important additional interests not in the original proposals—including chief education officers and equal opportunities groups. We intend to add to the equal opportunities groups able to appoint a member to the Disability Rights Commission, once it has been established. We cannot do so until such time as the commission is established but will amend the regulations in future for that purpose—which will take the number of members to 64.
  Regulation 3 shows an increase in the number of elected teachers originally proposed, which compensates for the additional appointed members and meets our commitment to retain a majority of teachers on the GTC. Regulation 9 requires the Secretary of State to ensure that at least two of his appointees can represent the interests of parents. It provides also that he has regard to the desirability of the council's membership reflecting the interests of the general public, and of teachers of pupils with special educational needs, when deciding who to appoint.
  The regulations deal a with a number of constitutional issues. The proposed arrangements are modest and in keeping with our view that, wherever possible, the GTCs will be best placed to decide their own arrangements. Regulations 4, 5 and 6 provide for electing teachers on to the council, including eligibility criteria for appointments, voting and standing in
  1048
  elections. Regulation 10 deals with the terms of office; Regulation 11 with the filling of casual vacancies; and Regulation 12 with the appointment of the chairman.
  We have been thinking again about the latter. We did not propose as part of the consultation to exercise the Secretary of State's power to appoint the first chairman but intended to leave that to the council when it first meets. In retrospect, we think that time will be rather short. The membership of the full council may not be known until May or June next year, and it will have many pressing tasks during its early days. We believe that the council may need the chairman in place later this year—to speak with authority on behalf of and as a member of the council. We will look at that again, consult a range of bodies and plan to amend the regulations so that the Secretary of State can appoint the first chairman from one of his 13 appointments before the end of the year.
  I make it clear that we intend to make that appointment on a short-term basis, so that within the first year the council will be able to elect its own chairman.
  The regulations for the General Teaching Council for Wales already provide for the Secretary of State to appoint the first chairman.
  Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, why is it that in England, the bodies appear to be appointing their own representatives, whereas in Wales, the appointments will be made by the Secretary of State? Where does the National Assembly for Wales, which was elected last Thursday, figure in all this? It does not appear to be mentioned at all.
  Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, when the regulations were drawn up, the National Assembly for Wales had not been elected. The GTC will be answerable to the assembly. The Secretary of State for England will be making a number of appointments. With respect to Wales, where there is a wish to have a much smaller GTC because of the lesser number of teachers, it has been decided to have other arrangements because a larger number of appointments is not thought to be necessary.
  The regulations for Wales cover the same issues as for England but there are some differences in the detail. The smaller GTC for Wales reflects the relative size of the teaching profession there, and that difference in numbers means that it is not possible for interested bodies directly to appoint members in the same way. Instead, a wide range of organisations will be asked to submit nominations for membership of the GTC for Wales.
  The proposals for Wales also received a broad measure of support. The main changes made following the consultation exercise are that explicit provision is made to secure the continued teacher member majority; and four of the nine members to be appointed from nominations by relevant organisations will be from teacher unions and associations.
  In finalising the arrangements, we have sought to build on the widespread consensus on the composition of the councils. We cannot satisfy everyone's demand

  1049
  for a seat on the councils, because to do so would make them unwieldy and cumbersome. However, we believe that we have got the balance about right. I commend the regulations to the House, and I beg to move.
  Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 22nd March be approved [14th Report from the Joint Committee]—(Baroness Blackstone.)
  8.45 p.m.
  Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for setting out the Government's thinking. Before I talk about the detail, I welcome my noble friend Lord Roberts of Conwy back to the Front Bench. He had a fairly long period of illness and it is good to see him back in his place and to hear him intervene so soon after his reappearance.
  Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
  Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the Minister referred to the council's planned composition, but there are anomalies. It would be helpful if the noble Baroness could help. I find it extraordinary that consultation was on the basis of the chairman being appointed by the council; that there has been a change of heart; and that the chairman shall be appointed only from among those members appointed by the Secretary of State. Why should not the whole membership be eligible for the chairmanship? If the appointment is to be only short term, is it to be for a matter of weeks or months? Will it be only until the whole body is appointed—in which case, all members will not only have the opportunity to influence the choice of chairman but be eligible for the chairmanship.
  I understand that the appointments will be for four years. I am sorry that the Government have not seen fit to stagger the appointments because it will be a case of all in, all out on the same day. I am not sure that will be good for continuity. I am sorry that aspect was not given some consideration.
  The Minister's response to my noble friend Lord Roberts was highly unsatisfactory. The Secretary of State will be central to the appointments in Wales. Paragraph 6(1) states:
  "The election of elected members…shall be conducted in accordance with an electoral scheme made by the Secretary of State".
  It states also that the rules will be made by the Secretary of State and that the electoral scheme
  "may be amended or revoked by a subsequent scheme of the Secretary of State and an electoral scheme under paragraph (2) may be amended or revoked by a subsequent scheme…with the approval of the Secretary of State".
  Paragraph 7 states that nine members shall be appointed from a list of nominated persons. What on earth is the distinction in that list? It is a large number of bodies. All will go through the machinations of consulting and deciding who they would like to nominate. I understand that only nine members will come from that long list, so the disappointment factor will be two to one, which would be unfortunate.
  1050
  Secondly, how will one know the balance? Are there any bodies on the list that are absolutely key and will receive any kind of priority? One concern is that no mention is made in the Welsh regulations about parents, those with special needs or even the general public interest. That is an interesting point in the context of the English body.
  When these bodies go through the appointment procedures the Secretary of State decides. The Secretary of State for Wales ultimately decides on membership of half the council. That makes a real distinction between Wales and England. On the day when people are registering as Members of the Welsh Assembly it is extraordinary that we should be considering secondary legislation that cuts out the Welsh Assembly and gives the Secretary of State for Wales, a Westminster appointment for the UK, a key role in all of these appointments. There is nothing in the regulations to the effect that for "Secretary of State" one should read subsequently "First Minister in Wales". It would be very helpful to know what is to happen.
  These appointments are for four years. During that period the General Teaching Council will not be influential. This takes place on a day when Members are taking their place in Wales and are cut out of the process. Is it really true that the Secretary of State for Wales will approve these appointments when the First Minister is in place in the Assembly in Wales? It would be interesting to hear the response of the Minister.
  Does the additional Disability Rights Commission appointee—I have no quarrel with that at all—mean that the body will be 64 strong or that that appointee will take the place of one of the other appointees on the council? The noble Baroness appears to be telling the House today that some secondary thinking is still taking place. I deem that pretty unfortunate on a day when Parliament is being asked to approve these two orders. With those questions, I await the Minister's response with interest.
  8.52 p.m.
  Baroness Maddock: My Lords, it is extraordinary that we began to debate this matter late at night a long time ago and it seems that we are destined always to discuss this particular piece of legislation at the same time.
  I welcome the move by the Government to strengthen the role of the council. With others I spoke quite forcefully at all stages of the Teaching and Higher Education Bill. We should like to see the Government place even more trust in teachers to regulate their own profession. The General Teaching Council should be a body of and for the teaching profession and, like other professional bodies, the guardian and upholder of professional standards.
  These regulations recognise the Government's acceptance of the views on these Benches that professional teachers need to be in the majority on the General Teaching Council. We welcome Regulation 6(2) which also gives that majority power to devise its own electoral system for the election of the 25 serving teachers. We on these Benches welcome the inclusion

  1051
  of a nominee from the National Children's Bureau. That body has a very good record in defending children from all kinds of pressure and abuse, but it also has a particular commitment to developing education for citizenship. In passing, I congratulate the Government on their announcement today that they intend to include citizenship in the curriculum, which is a matter that we have discussed in this House in the past.
  Referring to the 25 elected members and nine appointed by various bodies, I should like to put two questions to the Minister. One is to do with the definition of junior pupils. There will be 11 teachers of junior pupils. Can the Minister clarify where pre-school children come into it? There is a definition of "junior pupil" in Regulation 2(1) which appears to include three and four year-olds, but the Minister will be aware that we on these Benches are particularly concerned about pre-school education. I seek clarification as to that.
  I am aware from debates in another place that there is one area about which concern remains: representation of the interests of Jewish, and now Moslem, voluntary-aided schools on the General Teaching Council. Can the Minister explain further how she sees that happening?
  I turn to the appointments by the Secretary of State. All of my comments refer to the English regulations. My noble friend Lord Thomas will deal with Wales. The Secretary of State is to appoint 13 directly appointed members. Two or more must represent the interests of the parents of pupils. Can the Minister indicate where the Minister will be looking? I am aware from debates here and in another place that the Government are a little wary as to how to achieve parent representation and whether that person should come from a parent-teacher association. There are other parent bodies; for example, the Campaign for the Advancement of State Education. Quite a number of the people on that body are parents. Perhaps the Minister can clarify that further.
  We welcome the fact that following debates on the Bill the Government consulted fairly widely on the make-up of the General Teaching Council and have made changes as a result. But the Association of Teachers and Lecturers in particular wonders why, when the number of people appointed to represent major bodies was increased from 13 to 17, thereby being a bit more specific, the Government did not believe that there was a possibility of reducing the number to be directly appointed by the Minister, given that they had changed the other numbers. Did the Government consider reducing the number from 13 and, if not, why not?
  I am particularly pleased about two other areas. First, people who have experience in relation to teaching those with special needs will be involved. Has the Minister also looked at the position of gifted and highly able pupils? Will that feature in the Minister's nominees? I listened with interest to the noble Baroness's comments on whether the chairman would be elected from within the body or he or she would be appointed by the Minister at the beginning. The position is not clear.
  In conclusion, it appears that the Government still find it difficult to believe that teachers can take control of the General Teaching Council. In previous debates
  1052
  we heard a lot about the fact that it needed to be evolutionary. I had hoped that under the English regulations the Government would allow the General Teaching Council to appoint its own chairman, but perhaps tonight the Government are going back on that. I believe that that would be a retrograde step even if the Government give the commitment that it will be for only a short time. It is important that this body is controlled by teachers. Only time will tell whether the Government really believe that and in the end let them do it.
  8.59 p.m.
  Baroness David: My Lords, I associate myself with most of the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock. It is particularly important that this should be a professional council of teachers. That is what we have wanted for a very long time. I hope that the council will be given a few more powers than it was given under the Bill. It must be an important body if it is to be successful.
  I am somewhat alarmed by the size of the council; 63 seems an enormously unwieldy body. I approve that chief education officers, the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Disability Rights Commission should have representation. But it will be an enormous body. I should not like to chair it; I cannot imagine many people who would be adept at that. I look forward to hearing more about the chairman and the change of view that has occurred.
  I congratulate the Government on having set up this body. I wish it the best of luck and hope that it will he enormously successful. It must be given sufficient powers; and it must be professional.
  9 p.m.
  Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, like my noble friend Lady Maddock I welcome the principle of the General Teaching Council for Wales. It would be churlish of me not to welcome also the provision of separate regulations for Wales since this afternoon I complained that the Local Government Bill mixes up Wales and England in a way that confuses and will confuse the new Members of the Welsh Assembly.
  However, these regulations appear to be somewhat premature. The point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy—I am delighted to see him back in his place—about the role of the Secretary of State and the National Assembly was not answered by the Minister in her reply. Does the National Assembly for Wales take over from the Secretary of State the appointment of the people to this council when it comes into existence on 1st July? If not, why not? Why should this remain a Westminster matter by a Westminster appointed Secretary of State when the whole of the education provision for Wales has been devolved to the Welsh Assembly?
  Furthermore, if it is to remain with the Secretary of State for Wales, a Westminster appointed Minister with only a month or two to go, why do we have a council which consists of 12 elected members but a majority, 13, nominated members? It is true that of those who are to be nominated some are to come from the

  1053
  organisations set out in Part I of the schedule; that is to say, four out of eight. But the other five can come from something like 26 organisations. The Secretary of State can pick and choose among those whose names are put forward.
  One notes in particular the lack of any consideration for the position of Welsh schools. Someone who represents the interests of pupils who attend Welsh schools may be nominated by one or other of the teaching organisations. But it does not follow that that person will be appointed to the council. I also note the absence of a specific person to deal with special educational needs, although that is fully dealt with in the English regulations.
  Finally, there is a complete absence of any representation of parents. Parents exist in Wales. I should have thought that traditionally parents in Wales take a greater interest in the education of their children than parents elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
  These regulations lack sensitivity at this time. The regulations should be withdrawn at this stage. It should be left as one of the first tasks of the Assembly to set the body up in the way that accords with the special needs of Welsh education.
  Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, perhaps I may begin by talking about Wales. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, was perhaps a little unfair. I felt it right to wait until we got to the end of the debate, and allow people to put questions about the position in Wales, before getting into too much detail. However, as I believe I made clear, the functions of the GTC will be taken over by the National Assembly for Wales. The GTC will be responsible to the First Minister in Wales and to the National Assembly. But we have to wait until the transfer of functions order which will take place, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, intimated, from 1st July of this year. When that happens, the Secretary of State will no longer be involved. It will be for the First Minister. I believe that the appointments would be made by him. I hope that that clarifies the situation.
  We need to move forward on the setting up of the GTC. It would be wrong to have delayed introducing the regulations until after that date. The regulations will be covered when the transfer takes place; and the National Assembly and the First Minister will take this on.
  The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, also raised the issue of membership from those who will be nominated in Wales. I am sure that the National Assembly and the First Minister will want to take on some of the suggestions he made. It will be important that those with special educational needs and their teachers are represented, just as they will be in England. The same goes for parents.
  Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. First, why is it deemed necessary to make it explicit for the English council to have someone with special educational needs experience and someone representing the interests of parents on the council, but not for the Welsh council?
  1054
  Secondly, although it will be some weeks before the assembly receives its devolved powers, the composition of the body will be important to the Assembly. Why can it not be left to the Assembly?
  Thirdly, whether the First Minister and/or the Secretary of State is involved, why cannot the bodies in Wales be trusted, whereas those in England can?
  Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I thought that I covered the last point in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Roberts. I had not been aware that he had been ill. I wish to add my welcome to him. It is good to see him back in the Chamber.
  I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, has forgotten that there has been widespread consultation on this matter, not just in England but also in Wales. The responses that we have received there have been extremely positive. The wish to get on with establishing the GTC is as strong there as it is in England. In the responses that have been received, there has been no suggestion that the number of people to be nominated is either too many or too few. It has been accepted that the number is about right and that there should be some flexibility for the balancing which must be done to make sure that the range of those who are represented is reasonable and one with which teachers and others in Wales can be happy.
  I turn now to some other issues which have been raised. The noble Baronesses, Lady Blatch and Lady Maddock, asked about the appointment of the chairman. When saying that the chairman was to be appointed from one of the 13 allocated at present to the Secretary of State, I was not suggesting—and I hope that I can explain this—that the chairman would be taken from one of the 13 who had been nominated. That appointment will be made in advance of any other appointments made to the GTC. The idea is that we shall consult about the issue but the Government's current thinking is that it would be right to try to appoint the chairman before other members of the council are appointed for approximately a year before the council is able to select its own chairman. That is in order that the preliminary work should be done and that somebody should be in place to represent the council and its interests.
  The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, asked also about the Disability Rights Commission and the numbers to which that would give rise with an additional appointment in that regard. It will be 64 strong with that appointment. She questioned whether it would not be a good idea to stagger some of the appointments. Indeed, those appointments made by the Secretary of State will be staggered over a two to five year period in order to ensure that not everybody leaves the council at the same time.
  The noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, asked about the definition of junior pupils and whether that would include three and four year-olds—those in nursery and pre-school education. Yes, they will be covered by the elections made for teachers in junior schools.
  The noble Baroness also raised the question of specific representation for parents. We looked carefully at that issue but we were not able to find a suitable body

  1055
  through which such representation could properly be expressed. However, there are proposals to establish a more general structure. We have not yet reached a stage at which we can name a specific appointing body. That is why the regulations specify that the Secretary of State must include in his appointments a representative for parents. As and when different channels emerge that are able to command the respect of those interests, we shall be open to consider how best to take account of them.
  My noble friend Lady David asked about the number of people on the council. I accept entirely that it is a large group the working of which will require considerable skill on the part of the chairman. But there are other public bodies of this sort of a similar size. I once chaired the General Advisory Council of the BBC which, when I took it over, had more than 60 members. We had to increase the size of the GTC to accommodate the commitment which we rightly made—and I believe my noble friend strongly supported it, as did other Members of your Lordships' House—that there should be a majority of teachers on the council. That means that it has become slightly bigger.
  The noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, asked about gifted pupils. She commented on the importance of having representation for those with special educational needs. Again, that is something which the Secretary of State may wish to consider when making his appointments. But it may well be that one or more of the teachers elected will have a particular interest in gifted children. It is important that we do not neglect their needs in any way.
  I think I have covered all the questions raised. However, I shall, of course, write to noble Lords who raise questions en any points I have not managed to cover. I believe that we must all welcome the General Teaching Council. The arguments for establishing the council have been very well rehearsed. At all stages we have tried to proceed through dialogue and consultation. Without this, I believe that the GTCs would fail to command the respect of both teachers and the wider educational world. We all want the GTCs to succeed. They have a key role to play in revitalising the profession. These regulations are a vital stage in giving councils the best possible start. I hope that the House will join me in approving them. I commend the regulations to the House.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

Tibet
9.14 p.m.
The Earl of Carrick The Earl of Carrick rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what they are doing to assist the Tibetans to have meaningful dialogue with the People's Republic of China leading to a negotiated settlement of the Tibetan issue.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I start by saying how deeply sort' I was to learn today of the very untimely death of Derek Fatchett, who was such a sympathetic Minister towards the Tibetan issue. My every sympathy goes to his family and colleagues.
Turning to my Unstarred Question, it is pertinent to remind your Lordships that while the world now regards Tibet as part of China, that was not the case when the communist government used their military might to achieve their territorial aim. The invaders themselves deemed the country utterly foreign in culture and language and found a populace united in its hostility towards them. As the International Panel of Jurists concluded, Tibet was a de facto, if not de jure, independent nation and Britain never accorded sovereignty to China in the years we were the only nation other than China to have relations with Tibet.
Whatever the political realities of the present, we are dealing with a nation that has been annexed by force and which, ever since, the communist regime has ruled as a colonial outpost, often refusing its citizens basic freedoms. The Tibetans' need for our assistance and that of the world has never been greater. The country faces yet another crackdown which Amnesty International calls one of the most disturbing of the past decade in its attempt to crush the very identity of this ancient and unique nation.
Let us be clear about the current situation. China's so-called benevolent liberation resulted in the loss of over 1 million lives. Even after 40 years, refugees are still taking terrible risks to escape the oppression under which they live, despite Chinese insistence that all has never been better. Now matters have reached a nadir. The Tibetan language has been marginalized, and the people urged, and government workers ordered, to be atheist in a society defined by its belief in a remarkable form of Buddhism. We have official insistence that Tibet was never a British culture and a dismal record of intensifying racist bullying.
The trouble is, and always has been, that Tibet is of zero economic interest to anyone whereas China is vital to the whole world in the next millennium. Although the Government insist that there is no play-off between commerce and human rights, I am afraid that the current position of the Tibetans tells a very different story.
In an article in the Independent, Chris Patten wrote:
"It is difficult to be against engagement: you cannot ignore more than a fifth of humanity. But I see no reason why engagement should involve fooling ourselves about what's happening in China. They have turned Europe and America inside out on human rights, cynically signing international covenants that they have no intention of ratifying or keeping".
So what chance for Tibet? All we have is a sense that something is horribly wrong, a sense perfectly expressed on "Newsnight" last month by Defence Minister, George Robertson, talking about the Kosovo crisis when he said:
"If the international community doesn't take a stand, what future do we have?"
I know that the Government are sympathetic to the plight of the Tibetan people. I know that the Prime Minister is personally sympathetic. But this is simply not converting into anything useful for the Tibetans. It is like sitting on a beach being sympathetic about a person drowning. The analogy is apt as the Chinese sanction and encourage, despite earlier promises to the contrary,

1057
the continuing influx of Han Chinese, which is drowning the cultural and ethnic characteristics of the indigenous nation, creating a new national identity.
The trouble right now is that time really is running out and greater determination must be shown by all governments who care. Our Government should be aware not only of our historical duty but also of the fact that potentially we still have great influence. Europe looks to us for a lead. We could yet be instrumental in bringing a peaceful solution to one of the great humanitarian tragedies of this century.
Britain's change from recognising China's relationship with Tibet as one of sovereignty rather than suzerainty was done on the basis of genuine autonomy for the country, which has never manifested. A genuine autonomy is at the heart of Tibetan needs.
A senior Tibetan once said to me that while charity was deeply needed, it was fundamentally a small matter in the wider issue. Human rights, he continued, was obviously of far greater importance and the subject upon which most of the world concentrates. But even this was a side issue compared to the central point, which is nationhood, not independent of China but freedom from thought-control, freedom from repression and freedom to make decisions that accord with the special needs of the people and environment.
This is endlessly portrayed as "splitism" by the communist leadership where any attempt to assert aspects of Tibetan culture or religion is irrationally regarded as threatening to the vast motherland. But the truth is—this does not take a great turning of the mind from the leadership—the motherland would be stronger and better integrated if minorities such as the Tibetans and the poor Uighurs, who also face persecution, were willing rather than dissenting partners. Perhaps the Government could help Beijing to understand that simple truth.
Recently, China, with its customary utter disregard for world, let alone Tibetan, opinion, had the temerity to declare that as Tibet was already autonomous, what was the purpose of negotiating with the Dalai Lama? Here I come to one of the central dynamics of the situation. The Dalai Lama and the government in exile represent the means to an autonomy both democratic and ready to accord to the wishes of the Tibetan people. Here is an historically legitimate leader, yet one who has repeatedly affirmed that he would cede any temporal influence the moment democratic elections, by his wish under UN auspices, had taken place.
I return to the point we are talking about; that is, real autonomy, enshrining basic human rights and allowing a due degree of self-determination which does nothing to detract from China's strategic or commercial interests. Every single utterance by the Dalai Lama and the National Democratic Party of Tibet on the subject would be considered fundamentally reasonable, responsible and desirable in this House and by any other democratic government.
But the Chinese do not accept such concepts. Nowhere is that better demonstrated than by their attempt to suggest that the standards of human rights
1058
laid down in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are those advocated by the West and do not apply to Asia and other parts of the third world, as though the latter belonged to some sub-species of the human family. The Dalai Lama gently and firmly refutes such a patently absurd notion by observing that whatever our station in life, whatever our beliefs or nationhood, ultimately each of us is a human being like everyone else, and we all desire happiness and want to avoid suffering.
The Chinese are fond of extolling the benevolent transformations they have wrought in Tibet. Yet the country is almost unique in the degree to which access is controlled. I was part of a small parliamentary group that asked if an all-party delegation could go and see the wonders China was claiming for Tibet, pointing out that such high-level confirmation would vindicate the People's Republic from worldwide criticism. We asked to go on a more independent basis than the previously stage-managed visits by delegations or individuals. Of course the request was refused categorically. The Red Cross? No. Amnesty? No. Other charities or NGOs? No. Anyone remotely capable of monitoring the situation on the ground is just not tolerated. Such actions go beyond raising suspicions; they confirm our worst.
The latest example of double-speak and an unco-operative and rigid attitude, which is very serious and germane to this debate and the whole solution of the Tibet issue, again concerns the Dalai Lama. After giving every indication towards the end of last year that negotiations with His Holiness were at last a real possibility, not only did this hope vanish but it was replaced by a virulent anti-Dalai Lama campaign. He is now being described as wanting to lead Tibetans back to poverty, backwardness, ignorance and even advocating serfdom. In fact, the Dalai Lama's position has been consistent and seeks to address the fundamental points that would save Tibet as a nation and, as he is at pains to emphasise, draw Tibet willingly into an association with the People's Republic working with a spirit of respect for ethnic differences.
It is crucial for the Chinese to understand that if the problem of Tibet is not solved by negotiated settlement, it could cause long-term instability, violence and suffering to the region. As David Lambton, director of China studies at John Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies recently noted:
"If the Dalai Lama dies. the movement can fracture and there could be guerrilla and terrorist groups".
As we know, not even the sharpest security forces in the world can prevent terrorism, and particularly when the majority of the population supports it. China might consider what happened to the might of the Soviet military machine in Afghanistan.
If the Dalai Lama had sanctioned a policy like the PLO, ANC or even the IRA, then he would have been listened to and given the profile accorded to the likes of Yasser Arafat, Nelson Mandela or Gerry Adams. Instead, His Holiness has been steadfast in pursuing a non-violent path which, while gaining international admiration, has not achieved the political support it is due. That is so wrong. Western governments will be culpable of a dereliction of sense, let alone duty, if

1059
greater action is not taken. It is high time Beijing adopted a less belligerent attitude and instead showed greater vision, and it is up to western governments to encourage positive changes without fretting about economic consequences the whole time.
The Chinese bridle at any interference in their internal affairs. Yet they would do well to heed the words of our Prime Minister who. when speaking about the situation in Kosovo, declared that acts of genocide can never be purely internal matters. The UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, voiced the same sentiments to the Commission for Human Rights, saying:
"No Government has the right to hide behind national sovereignty in order to violate the human rights and fundamental freedoms of its peoples."
There are many things the Government can do for the Tibet issue. Undoubtedly, the most important would be to encourage dialogue between Beijing and the Dalai Lama. Furthermore, we could raise in the European Council the resolutions passed by the EU Parliament about a special co-ordinator for Tibet. We could promote Tibet's cause with the UN and encourage an opportunity for His Holiness to address the General Assembly. Also, greater financial support for the Tibetan refugees from the DfID would be a positive step.
Most of all, simply approaching the issue with an abiding determination to find a solution and to urge our friends to do the same would be of the greatest assistance. For the sake of stability in the region, for justice and for China's own standing in the world, Beijing must stop fearing the Dalai Lama: he is not the problem, he is the solution.
9.27 p.m.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, the noble Lord, the Earl of Carrick, h as given noble Lords the opportunity to raise the continuing problems surrounding the former autonomy of the people of Tibet and the ever-increasing control by the People's Republic of China over Tibetan territory. We are most grateful to the noble Earl for what he has said and the background he has given for this short debate.
We should look back over the last century and remember that the series of agreements between Tibet and China throughout the twentieth century had confirmed Tibetan autonomy, but was overridden by the Chinese invasion in October 1950, leading to the present critical situation and resulting in recent years in the deaths of over a million Tibetans.
Any hope of change in the situation of the Tibetans, which has weakened over the years, can only be improved by international action. As we have heard, negotiations wit China, even with considerable renunciation of specific areas of control which have been offered by the Dalai Lama recently, do not give cause for optimism. Each time he has studied the situation and gore one step further down the road of reducing the autonomy of Tibet, China has rejected these offers and has consistently refused to come to any agreement or to afford any opportunity of discussion with the Dalai Lama about the situation in his country.
1060
During the 1980s the Dalai Lama visited the European Parliament in Strasbourg, where he received a massive reception from widely differing political parties throughout Europe. He spoke of his hopes and objectives for his country. All the political parties were represented there. It was a vast meeting of over 300 Members of the European Parliament. I very much regretted that the then president of the European Parliament refused to take part because of the pressure from China on the presidency of the Parliament. We should always be aware of the background of pressure by the Chinese Republic and its emissaries throughout the world and its objections to any action, activity or discussion on the subject of Tibet throughout the world. In the free world we do not have to take any notice of this pressure, but we should be aware of it nevertheless and take action where necessary.
The Dalai Lama, since that visit to the European Parliament, has taken his message throughout Europe and specifically to America where there is strong support for the Tibetan people. It is well known that attempts to speak with the Chinese political leaders have led to failure on each occasion and have been followed by the strengthening of Chinese forces, as well as forcing vast numbers of civilians to pile through into Tibet, causing ever-increasing individual and collective suffering of the Tibetan people.
In contrast to the political and economic development of Western Europe, where non-members of the EU seek to become members and to join the existing 15 member states, the political developments in China are characterised by total abolition of the individual political regime of Tibet, with the gradual elimination of any national political system, language, religion and culture.
What are the chances of the Chinese ever leaving Tibet, or some of them, or relaxing their control over its people? There is little or no chance, it would seem, at the present time.
Having left his country in 1959, the Dalai Lama has established his base in Dharmsala in North India, together with his government-in-exile. World recognition of the strong desire for peace for his people and the actions that he has taken, which won him the Nobel prize, have not so far been proved enough to ensure the liberation of the Tibetan people. Of course, that is to be greatly regretted. Even acceptance of Chinese control over spheres of defence and foreign affairs would, with difficulty, lead to constructive discussions with the Chinese, especially, if I may say so, at the present time. Recent events in Belgrade would make it very difficult for the West to take any immediate part in such discussions in the hope of some peaceful and satisfactory conclusion. However, it is hoped that Her Majesty's Government will be able to contribute to and support the international attempt of the Dalai Lama, and his followers, to achieve his long-term aims based on non-violence for his country and his people.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Weatherill: My Lords, when the noble Earl, Lord Carrick, an active member of the All-Party Group on Tibet, applied for this debate, it was our hope that it

1061
would help to highlight the present very unhappy situation in Tibet and that it would be an encouragement to the Chinese Government to open up a dialogue with His Holiness the Dalai Lama, with a view to bringing about a fair and peaceful solution. Alas, as the noble Baroness has just said, the events of last weekend in Belgrade and also the sad loss of Mr. Derek Fatchett, who was always so supportive of the all-party group when we visited him in the Foreign Office, do not auger well for our pleas to the Chinese Government this evening. However, I hope that our suggestions will be heeded by the Minister, who has kindly agreed to come here this evening in order to respond to this debate. Further, as we all know, this is a short debate, and we are all constrained by a time limit. Nevertheless, the noble Earl, Lord Carrick, spoke extremely well and put the case very well for the all-party group. I warmly congratulate him on that.
Some 18 months ago, as patron of the all-party group, I led a small delegation to Dharmsala with Members of Parliament and members of the Tibet Society. Apart from the privilege of in-depth discussions with His Holiness, we were also able to visit the parliament which he had established. We met Ministers and members of parliament who had been democratically elected by Tibetans in exile to represent the districts in Tibet from which they, their parents or, in many cases, their grandparents had originally come. For me, it was a particular pleasure to meet their distinguished speaker, Samdhong Rinpoche. I have to say that he did not need much guidance or help from me as a former Speaker. However, in truth, I can say that the Tibetan parliament in exile, based on our Westminster system, is highly professional. Its debates were very well informed and well conducted. Ministers were genuinely held to account rather more than is often the case in our own Parliament at present.
His Holiness the Dalai Lama repeated on a radio programme this morning in an interview with Mr. Jeremy Paxman what he had told me in Dharmsala; namely, that he wished to relinquish his temporal responsibilities to a democratically-elected parliament; and this he has done. Furthermore, he told Mr. Paxman that if the Chinese allowed him to return to Lhasa he would do so on the basis that Tibet would be considered a part of China, and that he was seeking not independence, but, as the noble Earl said, a form of autonomy—genuine autonomy. Surely this is a pattern which in our own way we are seeking to achieve for ourselves in Northern Ireland, in Scotland and also in Wales. His Holiness concluded his interview with Mr. Paxman this morning by saying,"This is my ambition".
The present situation in Tibet, as the noble Earl, Lord Carrick, explained, parallels very closely the situation in Kosovo. The difference is that we do not see it on our television sets. The refugees from Tibet come over the Himalayas, frequently in very bad weather, because that is when the Chinese guards are less likely to apprehend them. Many of them, as I saw for myself, arrive with frostbite, many children having had limbs amputated as a result.
1062
We are involved in Kosovo to stop the abuse of human rights and to allow the people of that province to return, not to an independent state, but to a measure of autonomy. In my talks with the Dalai Lama he told me that many young Tibetans in exile were telling him that his non-violent approach had failed and that the world would not take notice of the plight of the Tibetan people until they could return to Tibet with guns—and there are plenty of those around.
We in our country are rightly proud of our tradition of settling our disputes by a parley rather than by the gun. We regularly encourage others to follow our example. Surely we should practice what we preach. Surely His Holiness the Dalai Lama, who steadfastly espouses the path of non-violence in Tibet, deserves our support in all the ways that are open to us in achieving a peaceful, and above all a fair, resolution of the impasse faced by his people. As the noble Earl movingly said, he is, far from being a problem, in truth the solution to the problem, and he deserves our encouragement and our support.
9.37 p.m.
Lord Thurlow: My Lords, may I start by associating myself very sincerely with the expressions of sympathy at the loss of Mr. Derek Fatchett. He was a great friend and supporter of the interests of Tibet. Before the change of government he took the trouble to go all the way up to St. Andrews to join in a briefing to inform himself more on the problems and questions of Tibet. His death is a very great loss to his colleagues in the Foreign Office, with whom I sympathise, and to us all.
We should not be too much put off from the right aims and objects by the present very unfortunate situation that has blown up in Belgrade. We cannot deny its seriousness nor the fact that for the time being it will affect every other aspect of relations with China. But these things will pass. A time will come when it will again be expedient and possible to make firm representations to China against its enormities. I express my thanks to the noble Earl, Lord Carrick, for his clear and very moving statement of the terrible situation Tibet now finds itself in.
The international community can do little to help, except by making known its views on the rights of Tibet, supporting His Holiness with his very modest requests, as the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, impressively said, and by pressing human rights issues in every possible international forum.
As the noble Earl said, political statements have been regrettably muted in recent years in the competition for contracts. That will pass. Nevertheless, an ethical foreign policy implies some readiness to sacrifice interests in support of wider aims. China has signed the human rights convention and is flouting its provisions in the most cynical way. It is up to us to maintain a firm line and to continue, as I am glad to say we have been doing, our efforts to stiffen the spines of our European Union partners.
I believe that a powerful factor in the international reluctance to take a firmer stance is the background of confusion about Tibet's international legal status. Other

1063
countries have historically taken their lead from Britain because of our responsibility for the defence of India until 1947. However, in the past 50 years, our view has not been expressed consistently and clearly. Indeed, at times the Foreign Office seemed to accept that Tibet had always been part of China. It could certainly be excused some uncertainty because in the days of the India Office it did not handle Tibetan issues directly and, after 1947, everybody agreed that it was for the Government of India to take a lead. In this country, the Commonwealth Office played that hand.
Unfortunately, in 1950, with the invasion, the Indian Government, after an initial protest, refrained from anything that might offend the Chinese. Despite the readiness of the US Government to help, Nehru simply trusted the lies of the Chinese at Bandung and onwards. In retrospect, I believe that India considers that to have been a critical mistake. I was involved on the margins because I had to discuss the situation in Delhi with the Government of India at the time.
It would help our European partners and perhaps the United States if the Government would now put the record straight after 50 years of some confusion about status. The late Sir Algernon Rumbold, the old India Office expert, put it clearly. Denying the claim that Tibet had been part of China, he said:
"This is geographically, racially, culturally and politically false. Historically Chinese Governments exercised some influence in Tibet only occasionally and for brief periods".
As the noble Earl mentioned, in 1997 the International Commission of Jurists, manned by a distinguished group of international lawyers, concluded that Tibet is entitled under international law to self determination. It declared the present alleged autonomy fictitious, as we all know it is. It is totally fictitious.
I respectfully ask the Minister to consider, with her colleagues, undertaking a review to remove all the old legal confusions on status. Internal self-government is all that the Dalai Lama is demanding. We should support it as Tibet's legal international right. We should seek to get the agreement of our European partners to this as the basis of a common position under the foreign and security policy.
9.45 p.m.
Viscount Mersey: My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Carrick, for introducing this debate. I have spoken before about Tibet and the Dalai Lama. Indeed, I believe that this is my fifth speech. Curiously, all our debates on that sad country follow the same course. Noble Lords on the Back Benches from all quarters of the House recite Tibetan atrocities, praise His Holiness and call for a measure of independence. The Government in reply say that they recognise the Dalai Lama solely as the spiritual head of Tibet and that the Chinese have suzerainty over Tibet in all other fields. Of course, the Government condemn obvious things like the torture of monks, but in a somewhat qualified way. Tae Government also meet the Dalai Lama, but again in a slightly qualified way. For instance, when His Holiness came to Committee Room 14 on the last occasion, the then Lord Chancellor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, chaired the
1064
meeting but he said that he was not doing so in his capacity as Lord Chancellor. His Holiness also went to Downing Street. The then Prime Minister, John Major, met him, but not in his capacity as Prime Minister. There was always something slightly unofficial about the Dalai Lama's visits here.
I note that this time he is to be greeted by Madam Speaker. I hope that New Labour means a new attitude towards His Holiness. We shall be quite delighted if we get anything other than the standard government response—perhaps I should say the standard Whitehall response—because this matter is quite beyond party politics. As noble Lords have said, it is an international problem.
I must also say, sadly, that our debates in this Chamber have not made any difference to Tibet over the years. Each time we hold them, the situation is a little worse. The ethnic cleansing is more widespread. There is also the raping of nuns, the pulling down of monasteries and forcing children to shoot their parents.
The position of the Panchen Lama is a little worse than it was. What has happened to the boy who is the true Panchen Lama? What has happened to the monk who discovered him? Of course, the Chinese say that he is not the Panchen Lama and that he is perfectly all right. But has any Westerner actually seen the child? It is surely on the cards that both he and the monk are dead; but who knows?
This is a purely spiritual matter. If the Government accept that the Dalai Lama is the spiritual head of his country, I hope that they will try to explain what efforts they are making to persuade the Chinese to install the true spiritual Panchen Lama in post and to oust what I call the Chinese placement Panchen, who is of course an impostor.
I used the phrase "ethnic cleansing". As many noble Lords have said, we are engaged in stopping that in Kosovo. Why Kosovo and not Tibet? That is simple. Tibet poses no threat to us but Kosovo and the Balkans do. They also pose a threat to the stability of NATO.
Noble Lords may have heard His Holiness talking to Jeremy Paxman this morning about Kosovo. He said that we should oppose Milosevic but not use force. That has amazing relevance. He said that force can have unpredictable consequences. However, we have used force when our own interests and security are threatened. Thus it has always been and always will be. We used it in the Falklands to protect British sovereign territory; we fought in the Gulf to protect oil interests, and in Tibet. We invaded it when the Chinese empire collapsed at the start of this century. That was in our interest. We sent a force under Younghusband and then we made a treaty. It is this treaty that the Tibetans quote to us as proof of their autonomy and why they say they have a special relationship with the United Kingdom. Of course there can be no question of sending a military force to free Tibet from China now; I certainly recognise that. It would be the last thing that His Holiness would want.
Tomorrow His Holiness comes to Westminster. He will address parliamentarians in the Grand Committee Room; he will meet the press; we will give him lunch;

1065
and he will tell us that he does not wish to be the secular leader of his country, merely the spiritual one. The noble Earl, Lord Carrick, and the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, have said that if Tibet can shake off Chinese rule His Holiness has said that he will hand over power to a local regional assembly, I suppose—perhaps something like the new Scottish Parliament—and he will return to becoming a celibate monk. The Government have a duty to restrain China in what I call its spiritual dealings with Tibet; that is, to recognise the true Panchen Lama, to stop the humanitarian atrocities, to stop the destroying of the monasteries and to stop the torturing and murdering of monks.
I shall end by reminding your Lordships of two small parts of the Dalai Lama's teaching that I heard on the radio this morning: first, that it is not right to impose the Buddhist faith on others. Faith is a matter of individual freedom, otherwise, he says,"There will be a clash". Secondly, we should all behave as the humblest beggar because at the end of our lives we all become equally lowly.
More practically, I ask the new Government to succeed where earlier governments have failed and to find a way to give Tibet some measure of the autonomy we recognised in the Younghusband treaty, and, above all, to guarantee spiritual freedom to all Tibetans.
9.51 p.m.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, I warmly thank the noble Earl, Lord Carrick, for giving us this opportunity. It is unfortunate that the debate tonight and relations with China as a whole are overshadowed by the shocking incident over the weekend. However unpredictable warfare is, we must all regret the appalling mistake of NATO intelligence which led a pilot to bomb the Chinese embassy in Belgrade. But it does however raise the question of propaganda, at which the Chinese are adept. As one would expect, they are using the incident to the very best advantage, just as they have already criticised NATO for playing up ethnic cleansing as a pretext for invading Kosovo and extending its influence eastwards. I am sure that the Government will hold up their heads and refuse to kow-tow to China on this issue.
The same propaganda game is being played with the Dalai Lama, whose achievements in the West, surprisingly, I believe, have won considerable respect in China. An intelligent article in the Beijing newspaper Management and Strategy on 2nd January, monitored by the BBC and reprinted in Hong Kong, asks why westerners are so sentimental about Tibet. It concludes that it is the last refuge of western mysticism and idealism, embodied by the Dalai Lama himself. While complimenting the Dalai Lama on his success, the article accuses him of exploiting Tibetan history and philosophy to mislead the West, saying that his inability to control his pro-independence followers will be a cause of future unrest. It says:
"In the worst case, forces such as the Tibetan Youth Congress…will sharply increase the violence and destruction, to put Tibet in danger of becoming a Palestine or even a Chechnya".
1066
Those are legitimate fears. Tibet is not an independent state but an autonomous region of China de facto if not de jure and, whatever the history, it is important for our Government to understand the modern Chinese viewpoint. But we should equally remind China that support for the Dalai Lama, muted as it is in Whitehall, is not just an official western government position. It comes from a worldwide movement of people who believe in the personal integrity of the Dalai Lama as a spiritual as well as political leader. This support is based not on a romantic ideal, as the Chinese newspaper suggests, but on the justice, human rights and self-determination demanded by the Tibetan people over 40 years.
The Dalai Lama's determination to defend a just cause, coupled with his patient willingness to compromise, deserves greater respect from China and continuing support from western governments through and beyond the present crisis.
Our successful trade with China should not inhibit us from countering China's propaganda and pursuing our independent policy of steady diplomacy. It is easy to see why it might. FDI rose from 42 billion dollars in 1996 to 52 billion dollars in 1997. It rose again in 1998. Foreign exchange reserves in China have soared throughout the 1990s. Foreign trade is very important to China, representing one-fifth of its gross national product. Britain is one of China's main trading partners within the EU and its share of China's exports continued to rise in 1997 and last year.
Sichuan province is the latest to open a UK office only a fortnight ago and has just sent a large delegation of its officials here. Tibet does not, however, benefit much from Britain's trade or aid. In the China Statistical Yearbook, Tibet is listed as one of the very poorest regions. Its annual GDP per head in 1997 was only 371 dollars, compared with 2, 772 dollars in Shanghai, where most foreign investment is directed. Illiteracy in Tibet is still as high as 52 per cent. Tibetan language teaching has been in decline because of accusations of "splittism" which has left teachers as well as monks in detention.
The UN agencies have been working in Tibet for many years, with varying success. The World Food Programme has attempted to improve the income and food security of rural Tibetans in the Lhasa Valley for nearly a decade, but the programme was ill-conceived and helped the government more than poor Tibetans. The European Union ran into similar trouble, although the current Pa Nam rural development project benefits indigenous Tibetans.
The World Bank has been associated with another dubious scheme, resettling over 60,000 poor farmers in Dulan county, Qinghai Province, traditionally a home for Tibetan pastoralists. Two-fifths of the beneficiaries, it turns out, are Han Chinese settlers and none are Tibetans. The Minister may be able to tell us how much UK aid is going into these large international schemes. Among the bilateral aid donors, New Zealand, Australia and Canada have a good record of small-scale projects which serve people in Tibet. The UK does not have an active bilateral programme—perhaps the Minister could

1067
explain why, considering our historical obligations—but it is helping a well-established Save the Children Fund programme of health education and pre-school and primary level teacher training. Save the Children has a good record of working in mainland China for many years, in specialised fields such as disability and AIDS education. It is a credit to it and the Chinese and the Tibetans that it is still expanding its programme in Tibet.
China should value the support which the West gives to Tibet, not use it for propaganda. It should seize the opportunity to come to terms with the Dalai Lama, as has been suggested, as soon as possible, before it is too late and while he has earned the respect of his own people as well as of the outside world. European governments should continue to coax China towards these concessions and resist any temptation to enter trade partnerships without a regular dialogue on human rights.
Two-and-a-half years ago, when we last debated Tibet, I remember the inhibition of the Hong Kong handover, the fear that China might be displeased and turn on Hong Kong, if the West made too much of Tibet and human rights in China. The period since then has seen remarkable progress—the European Union-WTO talks are the latest example—and has shown how misplaced that fear would have been. The same is true of the embassy bombing. It is essential to keep reminding China, as we are now, of the strength of feeling both on Tibet and on human rights in China itself.
In our last debate, I spoke of tyranny and ethnic cleansing in Tibet. I cannot support an ANC-style struggle, favoured by some exiled Tibetans who are understandably desperate. Nor can I see China recognising Tibet as an independent country. But I am sure that if Chine. negotiates more seriously with the Dalai Lama, it could see the end to repression and offer more genuine autonomy.
A new generation is growing up in Chinese cities, nurtured on a common awareness of the world and international relations—well aware of the rights of individuals and minorities. It is true that young Chinese will not have learnt anything about human rights from Europe this week, but, generally, they are more and more exposed to European culture and many of the advantages of western technology. Given time and diplomacy, China will move gradually towards greater understanding of the cultural identity and social needs of the Tibetans.
Finally, I add my own tribute to Derek Fatchett, whose personal commitment to human rights and minority peoples is well known. I went to see him recently about Burma. He had great concern for the minority peoples there too. In a debate in another place on 19th March, he made a clear statement of the Government's position on Tibet, of which I am sure we will hear something from the Minister tonight. It will be hard for Downing Street to find someone of similar quality.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear.
10.2 p.m.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, this year there have been many demonstrations and vigils to mark the fortieth anniversary of Tibetan resistance to the Chinese invasion of Tibet. We are all grateful to my noble friend Lord Carrick for raising this issue so well and comprehensively tonight.
Earlier this year, some of us, wearing Tibetan ribbons—I borrowed that of the noble Viscount, Lord Mersey—watched the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, place a wreath in Tibetan colours outside Westminster Abbey. We were all given white silk Tibetan scarves of friendship, which we tied to the railings—where they fluttered in the wind like Tibetan prayer flags. It was a small and rather moving ceremony, as we watched the blustery March wind catch the ends of the silk scarves.
Forty thousand Chinese troops first invaded Tibet in 1950. Since that time, more and more Chinese have poured in. In the past 59 years, an estimated 1.2 million Tibetans have been killed by the Chinese. During the uprising of 1959, approximately 430,000 were killed and His Holiness the Dalai Lama escaped into exile in India.
During the past 40 years, thousands of Chinese poured into Tibet and settled there. The two regions of Amdo and Kham were totally taken over by the Chinese, whose population in Tibet now outnumbers by many times that of Tibetans. Those two regions have been given new Chinese names and are not even counted as part of Tibet—which they are. Even in U'Sang—now called by the Chinese the Tibet Autonomous Region—there are more than 5 million Chinese, compared with 4.5 million Tibetans.
During the early 1960s, hundreds of thousands of nomadic Tibetans died or starvation. Many more have been tortured and imprisoned. Thousands of monasteries have been destroyed; monks and nuns turned out; and sacred texts annihilated. The Tibetans were a good and peaceful people—tending their gardens, growing vegetables and flowers, loving children and dogs. We gave a lunch for Professor Samdhong Rinpoche of Varanasi University in October 1997. When he arrived, we walked together through the late summer garden with our dogs bounding at his heels. He picked an apple from a tree and ate it. He said,"It is so long since I was at home in Tibet, in my own garden, able to pick fruit and walk among the flowers with my dog."
The Chinese have also cut down the vast natural forests north of Tibet, which has caused much erosion among the rivers. All the soil has been released because there are no tree roots to hold it back. That action has not only increased the floods in Bangladesh but the soil has swept down into China and clogged up the new dams there. Tibet is also rich in mineral resources, which are now being mined and being taken away by the Chinese.
On Thursday of this week His Holiness the Dalai Lama is to open a new peace garden beside the Imperial War Museum. That is a place of peace and meditation, symbolically under the huge guns of the museum. I have brought down to plant in it a cutting of a single white

1069
Banksian rose taken from the very first one imported by my ancestor Captain Robert Drummond in the sailing ship "General Elliot". He obtained this from the Botanic Garden in Canton in 1793. This rose is a cutting from the original stock which still grows and flourishes in our garden in Scotland, having come from China—or perhaps even more distantly from Tibet—and sailed across the seas of the world to take root and grow in Scotland. I hope that this white rose of peace will grow and flourish in the garden of peace and, with its sharp, sweet scent, will like the white prayer flags on the railings of Westminster Abbey, blow the wise words of the Dalai Lama into the hearts of the Chinese people.
10.6 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, we are all shocked and saddened to hear of the tragic and sudden death of the Minister, Derek Fatchett, who was in China only last month and also in Korea, Hong Kong, Indonesia and East Timor. I pay tribute to him from these Benches as an immensely hard working and effective member of the Government. His contribution will be very hard to match. Mr. Fatchett was doing the work shared by two Ministers in the previous administration but he was always on top of the job. Only last week he answered a Written Question from my honourable friend Dr. Jenny Tonge, reaffirming that we considered the best way to make progress on the question of Tibet was by direct dialogue rather than through the United Nations. But I believe that he had not yet given a full report on his discussions with the Chinese, and we may hear something of the results of his visit later. We send our deepest sympathy to his widow and family.
With the visit of His Holiness the Dalai Lama this week, and the scheduled visit of President Jiang Zemin in the autumn, Britain has a chance to help revive the proposals for a dialogue between the Dalai Lama and the Chinese authorities which all British governments have espoused over the years. That has been a theme of many speeches this evening. I also share the hope that has been expressed that we can repair the damage done to Anglo-Chinese relations by the horrendous mistake of NATO in attacking the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade certainly well before President Jiang comes here in, I believe, October.
We have to decide whether to continue with the EU policy of bilateral dialogue with China on human rights or to admit frankly that it has failed and therefore, presumably, confine ourselves to one-way criticism, forfeiting the chance that may arise for personal contacts such as the EU troika ambassadors' visit of May 1998 and the forthcoming repetition of that visit next month. The Dalai Lama himself believes that we should persevere with the dialogue both on the constitutional status of Tibet and the individual human rights violations of the Tibetan peoples. The question is whether any other policy would secure better results. I have not heard of any convincing alternatives.
However, the engagement with the Chinese should not mean that we avoid all public mention of the issues at stake or that we conduct the dialogue in accordance with rules laid down by Beijing. This should be a
1070
reciprocal process. We know that there are many things with which the Chinese find fault in western society. They have every right to say what they think about us and we have a duty to respond frankly to their criticisms, just as we expect them to respond to ours.
On this reasoning, the Prime Minister should receive the Dalai Lama without having a Church dignitary present to imply that the discussion is concerned solely with matters of faith, as the noble Viscount, Lord Mersey, pointed out. Obviously, one of the important questions in this discussion is whether, and if so how, we can help to promote the negotiations between the Chinese and the Dalai Lama that the Government would like to see. That is a political matter. The Dalai Lama would be giving his opinion as the political leader of the Tibetan people widely respected in Lhasa, as the EU troika saw for themselves when they went there. Meeting him in that capacity would not imply a commitment on the part of the Prime Minister to the independence of Tibet. But it would underline our firm belief that His Holiness must be involved in discussions on the future of Tibet.
Two of the advances said to have been achieved through the policy of constructive dialogue were China's signature of the ICCPR in October 1998 and the visit by the High Commissioner, Mary Robinson, in September last year. But the European Union, in its statement before the Commission of Human Rights on 31st March, recognised the mismatch between,
"the positive signals sent out by the Chinese Government mostly concerning co-operation with the human rights mechanisms of the United Nations".
and what it called the "grave setback" on the ground with a crackdown on political dissidents, detentions and harsh court sentences, to which noble Lords have referred.
In the case of Tibet in particular, two monks from Drepung monastery near Lhasa were arrested under suspicion of attempting to contact the commissioner when she was there, hoping to deliver a letter expressing their concern over the detention of the child chosen by the Dalai Lama as the reincarnation of the Panchen Lama, whose case has been referred to by the noble Viscount, Lord Mersey. The Panchen Lama is 10 years old and the world's youngest political prisoner. We have repeatedly asked to see him and check on his welfare and have been repeatedly refused, thus raising suspicions as to his welfare and health, or fears that he may have been harmed or even brainwashed by the Chinese. The letter from those monks was also said to have referred to the May 1998 Drapchi prison protests which resulted in the deaths of at least 10 Tibetan prisoners, under the noses of the EU troika delegation who were completely unaware of the incident and did not refer to it in their June report.
Do we have any further information about the tragedy of Drapchi and the continuing ill-treatment of prisoners there, in particular the surviving nuns? What information have we about the health of the nun, Ngawang Sandrol, since she was beaten and, we understand, severely injured? In the further EU

1071
delegation to Tibet, which is to take place either later this month or early next month, I hope that they will raise these issues which have not yet been resolved.
When these matters are raised with the Chinese, do we give them an aide-memoire of our concerns, and do we ask for detailed replies in writing? Of course we have no means of compelling them to give the information for which we ask if they choose not to do so, but if, whenever we spoke to them, we published these aide-memoires and any replies that we receive from Beijing, readers would be able to form their own impression as to whether China is,
"signing bits of paper but changing nothing". —[Official Report, Commons, 19/3/99: col.1466.]
as my honourable friend Mr Norman. Baker put it in his adjournment debate on 19th March. In two different contributions noble Lords referred to the cynical attitude of the Chinese in signing these instruments with no intention of doing anything about them. Alternatively, is there any real improvement in China's human rights performance, as Ministers imply when they speak of the 12 developments since we embarked on the policy of constructive engagement? An exchange of aide-memoires and replies from both sides would not imply that we laid claim to judge China or vice versa, but that we would provide the materials on which the international community could form a collective judgment. In this way, I believe that Europe could supplement the work of the Commission on Human Rights, and help to ensure that in the medium to longer term the people of Tibet could largely take charge of their own affairs.
10.13 p.m.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Carrick, on initiating this important and interesting debate on Tibet. The outstanding contributions from your Lordships' House have again demonstrated something of which the Minister is already well aware: that the situation in Tibet is rightly of genuine great concern both to this House and to the public in general.
Tibet's history over the past 50 years has been turbulent indeed. From the day that the People's Liberation Army entered Tibet in 1951, and through the years of the Cultural Revolution, deeply damaging and perhaps irreversible inroads have been made into the traditional Tibetan way of life. The Chinese Government's invidious official policy to produce a future Tibet which is predominantly Han Chinese has been described as one of the worst crimes in the second half of this century.
This year marks the 40th anniversary of the exile from Tibet of the Dalai Lama following the failure of the Tibetan national uprising in 1959 when Tibetans rebelled against nine years of cruelty by the Communist Chinese occupation. According to one estimate, more than 400,000 Tibetans were killed by Chinese troops, while in the 20 years which followed 150,000 Tibetans were executed and 170,000 more were tortured.
With the end of the Cultural Revolution, there were glimmers of hope for Tibet's future as dialogue was initiated between the Chinese authorities and the Dalai
1072
Lama, with Peking indicating a willingness to accept the return to Tibet of the Dalai Lama and his followers under certain conditions. But those hopes were dashed when, in 1987, there was a major change in Chinese policy towards Tibet.
The status of Tibet is clearly one of the key issues in any future settlement. Together with the rest of the international community, successive British governments have regarded Tibet as autonomous while recognising the special position of China there. We believe now, as we did in government, that the Tibetans should have a greater say in running their own affairs in Tibet. Although Britain has never recognised the Dalai Lama as the head of the Tibetan government in exile, he has always been acknowledged as a highly respected spiritual leader, Nobel Peace Prize winner and an influential force in Tibet.
The debate this evening, appropriately, takes place during the visit of the Dalai Lama to London. In March, the Minister of State said that he would be met at an appropriate level by members of the Government. Will the Minister say which members of the Government have taken the opportunity to meet the Dalai Lama and what progress was made as a result of the meeting?
The gap between the stated position of the two sides—the Dalai Lama and the Chinese government—would appear to be bridgeable given that no Chinese government for centuries have been prepared to accept the idea of an independent Tibet. There is no reason to believe that that will change in the foreseeable future. The Dalai Lama has shown great courage and wisdom in accepting the impracticality of insisting on independence. Instead in His Holiness's speech in Strasbourg 11 years ago, to which I had the privilege of listening, as did my noble friend Lady Elles, he outlined the concept of "two families under one roof'. He has called for an autonomous Tibet within China, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill.
Chinese spokesmen have responded by stating their willingness to engage in a dialogue with the Dalai Lama if he renounces independence and pro-independence activities. The problem appears to be one of will, especially on the part of Peking. That becomes acutely apparent when the Dalai Lama's response and the Chinese authorities' response to the 40th anniversary of the Dalai Lama's exile are contrasted. The Dalai Lama used the occasion to appeal for an end to what he called the deep distrust between Tibetans and the Chinese and called for face-to-face meetings and sincere dialogue to dissipate that distrust; while the Chinese Communist newspaper, the People's Daily, described the past four decades as a golden chapter in the history of human rights in Tibet and called the Dalai Lama,
"a tool in the hands of western forces",
who has,
"done nothing good for the Tibetan people in his 40 years of fugitive life".
There is consensus in this House that the human rights situation in China as a whole, including Tibet, remains an issue of key importance in our relations with the Chinese authorities. The major and social economic change that China—a geographically vast developing

1073
nation with more than 1.2 billion people—is undergoing has led and will continue to lead to increased domestic pressures for human rights reforms. It was for that reason that under the previous administration we did not believe in a policy of isolating China during this critical period of change and reform.
Nevertheless, it was one of the critical elements of our engagement with China that we made clear, without a shadow of a doubt, the depth and scale of our concern in respect of fundamental political, ethnic and religious freedoms. We did not shirk from criticising Chinese policies and actions if and when events warranted it, as demonstrated by our willingness to co-sponsor the resolutions which drew attention to China's record on human rights, introduced in 1989 after the Tiananman Square massacre, at the annual United Nations Commission on Human Rights in Geneva.
However, there was amazement and scepticism among human rights campaigners when in 1998, for the first time in nine years, the United Kingdom Government did not support such a resolution, particularly in view of the Government's much publicised ethical dimension to their foreign policy. When asked why, for the second year in a row, the Government had failed to table or to co-sponsor a resolution on human rights in China at the 55th United Nations Commission for Human Rights, the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, cited the merits of a dialogue-based approach.
The Minister described the results of this policy as,
"limited progress in some areas".
However, the decision of the United States Government to introduce a resolution on China's human rights practices at the most recent UN Commission on Human Rights was based on their belief that,
"the Government of China's human rights record has deteriorated sharply since over the past year".
Can the noble Baroness reconcile what she has described as "limited progress" with what the US Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, described as,
"a sharp deterioration in the human rights situation in China"?
Can she say what effect the Government's policy has had on improving the human rights situation in Tibet and in what way it has illustrated that Tibet forms an essential and central part of what we are trying to do on human rights? Finally, can the Minister tell the House to what extent the NATO bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade on Friday night has damaged our diplomatic relationship with China, including the extent to which any influence the Government may have brought to bear on the question of Tibet has been impaired?
There is no doubt that the treatment of Tibetans by the Chinese Government in the five decades since the founding of the People's Republic of China has been inconsistent with international standards on human rights, and therefore is unacceptable. There have been moments in the 1950s and the 1980s when it seemed possible that a more enlightened policy from Peking might prevail, but these moments have proved to be short-lived.
1074
There is also no doubt that the world needs a strong and stable China. The whole House looks forward to the day when China can take her rightful place in the international community and can assume the role of leadership to which China's past entitles her, her future should assure her but her present denies her. China can only play a full part in global affairs when she conforms to the international rules by which the rest of the world has agreed to abide. Until human rights problems are solved and while Tibet is treated as it is, China can never be completely accepted internationally.
A leap of political will and faith is needed on the part of the Chinese leadership. From these Benches I assure the Minister that we will continue to support the Government when they use every opportunity available to enable Peking to make that leap of faith. The preservation of Tibet's unique cultural and religious traditions and the very future of thousands of Tibetans depend upon it.
10.25 p.m.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Carrick, for raising the issue of Tibet, for providing us with an opportunity to discuss it this evening and Her Majesty's Government with an opportunity to set out our views on this matter.
Before I turn to the detailed questions raised by your Lordships, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken, sometimes very movingly, about the sad death of my colleague Derek Fatchett. Many Members of the House had the opportunity earlier this afternoon to express their great sadness at his passing and I will convey the words of sympathy from your Lordships this evening, and indeed my heartfelt sadness for a supportive, gifted and much admired colleague.
I should like to begin with some general comments. Obviously we are deeply concerned about reports of human rights violations, not only in Tibet but elsewhere in China and wherever they occur. Your Lordships are aware of this Government's commitment to the promotion of human rights; it is a centrepiece of our foreign as well as our domestic policy.
The noble Earl expressed his understandable worries about the situation in Tibet. I can assure the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, that Tibet is rightly an issue of special concern to both the public and Parliament, as my department's weekly postbag of correspondence testifies. It was brought sharply into focus this March, which marked the 40th anniversary of His Holiness the Dalai Lama's exile from Tibet.
The Government share the deep concerns expressed by many in this House, particularly the noble Earl, and are actively addressing them with the Chinese both through our bilateral human rights dialogue and the EU/China human rights dialogue. The situation in Tibet and the plight of individual Tibetans features prominently in both.
But I must remind your Lordships that successive British governments have regarded Tibet as autonomous, while recognising the special position of China there. That continues to be the Government's

1075
view. Tibet has never been internationally recognised as independent and this Government do not recognise the Dalai Lama's "government-in-exile". However, I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, that we believe that the Tibetans should have a greater say in the running of their own affairs in Tibet, and have urged the Chinese authorities to respect the distinct cultural, religious and ethnic identity of the Tibetans.
We welcome the present visit to the UK of His Holiness the Dalai Lama, who is a highly respected spiritual leader. In that capacity my right honourable friend the Prime Minister had a meeting with him this afternoon and my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary looks forward to seeing him during his visit. So to answer the points raised specifically by the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, His Holiness is being seen in that capacity at the highest levels in government. I must make clear that we do not recognise the Dalai Lama as the head of the Tibetan government in exile. It is in his spiritual capacity that he is being received by my right honourable friends.
Her Majesty's Government believe that the best way to achieve a lasting solution to the situation in Tibet is through dialogue between the Chinese Government and the Tibetans, including the Dalai Lama, without preconditions. I hope that that is the kind of view expressed by the noble Earl earlier this evening. We will continue to urge China to enter into such a dialogue. My right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary did so with Chinese leaders last year. Only last month my right honourable friend the Minister of State, Mr. Fatchett, did so again when he visited China, as remarked upon by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury.
Through the human rights dialogues with China to which I referred, we have made clear our many deep concerns about Chinese policy in Tibet. The noble Baroness, Lady Strange, said that those include the re-education of monks and nuns in Tibet under which some are reported to be required to renounce their loyalty to the Dalai Lama and the reported restrictions on the display of the Dalai Lama's picture. China's recent campaign to promote atheism in Tibet gives further cause for concern. We believe that the Chinese should see religion as fulfilling a basic human right, not as some sort of threat.
We are also concerned about the impact of Han Chinese migration into Tibet on its special ethnic, cultural and religious characteristics—a point raised by a number of noble Lords in our debate this evening.
We have raised the individual cases of many Tibetans, including the detention in 1995 of the child Gedhun Choekyi Nyima, who is recognised by the Dalai Lama as the reincarnation of the 11th Panchen Lama. The Government do not hold a view on the child's candidacy as the Panchen Lama, which they believe is a matter for the Tibetans alone to decide. However, he is just a child, and we are very concerned about his welfare. I can assure the noble Viscount, Lord Mersey, that we have repeatedly asked the Chinese to be able to visit him in order to check on his wellbeing. We will continue to raise his case and those of other Tibetans with the Chinese at every opportunity.
1076
The noble Earl, Lord Carrick, told us of those who have been denied access to Tibet for the purpose of monitoring the human rights situation there. In view of the special nature of the situation in Tibet, a delegation of EU Troika Ambassadors in Beijing made a week-long visit to Tibet in May 1998 in order to assess the situation there. The delegation was led by the British Ambassador, supported by a British Tibetan speaker, which was itself a very important precedent. As a result of that visit, the EU agreed some common guidelines for addressing the issue of Tibet. They are that the EU should urge China to respect human rights in Tibet; that we should encourage China to begin talks with the Dalai Lama; that development assistance for ethnic Tibetans should be targeted in order to help them compete in the economy; and that we should seek to preserve the Tibetan language and culture.
We are also supporting our human rights dialogue with practical co-operation. While in Tibet, the EU Troika Ambassadors visited Pa Nam, the site of a £5.1 million EU rural development project. This will directly benefit indigenous Tibetan people in terms of employment, training and access to land. Britain will contribute about 15 per cent of these costs. The Government are also providing development assistance to Tibet through the Save the Children Fund for projects in the field of education and health.
This year, in view of China's willingness to discuss human rights in a frank and constructive manner and the positive steps taken by China in some areas, EU foreign ministers decided that the EU would not change the position it took at the 1998 United Nations Commission on Human Rights, which meant that the EU did not table or co-sponsor a specific resolution on China at the Commission in Geneva last month. That decision should not be interpreted as in any way reducing our commitment to bring about real improvements in the observance of human rights in China, including Tibet. We made our views on this matter explicit in our national and EU statements in Geneva when we were very critical of China's record, including the situation in Tibet.
We believe that this dialogue-based approach is more likely to bring about positive changes in China than the failed resolutions at the UNHCR.
The noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, and the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, particularly raised the NATO bombing of the Chinese Embassy, a point also taken up by the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings. I stated to your Lordship's House earlier this afternoon that, in a letter to the Chinese premier, the Prime Minister has personally expressed his profound shock at the bombing and the loss of life that resulted. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary is very anxious to speak to his counterpart, and I have spoken to the Chinese chargé today, expressing our shock and dismay at this terrible accident. We deeply regret that the attempt to hit a legitimate military target should have resulted, tragically, in the death of Chinese citizens, and serious damage to the embassy in Belgrade.
We greatly value the improved relationship between Britain and China. We are committed to that relationship and to the continuing strengthening of the ties between

1077
us. We very much hope that the dialogue which I referred to last Thursday evening in respect of what emerged from the meeting in Bonn of the G8 foreign ministers will go ahead, and my right honourable friend was able to assure members in another place this afternoon that he believed that the German presidency of G8 was still on track for those meetings.
The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, thought that our trading interests might possibly inhibit our being explicit in our criticisms of some of the human rights aspects of China's relationship with Tibet. I must point out to the noble Earl that human rights remain at the centre of our foreign policy; but, at the same time, we do not believe that business partnerships and human rights are mutually exclusive issues because the opening up of China's economy has brought greater freedom of choice to many people in that country. We want to work with China to consolidate and expand development which will bring about real improvements in the lives of ordinary people. By doing so, we believe that this exposes the Chinese to practices, standards and expectations of individuals and governments from other countries. The increasing importance that China attaches to promoting the rule of law throughout China is, in part, because of the need to enhance trade and investment from other countries. Therefore, we do not see these as mutually exclusive issues, but ones which can reinforce each other.
The noble Earl, Lord Carrick, raised questions about aid. I spoke earlier about the EU project. The DfID presently supports projects for Tibetan communities both inside the area referred to as the "Tibetan autonomous region", and elsewhere. That aid amounts to some £2.2 million.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, raised questions about the Drapchi prison protests. The EU Troika Ambassadors did not witness any demonstrations or
1078
disturbances at the prison during their visit in May of last year. However, strong concerns have been expressed to the Chinese. We are very concerned about the well-being of Ngawang Sangdrol, and others, imprisoned in Tibet. Her name is on a list of individual cases which my right honourable friend the Prime Minister raised with Chinese leaders in October of last year, and on the EU list of individual cases which was presented to the Chinese authorities on 7th May 1999.
I believe that recent developments in China may have been disappointing, but we really did not expect the dialogue to bring significant, short-term political change. The dialogue has produced some results. Indeed, if the noble Baroness wishes me to do so, I can write to her about the results that we believe have been secured. However, dialogue is something which develops as time goes on. While we cannot expect those changes overnight, we believe that there have been significant improvements upon which we will wish to work. We believe that we must work with China to encourage it to meet the international human rights standards that we expect, and we will continue to do so. We will do so privately and publicly, including, where appropriate, at the UN. We will continue to work to achieve progress through constructive dialogue with the authorities in China and through supporting programmes of practical co-operation, such as legal and judicial training. As argued by the noble Lord. Lord Weatherill, in his very impressive and, if I may say so, typically statesman-like intervention, we will continue to urge the Chinese authorities and the Tibetans, including the Dalai Lama, to enter into dialogue, without pre-conditions, at the earliest possible opportunity to resolve this outstanding issue.
House adjourned at twenty-two minutes before eleven o'clock.

Official Report of the Grand Committee on the Local Government Bill
Monday, 10th May 1999.
The Committee met at half past three of the clock.
[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Strabolgi) in the Chair.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Strabolgi): Before I put the Question that the Title be postponed, it may be helpful to remind your Lordships of the procedure for today's Committee stage. Except in one important respect, our proceedings will be exactly as in a normal Committee of the Whole House. We shall go through the Bill clause by clause; noble Lords will speak standing; all noble Lords are free to attend and participate; and the proceedings will be recorded in Hansard.
The one difference is that the House has agreed that there shall be no Divisions in the Grand Committee. Any issue on which agreement cannot be reached should be considered again at the Report stage when, if necessary, a Division may be called. Unless, therefore, an amendment is likely to be agreed to, it should be withdrawn.
I should explain what will happen if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting. The Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division bells are rung and will then resume after 10 minutes.
Title postponed.
Clause 1[Best value authorities]:
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No.1:
Page 1, line 9, at e-id insert ("so long as budgets to spend a sum exceeding £500.000 per year for the year commencing 1st April 2000")
The noble Lord said: In rising to move this amendment I should confess to some hesitation about doing so knowing that this subject was debated fairly thoroughly in the other place, and knowing also that the Government intend, by regulation perhaps, to do something along the lines of my amendment. The Minister, however, will by now understand me sufficiently well to know that I do not like proceeding by regulation when it is possible to proceed on the face of the Bill. That is the reason I have put down the amendment.
The duty of best value imposes some really sophisticated and administrative procedures which will of themselves be quite expensive on best value authorities. With regard to the list of authorities that are to be best value authorities, Clause 1(2) states,
"In relation to England local authority in subsection (1)(a) means—
(a) a county council"
County councils comprise vast organisations so there is no problem there. District councils, again, generally speaking, comprise big organisations. However, as regards a parish council, we are getting down to the building blocks of democracy. That is even more the case as regards a parish which does not have a separate parish council. At the moment under the Bill those are best value authorities and subject to all the administrative rigours of best value procedure unless under Clause 2 the Secretary of State exercises his power by order to disapply.
My amendment may not be quite adequate to persuade the Minister that he ought to include it on the face of the Bill, because, on thinking about the matter further, I realise that I have not provided for the fact that he might wish at some point in the future to extend his power to disapply. It seems to me that is the only reason one would wish to exercise a power to disapply in this regard. In the light of experience, for instance, it might be revealed that the duty of best value is too expensive and too complex for authorities spending £1 million, or possibly even greater sums than that at some point in the future. Certainly the concept would not apply as regards a new category of authority because I believe that if a new category of best value authority were to be created that would of itself require primary legislation anyway. Therefore the only debating point concerns the question of what is a reasonable sum. If we were in a position to make some provision for adjustment in the future—although no amendment to that effect appears on the Marshalled List—the Minister might well be able to accept the amendment. On that basis, I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: Perhaps I may support the noble Lord, with possibly less hesitation than he showed, as this was a point on which my colleagues in another place tabled amendments during the proceedings on the Bill there. At that time, the Minister told my honourable friend the Member for Taunton that the Government were still having meetings and were discussing the problem with the National Association of Local Councils and others. She said that there would he later opportunities for further amendment. I hope that the Minister can use this opportunity to bring the Committee up to date as to the outcome of those discussions, which would obviously help us to consider whether an amendment might be made at a later stage in this House.
The solution suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, of a minimum sum written onto the face of the Bill with the opportunity for that to be increased seemed to be an appropriate way of dealing with the matter. The noble Lord explained the strains and problems for small authorities. I share the feeling of all noble Lords that it might not be good use of public money for a small local authority to have to go through the procedures provided by the Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): I am grateful for the way in which the amendment has been proposed. However, the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, made clear what was likely to be one of my objections to it.

3
It is true that the Local Government White Paper published last summer suggested a figure of £500,000 as a possible de minimis level for best value authorities. That is because, as both noble Lords have indicated, a statutory duty applied to every parish council and town council would be onerous. Only a very small number of town and parish councils would be over that £500,000 mark. We are considering whether this is indeed the appropriate level. We have consulted with the National Association of Local Councils and others on the matter, and our general view is that this level would indeed strike the appropriate balance.
As proposed in the White Paper Local Voices, issued by the Welsh Office in July last year, the National Assembly for Wales will, following discussions with local authorities, determine the level at which the duty of best value will not apply to best value authorities in the Welsh context.
The amendment places a figure on the face of the Bill without allowing for it to be amended. There could be a different situation in Wales from in England. It is not normal in legislation to provide a figure which is not alterable in changing circumstances. As the noble Lord's amendment stands, it would remove the capacity to change that de minimis level in the future. Setting the figure by order, as we do at present, would provide us with that flexibility and, taken together with the Government's declared intention in the White Paper and since, would meet the point of removing the burden of best value in total from the smaller authorities. The noble Lord has recognised that, in its present form, that would not be appropriate. I therefore ask him to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply, albeit that it was a somewhat disappointing one, given my instinct that we should put as much as we can on the face of Bills and not leave matters to chance.
Perhaps I may first get rid of one canard in his remarks. He implied that Wales might do something different from England and that, implicitly, that might be a bad thing. I am interpreting, but it is implicit in what has happened both in Wales and in Scotland that differences should arise. That has to be accepted, and therefore any debate as to what might or might not happen in Wales has, it seems to me, no relevance to this specific discussion. I would have preferred a more direct answer to what the Minister has had to say, and I wonder if he could perhaps answer the question as to whether, in the light of the consultations that the Government have had, they are considering the possibility of putting down an amendment. I should like to have some definite conclusion before I decide exactly what I wish to do in the future. But in the meantime I shall obviously consider what the Minister has said.
Lord Whitty: I wish to make it absolutely clear that, in so far as the devolution settlement allows the Welsh Assembly to come to a different conclusion in conjunction with its own local authorities, that is fine by me. The point I was making was that if they were, then providing a single figure on the face of the Bill would
4
not be appropriate. In response to the noble Lord's main question, it is his general view that such figures should be on the face of the Bill. It is not, however, the general practice in legislation where it is known that the figure could change simply through the matter of inflation. I am sorry to disappoint the noble Lord, but it is not our intention therefore to come forward with a later amendment.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: The exchange that has taken place has been very helpful because it has illustrated at the very beginning the point that I wish to make with regard to the powers of the Welsh Assembly. By the way the Bill is drafted, from time to time caveats and cautions will be registered about what happens in Wales. It seems to me that the whole structure of the Bill ought to have been considered more carefully.
This is the very first Bill which has been brought forward where the Welsh Assembly's powers are to be taken into account. We have, for example, the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, saying,"The differences as to what happens in Wales do not concern me". However, they concern Wales. A very simple and sensible way to do it, as the Government have reserved to Westminster primary legislative powers for Wales, is to have a separate Bill for Wales. As it is, we find what I regard almost as an insult in Clause 28 of the Bill, where at each reference to the Secretary of State there should be substituted a reference to the National Assembly for Wales. There are exclusions and limitations in the Bill. For example, Clauses 15 to 17 and Clause 26 are excluded. Some of the items we are discussing in Clause 1—namely, subsections (1)(d) and (e)—are excluded and other items in that list are not excluded from Wales, such as the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority which obviously have nothing to do with Wales. It is a complete mix-up of the primary legislative powers which concern the Welsh Assembly and those powers which concern English authorities only.
There is even a difference in Clause 1 about which authorities are concerned. And if I can be a little relevant to the subject of the amendment, the local authorities referred to in relation to Wales,
"a county council, a county borough council or a community council"
are clearly organisations for which one would expect to have a budget in excess of £500,000, but that limitation would exclude the parish meetings to which the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, referred.
Right at the very beginning of the detailed consideration of this Bill, this conflict between the considerations that relate to Wales and those which relate to English local government and other authorities emerges. I shall be making this point at a later stage of the Bill.
Lord Dixon-Smith: After that debate I will consider what the Minister has said, and for the moment withdraw the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No.2:
Page 1, line 20, at end insert—
("(k) a Regional Development Agency")
The noble Lord Kid: We are immediately into another very dangerous field because this is the point at which this particular Bill impacts on yet another Bill which has only just arrived before this House. I suppose that consideration of that Bill will take a great deal more time than consideration of this one. In fact, we have here three amendments. The first is a matter of consistency. If we include the London development agency here, I have some difficulty in understanding why we do not include the regional development agencies in this particular category. I have tried to understand whether the regional development agencies were precursors for the London development agency, or whether it was the other way round and it just happened that the legislative programme went in a different direction.
I accept that, unusually, the London development agency is going to be part of the Greater London Authority, whereas of course the regional development agencies are established on a rather separate basis. It seems to me that the concept and principles of best value, if they have validity, have validity in rather wider spheres than purely those of local government. Therefore, I have no hesitation in moving the first amendment in this particular group.
Is it appropriate! that I speak to the other two amendments in the group at this time?
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Yes.
Lord Dixon-Smith: The second one in fact seeks to establish the Greater London Authority in its entirety as a best value authority. Subsection (2)(d) has a peculiar way of expressing the aspect of London that is subject to the duty of best value. It states,
"the Greater London Authority so far as it exercises its functions through the Mayor".
One way out of this would appear to be for the mayor to decide not to exercise any functions, unless it is those as defined in the Bill. If he can delegate. he can delegate the duty of best value out of existence.
I have some difficulty, therefore, with that particular proposal. Again, if best value has a genuine reason for being, there seems no reason why it should not apply across the Greater London Authority. After all, if one looks down the list of authorities which are included, among which are the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority, Transport for London, the London Development Agency and police authority, there is precious little of the Greater London Authority remaining that is not already in the Bill. I find this annotation in subsection (2)(d), therefore, rather strange.
The third amendment in the group simply removes Clause 2(4), which provides that,
"The Secretary of State may by order provide for the Greater London Authority to he a best value authority for the purposes of this Part in relation to".
6
Therefore, what I am proposing is on the face of the Bill already, but written in a rather longer format. My amendment would merely simplify matters somewhat. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: I, too, was perplexed by the reference to the London development agency, but not regional development agencies, until I read the proceedings in another place and realised that this is because of the status in the health scheme of the local government finance system. I understand that the difference is that the London development agency will be a precepting authority. I dare say that some noble Lords will have comments to make about that when we debate that Bill.
I noted, too, that the comment was made by the Government in another place that NDPBs funded by central government and subject to audit arrangements are subject to what they described as satisfactory arrangements to safeguard probity and value for money. The Minister there was right to refer to quangos and how they deliver their functions. However, local authorities, too, are subject to audit; they are also subject to the ballot box, as we have seen in the past few days.
I would hope that so far as concerns the Greater London Authority, there might be a possibility of finding a more straightforward way to express this remarkably convoluted concept. I am aware that the Government want the Bill to be flexibly drawn to allow for the different ways in which the GLA is to deliver its functions but I do not believe that this clause would pass the plain English test. It has taken me—and others, I know—many readings to try to understand it and I am not entirely sure that I understand it yet.
Lord Bridges: I support Amendment No.2 moved by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, which seeks to include regional development agencies in the list in Clause 1. These agencies were set up under a recent statute. They are not supported, as was originally intended, by elected members in a separate council. The requirements that are set out in the Title of the Bill relating to economy, efficiency and effectiveness could appropriately be applied to the regional development agencies. I support the amendment.
Lord Harris of Haringey: I would have some sympathy with the objectives of the amendments in relation to regional development agencies if that were part of a general approach considering the involvement of all public authorities in best value. However, regional development agencies outside London in many ways constitute "unfinished business" in that they do not relate to an elected authority, whereas the regional development agency in London, the London development agency, will be accountable to a directly elected mayor. That is a distinction which I believe is important and one of the reasons the Bill is placing the London development agency within the ambit of best value, because the London development agency will be acting as part of an authority, an authority which will be precepting from council tax payers across London. The same principles therefore ought to apply to the

7
activities of the London development agency as would apply to any other service for which Londoners are paying through council tax. For that reason I believe that the amendment as drafted is not particularly helpful.
I will not pass judgment on the other amendments because I shall be interested, too, in hearing the precise definition that the Minister is about to give in relation to the responsibilities of the Greater London Authority. It may well be that no functions whatsoever in respect of the delivery of services will be delivered other than under the aegis of the mayor, or the agencies accountable to the mayor. In that case, while I accept that this is not perhaps the simplest way of expressing the concept, it none the less covers all the points that might need to be made.
Lord Whitty: The noble Lord and others have described the complexities of a Bill which has just finished its proceedings in another place and will not be with us until next week. This Bill is attempting to make provision for it. Whether in my reply now I can reduce all of that to standard, plain English I am not entirely sure; I will make an attempt.
As far as regional development agencies outside London are concerned, they are not part of the local authority structure, and the Bill deals with the local authority structure. The Committee will understand that the London development agency is a different case. It has been identified as a best value authority because it will, as the noble Baroness said, be a precepting authority on the Greater London Authority and will be within the total ambit of the local government finance system and therefore within the scope of the best value provisions of the Bill.
Other regional development agencies are not in that position. They are the equivalent of non-departmental public bodies. They will be funded by central government grant-in-aid, and they are accountable to the Secretary of State and then to Parliament. Moreover, their financial arrangements will be set out in financial memoranda and they will be audited by the National Audit Office.
Like other non-departmental public bodies, RDAs will be subject to periodic financial management and policy reviews. Arrangements are therefore already in place to safeguard probity and value-for-money considerations in respect of the non-London RDAs. Those powers are contained in the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998. I hope that explains why we cannot accept Amendment No.2.
Amendments Nos.5 and 6 relate to the position of the Greater London Authority under the best value regime. Amendment No.5 would have the effect of subjecting all the functions of the GLA to the general duty of best value and not just those corporate functions that are exercised through the mayor.
Noble Lords will have noted the particular way in which the Bill provides for the duty of best value to be applied to the GLA. In Clause 1 the GLA is identified as a best value authority
"so far as it exercises its functions through the Mayor".
8
Subsection (4) of Clause 2 provides for the duty to be applied to functions not exercised through the mayor, and functions of another best value authority.
The Government believe that the GLA should be subjected to the duty of best value throughout; but the way in which the duty of best value is applied needs to be flexibly drawn in order to take account of the different ways in which the GLA exercises its functions and its relationship with the four functional bodies that will deliver the main London-wide services, namely, the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority, Transport for London, the London Development Agency and the Metropolitan Police Authority.
The Bill needs to be sufficiently flexible to cater for different internal working arrangements and to ensure that as much of the GLA's normal work as possible is subject to the duty of best value. Clause 2(4) achieves that by allowing the Secretary of State to provide by order the duty of best value, to be applied to any function exercised by the GLA other than through the mayor, and to any role it plays in respect of the functions of other best value authorities; for example, setting the strategy for Transport for London, which is itself a best value authority.
This approach to creating a duty of best value for the GLA takes specific account of the range of different relationships that will exist between its constituent parts. They will ensure as far as possible that accountability for delivering best value will attach to the bodies responsible for carrying out the various functions. Those bodies specified in the Bill are separately audited and separately accountable.
Accountability for the duty of best value needs to be equally clearly drawn, so that there is no doubt where responsibility lies for delivering it. The combination of provisions included in the Bill allows us to ensure that that will be the case. We shall, of course, be prepared to assist the GLA and its various functional bodies by means of guidance should that prove necessary.
A simple application of best duty to the GLA corporately, as is the intention of Amendment No.5, would prevent those aims from being achieved satisfactorily. We run the risk of blurring the lines of accountability if the application of the duty of best value is not clearly prescribed. The Bill as drafted gives us the ability clearly to identify the separate roles of the mayor, the assembly and the functional bodies. A simple corporate application of the duty would not allow us to do so; it would detract from the lines of responsibility and the transparency that we seek.
I hope that that is a clear enough explanation for the noble Baroness, and I hope that the noble Lord will not feel the need to press these amendments.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I am sorry that the Bill will confirm the regions as "second-class citizens". I accept the fact that they will not have assemblies at present to which their RDAs will be accountable. But the Bill seems to confirm the position of the RDAs as even less accountable, as no duty of best value will be applied to them.

9
Should the Government proceed—as I hope they will, particularly in those regions that are making progress towards elected assemblies—how can the duty of best value then be added to apply to RDAs should there be elected assemblies in the regions?
Lord Whitty: The Bill does nothing to change the status of the regional development agencies as they were taken through the House a few months ago. As my noble friend Lord Harris indicated, and as the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, is implying, some of this may well be unfinished business. However, for the moment the RDAs are non-departmental public bodies and have no other form of democratic accountability, except through the Secretary of State and to Parliament. That will remain the situation unless and until we create a form of accountability via regional assemblies on a more democratic basis than currently.
That may well be desirable in the long run. However, it is not the subject of the Bill and the form of accountability and best value which would apply to such regional authorities, were they to be established, would be a matter for subsequent legislation not currently in the programme.
All that is to play for at a much later stage. The London Development Agency, however, is part of the general structure for the Greater London Authority Bill, which will be with as shortly. It needs to be identified separately in the Bill as regards, for example, the Metropolitan Police. Authority and the Fire and Emergency Authority in London, which we have done. We believe that, despite the initial reaction to seeing those authorities and agencies listed separately, it is much clearer in terms of management responsibility in applying best value in practice.
4 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: Am I right in thinking that as regards the relationship between RDAs and regional assemblies, if we have them, best value duties should await that legislation? I am not a particular fan of order-making powers, but it might be possible to provide for an order-making power for regional development agencies within the Bill, which would save some primary legislation. However, with regard to the GLA, oddly there is an order-making power in the Greater London Authority Bill for the best value duties. Have I analysed that correctly?
Lord Whitty: Not entirely. The Greater London Authority Bill will deal with the whole structure and financial control of local government within London, including all the separate agencies and their separate responsibilities. This Bill deals with applying best value throughout local authorities in England and Wales, including the GLA and its various manifestations. It is, therefore, sensible that best value in relation to local government is prescribed within the Bill.
The Government have a wider agenda. In our recent publication, Modernising Local Government, we have indicated that we would expect best value to apply throughout the public sector. There are already auditing and performance requirements for the RDAs as there are
10
for other non-departmental public bodies, but their line of responsibility for delivering goes via the Secretary of State to Parliament, not via a local authority, and the Bill deals with local authorities.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply which went into the subject with very great care and in considerable detail. I accept that we still have this massive Bill to come before us and, to a certain extent, what we are discussing here today is peripheral.
Although the Minister's reply was helpful, I shall need to study it with some care before I am absolutely certain of that fact. If we have somewhat obscure lines of communication within the Greater London Authority, the Bill must take account of that. With the opportunity to study what the Minister has said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Maddock Baroness Maddock: moved Amendment No.3:
Page 1, line 20, at end insert—
("() an energy conservation authority, as defined in section 1(1)(a) of the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995")
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No.3 I shall speak also to the three amendments grouped with it. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that matters are included on the face of the Bill which are the responsibility of energy conservation authorities as defined under Section 1(1)(a) of the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995 and also that other public bodies concerned with the provision of and standards in housing—the Housing Corporation and Housing for Wales—are also included. Having listened to the discussion on previous amendments, I suspect that the Minister will make some similar points about the Housing Corporation and Housing for Wales as he has made in relation to regional development agencies. I await the Minister's reply.
Perhaps at this point I should declare an interest. I was the sponsor of the Bill which became the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995 and also, through the Energy Saving Trust, I have chaired a committee ever since, which has distributed grants under the Home Energy Conservation Act.
With regard to Amendments Nos.2 and 3, it may be helpful if I refer to the duties for local authorities set out in the Home Energy Conservation Act. I have explained Amendments Nos.3 and 4, but amendments to Clause 15 seek to ensure that, for energy conservation authorities and for the Housing Corporation and Housing for Wales, when the Secretary of State puts forward any orders to modify enactments and confer new powers, these bodies are included. If I now explain the duties under the Home Energy Conservation Act, it will be clear to Members of the Committee that this is very relevant.
Briefly, under the Home Energy Conservation Act, energy conservation authorities are required to consider all practical, cost effective and likely measures that will result in significant improvements in energy efficiency in residential accommodation. That is very important when we are talking about best value, because they have

11
to ensure that they include an assessment for the cost of any of these measures. They also have to include statements of policy related to looking after people's circumstances—this concerns fuel poverty and those who find it difficult to pay their bills.
There are also other duties. Energy conservation bodies have to publish reports and send reports to the Secretary of State to say how they are progressing with the implementation of measures in their area and they have to have regard to any guidance by the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State also has duties under the Bill. The one that is most relevant to our debate today is that he has to take such steps as he considers desirable in order to assist with, and to encourage others to assist with, measures set out in such a report of energy conservation issues. Everything in the Bill regarding best value is highly relevant.
The Government recently published a report of this fact, the conclusion and summary of which give a very good back-up argument to the amendments before us today. In the light of that report, they are very helpful amendments to the Government in carrying out what should happen after three years of the Act being in force.
In their conclusion, the Government confirm that the Home Energy Conservation Act is an important piece of legislation. In conjunction with other energy efficiency policies in the United Kingdom, it will bring about real financial savings, improvements in conditions and affordable warmth for all householders and the community as a whole.
The Government recognise that the potential for the Home Energy Conservation Act is wide-ranging and considerable. Further, they say that it should not be unduly expensive for authorities to take forward at a local level if tackled in an appropriate way through partnerships—again, that is very relevant to the Bill before us today. However—and this is another important point—it is unfortunate that evidence suggests that the potential has not yet been realised. That is why it is important that in this legislation the Government provide for the Home Energy Conservation Act to encourage authorities in some good work. Although enthusiasm and activity among many authorities has gone a long way, there is much more to be done. I believe that by having these amendments on the face of the Bill we could back that up.
The Government have said that they are committed to energy efficiency and to the Act. They have put a good deal of money into it in recent years and there are promises of more to back up the work of energy conservation authorities. I hope that the Minister will find these amendments helpful. If he cannot accept them today, perhaps when we reach the later stage of the Bill he can bring forward an acceptable amendment to back up what I believe was great commitment in the report published last month. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I fear that Amendment No.3 and the other amendments grouped with it are based on a misunderstanding of how best value authorities have been defined, and how far the
12
powers and duties of the best value regime extend. However, I hope to clarify the position in order to reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock.
Amendment No.3 seeks to extend the list of best value authorities set out in Clause 1 to include energy conservation authorities as defined in Section 1(1)(a) of the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995. This is not necessary because these energy conservation authorities have already been identified as best value authorities, albeit under another name. For the purposes of Section 1(1)(a) of the 1995 Act, an energy conservation authority is defined as "a local housing authority". That means a district council, a London borough council, the Common Council of the City of London or the Council of the Isles of Scilly. All these authorities are already identified as best value authorities in Clause 1.
It is important to recognise that the duty of best value will apply to all the functions of best value authorities. It will not override the existing statutory duties of those authorities. Rather, it will raise standards generally and will bring improvements to the way those duties are carried out.
Amendment No.73 would consequently enable the Secretary of State to make orders under Clause 15 requiring any person to provide information to energy conservation authorities, where such authorities are best value authorities. The Bill gives the Secretary of State and, where appropriate, the National Assembly for Wales, wide powers to remove obstacles to the achievement of best value authorities. This is done by the Bill acting as a framework, through which these powers can be exercised. However, acceptance of Amendment No.73 would give the Secretary of State powers to make orders laying burdens on third parties not subject to the duty of best value, to supply information to energy conservation authorities.
We can understand the noble Baroness's wish to ensure that energy conservation authorities receive all the information they need to fulfil their duties. However, Amendment No.73 would lay duties on other parties and it would be inappropriate to include references to them in this Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, may wish to note that I shall return to the subject of Housing for Wales in a moment, but implementing Amendment No.4 would subject the Housing Corporation and Housing for Wales to the provisions of Clause 3 (the general duty) and Clause 15 (power to modify enactments and confer new powers). Amendment No.74 would enable the Secretary of State to make orders under Clause 15, conferring on the Housing Corporation and Housing for Wales, powers to issue guidance advising registered social landlords about energy efficiency standards. Taken together, Amendments Nos.4 and 74 would mean that the Secretary of State would be able to give the Housing Corporation and Housing for Wales powers to issue guidance to registered social landlords.
While I can appreciate that the noble Baroness would want the duty of best value to be drawn as widely as possible, we must resist Amendment No.4 because it goes beyond what we are seeking to achieve through the

13
Bill. The purpose of the Bill is to apply the duty of best value to local authorities and other bodies within the local government finance system. This does not include the Housing Corporation or Housing for Wales.
I return to the issue of Housing for Wales and hope that Members of the Committee will forgive me for using the term as a kind of shorthand. It is necessary to point out that Housing for Wales no longer exists as an organisation. The functions transferred to the Secretary of State for Wales last November and will thus become the responsibility of the National Assembly from 1st July. The Housing Corporation is of course a non-departmental public body, sponsored by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. It is subject to the control disciplines common to all such bodies anti its activities are scrutinised by the department. its auditors, the National Audit Office and by Parliament.
The corporation is committed to promoting best value for registered social landlords and issued challenging and comprehensive best value guidance to housing associations in February. This complements the work of the department in promoting best value in the local authority sector. Amendment No.74 attempts to give the Housing Corporation and Housing for Wales powers which will impinge on third parties; namely, registered social landlords. I can understand the noble Baroness's wish to ensure there is the widest possible dissemination of information about energy efficiency issues, especially to landlords. However, such persons are not subject to the duty of best value and I must stress again that it would he inappropriate to include references to them in the Bill.
I take this opportunity to assure your Lordships that the Government are committed to energy efficiency and recognise the extremely important role of local authorities in promoting energy efficiency to their communities. I apologise for the length of the explanation. I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to accept my assurance and will withdraw the amendment.
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: The Minister said that challenging aims were issued. I am not sure whether she said,"by way of guidance"; I may have missed precisely the status of what was issued to housing associations earlier this year. Can she tell the Committee whether that is to make its way into legislation in any form? These amendments are an attempt to even up the situation between loyal authorities, in their capacity as housing authorities, and registered social landlords, who are increasingly taking over the responsibilities. The issues are not necessarily different, though I accept that the route to reaching them may be so.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: The ways in which they are different are probably most clearly defined as dividing those that are bodies coming within the ambit of the local government finance system and those outside it. It is guidance to a non-best value authority and there are no current plans to legislate on that.
Baroness Maddock: I thank the Minister for her comments. I recognise that I was possibly pushing my luck to say something on energy efficiency. But it is a matter dear to my heart, as I am sure the Minister will understand.
I am slightly concerned, as is my noble friend, about the situation regarding registered social landlords and best value in housing. The Minister will he aware that in some cases housing associations, under the Housing Corporation, are providing services to tenants in social housing; in some cases they are doing so on behalf of the local authority. Whether that happens on a wider scale depends on future developments, but it is happening at present and there is great concern on the Opposition Benches about the muddle surrounding that.
If a local authority has its own housing and will no longer apply CCT but best value, that is fine. However, if the local authority employs someone else—a registered social landlord—to run its housing, as happens, for example, in Mendip, the situation is different. Although I accept what the Minister has said about the categories of body included in the Local Government Bill, there is still a big question to be answered. It is not satisfactory merely to refer to "different bodies". We need to know from the Government how they intend to deal with this matter. There will be different situations in different authorities.
I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying the situation in Wales. As my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford said earlier, the Bill is slightly confused as regards the role of Wales. We now know exactly where we are in relation to housing in Wales. We very much welcome the fact that it will be people in Wales who will make that decision about what happens and not ourselves.
In the light of those comments—
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I wonder whether it would be helpful to the noble Baroness. Lady Maddock, if I offered to write to her regarding the specific point about direct responsibility for services and the use of an agent in service provision. I apologise yet again: Wales is on the cusp at present in terms of the way in which legislation is dealt with and decisions are taken. No one could be more delighted than I am that the Welsh are achieving their Assembly.
Baroness Maddock: I thank the Minister for those further comments and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos.4 and 5 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Thomas of Gresford: Perhaps I may take this opportunity to make my point again—but finally, in case I am accused of whingeing for Wales. Let us look at the Assembly that has just come into being. All 60 members are gathering together; in a week or two, all vi ill be sweetness and light, and partnership politics will have taken over from adversarial politics—so we are told. When the members have sorted all that out, they will

15
say,"Well, what do we do next? Let's look at the first Bill that has gone through Westminster that refers to both Welsh and English interests." They will pick up that Bill and, with the greatest respect to very experienced legislators who are present, the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, and my noble friend Baroness Hamwee will have caused them difficulty. They cause us all difficulty on Clause 1. It is simply not possible to analyse Clause 1 distinctly to determine the matters to which the Assembly will turn its attention.
A separate White Paper has been published by the Welsh Office on this issue, so separate consideration has been given to Wales. That advice will be available to the Welsh Assembly in due course. Why can that not be followed by a separate Bill? Instead of having puzzled legislators in Cardiff examining this dog's dinner, why can there not be a Welsh Bill to give the Assembly a flying start? If it is to be said that no legislative time is available in Westminster for primary legislation for a separate Welsh Bill, the answer is quite simple: give primary legislative powers to the Welsh Assembly similar to those that exist in Scotland.
Lord Whitty: I join the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, in welcoming the new era in Welsh politics—the end of adversarial politics in Wales, at least between parties. I am not entirely sure within parties, but certainly between them. As my noble friend Lady Farrington has said, Wales is on the cusp. It might well be that in a year's time we would provide separate legislation for future developments within Wales.
Nevertheless, the English and Welsh local authority systems have been dealt with in parallel legislation for many decades and they are very similar in structure. The only question is who should carry out the powers in relation to those local authorities. Both the White Paper for Wales and our own White Paper give a commitment to best value.
The question then of who carries out the powers of the Secretary of State is different in England from Wales. The Secretary of State clearly carries them out in England; the Secretary of State and the Assembly carry them out in Wales. It is fairly clear that in so far as they relate to delegated legislation, the National Assembly will have the authority.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: Perhaps I may interrupt the noble Lord for a moment to ask a question about a point which puzzles me. Clauses 15 to 17 are reserved, and the matter of the Assembly does not deal with that. Is the Secretary of State there the Secretary of State for Wales in relation to Welsh matters, or is it the Secretary of State for local government?
Lord Whitty: As in so many other areas, the Secretary of State is provided depending on the structure of government in future. In normal circumstances, as of now, it is the Secretary of State for Wales, I think in relation to all those provisions. If I need to clarify that further I will write to the noble Lord. The fact of the matter is that this legislation is enabling legislation, and
16
it therefore does require a degree of flexibility. There will be different practices growing up no doubt in Wales from those in England.
The structure with which we are dealing is an equivalent structure of local government and the relativity between the local authorities and the national authorities is the same. In Wales the way in which those national responsibilities are conducted will now be divided between the Secretary of State and the Assembly. As I say, it may well be that were we legislating in five years' time we would have separate legislation.
I hope we do not have to legislate again, not on this part of local authority reform, and I suspect that much of what we legislate for the local authorities in England will apply equally to Wales. If there is further clarification needed in future legislation no doubt we will provide for that. I hope that none of what I have said takes away from both the importance of the Bill for the conduct of local government in Wales, and our good wishes for the Welsh Assembly, and indeed the Secretary of State for Wales, in carrying out their functions under this Bill.
Lord Dixon-Smith: Before the Minister sits down, I wonder if I could press him slightly further. I have some sympathy with the dilemma noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. I wonder if the Minister would apply his mind to the question of what happens if, as a result of the Bill, and then in the light of experience, there is a hiatus. How is that hiatus to be resolved? Are we envisaging that this might be resolved through the courts, which can be a very long and expensive process, in which case who is to bear the cost? Or are we envisaging that the hiatus would remain until such time as further legislation was passed?
We are coming back to the problem that it is not the case that England and Wales have been legislated for in the past in parallel; they have been legislated for more or less in unison. But now, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, has said, there is a parting of the ways. I do not see what the problem is because I am not a lawyer but the noble Lord clearly does. However, if there is a hiatus I would be interested to hear how that is to be resolved.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Whitty: I am not sure what the noble Lord means by a hiatus; there is not a hiatus. We have a structure of local government and a relationship between it and national government which, in England, will continue. The function of local government will continue to be the same in England as it is in Wales. However, the national function will henceforth be exercised through a combination of the Secretary of State and the Assembly for Wales in Wales. In England it will continue to be conducted by the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions. I therefore do not see that there is a hiatus. We are not awaiting new legislation. This legislation will apply to Welsh local government as it applies to English local government. It is only the national responsibility which will be differentiated.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Power lo extend or disapply]:
[Amendment No.6 not moved.]
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No.7:
Page 2, line 40, leave out subsection (5)
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No.7 seeks to delete from the Bill Clause 2(5). This is a provision to which reference has already been made this afternoon in connection with the de minimis provisions which were the subject of the first amendment.
I have tabled this amendment in order to ask the Minister to give us some explanation of the basis on which individual authorities may be exempt from the provisions we are discussing, and to explain to us which authorities comprise authorities of a particular description. The term "description" seems to me to be quite wide. I am aware that there are provisions in the Bill to deal with authorities which fall within particular categories. Amendments which we shall discuss later seek to insert the word "category" at a number of points in the Bill. However, the word "description" to my mind seems to imply something more than a category. I take an absurd example; namely, that authorities which are on sufficiently obsequious terms with the Secretary of State may fall within a particular description. I hardly believe that the Government intend that that is the standard to be aimed for. However, the matter is not clear from the way in which this provision is drafted.
I have made this point frivolously but there is a serious point behind it; namely, there is a natural anxiety within local government that we may be moving towards a premier league and other divisions of local authorities. Beacon councils which wish understandably to he given the opportunity to show what good local government can do could too easily fall into what I have described as the premier league in terms of favourable treatment. This is a move which has to be viewed with considerable care and sensitivity. I do not suggest that particular authorities should be reined back; quite the contrary. However, I express the concern that those authorities which have not managed early on to achieve the high standard that we hope to see right across local government may be treated less favourably. Therefore I hope that the Minister can explain what is intended by this subsection. Will it allow exemption in respect of specified functions, which seems to be what is intended? I find that a little puzzling as it appears to allow preferential treatment. In terms of providing for best value that seems a little odd as those which achieve a high standard should not have a problem with the best value duty. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I hope to be able to reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, on one point at least. I have met few people in my political career who would recognise, and not have high regard for, obsequiousness more readily than my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister. By removing Clause 2(5), Amendment No.7 would remove the capacity within the Bill to allow the Secretary of State to vary the duty of best value in respect of individual authorities and categories of authority.
18
I must make it quite clear that the Government's intention is that the duty of best value will in general apply to all local authority functions. Clause 2(5) does not detract from that general principle. However we believe that it is important that the duty can be applied in an appropriate and sensible fashion and not as a straitjacket. This means that, if necessary, it should be possible to make different arrangements to reflect different circumstances. The point is that the full duty of best value may prove to be too onerous or impractical in certain circumstances. For example, it might be sensible to make different arrangements in respect of certain services provided by town and parish councils or the emergency planning functions of other authorities. Clause 2(5) allows us to deal with such cases in a flexible and appropriate manner; for example, to set a threshold so that the framework takes account of the circumstances of the smaller town and parish councils. I hope that this reassurance is satisfactory and that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: Can the Minister answer the short and direct point as to whether there is a difference between the term best value authorities "of a description specified" and best value authorities falling within a particular category?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I understand that it covers both. If one looks at the issue of functions and types of authorities providing those functions—for example, emergency planning functions—that would apply to categories of authorities as well as to their functions, and to individual authorities in the example of the very small parish councils.
Baroness Hamwee: I shall read that reply carefully. I do not believe I am convinced that it need be a different term in this clause from terminology we may want to use later, and which I have heard the Minister use on other occasions outside this Committee.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: It covers both. A description may be of a particular category of authority. I do not know whether that is helpful.
Baroness Hamwee: I shall think about that. Certainly, at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No.7 not moved.]
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [The general duty]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No.8:
Page 3, line 6, leave out ("and")
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No.7, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos.9, 11, 12, 30, 31, 40 and 41. I can deal with Amendments Nos.30, 31, 40 and 41 quickly by saying that they are consequential on the earlier amendments in the group. Amendment No.9 is the first substantive amendment in the group. It seeks to add to the list in Clause 3(1) of the matters to which best value authorities must have

19
regard. The clause as drafted provides for authorities to have regard to a combination of economy, efficiency and effectiveness. Those three "Es" which I said at Second Reading had a slightly 1980s ring about them, are important and remain important. However, I do not believe that they cover everything.
In particular, I do not believe that they necessarily preclude inequality of access— access to services, for instance, because of the distance which the user may have to travel, or inequality of access because of disability on the part of the user. The term "effectiveness" should include and require an equitable approach, but I am not confident that that is how it would be interpreted. What is the harm in including equity? I would not even propose that it takes priority over economy, efficiency and effectiveness, but simply that best value authorities should have regard to it in combination with those other matters.
Amendments Nos.11 and 12 refer to other best value criteria. The Government will be giving guidance, and the economy, efficiency and effectiveness criteria relate to financial performance. I am therefore concerned to be assured that guidance on other matters—sustainability, for instance, which is dealt with in a subsequent amendment, innovation and so on—can over-ride or even be given equal status with economy, efficiency and effectiveness. Will a court be able to have regard to equity—if equity is a criterion included in guidance—if there is a challenge, perhaps, by a group of council ratepayers who are concerned only with the rigour of value for money in its narrowest sense?
In another place, the Minister said that it is not the responsibility of national government to define everything that local government should do and to legislate for that. She said that is why we argue for flexibility. Amendment No.11 is intended to allow for that flexibility. I have mentioned sustainability and I have also mentioned innovation, and this is perhaps the moment to pay tribute to the group of authorities in East Sussex. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, is here, because what they have been doing in connection with council tax collection is innovative; it is precisely what the Government want to encourage and what many of us would like to see.
Amendment No.12 is almost consequential because it is so obvious. It provides that,
"Before specifying matters which are to be permitted pursuant to subsection (1) the Secretary of State shall consult",
in the terminology that legislation uses,
"such persons as he thinks fit".
That is on the basis that Secretaries of State always have a sensible idea of whom it is fit to consult. Consultation would be a prerequisite. I beg to move.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: These amendments go to the heart of what takes this Bill beyond simply being a replacement for CCT and indicate where we should be in examining best value. This weekend, I was interested to read Pollution Injustice by the Friends of the Earth, which makes the point about the links between economic development,
20
social exclusion and environmental quality. It makes the point that you cannot categorise services, one from another. Certainly, all of those authorities which have worked on issues such as social exclusion, see that the measure of equity is very crucial. If the Bill goes through without these amendments, we will find that local authorities are forced into a position where they will follow the effectiveness and economic route as regards, for example, the question of equity.
Working on matters of social exclusion frequently means that you need to take a long-term approach. It frequently means that councils which were taking a very conscientious line in this would probably fail to reach some of the national performance indicators which were taking only the first of the three "Es" into account. The amendment to include equity in Clause 3 and in the performance indicators is crucial. I cannot conceive of performance indicators that will move the way that local authorities deliver their services onwards excluding something as basic as equity. That is one of the reasons why for too long we have had ghettos of inequality.
One of the points missed in the Bill is that as one has a bigger duty to consult people it becomes more crucial that those who are able to respond to consultation—middle-class people with word processors and those who are happy standing up in public and responding to questions that councils ask—will always be at the forefront of those consulted. Now a duty of equity puts a duty more plainly on the councils to make sure that they are consulting the people who are rarely heard.
Although I am sure the Minister will say that this will be addressed in guidance, it is not nearly a strong enough message. I believe that the amendments bring the Bill much more in line with what the Government were hoping for when they published In Touch with the People.
I should very much like to see those words included in both places. I cannot believe that we can move towards what we are calling "best value" while excluding such a basic idea as equity.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Tanworth: I, too, would have liked to see the words relating to equity and sustainable development included on the face of the Bill. However, if the Government intend to maintain the position that they should not be, will the Minister tell us when the guidance on that question will be available? It raises those questions which the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has raised about the relative priorities of the different objectives. Before the Bill completes its stages it would be helpful to see what guidance is being produced.
I hope that it is appropriate to raise an issue in respect of Clause 3 which has been omitted. Clause 3 relates to making arrangements to secure continuous improvement in the way in which local authorities' functions are exercised, and it refers to their current functions. Your Lordships will remember that in the In Touch with the People White Paper it was said that the Government proposed to introduce a new duty to promote the

21
wellbeing of the community. That does not figure in the Bill and it is regrettable because, as paragraph 8.9 of the White Paper said,
"This new duty will provide an over-arching framework for local government".
I have tabled an Unstarred Question, which I hope will be debated before the end of June or early July, and it may be that the Minister can add nothing at this stage. The proposed new duty does seem to me extremely relevant to best value legislation and it should form a central part of it. I hope that at some stage before the present Bill has completed its passage through the House we shall know a little more clearly what the Government's intentions are about the new duty.
Lord Harris of Haringey: I, too, wish to place on record my belief that considerations of equity must be seen as integral to the duty of best value. I could easily be persuaded of the importance of it being sufficient for the definition of best value and for the issues around equity to be covered in guidance, but I should like to support the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Tanworth, that it would be helpful for us to see that guidance, or draft guidance, prior to the conclusion of our considerations of the Bill.
I certainly believe that equity must be a critical part of local government responsibilities. We have had the Macpherson Report into the death of Stephen Lawrence, which raises very wide issues for all public authorities, including local government, about the way in which it delivers services and about issues of institutional racism. We have to make sure that our services are delivered fairly and equally to all of our local citizens. That must be an essential prerequisite for tackling issues of social exclusion and a fundamental part of the work of local government. I hope that the Minister will be able to indicate that the guidance will be published before we complete our consideration of the Bill so that we can see exactly how that is expressed and satisfy ourselves that that duty is being enforced by all local authorities without it needing to be on the face of the Bill.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I, too, express the hope that the Minister can be helpful on this particular matter. I am old-fashioned and have always believed that promoting the wellbeing of the community was the only reason for being involved in a local authority in the first instance. If you do not have that as a primary ambition you should never have started down that particular road. Whether you translate that into the modern, single word "equity" is entirely another matter, but this is an important issue.
Although those who are also old-fashioned might regret that we have to express more of such detail in Bills, they are becoming more specific. Therefore such detail has to go in. It would be a serious omission from the Bill, given its particular impact on the way in which local authorities are to function, if it was not included in instead of included out.
Lord Whitty: Perhaps I may deal with some general issues before turning to the amendments themselves. I take the point from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Tanworth. that wellbeing is of great importance in our whole approach to local government reform. It was a
22
significant issue within the White Paper. The Bill is not, however, the totality of our approach to local government reform. You will already he aware that there is another draft Bill dealing with aspects of the reform agenda not covered here. Furthermore, aspects which were covered by the White Paper on which legislation or other measures to deliver the objectives, will at some point be necessary.
I would very much welcome a general discussion on the issue of wellbeing. However, we have not thought it appropriate to write in wellbeing provisions into the Bill because it is primarily about the way in which local government conducts its management and delivers its services, and to some extent its financial control, rather than the broader objectives of local government. That will come later in the reform programme, and will probably require some considerable discussion in this House in various forms. I would certainly welcome an opportunity to discuss that, as the noble Lord suggests.
In relation to the provision of guidance under these clauses, last month we issued some preliminary guidance which I have made available to your Lordships. However, I cannot give the guarantee I think the noble Lord is requesting; that we will finalise our guidance before the Bill passes through its various stages in this House. Having set down preliminary guidance, the intention is to consult in June and to issue the statutory guidance after the Bill has been passed. This is of course the case with most guidance under statute. Nevertheless, the preliminary guidance, and what has been said by my colleagues and myself in the course of these deliberations, will give a clear indication as to the way in which we are approaching the final guidance.
The amendments focus on the issue of equity. Amendment No.9 would directly add equity to the list of functions. Amendment No.30 and following amendments would correspondingly add equity to the list of factors to be taken into account in setting performance indicators and carrying out best value reviews.
I have great sympathy with the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Miller, on the Liberal Democrat Benches. Nevertheless, it would not be appropriate to write equity into the Bill in this form. The Government consider it essential that as a result of introducing best value, our local authorities concentrate on service outputs and outcomes. Thus, those responsible for audits—and local people generally—can assess local authority performance against outputs and outcomes.
We have defined the process of best value in terms of economy efficiency and effectiveness, backed up by a set of national indicators relating to output. Those indicators would not be drawn narrowly. For example, we are looking at a series of indicators under the "effectiveness" banner, which reflect fair access to services, as referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. Fair access could be regarded as being equity under another name. There will certainly he key indicators against which best value will be assessed and which will include fairness. I can confirm that the

23
statutory guidance on the three Es will indeed make clear that effectiveness includes equitable access to services and fairness. Our approach to performance indicators, therefore, will reinforce this and there will be indicators of fair access to services. Fairness, however, will not be the only one. Local authorities will themselves be free, of course, to develop their own indicators to reflect the priorities of their own electorates.
It should also be remembered that our approach to consultation under this Bill is designed to ensure that all sections of the community have a voice in determining the priorities of service delivery. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, expressed concerns with which I sympathise. I can reassure her that the duty of consultation will be framed as widely as possible in order to include all of those who have an interest, whether or not they have access to e-mailing and whether or not they are organised in direct bodies who would normally be consulted. That will be made clear in our guidance.
There is a problem, however, with writing equity as such into these criteria, as distinct from ensuring that equity—or at least fairness, the term I would prefer—is a criterion under the effectiveness banner. I recognise, incidentally, that Amendment No.31 also refers to sustainability but perhaps the noble Lords would not mind if we deal with that under Amendment No.10.
Consideration of factors such as equity will indeed be an intrinsic part of delivering effective services and local authorities could not sustain their position, were they not to pursue fairness in that sense. However, there is difficulty with what equity actually means and whether the local authority could be challenged for not delivery equity. There was indeed some slippage in certain things said by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, between the terms "equity" and "equality". If that is the case with the noble Baroness, then it will certainly be the case with many of the people who respond to the way in which local authorities deliver services.
A group of ratepayers objecting to the way in which a local authority conducts its business may well say that they were created equally and therefore were contravening the determination of the Act relating to equity as an overriding provision. Because there is this public confusion between equity and equality— and, frankly, to meet the kind of problems to which the noble Baroness herself was referring in terms of current inequalities—it may be that inequality of output may be a desirable and fair objective. However, as there is confusion between equality and equity, there is a problem in writing equity on the face of the Bill. The term "effectiveness" will incorporate fairness. Authorities individually will need to take a strategic approach as to how they interpret best value and how best they meet it. They need to prioritise their functions for review, based upon an objective assessment of how well they are performing against clearly understood and consistently-based criteria. Those criteria may well have an equity element built into them but they have little
24
chance of doing so if it is unclear what exactly makes up their duty and if there is some lack of clarity as to what the term "equity" means in this context.
The best way to ensure that the duty is comprehensive in scope is to encourage joint working by means of proper use of performance measurement and its framework and statutory guidance. That statutory guidance will ensure that fairness of access in particular is a major criteria for the delivery of services.
There are a number of points lying behind the concerns that have been expressed. I hope my objection to the inclusion of "equity" in this context cannot in any sense be interpreted as saying we object to the objectives behind the moving of these amendments. Nevertheless, we do not believe that the inclusion of "equity" at this point and in these forms would be appropriate in the Bill.
5 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: The Minister tempts me to think of another way of approaching this issue on Report and I am not going to resist that temptation. However, it is worth making some further points now because the Minister may care to come back at this point.
The noble Lords, Lord Hunt of Tanworth and Lord Harris of Haringey, referred to guidance and the material which has gone round to local authorities does not go very far at all in talking about the criteria which are to be applied. So I share their concern to see something more substantive.
There are at least two problems in relying on guidance. Guidance can be altered by the same Secretary of State or, indeed, by a subsequent Secretary of State, so that whatever is in guidance may not last the course of the best value duty. Secondly, can the Minister assist the Committee on the status of guidance when it comes to the courts interpreting the criteria? It seems to me that an explanation in guidance as to what will satisfy the test of effectiveness will not even get into the Pepper v. Hart arena of material on which the interpretation of the statute can be based. As I understand it, Hansard is only referred to if the statute is not clear and effectiveness seems to me to be a pretty clear term. Even if it were not a clear term and the courts had regard to what this House and the other place have to say on the term "effectiveness", having the explanation in guidance will not be of any assistance unless we get draft guidance early enough for us to have a debate on what it has to say, so that we can get into Hansard a ministerial assurance as to what it means.
On the point of whether "equity" is the right term, I will not be the only one who will be open to suggestions of synonyms. I was glad to have the Minister's confirmation that "effectiveness" will include fairness. However, before that he said that the Bill is about how local government conducts its management and delivers services as if best value is pretty much confined to value for money. I would much prefer to rely on the second part of what he said to the first part. However, I am sure this will be a matter to which we will need to return

25
because, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, has said, it will be integral to the new duty. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No.9 not moved.]
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer moved Amendment No.10:
Page 3, line 6, at end insert ("and sustainability")
The noble Baroness said: We seek to include the concept of "sustainability" in this clause although it is sometimes hard to separate it from the other concepts we spoke of when speaking to the previous amendment.
Ever since the Rio summit the concept of sustainability has too often been paid a huge amount of lip service but little is actually done to implement it. Local authorities were a key element in the Local Agenda 21 initiative. They sought to offer community leadership. They have to deliver the services and they have to initiate practical action locally and encourage the communities they serve to do so too.
If we leave sustainability out of this Bill we shall have said many nice things about it but we shall just have tinkered around the edges of it. It will not be put at the heart of service delivery and community plans. As regards trying to initiate the Local Agenda 21 proposals, sustainability must be at the heart of that process. When we discussed informally in this room the question of why sustainability might not be included in this Bill the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said that was because this Bill is about the conceit of process and not the concept of outcome. However. sustainability must be part of the process. If you prevent it from being part of the process, it is most unlikely to be part of the outcome. That is certainly something which I have discovered as a councillor considering how to include the concept of sustainability in everything that the authority in question addresses. It has to be there from start to finish. To exclude it from the concept of best value is to relegate it to the status of something to which we pay lip service hut do little to implement.
We have to take account of the fact that there are sometimes crucial conflicts between value for money and sustainability. We must at least give sustainability an equal status with other measures when we assess what a local authority is expected to do. I come back to the performance indicators; sustainability has to be included as one of the crucial indicators. If that is not done, there will be conflict and a balancing act will have to be undertaken as between economy, efficiency and sustainability. That conflict exists because economy and efficiency will often be easier objectives to achieve in the short term while sustainability is frequently a long-term objective. Performance indicators of short-term objectives will simply not be relevant to those matters which ought to be considered as longer term objectives. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: I warmly support my noble friend's remarks. I was disturbed to read a Written Answer in the House of Commons' Hansard on the
26
subject of environmental appraisals undertaken by the Minister's department on various Bills, including this Bill. The Written Answer stated,
"No environmental appraisal was undertaken of the Local Government Bill as its content has no direct implications for the environment. The Bill deals with local management and financial issues."—[Official Report, Commons, 4/5/99; cols. WA 308 and 309.]
I need hardly say more!
Lord Whitty: Perhaps I may correct an impression that the noble Baroness clearly has of my previous remarks. I was trying to make an intellectual distinction between process and outcome. At the end of the day this Bill is very much about outcomes as we wish to improve outcomes for local authority services, including those in the sustainable development area. It is the way of getting there that best value describes. I have no quarrel at all with the importance that the noble Baroness through this amendment attaches to sustainable development. This is probably the most significant challenge to the current generation of politicians which is why in the Local Agenda 21 strategy we have asked all local authorities to mainstream sustainable development principles within all of their policies and programmes. This is neither simple nor easy to deliver on the ground, hut we expect authorities to give expression to those principles, primarily through the process of community planning, in engagement with the other players in that arena. We are engaged in a reassessment of planning and we will want local authorities to play a major role in that process as leaders of their communities. That new duty will place sustainable development at the centre of community planning, and in that arena we remain committed to bringing forward such legislation as soon as parliamentary time allows.
That is an outcome. Best value on the other hand is about delivering those sustainable policies and outcomes in the most efficient and effective manner. We need to be clear about this. We intend to legislate in due course to give local authorities a duty to promote economic, social and environmental well-being, and the powers to deliver that. Once that is clearly established, the duty of best value will apply to that as well. Sustainable policies will lead to the desired outcome, which will have to be delivered efficiently and effectively in accordance with the principles of best value. In that timescale we would expect to see indicators develop which enable progress of sustainable development to be assessed, both in relation to local authorities' activities as a whole and in relation to particular areas.
It is therefore important that we make this distinction. Sustainability runs through our whole approach to the strategies which we expect local authorities to develop and the outcomes which we wish to see them achieve. The criteria for best value include ways of best meeting those outcomes, but they are criteria related to the way of delivering those outcomes and not the outcomes themselves. I seek to reassure the noble Baroness that sustainable outcomes and sustainable developments are central to our whole strategy in what local authorities should be delivering for their communities.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I thank the Minister for his reply. I feel most strongly about this

27
subject, as do we all on our Benches, as in spirit do the Government. But I say again that we will want to press this matter further given the fact that, unless it is included as a fundamental duty on local authorities, I feel that it will always be the poor relation when conflicts arise as to where their first duty should lie. beg to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos.11 and 12 not moved]
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No.13:
Page 3, line 6, at end insert—
("() For the purposes of subsection (1) public authorities working in partnership with a best value authority shall be subject to the duty under this section.")
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No.13 proposes that, for the purposes of the general best value duty, public authorities which work in partnership with a best value authority will be subject to the same duty. I appreciate that the Bill is designed for bodies which are within the local government finance system, which is not just local authorities, but I am concerned to know how such functions as are carried out by best value authorities in partnership with other bodies will be affected by the legislation. I realised last night that perhaps I should have made it clear that the amendment was limited to the occasions when public authorities work in partnership and did not provide a general duty extending beyond that partnership. But I am sure the Minister will understand that that was the thrust of the amendment.
We could all list a number of occasions when best value authorities will work with other public bodies; for example, health services working with hospitals and others; the requirement for health services and social services to be provided in a co-ordinated and sensible fashion; local authorities working with regional development agencies; the whole matter of economic regeneration; or local authorities working with the Home Office in relation to provision for refugees. They will discuss particular types of service delivery, the field of community safety, and environmental sustainability.
Clause 5 requires best value authorities to consult with "commercial and other businesses". That may provide an opportunity to ask whether those include quangos. In any event, the duty of consultation on best value authorities does not place a duty on other bodies. I am aware that it is the Government's longer-term ambition that all public sector bodies should comply with best value principles. This amendment would help to make collaboration through public sector partnerships an explicit part of best value. It must be sensible to attempt to achieve consistency of approach in setting out community objectives for best value and in progress reports; my noble friend has twice referred to performance indicators; and accountability for the eventual outcome.
Finally, perhaps I may offer a concrete example. What will happen if the policy and performance indicators of the Probation Service on youth crime prevention are not aligned with those of social services
28
and health services on closely allied subjects. This may not be precisely the amendment to achieve what we seek, but consistency across service delivery, notwithstanding the identity of the partners, is a very important matter.
I beg to move.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I support my noble friend in this amendment. While serving at the same time on a local authority and a hospital trust board, I became very aware of the different approaches, even to financial management, that were incorporated in those two bodies.
Under the health Act that we took through this House some while ago, we discussed the matter of collaboration between NHS bodies and local authorities. At that time I raised my worry that there were considerable difficulties in the culture and approach of the two organisations. Collaboration must take place at two levels: first, at the planning level, when health services for a whole area are jointly planned; and secondly, at the delivery level.
Perhaps I may refer briefly to the Minister's reply to Amendment No.8 as regards fairness. Fairness could be a very important criterion in determining the best way to organise services. In the field of long-term care, for example, in many places it is presently extremely difficult for those in residential care homes to receive any kind of medical services except those provided by their local GP. They cannot receive physiotherapy, for example, as they would be able to if they were living in their own home and physiotherapists were available. It is a question of resources. There are very few physiotherapists, because physiotherapists, indeed therapists in general, are not high on the list of priorities for national health bodies. But when considering long-term care for disabled or elderly people, they become very important elements in their care package. We are in danger of not assisting in bridging the gap unless the Bill makes some effort to encourage those authorities that are not covered by local government finance provisions to take the same kind of approach as their partners in local government will adopt.
Lord Harris of Haringey: Best value is important for public authorities. I should like to see us moving towards a situation in which public authorities are required to fulfil the principles of best value. I suspect that that may be the "back door" effect of the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, but probably not what she intended.
Having said that, the intention behind the amendment raises some important issues. It is quite clear that increasingly, local government will be working in partnership with other bodies. Partnership structures will be set up to deliver services or to make things happen. I can envisage all kinds of anomalies as to whether the principles of best value have to operate under those various sets of circumstances. Reference has been made to the health provision and, increasingly, health trusts are working jointly with local social services departments to provide services. Sometimes these are

29
notionally under the aegis of the health trust, sometimes that of the local authority. That practice is increasing. It is often a matter of convenience as to which is the lead authority. I would hate the situation to arise in which the structures going through the best value process would determine which became the lead authority, rather than what made sense for other, practical reasons in the area.
There are, however, also community safety partnerships in relation to the tackling of crime and disorder. There are regeneration partnerships. Again, in all of these there needs to be clarity about the extent to which best value applies to them. This amendment does not quite achieve that, but we need to have better information on the issue. Otherwise, there will be all kinds of problems on the ground within local government.
Lord Whitty: This debate has raised some interesting points about the delivery on the ground. Although it may not surprise you that I am not minded to accept the amendment, it does seem to address a very important issue. This Bill is about best value in local government within the local government finance system. It does not deal with public bodies which are outside the local government finance system. The scope is clearly defined in Clause I, as we have indicated already. It can be extended by Clause 2, but it has to be consistent with the approach in relation to local government finance. We are, of course, intent that best value should apply in other parts of the public sector. We made it clear that we would want the principles of best value to be applied to those bodies which work alongside, or in partnership with, best value local authorities.
We are making significant progress in other contexts in realising that aim. For example, as indicated earlier, the principles of best value have been endorsed and applied by the Housing Corporation in its work with registered social landlords. Your Lordships may also be aware of the approach set out in Better Quality Services, which deals with central government departments and agencies which work together in the National Health Service—again, best value being delivered within the financial regime that operates there. As regards the particular example raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, in relation to the Probation Service, the Home Office is working on how best value would operate within that service. It will be consulting on whether new legislation will be needed in respect of all or some of those requirements. However, the issue is actively under consideration within the Home Office.
More generally, I have already referred to the White Paper, Modern Local Government: In Touch with the People, which places best value at the heart of those improvements. This Bill, however, deals with how we achieve it through local government and the financial system which applies within local government, while trying to ensure that best value principles are more widely applied. A key purpose of the powers in Clause 15, to which we shall turn later, is to facilitate the operation of partnerships between individual local authorities and Between local authorities and other public sector bodies and beyond. Hence, there are proposals to pool budgets and other areas on which we
30
are consulting. There may be other areas, of course, which would be open to partnership where we could therefore apply the principles of best value in the different financial contexts in which the various public sector bodies operate.
However, I repeat that the Bill deals with the local authority financial regime. That may not be the best part for other areas—for example, the bodies with which local government operates in partnership, where there are different systems of public accountability, different systems of audit and different systems of review. We want to learn from the local government experience and from other best value initiatives that are taking place in other parts of the public sector. We would want to keep those under review and to try to make them as compatible as possible. However, to stipulate in the present Bill that parts of the public sector which are covered by financial regimes under different legislation would be difficult, if not impossible.
We understand the motivation behind Amendment No.13 and we are taking steps with other parts of the public sector, particularly those which are most likely to form partnerships with local authorities. It will be their financial regimes through which the best value can be achieved. We hope that they will be as compatible as possible but this provision deals solely with the local authority financial structure.
With those assurances that we are moving on other fronts and that we are moving to facilitate partnerships within the Bill, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able not to pursue her amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: I thank the Minister for that reply, though I have to say that from listening to him—I shall read what he has said—he has rather more restated the problem than given the solution. I accept that it may not be possible to deal with the solution within the Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, said, it is very important that we have clarity. It had not occurred to me that there might be a fight to concede the leadership on a project but one sees that that situation might come about. That would not he to anyone's best advantage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No.14:
Page 3, line 11, leave out paragraph (b)
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No.14, I wish to speak also to Amendments No.15 and 16. It is all too easy to say that consultation is a good thing. These three amendments deal with the issue of consultation. As the Bill is drafted, I have one or two small problems.
The first is that there is an element of what I can only describe as class distinction in the Bill. We are here dealing with the duty to consult that is being imposed on best value authorities. A little further down the page is the class distinction:
"the Secretary of State shall consult such persons as he thinks fit".
I shall be accused of inconsistency because I and other noble Lords have tabled amendments to alter that situation. However, by the way the Bill is drafted, two classes of consultation are one more than is really necessary.
My amendments propose the removal of Clause 3(2)(b) and (d). That leaves on the face of the Bill,
"representatives of persons liable to pay any tax, precept or levy to or in respect of the authority",
and indeed,
"representatives of persons"—
which is a fairly wide phrase—
"who use or are likely to use services provided by the authority"."
When one considers the two categories that are left, I have had some difficulty in thinking of anyone else anyway. For a start I would suggest that paragraphs (b) and (d), which I have suggested be removed, are not essential to the sense of this clause. The second reason is that, paradoxically, the more classes of people who are defined, the more people are left out. By defining specific groups on the list many more specific groups will be left off. Therefore, I suggest that it would be better to keep the categories of people involved down to the smallest possible number.
Having said that, my final amendment of the three, Amendment No.16, deals with the one essential group of people who are intimately involved both with the delivery of best value and its impact and all too often in the way in which they work and run their lives. The people who are most directly concerned, apart from those who use the service, are the people who provide it. I have tabled an amendment to suggest that they should be consulted.
This is a fairly straightforward and simple issue, but quite an important one. Although some might say that I am arguing against the concept of full consultation, I argue very seriously that that is not so. I want proper consultation, but consultation which is achievable and meaningful and not with the net spread so widely that people can feel left out if they are not specifically caught. I believe that is the way the Bill is heading. I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: I have two amendments in this group; Amendments No.17 and 18. First, I should like to comment on the amendments to which the noble Lord has just spoken. Tact requires that I first deal with Amendment No.16 with which I agree; to include employees in the group of consultees. I accept that the best value duty is a duty to the public, and that employees will help to fulfil that duty. However staff have a great deal to contribute to the operation of a service. They are often at the sharp end, and it is not necessarily only the senior staff who have a great deal to say. Any authority which fails not only to listen to what its employees have to say but fails to ask them to make their views known is failing in a serious regard.
Despite what the noble Lord said about extending consultation, the first two amendments rather surprise me. The amendment requiring that business rate payers
32
are not consulted reminds us that at present the only statutory consultation required for council tax is with business rate payers.
Lord Dixon-Smith: Does the noble Baroness consider that anybody who is paying business rates in a particular local authority area must by definition be a person either who uses or is likely to use services provided by the authority?
Baroness Hamwee: They do of course, which is one of the reasons why many of us would like to see business rates returned to a more local base. However the services which they use are sometimes different from those used by others who may or may not pay council tax. As a group, they deserve recognition. The representatives of people who appear to have an interest in an area in which the authority functions rather suggests that it is only people who pay council tax or preceptual levy who deserve to be heard. I cannot believe that that is, or should be, the case.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I must protest: the term "users of services" in local authority areas includes almost everyone by definition. There is no distinction in sub-paragraph (c) regarding that use. When you merely walk down the road, you are using a local authority service; if you send a child to school, you are using a local authority service; if you have drains with an outlet anywhere, you are using a local authority service. I submit that the definitions I have advanced are perfectly adequate and that the arguments advanced against me are somewhat specious.
Baroness Hamwee: It is precisely because someone is using the services that he or she should be fully consulted. Incidentally, these amendments do not address the issue of people who move across boroughs and have interests in different boroughs.
Turning to Amendments Nos.17 and 18, I have no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, will not like the requirement in Amendment No.17 for consultation with representatives of those who have an interest in a function exercised by an authority. That could form part of a consultation under one of the other headings, but it is worth distinguishing geographical interests from interests in particular services. After all, it is the essence of politics to set priorities; a local authority has to set priorities between its services, however they are delivered. That is an area for one kind of consultation; how a particular service is delivered, possibly as part of a reorganisation of priorities, is another.
To take an example, the recipients of domiciliary care and other care services, and the carers for those people, are likely to hold views on the delivery of those services. I partly have in mind the consultation that my own borough undertook with regard to this subject. It was not an entirely happy process. We heard things that we might not have wanted to hear. However, it was better that we heard them and that they did not remain unspoken.
The amendment would also require consultation with those who have a particular concern, such as voluntary environmental groups, possibly even the Government's

33
own statutory environmental advisers such as English Nature and the Environment Agency—unless, of course, the Minister can tell me that those are covered by Clause 3(2)(d). Who will be covered by Clause 3(2)(d), and will there be any guidance on that?
Amendment No.18 proposes that, for the purposes of consultation,
"an authority shall not confine its consultations to representatives of formally constituted groups".
There was a reference to this issue in the debate we had earlier on "equity''. Noble Lords will recognise that good consultation requires a good deal of imagination. It may require the, body consulting to facilitate that consultation, to assist those from whom it wants to hear to make their views known, perhaps even to articulate their views. It is hard work. I fear that those who are regarded as representatives may themselves quickly become regarded as a part of the establishment. The very fact that they are representatives to whom a best value authority will turn for a view, places them in a position that is not necessarily helpful to this process. I do not, of course, suggest that those who are good at responding to local authorities seeking views should be excluded. However, I make the serious point that though in a sense they may he representative, almost by virtue of that fact they may begin to become unrepresentative.
Lord Whitty: I am not quite sure whether the amendments put down achieve any of the objectives to which the Members of the Committee opposite have been so committed. I did think for a moment that we were about to see a little genuine non-adversarial discussion between the Opposition parties. The noble Lord's amendments on the one hand take people out who, as the noble Baroness has said, probably should he in, and then add to the list. It does not seem a particularly consistent approach. The intention of the noble Baroness, on the other hand, is to add specific additional groups, but in a way which in some sense narrows the authority's ability to consult on the wide basis I think she intended.
I am not attracted to these amendments but I am in sympathy with what lies behind them. Clause 3(2)(d) is important because it explicitly requires all best value authorities to consult with their local business community, for example in deciding how to fulfil their duty of best value. I do not regard that as a problem. I do not say that simply because businesses pay the non-domestic rate. It is not just a matter of businesses paying funds into authorities; they are also providers and users of those services.
We have consistently said that best value will involve authorities working in partnership with others, identifying new and better ways of fulfilling their functions, and ensuring objectives reflect local priorities. They are only able to do that if they have consulted the business community, for example, and the other groups to which these clauses apply. Categories do not readily accommodate other interested parties. For example, some businesses carry out work in the area but are based elsewhere.
34
Categories do not readily accommodate professional bodies who often have a valuable perspective on local service delivery and, of course, there are the less well organised categories of person to whom the noble Baroness refers. That is why under Clause 3(2)(d) we have left it to local authorities to ensure that other interested parties are consulted. I refer in particular to the socially disadvantaged but also to others who are not covered by the earlier clauses. The duty of consultation needs to reflect the need to broaden partnership.
I now need to comment on Amendment No.16 which relates to the consultation of employees. Of course we expect local authorities to consult their employees over the way in which they operate their services and the context in which they do so. Well motivated, well trained and involved employees are vital to the provision of best value services, and they are often best placed to suggest improvements. In the interim guidance we stressed the importance of the role that the staff of local authorities can play in reflecting customer perception and the areas for improvement.
The duty of best value is not owed to the employees and managers within local authorities, it is owed to local people. One of the fundamental tenets when reviewing these functions must be generally to challenge the status quo, which may mean provision by a local authority's own staff. It may also mean provision by contractors to local authorities but both have to be considered. I have to phrase this delicately because I have on occasion been on the other side of the fence on these arguments. All noble Lords who have had any dealings with local authorities will be familiar with situations where consultation has turned out to be consultation with representatives of your own employees. This perhaps applies particularly in education, but it also applies in other fields too. The duty to one's employees of involving and informing them and of learning from them is a different duty from the duty to consult over the users and others who will be affected by the provision of those services. The first is essentially an employer's duty and a good manager's duty; the second is a political and democratic duty. I therefore cannot accept Amendment No.16 in the terms in which it is put forward.
Amendment No.17 relates to Clause 3(2)(d). As the clause stands, it is deliberately very wide, which means that an authority would have to make arrangements to consult with representatives who have an interest in the area where the authority carries out its functions. That is a very wide requirement. Amendment No.17 would qualify that and narrow the authority's ability to consult.
Amendment No.18, on the other hand, seeks to widen the range of consultees to include representatives from non-formal groups. The subsection, as drafted, will already allow the Secretary of State and the National Assembly to consult with a broad range of persons representing the different interests of the community.
Subsection 3(3) goes on to define the meaning of the term "representatives" and does not confine the representatives of people to only those from formally constituted groups. Indeed, the specified categories of representatives in subsection 3(2) would suggest a very wide body of groups, some of which may be formally

35
incorporated and others who will be informally set up as circumstances require. I therefore believe that those subsections, taken together, already achieve the aim of Amendment No.13, and would therefore not consider it necessary to spell it out in the way the noble Baroness suggests. The subsection, as already drafted, provides for that wide range of consultees.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: Before the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, responds, perhaps I might have a further word on some of these amendments.
Taking the last point, I accept that Clause 3(4) allows for wide consultation, but I am concerned about requiring wide consultation. As to whether subsection 3(3) deals with the point I have made, I am not immediately convinced that it does since it defines representatives in relation to a group of persons. It may be worth coming back to that point.
As regards Amendment No.17, which is intended to be additional, and therefore not to restrict what is already in the Bill, am I correct in understanding from one of the things the Minister said that the term "area" in Clause 3(2)(d) means more than the geographical area? In other words, is my concern about an interest in a particular service covered by the term "area"? Perhaps this is a matter the Minister would like to return to.
Lord Whitty: Further clarification is probably best left to correspondence in that respect. Clause 3(2)(d) indicates a requirement for the local authority to identify consultees with an interest in any of the services which it delivers. Whether I can define "area" as a precisely geographical area, I will have to let the noble Baroness know and she can perhaps act accordingly at a later stage.
Baroness Hamwee: I hope this is not simply a geographical area— that is the point of my question.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am genuinely grateful to everyone who has contributed to this discussion and I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. In an era of non-confrontational politics, if different people approach the same object from different positions and all meet at the same point at the same time, it is inevitable that they will hit one another.
We have had a very good discussion on the nature of public consultation and it was with that at the back of my mind that I moved the amendment. I shall study the debate with great interest and in the mean time I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos.15 to 18 not moved.]
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Performance indicators and standards]:
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No.19:
Page 3, leave out line 25 and insert ("Guidance issued by the Secretary of State under section 3 may include—")
The noble Lord said: We now come to what is really the core of the Bill, the Minister's power over local authorities. I am afraid the amendment does not make much sense because when I drafted it I allowed my eye to drift upwards. When one's eye drifts upwards from Clause 4 one sees immediately above:
"an authority must have regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State".
That should have been read upwards rather than downwards, of course, so that the amendment strictly will not achieve what I wish it to achieve. Nonetheless, I wish to discuss it.
At the present time, Clause 4(1) says:
"The Secretary of State may by order specify—

(a) factors ("performance indicators") by reference to which a best value authority's performance in exercising functions can be measured;

(b) standards ("performance standards") to be met by best value authorities".

I have the greatest difficulty with that as a proposition. It seems to me that while it is perfectly appropriate for the Secretary of State to issue guidance to local authorities, local authorities are elected bodies. They are supposed to be independent; they are supposed to be responsible—they certainly always were in my day; and they are supposed to be able to take rational and sensible decisions. They are also supposed to be able to handle resources sensibly and adequately. Yet, the Bill provides that:
"The Secretary of State may by order specify".
In other words, he can tell them in intimate detail what to do in operating their authority.
The purpose of Amendment No.19 is really very simple, although I must admit I have missed the target because I allowed my eye to drift. It is to delete the words,
"The Secretary of State may by order specify",
and insert the words,
"Guidance issued by the Secretary of State may include".
I went further beyond that because, again, I am afraid that I am old fashioned and I still believe in local authorities actually having some authority. I went on to remove the question of performance standards. I am happy that the Secretary of State should issue guidance and I am glad that local authorities should have to work with performance indicators. But it seems to me that if local authorities are in fact to be local authorities they should, for example, have some discretion in schools. Head teachers should be able to adjust class sizes where they have staff available in order to take care of a slightly less advantaged group, perhaps slightly at the expense of those who are more gifted. I am referring specifically to the issue of class size.
In my part of the country, a number of schools were running classes of 32, 33 or 34, but they did so specifically to take out smaller groups of 10, 12, 14 or fewer to give those in need additional assistance. They

37
no longer have that flexibility. I do not believe that it is the function of a Secretary of State to intervene at that level in the way a local authority carries out its functions.
From my point of view therefore there is here a deep and fundamental point, probably one on which at the end of the day we may have to agree to differ. It may be that ultimately we shall have to find out what is stronger in another climate. That is the purpose of putting down this amendment. I admit that I have missed the target in the way I have worded it but it is in fact a fundamental issue.
I believe in local government. The attitude that this clause reveals to local government is—at the very least—over paternalistic. If one wishes to go beyond that one could even say that it reveals the attitude of a busybody and someone who interferes. That, surely, is not the function of government. The role of government should be to facilitate local government, just as the role of local government is to facilitate the provision of services as local circumstances demand which happens to be something that central government cannot do. That is the reason local government exists. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: I do not believe this clause is paternalistic or interfering in the sense of a busybody; it is really rather worse than that. I refer to the Secretary of State's intervention powers. However, performance indicators and performance standards have perhaps a greater significance than the word "busybody" suggests.
My next remark may apply more to standards than to indicators but I want to follow directly on from what the noble Lord has said. Having to meet centrally set standards simply means that it is not possible to establish local priority setting. There are certain standards which I am sure all noble Lords would view as being important to meet. I refer to such matters as ensuring that there is no abuse of children in children's homes. There are, however, many standards, and many indicators relating to them, which are of a much lesser, quite different, order. The noble Lord referred to class sizes, which was the example that occurred to me too. One cannot simply consider the number of children in a class without also considering the number of assistants who are available, other provision that is being made, what is happening in other schools around the area, as well as matters such as travel distance and so on.
Much is made by the Government of the best value duty that is owed to local people rather than to the Secretary of State. I agree with that. The best way of reinforcing that would seem to be to allow local flexibility and not to have this highly centralising—or at any rate potentially centralising—measure with regard to which I share the fears that have been expressed.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: One of the difficulties with this section of the Bill concerns the mixing up of performance indicators and performance standards in one clause. A process must be established if you want local authorities to relate to their local people—whom we have just discussed at length—and their local community and to relate their services to their
38
community plans. As regards local indicators, you would have to establish the following cycle: consult, set indicators, perform, measure, and then report. There is only one point in that cycle where national standards should apply; namely, when you are measuring what has been done. At that point it is useful to measure your local indicators against a set of national standards. That, however, is just one part of the process. It would then be for a local community to decide whether or not its local authority's indicators were appropriate. If the community decided they were not, no doubt it would like to ask the authority to do something about that. As the measure is drafted here, we have a great lack of definition between what should happen locally and what should happen nationally. It does not allow for local discretion. Although subsection (2) allows the Secretary of State to specify different performance indicators or standards, the spirit of the provision will simply mean that when he sees a reason to vary it he will do so, without allowing for any local discretion. I should have preferred to see that what happened to local councils was meaningful when it came to community planning, and that those national standards were simply a measure against which the local indicators were viewed and which then informed the way that a local authority would "re-set".
I can see why the Government have arrived at this provision. It is an effort to drag up the worst-performing local authorities. However it does not provide an appropriate incentive for the authorities that are performing well; although beacon status will no doubt mean that they are allowed different performance indicators and standards, it will also mean that those authorities that are not too bad, but are not brilliant, as beacon authorities will be allowed very little discretion locally. It will therefore be harder for them to become better authorities.
6 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am reluctant to enter into this debate, but reading the clause, looking at the notes and listening to the remarks of noble Lords opposite, I find the words at line 25,
"The Secretary of State may be order specify",
somewhat familiar. I am sure I have read those words in Bills in the past, and no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, will be familiar with them. He will no doubt have read them in local government legislation historically and perhaps in recent times too.
As a local government leader I see this clause as rather useful. It is not, as has been suggested, about centralising and putting the heavy hand of the centre on the shoulder of local government, but enables local authorities to raise standards in common, so that we can all reasonably expect a service from our local authority to hit a particular target, level or quality. In that light the clause should be welcomed. While I can understand any local government member or anyone with a history of local government involvement being horrified that the "big boss" of the centre will descend upon them and dictate how things should be done, it is not unreasonable that members of the public should expect a particular quality and standard of service. Looking back, I

39
remember that when Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister she demanded of local government a minimum quality threshold. I see reasonable cause to support that notion. If that is what this provision attempts to achieve, I am sure that the Secretary of State will use his or her powers sparingly to that end.
There is much reference to the Audit Commission, and one has to pay tribute to the work that it has done in specifying standards and setting out indicators, which are not always easy to define in legislation. Here we have a practical way of doing it. The provision is not overly centralising; and as the clause later specifies, there are important opportunities for the Secretary of State to consult with such persons as he or she sees fit to determine how indicators might be defined.
We should try to see this as a measure of the centre saying,"This is what we should aspire to; if we fail and fall below that, it is not unreasonable that we should express a view and try to help the local authority to work to that standard". Given the initiatives that are being undertaken by local government through the IDA, that natural co-operation and spirit of help from the centre will be welcomed by many local authorities.
Lord Whitty: Like my noble friend Lord Bassam, I was slightly taken aback by the strength of the feeling that these were new, centralising powers never employed by previous governments. We all welcome conversion, but not only has my noble friend Lord Bassam quoted Margaret Thatcher, but the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, although he was at the other end of the "telescope" at that point, must recognise that this provision replaces a very prescriptive and interventionist regime. After all, the Bill removes CCT and universal capping. We all believe in local government and our intention is to give greater power back to local government. Best value provides a new context in which local government can take initiatives and operate in new ways to deliver to its people. However, there is also a national interest to be represented, and we make no bones about the fact that there are situations where the Secretary of State has to intervene to improve the performance of local government, to the benefit of local people.
The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, referred to the "mixing up" of terms. It may be helpful if I briefly set out where the various terms arise. These clauses allow the Secretary of State to specify, by means of an order, a number of different factors: performance indicators—by which we mean indicators against which the performance of best value authorities will be measured; the standards that those authorities will meet when exercising their functions; and key elements of their best value performance plans. Therefore, there are three separate approaches.
As to how the Secretary of State achieves the improvements in performance, there are a number of different ways in which he or she can intervene. In drafting this provision, we have considered carefully what is the right balance between secondary legislation and departmental guidance.
40
In cases where there is a national interest or an overarching need for consistency, we have opted for an approach based on orders. We shall therefore use orders when setting out the performance indicators, the standards against which a best value authority must report, and the key elements which must be in a best value performance plan. Even the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, indicated that we need some yardsticks against which to judge that performance.
Where, on the other hand, we are seeking to promote a diversity and flexibility of approach which is related very much to local circumstances, we are of course approaching that via guidance—for example, when setting performance targets.
There is a national interest which we are recognising in the Bill. We need comparisons set down by order so as to measure comparisons between the performance of local authorities, but that is one key factor only. In other areas, we shall rely on guidance and promote flexibility and diversity within local authorities. There are, of course, already performance indicators. The Audit Commission uses them already, and we are building on the work that it has done. When intervention occurs as a result of Clause 14, it will be based on the current levels of performance as compared with other authorities. It is in the interest of authorities that those comparisons are consistent and that, if there is any question of intervention, they are based on a common approach and common criteria.
That has identified what lies behind the clause as drafted. Amendments Nos.55, 56 and 57 relate to those changes in the draft Bill. I have already made it clear that the Government believe it appropriate to provide the Secretary of State with order-making powers. Those powers will be supplemented by powers to issue guidance. A power merely to issue guidance, which is the purport of the noble Lord's initial amendment, is not sufficient to ensure consistency and transparency, and that local authorities know what performance they are expected to achieve. Orders would be subject to parliamentary scrutiny, whereas guidance is not. Therefore, intervention based on orders would relate to criteria which had been passed through parliamentary procedures.
Comparability in this area is one of the cornerstones of our approach to local government: uniformity, however, is not. We want consistency of performance and higher targets, but it is up to local authorities as to how they achieve those targets and the better value regime gives them the opportunity to do that. At the end of the day, local authorities will be judged both by their own electorates, and by the Audit Commission and the Secretary of State as to whether they have met the performance targets set.
Although much of the improvement can be achieved through guidance, I fear that if we remove the references to orders, we remove from the Secretary of State one of the major levers to achieve a genuinely best value regime. I fear that if these amendments were passed those provisions would be seriously diluted.
Lord Dixon-Smith: Shortly after I was asked, or told, to deal with local government in this House, I met the

41
Minister in the Prince's Chamber and warned him that I had spent a long time fighting the Government. I found it very difficult when I came to this place because I was then publicly very much more on the same side as my Government and I had to shut up. However, I would find it very easy to continue a battle that I had been fighting for a very long time. Although not always in public, I certainly fought the previous government for many years over the issue of whether it was good to have local government centralised in the way it has been going on.
If one looks at public attitudes to local government, and at the concern felt because of the electorate's lack of interest in matters local governmental—there was the less than 30 per cent poll last week—and if one wonders why, one can say that it is precisely for such reason. The public are very sophisticated—they are not bored and they are not dull and they are not uninterested—but they realise that all the major decisions are taken here, and that what happens at local level is, all too often, on the margins. They think that is a proper measure of their attention to local government. That is why I see this as such a fundamental issue.
I accept that there is a major problem at present, given the huge predominance in local government funding from the centre. Indeed, there will be no solution to the problem of public interest until that issue is resolved. It would certainly stimulate public interest if the electorate had a clear feeling that councillors could genuinely take decisions and that they were genuinely in authority. That view is not widely held at the present time.
I do not apologise for the way I introduced this particular issue today. When we come to the issue of the national interest and indicators, the Minister himself has said they already exist.
As regards ministerial intervention, there is an immense amount already and there will be in the future. However, even if we took it out of this particular clause, it seems that there is sufficient opportunity in other parts of the Bill for the Minister to get back in if he is feeling deserted an left out. I do not really have any concern about that, but I take on board the very serious point that parliamentary orders have parliamentary scrutiny, while guidance does not. I will consider that very carefully before we go any further down this particular road. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No.20:
Page 3, line 28, leave out paragraph (b)
The noble Lord said: This amendment flows from what we have just been discussing. In this series of amendments we are simply setting out to remove standards and to retain indicators. It is part of the process of getting back local authority discretion and the ability for local authorities to control properly the provision of services in their own areas. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: I am grateful for the noble Lord's brevity; it caught me by surprise after his eloquent speech in the previous debate, with which I have some
42
sympathy. He is suggesting in this amendment that effectively we should remove the provision for the Secretary of State to specify performance standards. We have felt that we need a number of different measures: performance standards, performance indicators and performance targets. During the previous debate I started to try to define the difference between these and the reason that we need all of them. Perhaps for the record I should say this slightly more fully.
Performance indicators are a measure of an authority's performance, for example the number of hours a particular service is available to users in each day. The Audit Commission has long—as the noble Lord indicated—set such indicators. Where appropriate, performance standards would set out the minimum acceptable level of service provision. For example, a standard might state that a particular service should be available to users for a minimum of eight hours a day. The Government do not intend to specify a large number of new standards, but there are some areas where we consider it is necessary to do so.
A performance target will set out what level of performance the authority needs to achieve within a specified time frame against the performance indicator, for example to increase in the next year the number of hours each day a particular service is available to users from eight hours to nine hours a day. Authorities will set their own targets against the performance indicators in any case.
We need all such measures, although the Secretary of State—or indeed the Welsh Assembly—will specify a relatively small number of performance indicators in order that we can achieve some degree of comparison between the performance of authorities on a number of key issues. At present the Audit Commission specifies over 200 indicators, and we are aiming to specify say 80–100 indicators, which may be supplemented by the Audit Commission. We are not aiming therefore to increase the burden on local authorities as compared with the current regime.
We may also specify a number of performance standards. Those standards would specify the minimum standards which authorities must meet if they are to achieve best value for that service.
The third element is target setting. Clause 4 which we are debating at the moment does not deal with targets, but I thought it was important to place on the record the distinction between those approaches.
These amendments would remove the provision to specify performance standards, and consequently would alter provisions subsequently in Clauses 5 and 6 regarding the carrying out of best value reviews and the preparation of best value performance plans. Where there is a clear national requirement it is our intention that the Secretary of State or the Welsh Assembly will specify the performance standards an authority must meet.
The White Papers indicated that the Government would take a clear lead on this matter, and the Bill makes provision for doing so in relation to standards. The aim is to specify a minimum acceptable level of service in areas where the achievement of particular

43
standards is clearly in the national interest. The ability to set and change standards over time will, in our view, be a key driver of improvements. This power will be used only where there is a clear national interest to do so. For example, if the Government set a target for all local authorities to achieve by, say, 2003, the intention is that by 2003 all authorities should be performing at that level. At that point that level of performance may become a minimum standard to ensure that performances do not fall below that level. Future targets would then seek to improve on that standard. In other words, there is a dynamism within this regime continually to improve the performance of local authorities in delivering their services. If one element were to be taken out, which is what the amendments seek to do, that regime would fall and the consequent improvement in standards generated by the new regime would also fail to materialise.
We do not believe that the amendments to delete the provision relating to performance standards would help the objectives of best value or indeed the broader objectives of helping local authorities to deliver services to local people.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. I shall study it very carefully to see how much further forward I wish to take the matter. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No.21 not moved.]
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No.22:
Page 3, line 33, leave out ("authorities") and insert ("categories of authority")
The noble Baroness said: I shall speak also to Amendments Nos.38 and 72 which deal with the same issue. For the record, grouped with these amendments are Amendments Nos.80, 81 and 82 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith.
My three amendments deal with the wording of three different clauses. Under Clause 4 the Secretary of State is able, by order, to specify different performance indicators or standards for different functions and for different authorities, which is the issue, and to apply at different times. He has similar abilities under Clause 5 with a review of functions. Under Clause 15, which deals with the modification of enactments and the conferring of new powers, the Secretary of State can similarly make an order making different provision for different cases.
I said earlier this afternoon that it is important that the Government should dispel any whiff of an idea that authorities might be preferred on an improper basis. I am aware that the Government have indicated that, where the Bill refers at a number of points to different authorities, what is meant is different categories of authorities, such as, for example, island authorities, authorities with the functions of, say, a unitary authority, or county authorities, or police authorities, and so on.
With this group of amendments I am inviting the Government to confirm what they mean when they refer to different authorities in the various clauses. I beg to move.
Lord Dixon-Smith: Amendments Nos.80, 81 and 82 are grouped with these amendments. Amendment No.80 refers to page 14, line 36, Amendment No.81 refers to page 16, line 18 and Amendment No.82 refers to page 16, line 19. Amendments Nos.81 and 82 both deal with the question of whether one should be describing single authorities or categories of authorities. That is why we have the grouping.
I was somewhat careless to leave Amendment No.80 in the same grouping because it might seem to deal with the same issue but in fact it does not. What it actually deals with is accounting standards. Clause 22 deals with accounts. Subsection (1) provides that:
"The Secretary of State may make regulations about the keeping of accounts by best value authorities".
That is fine. However, subsection (2) provides that:
"The regulations may—

(a) require accounts and statements of accounts to be prepared, kept and certified in such form or manner as the regulations may specify".

They may also,
"require accounts to be deposited",
and
"require the publication of information about accounts".
However, we then come on to,
"make provision (which may include provision requiring payment)".
Subsection (3), which my amendment is dealing with, provides that:
"The regulations may—

(a) make provision in relation to best value authorities generally or in relation to one or more particular authorities;

(b) make different provision for different cases".

We are dealing with public authorities' accounting
standards. They are already, and rightly, fairly heavily prescribed so that the accounts are transparent and open and there is a reasonably common standard. In this way, anybody accustomed to looking at local authorities' accounts can look at one set and have some hope of comparing them with another set. Here, however, we have a power to make provision in relation to one or more particular authorities with regard to accounts, or to make different provisions in different cases. I confess to being extremely puzzled about that. I tabled the amendment in order to give the Minister the opportunity to explain why that should be necessary, as I must admit that I am unable to understand it.
Lord Whitty: There is a difference of approach in that the various amendments substantially limit the ability of the Secretary of State to designate particular groups of councils in different ways, except possibly by their normal categorisation as district authorities, county authorities and so forth.
Of course, it is important that all best value authorities should be subject to the same criteria, subject to the same review cycle and subject to reviewing all of their functions over a five-year period as we intend. It is also

45
vital, in order that the best value regime can operate effectively, to make, provision for authorities to be treated differently. This could be either by different category, as is clearly necessary, because different categories carry out different functions; or by different function, because different levels of authority carry out the same function; or by performance, in that underperforming councils may require particular attention; or by finances, when high spending councils may require particular attention; or by particular circumstances such as island authorities or areas of particular social need.
In my view, it is important that the Secretary of State does retain powers to discriminate in this way. However, that does not mean that the Secretary has open-ended power to pick and choose. There would have to be criteria and a consistency of approach. In relation to the designation of different authorities, authorities can be either categories of individual authorities.
Intervention powers under Clause 15 relate to cases which would include classes of authority. A class may be a category. In this case it would be very difficult to use the clause in relation to an individual authority unless such an authority is genuinely a singular case. In case that explanation is not clear I will convey it in writing.
The effect of Amendment No.72 would be to restrict the way in which the Secretary of State makes orders under Clause 15. The Bill envisages that the Secretary of State will be able to modify or exclude the application of existing legislation in relation to best value authorities, or confer new power; on those authorities. Those changes would be made through secondary legislation. We think it essential for the Secretary of State to be able to enact legislation which recognises that there are distinct types of authorities and that for each type particular provision would have to be made. That is not picking and choosing; it is defining categories of authority by consistent criteria.
Amendment No.80, to which the noble Lord referred, relates to accounting. Again, different accounting regimes may be appropriate for different types of best value authorities. Some best value authorities are unique, such as the GLA, the Broads Authority, and there may be others. If Amendment No.80 were to be accepted on its face value, the same accountancy regulations would apply either to all authorities or to none. On the face of it that would mean that a: own council or a parish council would have the same accounting requirements as the GLA. Clearly that is not the intention of the noble Lord and would not be a sensible outcome.
Amendments Nos.81 and 82 restrict the flexibility of any Secretary of State to issue guidance to different authorities. The Government have to recognise that different authorities carry out different functions at different times. Clause 25(2)(a) allows the Secretary of State to issue guidance to one or more authorities. This means that from time to time he may issue guidance which is addressed to a particular authority. That provision would also allow the Secretary of State to issue guidance to a particular category of authority. The legislation would also allow the Secretary of State to issue a different guidance to different authorities, thereby allowing the degree of flexibility that we consider necessary.
46
The acceptance of Amendments Nos.81 and 82 would ensure that the guidance could not go to an individual authority but only to a category. That is unnecessary technically as the requirement for categories of authority is inherent in the term "one or more particular authorities", and the term "different authorities" would be unnecessarily restrictive in its effect. If a specific authority, or a group of authorities smaller than a category would benefit from additional guidance, it would not be helpful to prevent that guidance being issued.
These amendments therefore greatly restrict the flexibility of the Secretary of State to address particular issues which arise in certain contexts. It would not help the best value regime if guidance and accounting requirements, for example, cannot be differentiated as between massive authorities or authorities carrying out one function and those carrying out others, or indeed, by other criteria.
We would not be happy if any of these amendments were carried. They go to the heart of what is required to improve the performance of particular authorities and categories of authority up to the best standard which is the whole objective of the best value regime. To dilute the Secretary of State's powers in this respect would in our view be a serious dilution of the regime itself.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: Before the Minister sits down, I hear what he has to say which interests me greatly. However, I have not ascertained—he can correct me if necessary—whether the Bill makes all existing accountancy practices and regulations redundant and passé. If it does, then I accept what he says; if it does not, I admit that I still have some difficulty.
Lord Whitty: The answer is, no, it does not, but if the noble Lord's amendment were accepted, all future amendments to those regimes would have to be consistent across all authorities.
Baroness Hamwee: The Minister referred to the intervention powers. Clause 14 is one of the few clauses that this group of amendments does not seek to alter. So I, too, will read the noble Lord's remarks with interest. I thought that he had referred to intervention, as well as to Clause 15. I may have been mistaken.
Turning to the amendments that I have tabled, it seemed to me that the classes of authorities could be described in each case as a category. Different spending authorities and authorities with different levels of budget would fall within a particular category. The noble Lord mentioned under-performing authorities. In that case it is particularly important to have an even-handed approach. However, I am to some extent reassured by the noble Lord's remarks about consistency. I shall read the detail of this proposal with interest. I accept that there is perhaps more to it than there may first appear. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No.23 not moved.]
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No.24:
Page 3, line 36, after ("consult") insert ("the local Government Association and")
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos.25 and 27 in my name and to Amendments Nos.26 and 28 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith.
Amendment No.24 deals with the subject of consultation on performance indicators and standards and proposes consultation with the Local Government Association. I accept that Amendment No.28, which provides for consultation with the representatives of best value authorities, is probably a better amendment. It is wider both in regard to the authorities whose representatives would be concerned—best value authorities comprise more than just local authorities—and I also accept that not every local authority is represented by the Local Government Association. However, the thrust of the two amendments is much the same. The Minister has already said that there will be consultation as to both indicators and standards. I am happy to hear that. Indeed, it is what I should have expected. I therefore ask the possibly simplistic question: if that is the case, why not say so?
Amendment No.25 is consequential. Amendment No.27 again relates to the Secretary of State taking account of the representations of best value authorities in setting standards and indicators. I am particularly concerned to ensure that authorities are not so overburdened with national standards and indicators that they have no scope to reflect the needs and wishes of local people. This point has been drawn to my attention not only by local authorities, but by the Association of Police Authorities, which is concerned about this issue. Police authorities already have national objectives, set annually by the Home Secretary, which I understand are known as "ministerial priorities", with their associated performance indicators. Police authorities are also required to set local objectives and performance indicators and targets reflecting local needs. The association's main concern is to ensure that authorities are not so overburdened by national matters that they cannot reflect what is going on locally. I beg to move.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I have tabled two amendments which seek to amend precisely the same provision in the Bill. Amendment No.26 represents what I can only call my first thoughts. As regards Amendment No.28, I realised that if we were going to impose additional duties of consultation on the Secretary of State we ought to get it right. The Bill is about best value authorities and not exclusively about local authorities. With that thought I tabled Amendment No.28 in my name. While it is nice for the Secretary of State, under the terms of the Bill, to,
"consult such persons as he thinks fit",
he would be guilty of dereliction of duty if he did not consult best value authorities in this particular instance. I hope the Minister might feel able to accept that this is not an unreasonable imposition and possibly accept that amendment.
Lord Hunt of Tanworth: I support Amendment No.28. I see that the Secretary of State has to preserve the discretion to consult more widely as he thinks fit. However, not to have a reference on the face of the Bill to the representatives of best value authorities seems quite wrong. I support the amendment.
Lord Whitty: As a result of pressure in the other place I thought we had met the Liberal Democrats' point on this matter, but evidently that is not the case.
There have been many assurances that we would consult those who are specified in these amendments. That consultation would clearly include representatives of local government in England and Wales, and representatives of other best value authorities. That has always been the Government's intention and it is a commitment I am pleased to repeat. We must make sure that that consultation is as wide-ranging and as open as possible and that it includes not only the best value authorities but also the private sector, the voluntary sector, consumer organisations, trade unions and others. That is why the scope for consultation is designated as widely as it is within the clauses.
It is quite clear that our consultation will involve, for example, the Local Government Association in England and Wales and other appropriate bodies, both from local government and elsewhere. If we need to repeat that, we will do so as often as necessary.
In response to pressure in another place we have purposely used the precedent in Section 46 of the Audit Commission Act 1998, with which noble Lords pronounced themselves, broadly speaking, happy. That concerns the commission's existing powers to specify performance indicators and it clearly involves consultation with the kind of bodies referred to in these amendments. Those powers are generally recognised as comprehensive, and they enable as wide a range of views to be canvassed as possible. We do not therefore consider it necessary to specify on the face of the Bill what ought to be obvious, and what noble Lords have indeed indicated would be a severe dereliction of duty were the Secretary of State to fail to consult these bodies. We therefore regard these amendments as unnecessary and hope they do not need to be pursued.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: This seems to be a matter on which there is general agreement. In another place the Minister gave definite assurances that it would be included in the provision. Nevertheless the Local Government Association still feels strongly that it should be explicit on the face of the Bill. The Minister has given no reason why it should not be on the face of the Bill. The whole thrust behind the setting up of the Improvement and Development Agency is that the best local authorities help everyone else to improve. I am afraid to say that I can still see no reason why this measure should not be explicit on the face of the Bill.
Lord Whitty: If one follows through that logic, one would also have to follow through other associations of representatives of other best value authorities and all the other groups I specified, from the private sector through to consumers and so on. Clearly a process of consultation does involve a large number of people. It would be absurd

49
to assume that consultation excluded the Local Government Association and other equivalent representatives. If one starts specifying, the list of those specified will grow.
I understand that the noble Baroness is reflecting to some extent the views of the Local Government Association, and clearly we do have to bear that in mind. At this stage, I consider that if we were to specify them, we would have to specify others. I am happy to take further advice on that matter, but nevertheless that would seem to be the consequence at the moment.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Tanworth: I seek to ask one question. I quite see that the Secretary of State will want to consult widely and will have to retain his discretion to consult who he wishes. But surely the people who are directly affected and to whom the best value is going to be applied are in a slightly different position, and you could specify them without having to specify everyone else.
Lord Whitty: Within the context of representatives of best value authorities there are other associations—the Association of Chief Police Officers, for example—you would have to specify as well, even within that limited specification, so it is not as straightforward as all that.
Lord Dixon-Smith: The Minister will forgive me for saying that the words he was using a few moments ago sounded very much like words I was using somewhat earlier when we were discussing the duty of consultation placed upon local authorities. He made, in slightly different words, almost precisely the point I was making. I find his reply disappointing. I think we will need to consider this one very, very carefully.
Baroness Hamwee: The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Tanworth, has made what, if I may say so, is precisely the right point. I do not think any of your Lordships would go to the stake for the reference being to the Local Government Association. It is the representatives of best value authorities, and that might well include the Local Government Association, since local authorities or many of them would choose to be represented through that route.
As has been said, this is an important point. I do think the authorities which are directly in the frame have something to say which is of quite a different nature from consumer organisations and so on, to which the Minister has referred. I realise that parliamentary drafting is not the same as other types of drafting, but I was always taught to believe that when you start on a list you get yourself into trouble if you say "and others", because the others then would have to be of the same type as the list. Having one group referred to would not, in my view, mean that the Secretary of State would not be able, or indeed not have a duty, to consult more widely.
We may well need to return to this matter. I am not sure whether the Minister wants to speak again before I withdraw.
Lord Whitty: I have noted noble Lords' intention to return to this matter.
Baroness Hamwee: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos.25 to 31 not moved.]
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No.32:
Page 3, line 41, at end insert—
("()shall aim to enable each authority to set its own objectives in relation to the exercise of its functions, and")
The noble Baroness said: Clause 4(4)(a) does not permit much variation. This amendment proposes adding an objective that the Secretary of State,
"shall aim to enable each authority to set its own objectives in relation to the exercise of its functions".
Clearly, the Secretary of State must have regard to the promotion of improvement because if continuous improvement is to be achieved that will be central. However, Clause 4(4)(a) does not on the face of it permit much local variation. I have said already this afternoon that, in my view, it is always necessary for an authority to set priorities in what it does because that is part of the political function. But the centralisation that is inherent here, or at least is in danger of applying—if I can be less pessimistic about it—could well be stilling. We have talked before about promoting local innovation or in any event activities which may not justify quite such a grand term as "innovation" but take forward new ways of doing things. It must be recognised that authorities should have the right occasionally to make mistakes, because they will not move forward unless they are able to make the occasional mistake. That is a fact of life.
I hope that we can have an acknowledgement from the Government that the specifications referred to in the clause do not mean uniformity. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: I agree with most of what the noble Baroness has said, but I do not regard the amendment as necessary. The Government will specify where it is in the national interest to do so, but that should not inhibit local authorities setting their own performance targets and objectives. Nothing in the legislation restricts them from doing so. We will consult on national targets but local authorities can set their own targets. The amendment is therefore unnecessary.
Baroness Hamwee: I shall have to be content with that, which is not to impugn the Minister at all. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No.33 not moved.]
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No.34:
Page 4, line 3, leave out ("must") and insert ("shall substantially")
The noble Baroness said: I shall speak also to Amendment No.35. We are dealing with Clause 4. Subsection (5) provides:
"In exercising a function a best value authority must meet any applicable performance standard specified".
The first of my amendments proposes that the authority must "substantially" meet the applicable performance standard. The amendment enables me to ask the Minister what are the consequences if an authority falls short by a small amount and, in particular, whether that shortfall would give a right of action to a member of the public—no doubt a council taxpayer—against the authority. That is the question asked on the back of Amendment No.34.
Amendment No.35 proposes that the authority's duty is to meet a performance standard
"so far as it is reasonably able".
There will be a range of factors which could make meeting a standard reasonable or which might indeed lead to failure to meet another standard. I do not have in mind only, or even particularly, having the funds available to reach a particular standard. Possibly the availability of staff qualified in different areas would be an issue. There might be a difficulty in recruiting at a certain time. Or a contractor contracted by the authority might itself fail; for instance, a refuse collection company might breach its contract with the authority or it might go bust. There would be a period in which the authority would be seeking to retrieve the situation and, as between the authority and the contractor, would be addressing the consequences of the breach of contract. If this is a series of minor breaches, the authority would require the contractor to remedy them in the usual way of a contract. Such a remedy, or retrieving the situation, cannot be applied similarly vis-á-vis the public and I am concerned, again, as to what the implications are for the authority if it behaves entirely sensibly in the sort of situation which I have outlined. It is a serious point to understand precisely what are the implications of Clause 4(5). I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: As regards the question raised by the noble Baroness as to whether an individual could take action, our legal advice is that it would be difficult, though not absolutely impossible, for an individual challenge to succeed. The applicant would have to demonstrate individual harm to himself or herself over and above that to anyone else, which may be a difficult proof to establish.
The example was raised of reacting substantively to failure, and, in terms of qualifying the requirement of local authorities to meet the standard, whether we could say that such a case should downgrade the effect of that requirement. I have spelt out previously the need for continuously setting targets for standards in order to improve the performance of local government. If we were to provide reasons for local authorities to argue that they should not be able to meet those standards, the effectiveness of those standards would decline.
I indicated earlier that we would have only a minimal number of minimum standards and that we would not be setting national standards right across the board but that we would expect local authorities to achieve various standards. Performance standards when specified would need to be met by all authorities and, without that requirement, performance standards would have significantly less potential to improve the delivery of
52
key services to local people. Therefore, I do not accept the arguments advanced by the noble Baroness that we should dilute the effect of those standards.
Baroness Hamwee: I did not seek to dilute the effect of the standards but to protect authorities from possibly frivolous, time-consuming, expensive and difficult actions. I should like to consider the matter further and perhaps take advice on it, having heard the Minister say that it would be difficult, but not impossible, for an individual to take action. In saying that, I am not suggesting that individuals should not have proper rights to take action against an authority, but there is a balance to be struck here. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No.35 not moved.]
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Best value reviews]:
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No.36:
Page 4, line 8, at beginning insert ("Where the Secretary of State is satisfied that a best value authority is failing to fulfil its duty to obtain best value,")
The noble Lord said: The amendment seeks to change Clause 5 from being a general clause, whereby the Secretary of State can make orders that will affect all or some authorities, to one which might affect one authority at a time. The amendment to Clause 5(2) provides that:
"Where the Secretary of State is satisfied that a best value authority is failing to fulfil its duty to obtain best value".
I accept that best value is a new duty and it will indeed impose restraints on local authorities. Local authorities have been reviewing their services for years. When I was involved in local government, large parts of the authority were always under review to see how those services could be improved. It would appear to be extremely doubtful, however, whether any one order in this instance could fit either one authority or one group of authorities, let alone local authorities generally, to require them to review all their services, if that job is to be done properly.
If best value is genuinely to be extracted, these studies take a considerable amount of time. They require a great deal of detailed work on what is already happening. One needs to refer to what is going on elsewhere, to see where and how improvements might be achieved and this, in itself, is a burden that already exists. When I read this clause I thought that dealing with the matter in a somewhat general way was possibly a little over the top. I have already admitted to being old-fashioned and my view of local authorities is that local government, certainly—and I suspect best value authorities, because police and fire authorities are also already doing it—are entirely familiar with this business of reviewing services to see how they can be better fulfilled. They do not, therefore, need to be told specifically or directed to do this.
On the other hand, there is the occasional authority which does slip up. It seems entirely appropriate that, if an authority does slip up, the Secretary of State should

53
have power to tell it to move and do what it ought to be doing. That would be the effect of the amendment that I have proposed. I beg to move.
7 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Amendment No.36 seeks, as the noble Lord says, to restrict the powers of the Secretary of State to specify a time period within which best value authorities have to review all their functions to cover only those best value authorities that he judges to be failing in their duty to obtain best value. This amendment would undermine the policy objectives of best value. All authorities must have regard to the general nature of the duty of best value as described in Clause 3. This contains an important element, namely to make arrangements to secure continuous improvement. Whether or not the Secretary of State is satisfied that a best value authority is currently meeting its duty to obtain best value is, therefore, something of a red herring. Best value reviews are a vital part of the process of securing continuous improvement, identifying the improvements we are seeking from local authorities. They will involve challenging the ways in which, and the level at which, the function is being exercised; comparing performance with other authorities and bodies; consulting local communities and assessing competitiveness. Such rigorous reviews should allow an authority to secure efficiencies through such means as greater economies of scale, partnerships in service delivery, reorganisation and better processes.
It is our intention that best value authorities should fundamentally review all their functions over a certain period—probably five years—to ensure continuous improvements are made, not just where there are serious shortcomings. This will enable targets for improving performance to be set and improvements brought about at an early stage. We can do this only if proper comparisons are made between authorities on a common basis. If a requirement is laid down on local government generally as to the period in which reviews are required to be completed, we do not want to wait for best value authorities to fail before they undertake such a review. We rather intend the review to be part of the process which, I quite genuinely admit, is a system which is adopted internally within many good local authorities now. We intend to prevent failure among those authorities whose performance can be improved.
We also made it clear in the interim guidance published in April, and elsewhere, that local authorities will be expected to explore the extent to which reviews can tackle a number of related services with a common customer focus or theme. Very often, some of those services will not be failing and the constraints which Amendment No.36 would impose would prevent that kind of holistic approach. The noble Lord is from the party which, in government, introduced CCT. It is still occasionally argued that the Government, in introducing best value, are not being stringent enough in terms of the interests of the consumer.
In the light of my assurance and explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment. Early evidence is that authorities need to
54
be part of a process that will enable them to make valid comparisons with other authorities and to work co-operatively with government.
Lord Dixon-Smith: We are back in the business of whether we treat authorities as responsible and adult, or as children in nursery school. That is how I see this aspect of it. I regret it. I shall study the Minister's reply. She and I have debated matters of this type over many years and she will know and completely understand if I take no responsibility for what has gone before—from any government. I have been involved in local government for a very long time. I shall study what has been said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Skelmersdale): In calling Amendment No.37, I should advise the Committee that, if agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No.38.
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No.37:
Page 4, line 10, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b)
The noble Lord said: This amendment follows on from the previous one. If the previous amendment were accepted, then this would become necessary to make sense of what is written there. It is in that sense that it was advanced.
[Amendment No.37 not moved.]
[Amendment No.38 not moved.]
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No.39:
Page 4, line 12, leave out paragraph (c)
The noble Baroness said: I shall be brief on this amendment. It seeks to leave out Clause 5(2)(c) which allows the Secretary of State, in specifying a period within which an authority is to undertake the review, also to require specified functions to he reviewed in specified financial years. It seemed to me that this was more detailed than was likely to be required. In the introductory words, specifying a period within which an authority is to review all its functions, the Secretary of State has wide powers. I accept that that may mean that a particular function may be reviewed in year five rather than in year one. Again, under a provision so detailed and prescriptive, the authority itself is given very little scope to take its own decisions as to how to go about fulfilling its duties. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: As the noble Baroness said, the amendment would remove the flexibility and discretion that the Secretary of State needs to be able to specify functions to be reviewed in particular financial years as circumstances warrant. For example, if a best value authority should attempt to delay or avoid conducting the reviews of some of its services, or face a particular crisis in its method of providing services, it is essential that the Secretary of State has powers to direct that they are carried out quickly and effectively. I therefore urge the noble Baroness not to press the amendment.

55
In seeking to ensure the retention of this power, we believe it would be local communities that would be most disadvantaged if either this or the previous amendment were agreed. We believe it is essential to have these powers. I stress that they are powers, rather than a provision that would be used automatically.
Baroness Hamwee: I note that. I am glad to hear that these powers would not be used automatically. But this is possibly an area where we must agree to differ. We are not tainted by the history of compulsive competitive tendering, so I feel entirely confident in protesting about centralisation. I am disappointed that the Government feel it necessary to provide scope for so much central direction. I understand the point that the best value duty is owed to local people, not to the Secretary of State. The difficulty is that when one reads the words of the Bill, it is hard to fit them with that concept. However, I note the Minister's remarks.
I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos.40 and 41 not moved.]
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No.42:
Page 4, line 19, leave out from ("may") to end of line 21 and insert ("issue guidance as to matters for inclusion by an authority in reviewing a function under this section; and in particular guidance may guide an authority—")
The noble Baroness said: I shall also speak to Amendments Nos.47 and 48. The amendments deal with the subject of order or guidance in the context of best value reviews. Amendment No.42 substitutes, in slightly clumsy words, a requirement for guidance in place of an order-making power. I say "clumsy" because I was uninspired as to what verb could be used at the end of this provision without having to amend sub-paragraphs (a) to (i) in Clause 5(4)."Guidance may guide" is not very elegant; however, I am sure noble Lords understand what I seek to do in this amendment. It asks whether it is necessary for the Secretary of State to order the matters to be included in a best value review.
Amendment No.47 seeks to provide guidance making,
"different provision for different categories of authority",
in Clause 5(5). Elsewhere the Bill allows different provision for different cases, but I am not clear whether that is the case here. Again, I ask whether there is to be uniformity or variety.
Amendment No.48 requires consultation before guidance. I would say that before an order as well, but I have chosen to go the guidance route. The amendment states:
"Before issuing guidance … the Secretary of State shall consult representatives of best value authorities".
That enables me, I hope, to ask what consultation the Secretary of State will undertake. The Government have spelt out that the best value authorities themselves are to undertake consultation. This is a mirror image of that provision. I beg to move.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Whitty: An earlier group of amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, sought to remove provisions for the Secretary of State to make orders and replace them with guidance. In the event Amendment No.42 would have the same effect and I would prefer not to have to repeat my arguments at this hour.
As far as consultation is concerned and the burden of Amendment No.48, that seeks to ensure that consultation takes place with representatives of best value authorities before the Secretary of State issues any guidance. I remind the Committee that Clause 25, which deals with any guidance issued by the Secretary of State, already provides that before issuing any relevant guidance the Secretary of State must consult the authorities concerned, or persons appearing to him to represent them. I think therefore our provision as regards in the requirement for consultation is clear.
Baroness Hamwee: I shall read what was said on the earlier amendments with regard to order making powers rather than guidance. I am not immediately convinced that the same arguments apply, but nevertheless I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No.43:
Page 4, line 32, at end insert ("and by the voluntary sector")
The noble Baroness said: I shall speak also to Amendment No.44. These two amendments refer to the voluntary sector and seek to add a requirement that it should be included as regards the assessment of competitiveness and as regards the consultation process. The Minister may tell me that this is unnecessary because the voluntary sector is included in "other businesses" which are referred to in this paragraph.
I would like to be assured that the voluntary sector does have a role in these areas. It is now responsible for some functions and matters that are closely allied with functions of local authorities, which otherwise local authorities might themselves have to carry out. It certainly has close links with local authorities in many areas and will hold views on these matters.
We are all aware of the work done by the citizens advice bureaux in the area of housing. Registered social landlords and the providers of specialised accommodation—who certainly in my mind come within the area we are discussing—will also have views on these matters. To take one last example, organisations looking after the needs of refugees will have ideas as to how best a local authority may carry out its functions, and again would want to have a formal role in commenting on that. I beg to move.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I do not believe that the voluntary sector would include itself in the category of other businesses. I have certainly never heard it refer to itself in that way. This matter is particularly important given the growing awareness of what the voluntary sector can deliver. I refer to what has happened in the south-west recently. Because of the way that Objective three funding is changing the voluntary sector is reorganising itself, probably in a quite different

57
way than it has in the past. Local authorities will come to have ever-increasing service level agreements, for example, with the various members of the voluntary sector. Indeed, my noble friend has mentioned the CAB, but the CBS in various areas runs social car schemes which, in terms of the DETR's ambitions about integrated transport and so on for rural areas, is another example of a particularly crucial area of work. Therefore, given the fact that very' few people in the sector and certainly those outside do not regard the voluntary sector as coming under "commercial and other businesses", I see no reason why it could not be included in its own right as it is a particularly important sector and one that we would all want to encourage.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for raising this issue. Amendment No.43 is designed to add a specific reference to the voluntary sector to the bodies already listed in Clause 5(4)(e) against which the Secretary of State may by order require best value authorities to assess their competitiveness. Amendment No.44. would add a specific reference to the voluntary sector to Clause 5(4)(f), which provides for consultation with,
"other best value authorities and commercial and other businesses".
Consultation is one of the key elements listed as a particular matter that the Secretary of State may specify by order for inclusion in best value reviews. The existing provisions refer to,
"best value authorities and to commercial and other businesses"
and I am clear that the voluntary sector will have an important role to play in their best value.
However, I consider that neither amendment is necessary. The word "businesses" is construed as including non-profitable organisations so there does not, therefore, need to be a specific reference to the voluntary sector. Indeed, our interim guidance made it clear that the Government welcome the development of partnerships for service delivery which span and combine the public, private and voluntary sectors.
This is something which we would be willing to undertake to elaborate in guidance under the provisions of the Bill or, to be more specific, in the order which sets out the elements of the review.
I hope that in light of this explanation the noble Baroness will agree to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: That reply is very helpful and I am glad to note the Minister's proposal made at the end of her response to make this clear in guidance or in an order. The drafting of it is something which is occasionally quite difficult and I appreciate that non-profit organisations may well be businesses but I agree with the Minister that it is important that the voluntary sector understands that it is not being edged out by this provision. Either of those solutions would be extremely helpful. I put it that way because I can see that, in making. it clear in the order that "other businesses" includes the voluntary sector, it might suggest that there are other places where the voluntary sector is not included in the term. So there could be
58
some difficulties of drafting there and it might be one place where the reference in guidance might be more acceptable. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos.44 to 48 not moved.]
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Best value performance plans]:
[Amendments Nos.49 to 53 not moved.]
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No.54:
Page 6, line 5, at end insert ("and the extent to which an authority's duties under this section may be met by its compliance with any other enactment")
The noble Baroness said: This amendment raises the issue of compliance by best value authorities with other enactments and most specifically seeks to request the Secretary of State in his guidance on the form and content of the best value performance plans and the manner of their publication to include the extent to which an authority's duties may be met by compliance with another enactment.
There is now a variety of statutory plans and requirements that local authorities must meet. Education development plans seem particularly to be referred to in this context. By contrast, annual policing plans under the Police Act 1996 are the subject of a specific provision for co-ordination with other plans. I have tabled the amendment in order to ask the Government how the other existing strategy plans tie in with performance plans.
The Government have recognised the need for co-ordination in the case of inspection with the clause which was added to the Bill in another place. It seems to me that there is an argument for recognising the co-ordination of plans as well. I understand that more than 35 statutory planning requirements have been identified. We need some guidance here to ensure that there are the proper connections between the various plans and local performance plans. For various obvious reasons, one of which is that the local performance plan must be readable, it must be accessible in every sense of the word. To have a variety of parallel but apparently unconnected plans would be confusing and could even be counterproductive to the aims of the Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: This amendment is not necessary. Its effect would be to extend the scope of guidance which the Secretary of State may issue on the form and content of best value performance plans and the manner in which they should be published. It seeks to add a specific reference to the extent to which an authority's duties in relation to a plan may be met by compliance with any other enactment.
Perhaps I may reassure the Committee that the statutory duty of best value will apply to all local authority functions and services. The best value performance plan will be the principal means by which authorities are held accountable to local people for their performance in delivering local services and its

59
proposals to improve. I note the noble Baroness's reference to the need for plain English to be one of the performance targets.
We recognise that both other statutory requirements and other statutory plans, while serving as free standing requirements, will also underpin best value. Where targets are set under these other arrangements we would expect them to reflect a best value dimension. Local authorities should be able to view the existing plans as forming the production of the best value performance plan rather than as an additional burden. Where statutory plans are already in existence, it would be sensible for these documents to support the best value performance plan.
As the annual plan will need to report on the full range of services provided by the authority and the plans for meeting targets for improvement, it is implicit that this will embrace actions being undertaken on all fronts by the authority, under whatever enactment those are pursued. The various plans will report directly on compliance with specific legislative measures and the performance plan can reflect this information.
We recognise the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that the various statutory plans need to complement one another. Our interim guidance made it clear that we have already had helpful discussions with the LGA about how this may be achieved and unnecessary duplication avoided. At the same time, the best value performance plan will play a valuable role in pulling together information from various sources which are of corporate relevance. As the interim guidance also points out, that is vital if local people are to have a rounded picture of their authority's performance.
There is therefore no need for this specific provision. I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
7.30 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: I thank the Minister for that reply because she seemed to be saying that the guidance would deal with the point about which I expressed concern—and she is nodding at that! On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Audit]:
[Amendments Nos.55 to 57 not moved.]
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 [Response to audit]:
On Question, Whether Clause 9 shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness Hamwee: Perhaps I may take this opportunity to ask the Minister what is meant by the term "publish" in Clause 9? The extent of publication may be a matter of concern to a best value authority. I am not now seeking to protect an authority which has something it might wish to hide. On the contrary, if a
60
report is favourable a best value authority would be very glad to publish in the sense of informing the public that it has had a favourable report, but it may not want to be put to a lot of expense. Will publication in an authority's agenda and meeting papers be adequate to meet the requirements of Clause 9(1)?
Lord Whitty: I doubt it, but I would need to take advice on this matter. If the noble Baroness would bear with me, I should be grateful if she would accept a written reply to that question.
Baroness Hamwee: I will bear with the noble Lord and I am sure he will take on board the point that I have made. I do not suppose the Government, any more than particular authorities, will want money to be spent where it is not necessary to do so.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 [Inspections]:
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No.58:
Page 8, line 27, at end insert ("and appoint an inspector to carry out the inspection.")
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, which is grouped with Amendments Nos.59 and 64, I should say that Amendments Nos.58 and 64 are very directly related. This is a point of drafting convenience and the Minister does not have to accept it, but in my view it would make the Bill somewhat tidier. In Clause 10(2), the Secretary of State can direct the Audit Commission to carry out an inspection and,
"the Commission shall comply with the direction".
Then you are left out in the cold.
At the start of Clause 11, an inspector appears out of the air and his duties and functions are all set out. But in fact it is not until the end of Clause 11 that you find that this inspector has any relationship with Clause 10(2)! I find that drafting slightly odd, so I have suggested in Amendment No.58 that the inspector should be appointed in compliance by the commission with the Minister's direction and then I have deleted Clause 11(7), which becomes redundant.
My other amendment in the group is to Clause 10(3), which provides that:
"Before giving a direction under subsection (2) the Secretary of State shall consult the Commission".
It would not seem unreasonable under the circumstances that he should also consult the authority concerned. At this time of night, I do not propose to say any more. Two of them stand on their own and the other is for consideration. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: My Amendment No.60 is grouped with these amendments. It seeks to provide in Clause 10 that the Audit Commission shall have regard to recommendations under Clause 7(4) and the Secretary of State's guidance and shall have regard to any conducted by the best value authority and its own performance plan. By tabling this amendment, I make the point that the starting point for an inspection should be the authority's own best value review and its own

61
performance plan. In particular, it should not be an opportunity for the Audit Commission to challenge the authority's policies, made properly, openly and on a democratic basis.
The Bill quite properly starts the best value process by having the authority examine itself. Those documents and that work should have a very significant place in the commission's own inspection.
Lord Whitty: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, for trying to tidy up the drafting for me. I had not completely understood the motivation behind this clause and, if he will bear with me, I shall need to take account of what he has said about Amendments Nos.58 and 64. As I read the amendment, it seems slightly to misunderstand the situation because the Audit Commission will obviously secure a supply of inspectors. It will employ them in the same way as it employs auditors and they will therefore already be employees of the Audit Commission or agents of it. There will not therefore be an appointment. I shall, however, consider the points that the noble Lord has made.
Amendment No.59 is undesirable in particular circumstances as it would place constraints upon the ability of the Secretary of State to act swiftly to investigate poorly performing authorities. For routine inspections, it would be sensible for the authority about to be inspected to be consulted, and that is understood. There will be cases. where there has been serious failure or possible fraudulent or criminal activity, where it is clear that inspectors may need to act quickly. That would be constrained by Amendment No.59 as drafted. I therefore wish to resist that amendment.
I understand the objective of Amendment No.60 and I am sympathetic to it, but I do not consider it necessary. The clause already provides for inspectorates to have regard to guidance and that guidance already provides us with a mechanism to ensure that the audit will take on all relevant considerations, including the provision of the local authority's own pre-existing plan. Indeed, the notion of building On an authority's own review and on other relevant work by the authority will be reflected in a document to be published later this week by the Audit Commission. In view of that practice, Amendment No.60 would achieve very little and, in certain respects, could be counter-productive in that it would set the local authority's review against requirements set by the Secretary of State or the National Assembly.
I hope that, with the assurance that the normal course of events would take into account existing reviews from the local authority, the noble Baroness will feel that she does not need to press her amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: Before the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, responds on his amendments, am I right in understanding: hat guidance issued under Clause 10(4)(b) will include the requirement to have appropriate regard to the best value review and the
62
performance plan? The Minister said that it would give the opportunity for it. Is it intended that the guidance will do that?
Lord Whitty: Yes.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I heard what the Minister said about my amendments and I shall await his consideration on Amendments Nos.58 and 64 with some interest and, possibly, trepidation. On Amendment No.59, his response might prompt me to table a slightly different amendment next time because it seems to me that if this is going on, the authority concerned at the very least should be informed.
I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos.59 and 60 not moved.]
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clause 11 [Inspectors' powers and duties]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No.61:
Page 9, line 7, leave out ("three clear") and insert ("ten clear working")
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment. I wish to speak to Amendments Nos.62 and 63. With these amendments we move to the subject of inspectors' powers.
The first amendment relates to Clause 11(4) and seeks to understand why it is necessary for the minimum notice given by an inspector to be as little as three clear days. My amendment proposes 10 clear working days.
This is not a criminal investigation to be undertaken by the inspector. If there is a concern that an authority which is to be inspected might destroy the evidence, there should be stronger powers to allow an inspector to walk straight in. I am not proposing 10 days to allow the authority to do such things as shredding its documents, but I seek to make the point that the authority will have to continue to work while it prepares for the inspection. I have no doubt that I shall be told that three days is the minimum notice, and I make the point in anticipation of that.
I am sure that many Members of the Committee will have witnessed what happens when an Ofsted inspection is due in a school. I do not put that forward as a model, but it is very clear that most schools make huge efforts and put in considerable time in preparing for that inspection. That is an issue which needs to be dealt with, but the fact is that the prospect of an inspection tends to provoke such a reaction. I am concerned that an authority shall not be distracted from its day-to-day work in serving the public by having too short notice.
Amendments Nos.61 and 62 seek to amplify 10 clear working days by defining the working day in the same way as in Clause 9(7). I tabled that, noting that the three clear days in Clause 11(4) may not be three clear working days since working days are not referred to. A few times a year could mean that the three days are Saturday. Sunday and a Bank Holiday Monday. That would clearly be absurd, but we should not even allow for the absurd.
Amendment No.63 seeks to leave out Clause 11(5). That clause makes it a criminal offence for someone without reasonable excuse to fail to comply with the requirement of an inspector, and to make that person liable to a fine on conviction.
If an employee fails to comply with an inspector's requirement, I dare say that failure will follow him or her throughout their careers. At a time when the Neill Committee has recommended the end of surcharge and so on, is it really appropriate to import a criminal offence into the Bill? I feel this is particularly heavy-handed. I beg to move Amendment No.61.
7.45 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Clause 11 is intended to give statutory weight to requests for information and assistance where an authority being inspected is not co-operating fully with the inspector. We know from existing statutory inspectorates that most inspections take place in a spirit of co-operation. We therefore expect that the clause will be used only as a last resort where that co-operation is not forthcoming.
In the vast majority of programmed inspections, notice will be given to authorities well in advance in order that documents can be made available and arrangements made so that key personnel are on hand. This will merely confirm and extend current practice. Best value authorities will be given advance notice of inspection and the requirements thereof, and it is anticipated that the period of such notice will normally be greater not only than the three days set out in Clause 11 but also than the 10 days proposed by Amendment No.61.
However, where there is a cause for concern there may well be a need for an urgent ad hoc inspection. For example, evidence of fraud may have come to light. In such an eventuality three days is adequate notice for an authority to arrange access to a building, document or person. These provisions mirror the conditions for extraordinary audit found in Section 25(4) of the Audit Commission Act 1998.
64
I note that the amendment proposes that "clear days" should be replaced by "clear working days". The phrase "clear days" is also found in the Audit Commission Act 1998 and has presented no difficulties in that context. We therefore do not consider it necessary to change the requirement here.
Clause 11(5) creates a criminal offence in cases where a person without reasonable excuse fails to co-operate. This specification is entirely consistent with the approach outlined in Section 6(6) of the Audit Commission Act in respect of non-co-operation with auditors. Amendment No.63 would remove that provision.
As I have explained to the Committee, we regard this kind of provision as very much a last resort measure. Such an assumption reflects the current experience of inspectorates. However, the threat of prosecution resulting in a fine is a vital element in the enforcement of an effective inspection regime where authorities or individuals are not co-operative. The inspectors must have the powers to do their job effectively. Clause 11 achieves that as drafted.
I hope that the noble Baroness will be reassured by my explanation and will thus be content not to press the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: I recognise that the criminal provision must be a matter of last resort. Otherwise there is the awful prospect of magistrates' courts being clogged up. However, I would have hoped that it would have been a matter of no resort at all. I note what the Minister has said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos.62 to 64 not moved.]
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clauses 12 and 13 agreed to.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: This may be a convenient time for the Committee to adjourn until Wednesday 12th May at 3.30 p.m.
The Committee adjourned at twelve minutes before eight o'clock.

  Israel
  Israel
  Sudan
  Sudan
  Kosovo Liberation Army
  Kosovo Liberation Army
  Turkey and Northern Iraq
  Turkey and Northern Iraq
  Burma
  Burma
  Former Yugoslavia: Refugees
  Former Yugoslavia: Refugees
  Palestinian Authority: EU Aid
  Palestinian Authority: EU Aid
  Hurricane Mitch: EU Aid
  Hurricane Mitch: EU Aid
  Algeria and Morocco: EU Aid
  Algeria and Morocco: EU Aid
  Human Rights Act 1998: Judicial Training
  Human Rights Act 1998: Judicial Training
  Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Act 1998
  Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Act 1998
  Immigration and Nationality Directorate: Computerisation
  Immigration and Nationality Directorate: Computerisation
  "Extreme Right-wing": Definition
  "Extreme Right-wing": Definition
  Racial Discrimination: Report to UN
  Racial Discrimination: Report to UN
  Data Protection Act: Subordinate Legislation
  Data Protection Act: Subordinate Legislation
  London Telephone Boxes: Unauthorised Advertising
  London Telephone Boxes: Unauthorised Advertising
  Special Educational Needs: Scotland
  Special Educational Needs: Scotland
  Iraq: Depleted Uranium-based Ammunition
  Iraq: Depleted Uranium-based Ammunition
  Military Survey and JARIC Defence Agencies
  Military Survey and JARIC Defence Agencies
  Medicines Control Agency Consultation
  Medicines Control Agency Consultation
  EU Current, Account and Unemployment Percentages
  EU Current, Account and Unemployment Percentages
  Asbestos Directive
  Asbestos Directive
  M.4: Roadworks
  M.4: Roadworks
  Trafalgar Square: Pedestrianisation
  Trafalgar Square: Pedestrianisation
  Flood Defence
  Flood Defence
  Channel Islands and Isle of Man
  Channel Islands and Isle of Man
  Starred Questions
  Starred Questions
  Isabel Allende
  Isabel Allende